I’ve suggested visiting a drug rehab center, I think that’s analogous to your last point, and a good idea. I’ll work on making it happen. The rest of the criticism is valid, and I’ll pass it along.
This paragraph won’t go over well due to neglect of widespread anecdotal positive effects of taking relatively small doses of stimulants, I’ll look through the literature to counter that > The fact that they are prescription drugs means precisely that experts are quite aware that they have negative side effects. (So please let’s not act like finding out about the negative side effects is a mind-blowing discovery that would totally turn medicine on its head.) Doctors prescribe them when they believe that the benefits may outweigh the costs, in context of a specific health problem. People don’t take them recreationally just because some stranger online told them to.
I think that visiting a drug rehab center would be much less convincing (though much faster) than the above suggested method. This is because a drug rehab center will look bad whether or not the effects are very rare, since it’s selected for people who got bad enough effects to be in a rehab center.
(If his argument is that the bad effects don’t exist, a rehab center would be good evidence against that, but it sounds like he believes more that they’re rare and mild enough to be worth it.)
In general, if you want to convince someone who is taking ideas from this community seriously of something, you want to show them evidence that would only exist if the thing you want to convince them of is true, and possibly even explicitly lay out why you expect that.
I’ve suggested visiting a drug rehab center, I think that’s analogous to your last point, and a good idea. I’ll work on making it happen. The rest of the criticism is valid, and I’ll pass it along.
This paragraph won’t go over well due to neglect of widespread anecdotal positive effects of taking relatively small doses of stimulants, I’ll look through the literature to counter that
> The fact that they are prescription drugs means precisely that experts are quite aware that they have negative side effects. (So please let’s not act like finding out about the negative side effects is a mind-blowing discovery that would totally turn medicine on its head.) Doctors prescribe them when they believe that the benefits may outweigh the costs, in context of a specific health problem. People don’t take them recreationally just because some stranger online told them to.
I think that visiting a drug rehab center would be much less convincing (though much faster) than the above suggested method. This is because a drug rehab center will look bad whether or not the effects are very rare, since it’s selected for people who got bad enough effects to be in a rehab center.
(If his argument is that the bad effects don’t exist, a rehab center would be good evidence against that, but it sounds like he believes more that they’re rare and mild enough to be worth it.)
In general, if you want to convince someone who is taking ideas from this community seriously of something, you want to show them evidence that would only exist if the thing you want to convince them of is true, and possibly even explicitly lay out why you expect that.