This whole episode (including JP and Robyn in this chat) strikes me as time/energy saving heuristics in action. I applaud such things because I am naturally lazy, but also because they seem essential for our brains. Noble as our verification intentions might be, at some stage we all just need a summary to carry on…
This whole episode (including JP and Robyn in this chat) strikes me as time/energy saving heuristics in action. I applaud such things because I am naturally lazy, but also because they seem essential for our brains. Noble as our verification intentions might be, at some stage we all just need a summary to carry on with.
eg) AMD's might be: Nutrition topic comes up. (subconscious - my perfectionism would mean i instantly double my workload if I investigate this topic with the same vigour as I do allopathic stuff) manifests as - (that's just, like, your opinion, man) which we can take as (I'm tired dammit, let me pidgeonhole this as 'nutrition opinions' so I can ignore it but still feel diligent)
Although I wasn't weighing in on whether any particular nutrition approach is better than another. I was pointing out that a factual error had been made which misrepresented Ancel Keys' work. That's very different. Whatever people may conclude about which particular dietary approach is superior in a particular circumstance, the starting point should be that we don't misrepresent or lie about what a particular researcher reported.
Perhaps a useful musing:
This whole episode (including JP and Robyn in this chat) strikes me as time/energy saving heuristics in action. I applaud such things because I am naturally lazy, but also because they seem essential for our brains. Noble as our verification intentions might be, at some stage we all just need a summary to carry on with.
eg) AMD's might be: Nutrition topic comes up. (subconscious - my perfectionism would mean i instantly double my workload if I investigate this topic with the same vigour as I do allopathic stuff) manifests as - (that's just, like, your opinion, man) which we can take as (I'm tired dammit, let me pidgeonhole this as 'nutrition opinions' so I can ignore it but still feel diligent)
As usual Shane, you provide me with a lot of interesting things to think about!
Although I wasn't weighing in on whether any particular nutrition approach is better than another. I was pointing out that a factual error had been made which misrepresented Ancel Keys' work. That's very different. Whatever people may conclude about which particular dietary approach is superior in a particular circumstance, the starting point should be that we don't misrepresent or lie about what a particular researcher reported.