“not a good post” sounds kind of harsh and hostile to me, FWIW.
Leaving out major differences and understating risks is a big problem. But I personally had absolutely no idea that there was even a potential for anything to be remotely this effective for skincare, with or without risks.
Thus, this post is highly valuable for me; and of course I’d do a little research before embarking on something this time-consuming and expensive (daily time cost isn’t the right way to think about it; 10 minutes per day is about 60 hours per year, a week and a half of “full time” work devoted to looking younger every year)
I would prefer the author edit the post to say “there are differences and risks with each, do your due diligence and report back if you want”. But I am still upvoting the post for giving me one solid rationalist clue about the massively complex world of skincare claims.
“not a good post” sounds kind of harsh and hostile to me, FWIW.
OK, how about this then:
I have certain standards for giving many people strongly-worded medical advice, and this post is not even close to meeting them. It tells people to do something they most likely shouldn’t, based on brief and shallow research, and provides incomplete information. As such, I consider it unethical and it calls the judgement of the author into question in general.
Is that better?
If the post was just like, “hey, retinoids exist, if you have specific skin issues X or Y (keratosis pilaris, etc) you should consider them, especially the 3rd-generation ones like adapalene, note these side effects and check these articles and then maybe talk to your doctor”—that would be a good post. This is not.
IMO, I am not a huge fan of increasing the burden of evidence for medical claims one way or another. If the author believes that all things considered it’s better for most people to use a retinoid, then I think the post title seems good. If the author doesn’t believe that, then the title would be bad.
I don’t think you improve people’s decision-making in higher-stakes domains by reducing the amount of conversation and information sharing that happens around those topics (though it seems to be a common attractor in norm-space, which I find frustrating, and in as much as I get to set culture on LessWrong about how to handle topics that are often treated this way, I want to put an explicit flag up around “no, it’s fine to openly share advice about high-stakes domains, indeed we probably want to subsidize information sharing about high-stakes domains”).
I asked my dermatologist about skincare routines, and she said, approximately, “There is a cheap, widely available, extremely effective treatment for skin aging that has been around for decades”
Yeah, actually that sounds way better to me. It’s not only nicer but more informative. You really think people shouldn’t be using retinoids, based on your read (it’s more than mine) of the literature?
I really think most people shouldn’t be using retinoids, especially not “retinoids in general”. For people who have certain skin problems, certain retinoids can be worthwhile, but it’s up to them if the side effects are worth the potential (mainly aesthetic) benefits.
I certainly wouldn’t recommend “retinoids”—I’d talk about individual compounds.
My skin is starting to have the problem of looking way older than I’d like :) At the cost of sounding shallow, looks matter for a variety of purposes, so I’d take some measured risks and downsides to get the massive improvements shown in the photos here. I’ll do some research if I get around to it before the singularity :) and report it in a comment on this post if I do anything worthwhile.
I somehow doubt anyone is going to read this and immediately slather a mixture of every retinoid known to man directly to their face (including many which are only available by prescription). If they did, I honestly wouldn’t blame this post. They’re going to either go to a doctor to find out more about prescription treatments, or Google “retinoid cream” and find some over-the-counter retinol that’s safe and has no substantial side effects for most people. This is a perfectly OK introductory post.
“not a good post” sounds kind of harsh and hostile to me, FWIW.
Leaving out major differences and understating risks is a big problem. But I personally had absolutely no idea that there was even a potential for anything to be remotely this effective for skincare, with or without risks.
Thus, this post is highly valuable for me; and of course I’d do a little research before embarking on something this time-consuming and expensive (daily time cost isn’t the right way to think about it; 10 minutes per day is about 60 hours per year, a week and a half of “full time” work devoted to looking younger every year)
I would prefer the author edit the post to say “there are differences and risks with each, do your due diligence and report back if you want”. But I am still upvoting the post for giving me one solid rationalist clue about the massively complex world of skincare claims.
OK, how about this then:
Is that better?
If the post was just like, “hey, retinoids exist, if you have specific skin issues X or Y (keratosis pilaris, etc) you should consider them, especially the 3rd-generation ones like adapalene, note these side effects and check these articles and then maybe talk to your doctor”—that would be a good post. This is not.
IMO, I am not a huge fan of increasing the burden of evidence for medical claims one way or another. If the author believes that all things considered it’s better for most people to use a retinoid, then I think the post title seems good. If the author doesn’t believe that, then the title would be bad.
I don’t think you improve people’s decision-making in higher-stakes domains by reducing the amount of conversation and information sharing that happens around those topics (though it seems to be a common attractor in norm-space, which I find frustrating, and in as much as I get to set culture on LessWrong about how to handle topics that are often treated this way, I want to put an explicit flag up around “no, it’s fine to openly share advice about high-stakes domains, indeed we probably want to subsidize information sharing about high-stakes domains”).
I asked my dermatologist about skincare routines, and she said, approximately, “There is a cheap, widely available, extremely effective treatment for skin aging that has been around for decades”
Yeah, actually that sounds way better to me. It’s not only nicer but more informative. You really think people shouldn’t be using retinoids, based on your read (it’s more than mine) of the literature?
I really think most people shouldn’t be using retinoids, especially not “retinoids in general”. For people who have certain skin problems, certain retinoids can be worthwhile, but it’s up to them if the side effects are worth the potential (mainly aesthetic) benefits.
I certainly wouldn’t recommend “retinoids”—I’d talk about individual compounds.
My skin is starting to have the problem of looking way older than I’d like :) At the cost of sounding shallow, looks matter for a variety of purposes, so I’d take some measured risks and downsides to get the massive improvements shown in the photos here. I’ll do some research if I get around to it before the singularity :) and report it in a comment on this post if I do anything worthwhile.
Understandable, have a nice day.
I somehow doubt anyone is going to read this and immediately slather a mixture of every retinoid known to man directly to their face (including many which are only available by prescription). If they did, I honestly wouldn’t blame this post. They’re going to either go to a doctor to find out more about prescription treatments, or Google “retinoid cream” and find some over-the-counter retinol that’s safe and has no substantial side effects for most people. This is a perfectly OK introductory post.