It was inappropriate language, but I think there is a valid point to be made.
Assuming good faith (ie: not lying) is similar but distinctly different from assuming that someone is speaking truthfully/accurately.
>> Considering how often antidepressants tend to be a hit-or-miss game (not to speak of side effects), I am a bit annoyed psychedelics don't get more attention for medical use.
> Psychedelics are actually extremely hit-or-miss as well. Anecdotally, psychedelics don't always send someone in the right direction post-trip. If you scroll the comments in any popular psychedelics-for-depression post on Reddit, there are almost as many negative experience reports (including some long-lasting) as there are positive reports. The positive reports receive the bulk of upvotes, though, so you have to scroll down to see them.
> Perhaps less anecdotally, any medical professional will see a non-trivial number of people with significant negative effects of psychedelics, from worsening depression to HPPD to existential crises or psychoses. An actual doctor had a great comment on the previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30995831
Looking at some of the discrete claims:
> Psychedelics [are actually] [extremely] [hit-or-miss] as well.
This asserts that results (across all instances of usage, not only those that have been studied under formal conditions) are highly random/inconsistent, in fact.
This is highly contrary to my personal experiences, as well as the reading I have done on others' experiences.
(Of course: we should keep in mind that it is unknown what percentage of experiences get posted, whether positive trips are more likely to get posted than negative, etc. - but "both sides" suffer from these problems.)
> Anecdotally, psychedelics don't always send someone in the right direction post-trip.
This true statement notes that they don't always do something positive, but it might be interpreted as being logically supportive of the preceding assertion, even though it is not.
> If you scroll the comments in any popular psychedelics-for-depression post on Reddit, there are almost as many negative experience reports (including some long-lasting) as there are positive reports.
This makes a quantitative claim that is extremely inconsistent with my fairly substantial experiences reading trip reports, which lines up with what /u/rileyphone said:
>> My experience, and recent search, indicates these are usually about 80% positive, and most negative experiences stem from predictable abuse patterns.
-
> The positive reports receive the bulk of upvotes, though, so you have to scroll down to see them.
This seems to imply that the negative trip reports are hard to find, which leads to people having a false impression of what is true. If one reads forums regularly, it seems unlikely that all negative reports were downvoted to oblivion before being seen by regulars, which is inconsistent with my experience on most forum software.
Assuming good faith (ie: not lying) is similar but distinctly different from assuming that someone is speaking truthfully/accurately.
>> Considering how often antidepressants tend to be a hit-or-miss game (not to speak of side effects), I am a bit annoyed psychedelics don't get more attention for medical use.
> Psychedelics are actually extremely hit-or-miss as well. Anecdotally, psychedelics don't always send someone in the right direction post-trip. If you scroll the comments in any popular psychedelics-for-depression post on Reddit, there are almost as many negative experience reports (including some long-lasting) as there are positive reports. The positive reports receive the bulk of upvotes, though, so you have to scroll down to see them.
> Perhaps less anecdotally, any medical professional will see a non-trivial number of people with significant negative effects of psychedelics, from worsening depression to HPPD to existential crises or psychoses. An actual doctor had a great comment on the previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30995831
Looking at some of the discrete claims:
> Psychedelics [are actually] [extremely] [hit-or-miss] as well.
This asserts that results (across all instances of usage, not only those that have been studied under formal conditions) are highly random/inconsistent, in fact.
This is highly contrary to my personal experiences, as well as the reading I have done on others' experiences.
(Of course: we should keep in mind that it is unknown what percentage of experiences get posted, whether positive trips are more likely to get posted than negative, etc. - but "both sides" suffer from these problems.)
> Anecdotally, psychedelics don't always send someone in the right direction post-trip.
This true statement notes that they don't always do something positive, but it might be interpreted as being logically supportive of the preceding assertion, even though it is not.
> If you scroll the comments in any popular psychedelics-for-depression post on Reddit, there are almost as many negative experience reports (including some long-lasting) as there are positive reports.
This makes a quantitative claim that is extremely inconsistent with my fairly substantial experiences reading trip reports, which lines up with what /u/rileyphone said:
>> My experience, and recent search, indicates these are usually about 80% positive, and most negative experiences stem from predictable abuse patterns.
-
> The positive reports receive the bulk of upvotes, though, so you have to scroll down to see them.
This seems to imply that the negative trip reports are hard to find, which leads to people having a false impression of what is true. If one reads forums regularly, it seems unlikely that all negative reports were downvoted to oblivion before being seen by regulars, which is inconsistent with my experience on most forum software.