3 ms·
I’m not calling for double blind study here, I’m not even sure how that would be possible. Sometimes we’re stuck with “I don’t know” and recognizing that is IM
by Retric 2y ago
I’m not calling for double blind study here, I’m not even sure how that would be possible.
Sometimes we’re stuck with “I don’t know” and recognizing that is IMO important.
- RhysU 2y agoAnecdatum: I personally know a mother who has a restraining order on her son, whom I also personally know, due to a psychotic episode. And the son's been smoking way too much weed for a long time. Heartbreaking. So, I know.
- Retric 2y agoPeople who don’t smoke also have psychotic episodes, so no you don’t know you assume.
- RhysU 2y agoMy Bayesian prior has been sufficiently updated to effectively know: I don't know a single mother with a restraining order for a son who doesn't smoke too much weed. I have met a bunch of mothers and sons in my life. In a Popperian sense we can all only assume so stop splitting hairs. Clearly, smoking a shit ton is bad for people with marginal mental health or marginal emotional health.
- pdpi 2y agoCouching it in pseudo-scientific babble doesn't change the fact that it's an isolated data point, and you're vying for the olympic goal for jumping to conclusions.
- GolberThorce 2y agohe's being ironic https://i.rdrama.net/images/17204020385384521.webp https://i.rdrama.net/images/17204020385384521.webp
- djmips 2y agoAnecdata.
- GolberThorce 2y agoAccording to Scott Alexander, I only hate the grey tribe outgroup ergo with enough e-risk paperclip minimization, we can drop p(doom) with lowered replacement fertility levels via lethargy from cannabis consumption, meaning marijuana is a hedon machine and positively utilitarian. Legalizing marijuana is effectively altruistic. Clearly, weed is good
- Retric 2y agoSo you agree as Bayesian prior’s are literally assumptions.