paper-machine comments on Welcome to Less Wrong! (7th thread, December 2014) - Less Wrong

16 Post author: Gondolinian 15 December 2014 02:57AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (635)
Tags: newcomers community introduction welcome faq

Comments (635)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: [deleted] 29 January 2015 06:31:21PM 0 points [-]

Yet elsewhere:

Why aren’t [the people who live in Tuoli] sick and diseased?

We have plenty of evidence showing hormone-pumped dairy, grain-fed meat, pasteurized and homogenized milk, processed lunch meats, and other monstrosities are bad for the human body. No debate there. But we do have a woeful lack of research on the effects of “clean” animal products—meat from wild or pastured animals fed good diets, milk that hasn’t been heat-zapped, antibiotic-free cheeses and yogurts, and so forth.

[...]

Is it possible the diseases we ascribe to animal products aren’t caused by animal products themselves, but by the chemicals, hormones, and treatment processes we expose them to? If the Tuoli are any indication, this may be the case. Hopefully future research will shed more light on the matter.

Or, you know, they're an insular minority with peculiar nutritional requirements.

Comment author: Lumifer 29 January 2015 06:54:10PM *  1 point [-]

You said that Minger's criticism of TCS "doesn't make sense". Did you actually have anything specific in mind?

I also don't see much problems with the passages you quoted.

Comment author: [deleted] 29 January 2015 07:22:36PM 1 point [-]

They contradict each other. Why isn't Tuoli an outlier?

Comment author: Lumifer 29 January 2015 07:27:27PM *  0 points [-]

They contradict each other.

You're quoting from the page which says right on top:

Important disclaimer: In light of new information, this post needs to be taken with a really whoppin’ huge grain of salt. It turns out Tuoli was “feasting” on the day the survey crew came for China Study I, so they were likely eating more calories, more wheat, more dairy, and so forth than they typically do the rest of the year. We can’t be completely sure what their normal diet did look at the time, but the questionnaire data (which is supposedly more reliable than the diet survey data) still suggests they were eating a lot of animal products and very little in the way of fruits or vegetables.

At any rate, I recommend not quoting this post or citing it as “evidence” for anything simply because of the uncertainty surrounding the Tuoli data in the China Study.

You seem to be more interested in creating gotchas than in finding out what's actually happening in reality.

Why isn't Tuoli an outlier?

I am sorry, did you miss that comment?

But if you want to pretend Tuoli doesn't exist, sure, you can pretend Tuoli doesn't exist. What next?

Comment author: [deleted] 29 January 2015 07:41:03PM *  0 points [-]

You're quoting from the page which says right on top:

I was kind of waiting for you to point that out. Notice it's a non-disclaimer anyway:

but the questionnaire data (which is supposedly more reliable than the diet survey data) still suggests they were eating a lot of animal products and very little in the way of fruits or vegetables.

In any case, I'm not using it as evidence for or against a particular diet. I'm using it as evidence of her research process. About a quarter of her criticism of TCS is based around Tuoli being an outlier, so it's interesting that she also thought that their diet didn't increase their rate of disease significantly, even before she found out the data was bad. It's a clear sign of motivated cognition.

You seem to be more interested in creating gotchas than in finding out what's actually happening in reality.

In general, you don't seem very good at ascribing motives to me. Recall you were the one that asked for an example of what I found confusing.

I am sorry, did you miss that comment?

No, I didn't.

But if you want to pretend Tuoli doesn't exist, sure, you can pretend Tuoli doesn't exist. What next?

That's not even remotely close to what I said, and doesn't really have anything to do with the point at hand.

Comment author: Lumifer 29 January 2015 07:46:47PM *  0 points [-]

About a quarter of her criticism of TCS is based around Tuoli being an outlier

I don't believe this is true -- see this.

You still haven't made any specific objections against Minger's criticism of TCS.

You did mention motivated cognition, did you not?

Comment author: [deleted] 29 January 2015 07:53:02PM *  -1 points [-]

I don't believe this is true -- see this.

27 instances. Section 1.2, 1.4, 1.8, 2.2, 3.1, and of course 3.3. "A quarter" is about correct, but let's say "a fifth" if you'd like.

You still haven't made any specific objection against Minger's criticism of TCS.

She depends too much on the Tuoli data -- which she supposedly doesn't trust anyway -- to make her arguments.

Comment author: Lumifer 29 January 2015 08:13:47PM *  0 points [-]

27 instances

I am going to call bullshit on that. You did a word search for "Tuoli" in a web page and that turned up 27 hits. That does not mean that there are 27 instances of using the Tuoli data to argue against TCS.

Section 1.2, for example, explicitly points out that taking Tuoli data out makes some Campbell claims to have much less support in the correlation numbers.

I think you're being dishonest. This conversation is over.

Comment author: [deleted] 29 January 2015 08:21:07PM -2 points [-]

Then I'd advise in the future you not offer to provide clarification when you'd prefer to quibble and assume bad faith where none exists.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit