A Doctor Can Be Beloved by Your Community and Still Be Wrong for You

A Doctor Can Be Beloved by Your Community and Still Be Wrong for You

Recently, I took the recommendations that had accumulated in one of the local WhatsApp groups I started and turned them into spreadsheets.

This will surprise absolutely no one who knows me.

People ask the group for all kinds of recommendations, and the responses are genuinely useful. The problem is that a few days later, those names are buried beneath hundreds of other messages. I wanted to collect the information somewhere people could find it again.

The contractor recommendations were fairly straightforward. I could list the person, the kind of work they did and any comments people had shared.

The doctor recommendations felt different.

I began with the same basic structure: name, specialty, location and contact information. But as I worked through the messages, I realized I needed to include a caveat. A list can tell you which doctors other people recommend. It cannot tell you whether you will have the same experience. The same applies to contractors. I have had two different handymen who have done well with me, but others have experience flakiness and crazy pricing quotes for similar work.

I know that because one of the doctors beloved by many people in my community is someone I would never see again.

The Doctor Everyone Loved

In the summer of 2018, I went to my primary-care doctor because I felt off.

I did not have one neatly defined symptom or a theory about what was wrong. I knew my own body, and something did not feel right.

He dismissed my concerns.

By November, I had developed what I initially thought was a clogged milk duct from breastfeeding. Then the area became larger and did not go away.

I tried to make an appointment with my OB/GYN, but I could not get in for another couple of months. Waiting that long did not feel like a reasonable option.

Fortunately, one of the parents in my son’s class was able to see me the next day. Other people in the community helped me reach an oncologist much more quickly than I would have been able to on my own.

Eventually, I returned to my primary-care doctor for a preoperative appointment. He acknowledged that perhaps he should not have dismissed my earlier concerns. Looking back, he could identify things we might have done differently.

By then, I had been diagnosed with stage 3 breast cancer.

The same doctor is highly recommended by many people in my community. His name comes up regularly when someone asks for a primary-care doctor. Many of the people who speak most enthusiastically about him are men.

They may have had genuinely excellent experiences with him. He may listen carefully to them, respond when they need help and provide exactly the kind of care they want from a primary-care doctor.

Their experiences are real.

So is mine.

I would never go back to him.

A Recommendation Is One Person’s Experience

When the same doctor’s name appears repeatedly in a Facebook group, WhatsApp conversation or neighborhood listserv, it begins to look like a consensus. If ten people recommend one doctor and only two mention another, the first doctor appears to be the safer choice.

But recommendations are not votes, even when we collect them in a spreadsheet.

Ten people may love a particular doctor because they have received excellent routine care for years. That does not tell me how the doctor responds when the symptoms are vague, the first explanation does not fit or the patient keeps insisting that something is wrong.

The experience of a generally healthy man may not tell me very much about how the same doctor will respond to a woman describing changes in her body that she cannot yet explain.

Other differences matter too. Some patients want a doctor who will spend time talking through every possibility. Others value efficiency and easy access. One person may appreciate a direct communication style that another experiences as dismissive.

A recommendation can tell me that someone had a good experience. Without more context, it cannot tell me whether that doctor is a good match for what I need.

What Community Lists Do Not Capture

Positive and negative experiences also tend to appear differently in community conversations.

It is easy to post that you love a doctor. It is much harder to describe a negative experience in a group where the doctor, the doctor’s relatives or dozens of longtime patients may be reading. People may be willing to discuss those experiences privately but not attach their names to them in a public conversation.

That means a recommendation thread may contain plenty of enthusiastic endorsements while leaving out some of the information that would matter most to someone choosing a doctor.

Even when someone does raise a concern, it can disappear beneath a much larger number of positive responses. The positive recommendations do not make the negative experience untrue. The negative experience does not erase the positive ones.

They are different patients describing different interactions.

That is harder to represent in a spreadsheet than a simple tally of names.

Using the List as a Starting Point

I still think community recommendation lists are valuable. I would not have spent the time creating the spreadsheets if I did not.

I am just more cautious about what the lists can tell us.

A name on the list is a place to begin. From there, I want to know why someone recommended the doctor. What kind of care did they receive? How recently did they see the doctor? Did the doctor listen when the answer was not immediately obvious? How did the office respond when something felt urgent?

Not every recommendation needs to include a medical history or a detailed account of someone’s care. People should share only what they are comfortable sharing. But even a little context can be more useful than another vote for the same name.

The list also cannot become a permanent judgment about a provider. Doctors change practices. Office staff changes. Insurance participation changes. One person’s experience, whether positive or negative, cannot predict every future interaction.

