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 …
I disagree it's bias. We know from vast experience most chemicals do nothing, have reasonable dose-response curves, there are few to no 'microdoses' for other drugs, and so on. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
-
-
It's not extraordinary to claim that a small dose of LSD has a small effect. What I want to know is how those effects differ in quantity and quality from the effects of a normal dose. You can't answer that.
-
Indeed, it is not extraordinary. What is extraordinary is claiming that a small dose can have a large effect on daily functioning, that even smaller dose differences can make or break this effect, and that this effect is radically different than the effect of large doses...
-
LSD is pretty extraordinary. People have reported unexpected results and you have dismissed them without investigating. Of course some of the claims are bullshit. But are all of them bullshit? You have no basis for calling bullshit because you have no evidence.
-
Lack of evidence for something extremely improbable is excellent reason to justify dismissing it. Ordinary claims require only ordinary evidence, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. LSD microdosing, if proponents are right, would be unprecedented.
-
I have seen a lot of anecdotes from people claiming some kind of effect. I too have experienced some kind of effect. That is indisputable. The only defensible position you can take is to question what the effects are. Instead you dismiss it as "there are no effects". Wtf?
-
/rolls eyes Fine. 'There are no effects besides those driven by publication bias, selective recall of data (see recent LSD microdosing paper!), expectancy effects, overly large doses in the perceptual range, & other effects of no particular interest & not the claimed mechanism.'
-
Replace "There are no" with "There is no evidence for" and we have a deal.
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.