Links for stuff I may've mentioned this weekend: - Chromosome selection: https://www.gwern.net/Embryo-selection#fn6 … - selection unlimited: https://www.gwern.net/Embryo-selection#limits-to-iterated-selection-the-paradox-of-polygenicity … - Catnip: https://www.gwern.net/Catnip - Advertising A/B test: http://www.gwern.net/Ads - Anti-spaced-repetition: https://www.gwern.net/Statistical-notes#program-for-non-spaced-repetition-review-of-past-written-materials-for-serendipity-rediscovery-archive-revisiter …
-
-
So based on nothing you decide it's all bunk because your own experiment was bunk. I'm all for reporting negative results and I like the way you did your experiment but now you're just pulling conclusions out of your ass. You're no better than them.
-
And what should we call pulling out post hoc excuses to save the appearances like 'oh you just didn't use the right dose'?
-
Save appearance? I'm just calling you out on your hypocrisy. You identified a dosage (guesstimated to around 8 ug or so) that had no measurable effect on you. You identified another dosage (150 ug or so) that had a strong effect on you.
-
Which are supposed to be about different things. Having no effect is exactly what the standard model 'LSD just makes you hallucinate' predicts. It's *not* what microdosers predict, who claim entirely different regime of effects in the sub-perceptual area.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.