2 ms·

Good points. I don't debate the plausibility of the mechanisms they discussed, but rather find the lack of coherency between the initial premise and the 'suppor

by cwkoss 7y ago

Good points. I don't debate the plausibility of the mechanisms they discussed, but rather find the lack of coherency between the initial premise and the 'supporting arguments' confusing. It reads like they took the 'myth' that "Some cravings are based on nutritional need" spun it into the strawman "All craving are based 100% on nutritional need" and then spend the rest of the article smugly congratulating themselves for tearing down their strawman. Because nobody actually advocates for the strawman, the meandering content of the article comes across as bizarre.

coldtea 7y ago
>It reads like they took the 'myth' that "Some cravings are based on nutritional need" spun it into the strawman "All craving are based 100% on nutritional need" and then spend the rest of the article smugly congratulating themselves for tearing down their strawman. It's not really a strawman if people really believe this (and justify all/most of their cravings as nutritional needs). For those people, it makes sense to tear this idea down.