<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Experts Live and Die With Mental Shortcuts</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.miller-mccune.com/health/experts-mental-shortcuts-3610/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.miller-mccune.com/health/experts-mental-shortcuts-3610/</link>
	<description>Smart Journalism. Real Solutions.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 20:23:57 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: John  Osborne</title>
		<link>http://www.miller-mccune.com/health/experts-mental-shortcuts-3610/comment-page-1/#comment-481</link>
		<dc:creator>John  Osborne</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2009 08:35:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.miller-mccune.com.s72010.gridserver.com/2009/06/30/experts-live-and-die-with-mental-shortcuts/#comment-481</guid>
		<description>This article sites multiple sources that praise Dror, as such it reads like an advertisement. The author provides some context for the problem using pilot issues, proposes caricature as a solution and then peaks with Dror&#039;s recommendation not to believe everything we think. Where&#039;s the beef here? How many of you are also frustrated with articles beginning with a bang and a promise but delivering only duds?  We shouldn&#039;t always believe what we think, nor should we allow ourselves to be sucked into articles with leading titles. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This article sites multiple sources that praise Dror, as such it reads like an advertisement. The author provides some context for the problem using pilot issues, proposes caricature as a solution and then peaks with Dror&#8217;s recommendation not to believe everything we think. Where&#8217;s the beef here? How many of you are also frustrated with articles beginning with a bang and a promise but delivering only duds?  We shouldn&#8217;t always believe what we think, nor should we allow ourselves to be sucked into articles with leading titles.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
