Hacker News Reader

Comment by shaggyfrog | Hacker News Reader

I enjoyed reading about how they got started. I loved the fact they were supporting two mental health organizations with donations. Since friend loves this kind of diary-keeping, after I was done reading, I checked out their website with the intention to buy.

Prominently on the home page is an article about using crystals for healing. Ugh.

I don't know if this is intentional, but it really turns me off their brand, and I'm not interested in buying one anymore.

View on HN

Unfortunately I suspect the majority of the population is far less rational than the average HN user, which is why quack health (or rather, "wellness" these days, likely because their peddlers are trying to avoid legal issues around implications of being medical) bullshit has always been a relatively profitable if not ethical industry. The sad thing is, the average visitor to the site would probably think nothing of it or even believe, whereas you and me both reacted with "Ugh."

Given "it's good that they're donating to mental health organisations" and "healing crystals are bullshit but profitable", it seems plausible to me that it's net-good to sell healing crystals if it leads to more money donated to mental health organisations.

What if it’s mental health organizations that treat mental issues with crystals?

Then the premise of "it's good that they donate to mental health organisations" presumably wouldn't hold.

"That the website does one shady thing makes me suspect other things they're doing are shady" makes sense to me, though.

This take feels like an incarnation of the broken window fallacy to me.

"Broken Window Fallacy" is something like "Breaking Windows is actually good for the economy, because money is spent on repairing windows when it otherwise wouldn't be". (The 'fallacy' is not considering the wider negative impacts).

Sure. "if the negative impact of selling healing crystals outweighs the positive impact of donating to mental health organisations, then it's bad" makes sense to me.

No, the fallacy is that money being spent is good for the economy by itself. It's a neutral action.

Creation of value is good, and breaking a window just to replace it doesn't.

GDP counts money being spent, of course.

Let's just hope that nobody is forgoing real science-based treatment for these healing crystals, otherwise, we're back to it being a net-negative.

sorry, but no mercy for this kind of pseudoscience nonsense.

So you take into account the positive effects of mental health donations but not the negative effects of the promotion of healing crystals. No shit you'll come out ahead.

Promoting bullshit has real costs associated with it. Those bullshit crystals cost people money and don't do anything. People get dumber being convinced to buy them, and will use that dumbness in other parts of life. Promoting a market for delusion and false hope is the last thing anyone needs.

It might be hard to put a precise dollar value on second order effects like these, let alone on things like moral integrity, but that doesn't mean this value isn't there.

There is no shortage of people who will do whatever bullshitting it takes to earn more money, and that's not something to be celebrated regardless of whether it comes with mental health donations or another trendy atonement mechanism.

"So you take into account the positive effects of mental health donations but not the negative effects of the promotion of healing crystals. No shit you'll come out ahead."

Ah, I see how my comment can be read like that.

I don't mean to say "only consider the positives of one and not the negatives of the other". And "the existence of negatives means the thing is negative" would also be a bad way of thinking about it.

The approach ought to be "The benefits should be weighed against the costs".

Yes well everyone has a different idea of what to include in the costs, that's all fluffy and can be twisted to suit whatever result one wants.

Which is why some people choose moral principles that are more rigid. And well scamming people into buying useless rocks is on the wrong side of mine, no matter what moral kickback it's artificially bundled with.

I would not say it is net-good. Spreading misinformation, pseudoscience is really, really harmful for the society (global warming is being questioned on the base of various "healing crystals"-like arguments, similarly nuclear energy was (and still is) fought using unscientific arguments leading to the unfortunate situation we have now).

Hi rgoulter, I'm Tom, the Co Founder of Saint Belford. We don't actually sell the crystals, this is merely a guest blog post from a local business who do.

> I suspect the majority of the population is far less rational than the average HN user,

You are giving far far far too much credit. Read any mental health, nutrition, or exercise thread on here and you’ll find more woo-woo nonsense than in any healing crystal.

Hey shaggyfrog (dope username btw), I'm Tom, the Co Founder of Saint Belford.

Thanks for your kind words about our story and brand, it really means a lot.

Can totally understand the distaste for crystals. We don't actually sell them, this is just a guest blog post from a local brand who do.

Appreciate your feedback.

The crystal article is a guest post by another brand. They don't ever claim that crystals will heal you of any disease. Their brand's purpose is: "the ultimate goal is for you to find your inner voice."

I think for some people, crystals are a frame through which to explore their own intuition and emotional world. Not necessarily a literal concept.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com