[meowface]

I'm not trying to argue from authority or get into credibility wars*, but Scott is a professional psychiatrist who has treated dozens or hundreds of schizophrenic patients and has written many thorough essays on schizophrenia. Obviously someone could do that and still be wrong, but I think this is a carefully considered position on his part and not just wild assumptions.

*(or, well, okay, I guess I de facto am, but if I say I'm not I at least acknowledge how it looks)

[mquander]

You said it yourself. That's really not an appropriate response to a specific criticism.

[riwsky]

The criticism invoked “anyone with serious experience with schizophrenia”, implying the author of the article is not such a one. Citing the author’s experience is a perfectly valid rebuttal to that implication. It’s not an argument from authority, but about it.

[meowface]

I'm not trying to say that that should strongly increase the probability he's correct. I just think it's useful context, because the parent is potentially implying that the author is naively falling for common misconceptions ("following the conventional tack") rather than staking a deliberated claim. Or they might not be implying it but someone could come away with that conclusion.

[kelnos]

I mean, on one hand you have a professional psychiatrist who has treated many people for the disorder we're talking about, and on the other, we have a rando on HN who hasn't presented any credentials.

Not saying the latter person is automatically wrong, but I think if you're going to argue against something said by someone who is a subject matter expert, the bar is a bit higher.