China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
The speed of thought
Published in Patrick Rabbitt, The Aging Mind, 2019
Bessel realised that the point is not to discover who is the most accurate “ideal observer” in absolute terms but to recognise that individual differences do occur, and are considerable, but, because they are also highly consistent over time, differences between individuals can be taken into account. Comparing records between individual astronomers, he calculated for each a personal correction factor, the “personal equation” that could be added to or subtracted from his observations to resolve inevitable differences between observers. Too late for poor Kinnebrook who never regained his prestigious job at the Royal Observatory and had to make a living as a schoolmaster.
Methods in Physical Science: Feelings Don’t Matter
Published in David E. H. Jones, Why Are We Conscious?, 2017
In 1799 the Astronomer Royal Nevil Maskelyne sacked his assistant David Kinnebrook for reporting observations which differed slightly from those of Maskelyne himself. Kinnebrook was not being dishonest or malicious; he just saw things slightly differently from Maskelyne. Any observer has a ‘personal equation’ which must be allowed for when comparing his or her results with those of anyone else. Each of us lives in a ‘private world’ unknowable to anybody else, but nearly all such worlds translate, at any rate for our major senses of sight and hearing, into much the same ‘public world’. Most observations do not need to be corrected by a ‘personal equation’ before they can be made public.
Cosmetic procedures
Published in Melanie Latham, Jean V. McHale, The Regulation of Cosmetic Procedures, 2020
Melanie Latham, Jean V. McHale
Where harm has been caused to consumers this may also lead to liability in relation to civil law in the tort of negligence. We saw in the previous chapter how an action may arise in the tort of negligence on the basis of failure to provide information to a consumer of cosmetic services. Here we explore some of the general challenges of bringing an action in negligence outside the context of informed consent. To establish liability in negligence it is necessary to establish a duty, breach of duty and harm that is caused by that breach of duty. The burden of proof is on the claimant to establish that on the balance of probabilities the negligence caused the harm suffered and must be sufficiently proximate such that it is reasonably foreseeable.8 The test as to whether a duty of care has arisen in Caparo v Dickman can be seen in relation to first whether the harm was actually foreseen or reasonably foreseeable; whether there is the requisite proximity between the claimant and defendant and whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose such a duty.9 In Hedley Byrne & Co v Heller the approach was one of voluntary assumption of responsibility.10 This would apply where an individual undertook to conduct themselves with due care/skill and the claimant relied upon this. Moreover in Caparo Lord Bridge emphasised that attempts to introduce new duties of care should only be attempted incrementally.11 In relation to cosmetic procedures establishing the duty itself is unlikely to be problematic. A professional or a person holding themselves out to be a professional providing cosmetic procedures will be deemed to have a duty of care in relation to the consumer they are providing the service for. They would clearly also have the necessary degree of proximity, and this is a type of negligence action that has already been recognised by the courts. The more problematic issue relates to the second limb of the negligence action, that of breach of duty. The law of negligence sets out an objective standard of care. Such a standard “eliminates the personal equation and is independent of the idiosyncrasies of the particular person whose conduct is in question”.12
The Mask of Suicide
Published in Archives of Suicide Research, 2022
Antoon A. Leenaars, Gudrun Dieserud, Susanne Wenckstern
The effect of the personal equation begins in the act of the observation—not merely in explanations. “One sees what one can best see oneself” (Jung, 1971, p. 9). Like Husserl (1907/1973), Jung (1971), and many more, we mistrust the fact of “pure observation” or “objective observation”—a key problem in many PAs, especially if one uses one or two (close) informants. By the very nature of our humanity, we (including researchers) share a number of commonalities and that includes the unquestionable facts of the personal equation in explanation, such as in why suicidal people dissemble. In our study we looked at the informants’ point of view, not the suicide decedents’. Yet, our finding is corroboratively similar to the suicide note studies; in the same vein, the two methods of studies converge on the fact that suicidal dissembling is most correlated with the relational stage. One third more informants (94.7% vs. 63.2%) saw the relational stage as more critical than personal impairment. Future research must take up the challenge to define, predict, and control the interpersonal mask to suicide.
An interview with Sir William Osler on resident work hours and physician responsibility in the 21st century
Published in Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, 2019
Jonathan J. Kopel, Michael Phy
Osler: One element must always be taken into account in prognosis and that is the personal equation of the patient. No two cases of the same disease are ever alike; the constitution of the person, his individuality, stamps each case with certain peculiarities.8 Care more particularly for the individual patient than for the special features of the disease.9