Hacker News Reader

Comment by surround | Hacker News Reader

Let’s say there’s a Facebook group of moms that enjoy using essential oils. Imagine that a study gets posted to the group showing that essential oils are ineffective at treating some disease. If I made a comment in that community about how, in my anecdotal experience, essential oils cured me of this disease, it would probably be supported over the study.

Now, instead of essential oils, let’s say I did the same thing with a drug that is popular in Silicon Valley, and instead of a Facebook mom group, it’s hacker news.

View on HN

I love this reply. It's really hard to argue against. Every human like to think that we are smarter than others, what WE are doing is not a placebo, that only happens to those other ones, because my experience was real and I felt it.

It is really tough to admit to yourself and others that what your felt wasn't some magical experience, it was just your brain making it up.

I would quote Albus Dumbledore here though: “Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?”

The difference is that with essential oils it's placebo all the way, no matter the dose. (Eventually diarrhea from the too much oil, but that's it.) On the other hand you can overdo the microdose and the it's just trying to do whatever you planned/wanted to do at that time while also tripping very small balls. (Or big, depending on the dose.)

Are there even stories about anyone getting cured via microdosing? :o

There are studies and growing consensus that psilocybin can have positive/therapeutic effects.

Are you trying to imply that the same is true for essential oils? This seems like a false equivalency/strawman situation.

The fact that psilocybin can potentially have positive therapeutic effects in controlled environments does not mean people “microdosing” experience those effects.

It doesn't mean they don't. And it's certainly makes it reasonable that those effects could exist.

No, but this study does seem to indicate they don't... So maybe they don't

It can mean they do, but apparently placebo also works almost just as good.

ahhh, the old 'growing consensus'

What point are you trying to make about growing consensus? Are you implying that the creation and growth of consensus around a given subject is invalid in some way?

Consensus is not an accurate method of truth. If you ask lots of people and get a consensus, is it correct? Sometimes ;)

Your argument is worthy of consideration, but ultimately I think there is a difference. The difference is trying something unproven vs something that has already been tested and discredited.

That's alright, I trust my anecdotes more than scientific studies. I'd agree with you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com