4 ms·

Isn't this a fallacy in itself? There is opportunity cost in everything. How would you know a year of meditation wasn't working out without actually doing the m

Isn't this a fallacy in itself? There is opportunity cost in everything. How would you know a year of meditation wasn't working out without actually doing the meditation?

ajb 3y ago
If a year didn't work, how would you know that 2 years want going to work? or 5 years? The problem isn't that you have to try it to see if it's works. The problem is that psych professionals a) have a poor grasp of decision theory and b) have an incentive to optimise their time and not the patients.
- ZeroSolstice 3y ago
  > If a year didn't work, how would you know that 2 years want going to work? or 5 years? The time frame is not relevant as people differ in their abilities, as you have noted. Typically there would be some measurable change that helps determine how "you" are feeling overall in the process, not how other people felt at the indicated time frame. After all the goal is for "you" to feel better, which is subjective to everyone. > The problem isn't that you have to try it to see if it's works. I'm not sure I see how this would work any other way than trying it. A person is only trying the recommendation not perfecting it. > The problem is that psych professionals a) have a poor grasp of decision theory and b) have an incentive to optimise their time and not the patients. I'm not directly following how this relates to the original comment stating that recommending something for someone was toxic. Much like all professions some people are better at their job than others, sometimes you find the right fit, sometimes you have to keep going. We all have to walk our own path, no one can walk it for us. *"you" is in the objective sense, not directed at you specifically.
  - ajb 3y ago
    I'm sorry, but I'm not sure how to explain this to you any further. Nothing you are saying is actually wrong, it just doesn't actually refute what I have been saying.
    - ZeroSolstice 3y ago
      Unfortunately, I do think it refutes your point. You stated the following based on someones post of "everybody should try meditation": >Here is why it is toxic: for people who those things don't work, or for whom the proposed solution is beyond their ability, it's a short step to blaming them for their problems and writing them off. It seems very illogical to be on a recommendation engine of a site if its difficult for you to to reason with the recommendations posted and/or the direct feedback that people also post, relating to the topic at hand. I pointed out that this is what HN was based on. I disagree that it is toxic for someone else to make a recommendation, based on their perspectives, to try something on a site like HN. If you had possible insight I would like to understand two things: 1. Why is someone one a site like HN if they aren't the intended audience? 2. What value would they derive from the site, presumably knowing their own mental health and that any recommendation they could read would be toxic to them because they may not be able to achieve the desired outcome?
      - ajb 3y ago
        If you want to figure out what someone else is saying, you need to figure out the way they have conceptualised the issue. You won't be able to do this by insisting on your conceptualisation.
        ZeroSolstice 3y ago
        By all means, please expand on this, preferably in more than a one or two sentence answer. I've posed two questions already to help frame what you are speaking too and so far I've only seen surface level responses.
yuuuuyu 3y ago
How would you know a priori that doing it is better than what you could otherwise do with your life? Spending time to build meaningful relations with people around you could be a better use of time. With your spouse or kids, for example. I'm not saying meditation is bad per se. But claiming straiht away that it can't do harm before you try it is just too strong of a statement. It's easy to dismiss the effect of opportunity cost.
- ZeroSolstice 3y ago
  >How would you know a priori that doing it is better than what you could otherwise do with your life? You don't. Just as equally you can't say a recommendation is harmful that you haven't actually evaluated or performed yourself. No one dismissed opportunity cost, in fact its was clearly stated above that everything has a cost, both doing and not doing something.

Isn't this a fallacy in itself? There is opportunity cost in everything. How would you know a year of meditation wasn't working out without actually doing the meditation?

ajb 3y ago

If a year didn't work, how would you know that 2 years want going to work? or 5 years? The problem isn't that you have to try it to see if it's works. The problem is that psych professionals a) have a poor grasp of decision theory and b) have an incentive to optimise their time and not the patients.

ZeroSolstice 3y ago
> If a year didn't work, how would you know that 2 years want going to work? or 5 years? The time frame is not relevant as people differ in their abilities, as you have noted. Typically there would be some measurable change that helps determine how "you" are feeling overall in the process, not how other people felt at the indicated time frame. After all the goal is for "you" to feel better, which is subjective to everyone. > The problem isn't that you have to try it to see if it's works. I'm not sure I see how this would work any other way than trying it. A person is only trying the recommendation not perfecting it. > The problem is that psych professionals a) have a poor grasp of decision theory and b) have an incentive to optimise their time and not the patients. I'm not directly following how this relates to the original comment stating that recommending something for someone was toxic. Much like all professions some people are better at their job than others, sometimes you find the right fit, sometimes you have to keep going. We all have to walk our own path, no one can walk it for us. *"you" is in the objective sense, not directed at you specifically.
- ajb 3y ago
  I'm sorry, but I'm not sure how to explain this to you any further. Nothing you are saying is actually wrong, it just doesn't actually refute what I have been saying.
  - ZeroSolstice 3y ago
    Unfortunately, I do think it refutes your point. You stated the following based on someones post of "everybody should try meditation": >Here is why it is toxic: for people who those things don't work, or for whom the proposed solution is beyond their ability, it's a short step to blaming them for their problems and writing them off. It seems very illogical to be on a recommendation engine of a site if its difficult for you to to reason with the recommendations posted and/or the direct feedback that people also post, relating to the topic at hand. I pointed out that this is what HN was based on. I disagree that it is toxic for someone else to make a recommendation, based on their perspectives, to try something on a site like HN. If you had possible insight I would like to understand two things: 1. Why is someone one a site like HN if they aren't the intended audience? 2. What value would they derive from the site, presumably knowing their own mental health and that any recommendation they could read would be toxic to them because they may not be able to achieve the desired outcome?
    - ajb 3y ago
      If you want to figure out what someone else is saying, you need to figure out the way they have conceptualised the issue. You won't be able to do this by insisting on your conceptualisation.
      - ZeroSolstice 3y ago
        By all means, please expand on this, preferably in more than a one or two sentence answer. I've posed two questions already to help frame what you are speaking too and so far I've only seen surface level responses.

yuuuuyu 3y ago

How would you know a priori that doing it is better than what you could otherwise do with your life? Spending time to build meaningful relations with people around you could be a better use of time. With your spouse or kids, for example. I'm not saying meditation is bad per se. But claiming straiht away that it can't do harm before you try it is just too strong of a statement. It's easy to dismiss the effect of opportunity cost.

ZeroSolstice 3y ago
>How would you know a priori that doing it is better than what you could otherwise do with your life? You don't. Just as equally you can't say a recommendation is harmful that you haven't actually evaluated or performed yourself. No one dismissed opportunity cost, in fact its was clearly stated above that everything has a cost, both doing and not doing something.