<story><title>Digital pregnancy tests have an internal paper test</title><url>https://twitter.com/Foone/status/1301707401024827392</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>leto_ii</author><text>Going over the conversation here  I&amp;#x27;m a bit surprised by how many people seem to prefer an unnecessarily complicated and obfuscating solution to the straight-forward one.&lt;p&gt;The Twitter thread clearly points out that the electronics serve strictly as an intermediary layer between the paper test and the user. They just binarize the paper reading. This in turn gives a false psychological sense of security (&amp;quot;it&amp;#x27;s the computer that says it, not me&amp;quot;), without any credible benefit.&lt;p&gt;Why should I trust the people who calibrated the electronic device more than my own eyes?&lt;p&gt;More generally, why are people so eager to discount the reliability of their own senses? You have eyes and a mind which are the product of billions of years of evolutionary refinement. If you&amp;#x27;re not sure whether it&amp;#x27;s || or |+, pee again on a different test and compare; or wait a few days. If the lighting in your bathroom is bad, take the test in natural light or a better lit room.&lt;p&gt;My personal instinct is to rely first and foremost on my own mind and senses. It&amp;#x27;s of course important to defer to expert knowledge, but we need to use our critical thinking when deciding if something is the result of expert knowledge, or simply a marketing gimmick.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>davewritescode</author><text>I actually saw this last night and initially had the same reaction but had some time to think on it.  Remember, for a lot of people taking a pregnancy test is incredibly stressful.  Reducing the complexity of reading by outputting a less ambiguous result has a lot of value to some people.</text></comment>
<story><title>Digital pregnancy tests have an internal paper test</title><url>https://twitter.com/Foone/status/1301707401024827392</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>leto_ii</author><text>Going over the conversation here  I&amp;#x27;m a bit surprised by how many people seem to prefer an unnecessarily complicated and obfuscating solution to the straight-forward one.&lt;p&gt;The Twitter thread clearly points out that the electronics serve strictly as an intermediary layer between the paper test and the user. They just binarize the paper reading. This in turn gives a false psychological sense of security (&amp;quot;it&amp;#x27;s the computer that says it, not me&amp;quot;), without any credible benefit.&lt;p&gt;Why should I trust the people who calibrated the electronic device more than my own eyes?&lt;p&gt;More generally, why are people so eager to discount the reliability of their own senses? You have eyes and a mind which are the product of billions of years of evolutionary refinement. If you&amp;#x27;re not sure whether it&amp;#x27;s || or |+, pee again on a different test and compare; or wait a few days. If the lighting in your bathroom is bad, take the test in natural light or a better lit room.&lt;p&gt;My personal instinct is to rely first and foremost on my own mind and senses. It&amp;#x27;s of course important to defer to expert knowledge, but we need to use our critical thinking when deciding if something is the result of expert knowledge, or simply a marketing gimmick.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>shawnz</author><text>&amp;gt; Why should I trust the people who calibrated the electronic device more than my own eyes?&lt;p&gt;Do you as a layperson know how sensitive the test strip is, or how blue it needs to turn to have a reasonable guarantee against false positives? It seems like the engineers of the device would have a much better perspective on those things.</text></comment>