What the list can do is preserve a collection of experiences and give someone a more informed place to start.

The Community Was Also What Helped Me

My experience is not an argument against turning to the community for help.

When the formal systems failed me, people in my community were the reason I received care.

I could not get a timely appointment through the usual process. A parent from my son’s class saw me the next day. Other community members helped me get to an oncologist quickly. They knew whom to contact and helped me navigate a system I had never expected to need.

That informal knowledge mattered enormously.

The problem was not that people shared recommendations. The problem was believing that a frequently recommended name told the whole story.

Now, when someone tells me that they love a doctor, I want to know why. I want to understand what the doctor helped them with and what happened when something was not straightforward. I also want there to be room for someone to say, “That was not my experience,” without treating one person’s story as proof that everyone else must be wrong.

I will probably continue turning sprawling WhatsApp conversations into spreadsheets because that is apparently who I am.

I just no longer think the most useful information is the number of times a name appears.

It is the experience behind the recommendation.

When Security Depends on a Single Device

When Security Depends on a Single Device

Yesterday was a reminder of how fragile some of our most relied-upon systems actually are.

A service outage meant text messages didn’t reliably come through. In practical terms, two-factor authentication codes never arrived. Accounts couldn’t be accessed. Work stalled — not because credentials were wrong, but because the delivery mechanism failed.

In theory, two-factor authentication increases security. In practice, when it depends on a single device and a single channel, it can introduce a different kind of vulnerability.

I use authenticator apps for many accounts. I also sometimes rely on text-based codes because they are quick and widely supported. But as anyone who uses internet-based phone numbers or travels internationally knows, SMS-based authentication isn’t always dependable — especially when services are disrupted or numbers don’t behave like traditional mobile lines.

What struck me most wasn’t just the inconvenience. It was the way the system forced a context switch.

Regaining access usually requires reaching for a phone, which immediately reintroduces notifications, messages, and ambient noise — even on days when active use is minimal. During yesterday’s outage, that reliance became more apparent. The device was checked repeatedly for codes that never arrived, while its battery continued to drain, highlighting how much background activity persists even without meaningful engagement.

There is growing research showing that mobile phone use fragments attention and increases cognitive load, particularly when interruptions are frequent and unplanned. The cost isn’t just momentary distraction; it’s the gradual erosion of sustained focus over time.

This is the deeper tension I keep coming back to.

We design security systems that assume constant device availability. At the same time, many of us are actively trying to be more intentional about how and when we use those devices — for focus, for presence, and for the ability to stay on task. The result is a system that protects accounts while quietly undermining attention.

This tension becomes even more pronounced for students and young adults.

College students studying abroad often lose access to U.S.-based phone numbers. Text-based authentication fails. Backup methods haven’t been configured. Account recovery becomes complicated precisely when independence is supposed to increase. What feels like a minor oversight at home turns into a significant barrier elsewhere.

At the same time, there is a growing movement toward more mindful and intentional phone use, not through bans, but through structure. Approaches that emphasize boundaries, awareness, and deliberate engagement — rather than constant availability — are increasingly recognized as sustainable ways to reduce habitual distraction. This broader conversation is grounded in data. Surveys indicate that Americans now spend more than five hours per day on their phones, and many express a desire to cut back on usage. Research also suggests that excessive smartphone use can disrupt memory and reduce focus, particularly when use becomes habitual rather than intentional. Among students and young adults, recent evidence links heavy smartphone use to both cognitive and psychosocial effects, underscoring how closely attention, emotional regulation, and technology use are intertwined.

A few years ago, we made a modest household decision: phones don’t belong at the dinner table.

It wasn’t about discipline or nostalgia. It was about protecting a narrow window of shared presence — time that didn’t need to be optimized, documented, or interrupted. That decision has held, even as work has changed. Even in environments that occasionally require rapid response, it’s usually possible to step away briefly. The result isn’t perfection. It’s intention.

When we need to plan — meals, schedules, logistics — we often start with tools that feel almost like we are still in last century: paper, a whiteboard, a pen. These tools do something deceptively powerful. They hold complexity without competing for attention. They allow multiple people to see, contribute, and adjust without pulling anyone into a private digital space. Only later do we translate that thinking into digital systems.

In Jewish tradition, intention matters. Kavanah is not only about what we do, but about how we structure the conditions that make meaningful action possible. Boundaries around time, space, and tools are not limitations; they are enablers. Paper planning at a table is not a rejection of technology. It is a way of saying: this moment deserves a different kind of container.

