8 ms·
I use to work in legislative affairs for the natural health industry. It's all one big scam. I try to explain it like this: Company A sells natural remedies, e
by Overtonwindow 9y ago
I use to work in legislative affairs for the natural health industry. It's all one big scam. I try to explain it like this:
Company A sells natural remedies, etc.
Company B is a news organization which reports on natural health remedies, and also advertises for those companies, et.
Nonprofit C is a consumer watchdog organization that investigates and promotes natural health. They are supported by the natural health industry, and community.
Trade Association D is a group of natural health corporations that lobby the government, and fight bad press.
The trick is, A, B, C, and D are all working together, in collusion, with the same investors, same backers, and each supports the other. It's so pervasive it's astounding, and extremely difficult for consumers to see through to factual information.
- gnu8 9y agoSeems like a sure thing to short the piss out of an enterprise like this and wage a comprehensive campaign of activism and consumer education against it. With rationality on your side, how could you lose?
- coaxial 9y ago> with rationality on your side, how could you lose? Look at south Africa, multi vitamins, and hiv/aids denialism. It's pretty fascinating, human toll aside.
- markdown 9y agoOr USA and climate change denialism and the anti-vaxers.
- corporateslave2 9y agoClimate change is not statistically significant
- herbst 9y agoDon't forget the natural medicine deniers over there! Just because they have a major bullshit industrie does not mean nature never made good medicine. (I know I just went full circle)
- monochromatic 9y agoClimate change skepticism does not belong in the same bucket as anti-vaccination.
- ajuc 9y agoWhy? Both beliefs are held against current scientific consensus and have only a few supporting studies, while vast majority of studies support the contrary. You could argue that technically "climate change scepticism" only means you don't know, but in practice climate change sceptics argue for political actions (or inaction) basing on their (lack of) beliefs. Similarly I can be anti-vacc without claiming "vaccines cause autism". just claiming "I'm not sure what they cause, so just to be sure don't do it".
- monochromatic 9y agoThe science in favor of vaccination is very straightforward and well-understood. It's easy to run double-blind tests and determine the truth of the matter. The science in favor of anthropogenic global warming includes two parts: well-understood physics and chemistry (which is quite trustworthy and is actually science), and a bunch of conflicting computer models of a chaotic and poorly understood system with a huge number of inputs and feedback loops (which I'm not sure why anyone trusts). This blog post puts it pretty well: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/158778029326/how-to-change-my-biases-on-climate-science http://blog.dilbert.com/post/158778029326/how-to-change-my-b...
- richardkeller 9y agoSouth Africa is hardly the only country where multivitamins are common. If rationality were the only metric for decision making, I would expect homeopathy to be far less common globally than it is today. As for Aids denialism, South Africa suffers from a case of cultural antiestablishmentism, particularly in the context of Western medicine. Thankfully our government has stepped up in recent years, and actively promotes HIV/Aids education these days.
- Overtonwindow 9y agoHomeopathy is the beloved little black sheep of natural health. I would say half of natural health industry people don't believe in it, know it doesn't work, but they have to go along with it. Otherwise, to admit (as countless studies, and the federal government have done) that homeopathy is completely without merit, would threaten the entire house of cards that natural health is built upon. I remember last year when the FTC announced their enforcement action on homeopathic OTC drugs, there was an unusual silence from the natural health community. Almost a shrug. From the inside it was laughable at the lack of concern for homeopathy's future.
- diogenescynic 9y ago>With rationality on your side, how could you lose? Hahahhaha. Great joke. Sadly, there are and probably always will be a lot of ignorant/gullible people. As PT Barnum said, "there's a sucker born every minute."
- kbenson 9y agoGiven global population growth and birth trends, I wonder if we've reached a sucker every second yet...
- the_duke 9y agoGiven the current birth rate of over 4 births per second, and considering that almost every newborn will consume nutrients by sucking milk, I'd say that we have reached that milestone a long time ago.
- hyperbovine 9y agoActually, there is no evidence that he ever said this.
- asdfjklasdfjkl 9y agoIn this instance, I'd say it's an even better quote, then.
- CyberDildonics 9y ago"The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent" -Keynes
- jacobush 9y agoDon't believe all quotes on the internet - Benjamin Franklin
- dragonwriter 9y ago> With rationality on your side, how could you lose? You could lose because the rational choice model does not accurately model human behavior in the real world; people don't act based on perfect information, in part because even when presented with correct information, they are likely to reject it if it doesn't fit their pre-existing world view.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- mbgilliland 9y agoThat has very little to do with the rational choice model. Rational choice agrees that people don't act on perfect information. It also agrees that even when given good information, individuals don't necessarily believe it. All RCT really boils down to is the fairly uncontroversial statement that people act in accordance with their actual preferences (even if their preferences should be different, the actions are not well-calculated to achieve their goals, or they say they have different preferences).
