[02.03.2025] Updated content, AnKing-MCAT/AnKingMed, ID 2935177

View Suggestion on AnkiHub

@AnKing-MCAT-Maintainers

I really do remain on the side of acknowledging that the existing state of affairs could use some sprucing up, but that this solution is way too far afield.

We cannot just wipe a card clean, defacto replace the entire sentence, AND add a cloze.

I agree that we want/need a solution, I just don’t think this is it. Burning down the house to meet the neighbors

I understand. Unfortunately this card structure is extremely/impossibly restrictive. The only other option is to just include in the extra section the same note we will add for the sensory adaptation card which is that some sources refer to sensory adaptation as being both an increase or decrease in sensitivity whereas others refer to sensory adaptation as exclusively a decrease. This at least clears up some confusion. This does also rely on people reading the extra section and the text section will remain contradictory to the approach we are taking with the sensory adaptation card. I really believe that our first priority is correct and logically consistent cards followed extremely closely by minimizing confusion. It’s great when those things can come together but it’s not always possible. I still believe that it would be best to just define sensory amplification but suggestion again in the extra section in this card that sensory adaptation is described as both an increase or decrease in sensitivity whereas others refer to sensory adaptation as exclusively a decrease is a good compromise.

By adding it in the extra section anyone who notices this discrepancy will be less concerned because it is clear where this discrepancy in the deck is coming from which I think is a much better place to be.

  • meant minimizing confusion/annoyance with changes.

Yeah, I do want to find a solution here. But defacto wiping an existing card and wholesale replacing the entire text just cannot be considered a viable approach, as a very straightforward rule.

  1. I think no matter what we do, it should involve a note in the Extra field about the discrepancy as relates source material definitions. And for both cards and/or any that are relevant. I think this is a best-practice policy when we come across these issues in the future as well. That much I think probably needs to happen no matter what.
  2. With two opposing definitions, it’s going to be hard to fully eliminate any and all confusion.

The problems here, as I see it are really multifold, but the big two:

  1. Only Khan seems to use the term ‘amplification.’ Unless I’m missing use of that term elsewhere in similar context/s.
  2. According to the operative definition used by UWorld, the opposite of adaptation would be some kind of increased sensitivity. By that tokenistic definition, the card isn’t entirely wrong.

We may not have a choice here but to rephrase to some degree. But pulling a complete switcheroo is bad juju