I’ve been thinking a lot about approaches that don’t involve banning devices, but contextualizing them:

  • Verbalizing intention before picking up a phone (“I’m using this for one task.”)

  • Setting aside regular device-free time — something Jewish life already models well with Shabbat.

  • Using and actually honoring app time limits, especially for platforms designed to pull attention sideways.

From a systems perspective, this matters.

Protective mechanisms are not neutral. They shape behavior. They pull people across devices. They interrupt concentration. And they assume levels of infrastructure stability that don’t always exist, especially across borders, carriers, and time zones.

This isn’t an argument against two-factor authentication. It’s an argument for designing it with redundancy, context, and human behavior in mind — particularly for families and organizations preparing young adults for independence.

That reality became especially clear as our school reminded families that many seniors will be abroad over the next several months. College applications that rely on text-based two-factor authentication tied to U.S. phone numbers can create unexpected barriers, not only to receiving acceptances, but also to accessing critical financial aid and scholarship information at a pivotal moment in the decision-making process.

Security should protect access.

Security should protect access.
Good design should protect attention.

As phones increasingly function as authentication tools, communication devices, and attention hubs, the way we design security systems has consequences well beyond cybersecurity. We don’t need to choose between security and presence — but we do need to acknowledge the tradeoffs when we ignore how systems actually get used.

Amazon #PRIMEDAYDEAL: DEWALT 20V MAX* Cordless Drill / Driver Kit, Compact, 1/2-Inch (DCD771C2) & Titanium Drill Bit Set, 21-Piece (DW1342)

Amazon #PRIMEDAYDEAL: DEWALT 20V MAX* Cordless Drill / Driver Kit, Compact, 1/2-Inch (DCD771C2) & Titanium Drill Bit Set, 21-Piece (DW1342)

DEWALT 20V MAX* Cordless Drill / Driver Kit, Compact, 1/2-Inch & Drill Bit Set

  • Product 1: Compact, lightweight design fits into tight areas 
  • Product 1: High performance motor delivers 300 unit watts out (UWO) of power ability completing a wide range of applications
  • Product 1: High speed transmission delivers 2 speeds (0 450 and 1,500 rpm) for a range of fastening and drilling applications. Chuck type: Keyless
  • Product 1: 1/2 inches single sleeve ratcheting chuck provides tight bit gripping strength
  • Product 2: Speed Tip Reduces Walking
  • Product 2: Ideal for drilling in metal, wood, and plastics
  • Product 2: No spin shanks
  • Product 2: Includes tough case container to keep bits organized
Amazon | BEST PRICE: DEWALT 20V MAX Battery Starter Kit with 2 Batteries

Amazon | BEST PRICE: DEWALT 20V MAX Battery Starter Kit with 2 Batteries

  • (2) 20V MAX 5.0Ah XR batteries, which provide up to 10 amp hours of capacity
  • Charges all 12V, 20V and 60V MAX batteries at a 4 amp charge rate
  • The Kit includes a soft bag for additional tool storage
  • 360-degree handle of the portable work light is designed for multiple orientation use
  • DEWALT work light has powerful brightness at 2,000 lumen output
  • The rechargeable work light has natural daylight hue
Amazon | BEST PRICE: Apple AirPods

Amazon | BEST PRICE: Apple AirPods

  • Apple Airpods with charging case
  • Automatically on, automatically connected
  • Easy setup for all your Apple devices
  • Quick access to Siri by saying “Hey Siri”
  • Double-tap to play or skip forward
  • New Apple H1 headphone chip delivers faster wireless connection to your devices
  • Charges quickly in the case
  • Case can be charged using the Lightning connector
  • Rich, high-quality audio and voice
  • Seamless switching between devices
  • Listen and talk all day with multiple charges from the Charging Case
Amazon | BEST PRICE: Dewalt Sliding Compound Miter Saw

Amazon | BEST PRICE: Dewalt Sliding Compound Miter Saw

  • Your purchase includes: 1 CDEWALT DWS779 sliding compound cord miter saw, 12-inch, carbide blade, 1 blade wrench
  • Tool dimensions: 17” H x 24.75” L. Tool weight: 56 lbs. Maximum cutting thickness: 6.75 inch
  • Other specifications: 15 Amps, 12” blade diameter, 5/8” or 1” Arbor size. 3800 RPM motor. Type of milter saw: Slide
  • Exclusive back fence design cuts up to 2×14 dimensional lumber at 90 degree and 2×12 at 45 degree. Miter saw does not come with LED (sold separately) or laser cutting guide
  • Super-efficient dust collection system captures over 75 percent of dust generated
  • Backed by DEWALT’S 3-year limited warranty