News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:A Response by Beldin on Tuesday June 28, 2022 @05:41AM (#31905852)
As someone without any diagnostic training, I would also think that someone that is in a depression (A) could write a blogpost like that (B). That is, I can imagine that A ==> B is true. However, even if that were actually so in the real world, that does not mean its converse (B ==> A) is true as well.

So even in the optimistic case where, lack of diagnostic training notwithstanding, A ==> B, even then observing B does not necessarily imply A.

Which probably is part of the reason you shouldn't diagnose people over the Internet based on their posts, but via a diagnostic process actively involving them.

Re:A Response by JadeNB on Tuesday June 28, 2022 @07:42AM (#31906466)
> As someone without any diagnostic training, I would also think that someone that is in a depression (A) could write a blogpost like that (B). That is, I can imagine that A ==> B is true.

What you have stated in words is rather more like, in the modal+temporal logic sense, "it is possible that A and then B" (temporal 'then'), not "if A, then B" (logical 'then'), which is how I read A ==> B--unless you meant, as I think you didn't, everyone experiencing A will do B.

Re:A Response by Beldin on Tuesday June 28, 2022 @08:42PM (#31915064)
You have a point, though I would see it as an exists operator (\exists_A A\implies B) than a modal operator. But that might be because it's been a while since I used modal logic :)