- Finnucane 9y agoSo 'rational choice theory' should be called 'fleeting whim choice theory.'
- dragonwriter 9y ago> Rational choice agrees that people don't act on perfect information No, full rational choice theory posits that people do behave in a way which maximizes actual (not expected) net utility, or, in more detail, as if: (1) They have a coherent “utility function” mapping each potential path through time that might be taken to a unidimensional, real-number utility value. (2) They have perfect knowledge of the outcome (path through time), or at least resulting utility value, produced by every possible option with every decision they make, (3) They consistently choose the option that maximizes utility. There are more limited modifications of rational choice theory that attempt, with varying degrees of success, to close the predictive gap between full rational choice theory and actual behavior resulting from the fact that humans do not behave “rationally” in the sense of rational choice theory, but they aren't what is involved with the question “how can you lose when rationality is on your side?” asked upthread.
- sumedh 9y ago> With rationality on your side, how could you lose? Do you think rationality can win when the President of the United States says that global warming is a Chinese hoax.
- ethbro 9y agoFrance? Maybe we've come full circle, and it's time for it to lead a second Enlightenment. And to be accurate, I believe Trump's current position is "global warming is happening, caused by humans, but Paris unfairly advantages other nations over the US." Which is how all climate agreements look when you're trying to get buy in from developing economies... but at least it's better than hoaxism.
- samdoidge 9y agoAristotle realised the rational argument does not always win a long time, and then wrote Poetics.
- ethbro 9y agoI always thought there should be a "Being an Adult" mandatory course in US grade school, and one section should be "defense against rhetoric."
- wcummings 9y agoIsn't that exactly what Ackman did?
- divenorth 9y agoSounds exactly like every other industry. I don't see how it's any different. Edit: Seriously? I'm getting down voted. Look I don't care how much you hate the natural products industry but every industry has sleazy business practices. They are not alone. Edit2: For example I work in the entertainment industry and the awards are all made up, the news is mostly just to get attention and they have politicians in their back pockets.
- kbenson 9y ago> Sounds exactly like every other industry. I don't see how it's any different. You were likely downvoted because you were far too strong for how general your statement was and presented it without evidence. As stated, it doesn't really contribute much. Worded as "sounds like many different industries. For example..." and followed with some examples would be interesting. As it is, it can be parsed as "business is corrupt."
- divenorth 9y agoThanks for being the kind soul to explain this to me. I'm still pretty new to hacker news.
- ethbro 9y agoThe meta around voting is complex and rarely discussed. Kind of like Fight Club. Generally though, think of "contributing substantively to the discussion" (e.g. providing facts, ideally sourced [1], relevant personal experience, or interesting and neutrally worded questions) as a high good. And tossing around memes, ad hoc attacks, argumentative language without facts, and "contentless" comments as the lowest bad. And as parent mentioned, the stronger the claim, the more it behooves you to cite a source. In general, try and write the kind of comments you want to read & treat everyone with respect. :) And hopefully others will do the same!
- martincmartin 9y agoextremely difficult for consumers to see through to factual information. This is why I like consumerlab.org. They summarize the medical research and test to see how much of the active ingredient it actually has.
- thephyber 9y agoI think the most valuable sources of information right now are independent non-profits. Do you have any other recommendations along this line?
- Overtonwindow 9y agoIt's impossible to determine which nonprofits are independent. So many nonprofits are industry backed, and depend on the industries they report on for most, if not all, of their funding. Your best bet are those that have been around along time, with clear 990's that show where money comes in, where it goes out, etc. There's an organization called Charity Navigator that tries to evaluate nonprofits, and score them based on transparency, etc. Another factor that I found in my experience is when a nonprofit goes after it's own industry. For example: Find a nonprofit that attacks MLM's and dietary supplements. Just because an organization says it's an independent nonprofit does not mean it is.
- rwmj 9y agoI used to consult for a couple of mortgage brokers back in the go-go 2000s before the crash, and it wasn't too different. Companies A, B and C arrange mortgages. Company D is a trade organization closely associated with A, B and C which awards annual prizes for "excellence" in the mortgage broking industry. By strange coincidence companies A, B and C are awarded the prizes every year (usually with slightly different names each year, or rotated from last years winners).