Note that there's still no evidence the ability to digest lactose is an actual adaptation as opposed to some allele that got accidentally fixed in some populations due to genetic drift.
I'll be honest, these kind of "thinkpieces" are usually full of generic bullshit but this one was actually interesting. So if you're like me, don't let the title put you off and read it.
Please, you're on a discussion site where the main demographic is actively microdosing to improve their productivity at startups inbetween two editions of Burning Man. You'd be hardpressed to find someone without a first-hand experience of acid.
But yeah, you pretty much tend to remember everything that happens to you during a trip, even years afterwards, which naively makes me believe your brain and memories become more malleable during that timeframe. This would explain why bad trips could be traumatizing.
Then there's gwern who did a RCT self-experiment and reported no benefits but the way he measured said 'benefits' (stupid little tests, self-rating) isn't convincing.
This doesn't much change the summary. Even at face-value (though you have to wonder about losing 80% of their data), what functional changes does some transient blood serum increases in BDNF cause, and why would some chemical results noticeably change one's assessment of the experimental evidence reported so far? It will be much more interesting to read the other data, which, however, remains unknown: "assessment of mood, cognition, empathy, and creativity that will be reported elsewhere." (That's from the pain paper reporting this study. Apparently they intend to salami-slice this study into at least 3 papers.)
Taking acid to "improve your productivity at startups" is a tool for people with no appreciation for leisure or mind expansion. There's also a difference between taking something to cope or function and taking something because you think it makes you the Rembrandt of startups or whatever. I mean do what you want, and I'll reserve my right to clown on goofballs like this.
Having a RationalWiki page is pretty much like having a 'Controversies' section on your wiki page. Yeah maybe sometimes it's unjustified and a coordinated smearing attempt something something, but 99% of the time it means the person is shitty and said shitty things.
RW doesn't lie. All it does is sample quotes, which its detractors have accused of being 'out-of-context'. But this discussion is going to be useless if you don't bring up the specific person you think is being lied about on RW.
One which is a philosophical issue, imo, but presented on RW as both scientific and fully settled such that dissenters are cast as both wrong-headed and morally bad.
That’s just not “rational” - and I’m surprised the site on that subject has abandoned a neutral point of view in favour of something practically Conservapedia-esque.
HNs asks that we avoid flamebait, so I’m not going to be specific - I just wanted to make the sincere point that RW does take stances that, to me, go against what I thought it’s spirit was.
I think that beating around the bush without being explicit about what you believe (which makes your position impossible to refute or even talk about in any meaningful way) makes for sterile discussion and is hardly better than flamebait. In line with the principle of charity you should state your position without assuming your detractors will be unable to keep their cool.
Just passing by to signal-boost the creator of Lichess, a single person who, out of frustration with FICS et al., made an amazing product out of the blue, released it under an open source license and delivered an UX that blew its competitors right out of the water.
All it takes one person with skill and generosity to completely change a community for the better. I hope to become one day this kind of person.
