You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

ChristianKl comments on Rationality, Transhumanism, and Mental Health - Less Wrong Discussion

8 Post author: ialdabaoth 14 October 2012 09:11AM

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

Comments (129)

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

Comment author: ChristianKl 15 October 2012 06:34:10PM -2 points [-]

I don't know that, which is why I suggested discussing it with a qualified medical practitioner, rather than, for example, just buying some from an illegal dealer, and said it was definitely not a recommendation, capitalising those words.

Lesswrong isn't a place where you would tell someone directly: "Go buy illegal drugs." It's a public forum in which you participate with your real name. Saying "this is not a recommendation" is likely be read be some adventurous people as: "I don't want to held accountable in any way for the recommendation I'm making, but in case you are interested..."

Comment author: [deleted] 15 October 2012 07:43:17PM *  0 points [-]

I can certainly see that, but I would also hope that if someone is, as the OP claims to be, wanting to be truly rational, possibly the very first point in a list of 'how to be rational' rules would be "Don't buy illegal brain-altering chemicals based solely on a remark made by a total stranger on the internet."

Were someone to not be following that rule already, I suspect any other advice any of us could give them would be useless.

(Incidentally, I'm not one of the people who downvoted that comment. It seems reasonable to at least raise the issue.)

Comment author: MixedNuts 16 October 2012 10:10:09AM 2 points [-]

The existence of gwern, of Crazy Meds, and of the subset of the trans community unable to get treatment through official channels suggests that this rule isn't actually all that good.

Comment author: wedrifid 16 October 2012 06:45:31AM 0 points [-]

Were someone to not be following that rule already, I suspect any other advice any of us could give them would be useless.

I don't know about that. After all it seems like they are the kind of person to take the advice of strangers on the internet...

Comment author: ChristianKl 15 October 2012 08:37:12PM 0 points [-]

"Drug restored damaged synaptic connections" -> "Drug is good" is a quite seductive argument that bears the danger of being accepted by smart people. The person might focus his fact check whether the claim about restoring damaged synaptic connections is true.

Given the failure of antidepressants in which companies invested a lot of money, it's rational to choose the prior "a new antidepressent isn't likely to create big positive effects" when evaluating a new candidate. Picking the right reference class is valuable.