Hacker News Reader

Comment by Retric | Hacker News Reader

I’m not calling for double blind study here, I’m not even sure how that would be possible.

Sometimes we’re stuck with “I don’t know” and recognizing that is IMO important.

Anecdatum: I personally know a mother who has a restraining order on her son, whom I also personally know, due to a psychotic episode. And the son's been smoking way too much weed for a long time. Heartbreaking.

So, I know.

People who don’t smoke also have psychotic episodes, so no you don’t know you assume.

My Bayesian prior has been sufficiently updated to effectively know: I don't know a single mother with a restraining order for a son who doesn't smoke too much weed. I have met a bunch of mothers and sons in my life. In a Popperian sense we can all only assume so stop splitting hairs.

Clearly, smoking a shit ton is bad for people with marginal mental health or marginal emotional health.

According to Scott Alexander, I only hate the grey tribe outgroup ergo with enough e-risk paperclip minimization, we can drop p(doom) with lowered replacement fertility levels via lethargy from cannabis consumption, meaning marijuana is a hedon machine and positively utilitarian. Legalizing marijuana is effectively altruistic.

Clearly, weed is good

Couching it in pseudo-scientific babble doesn't change the fact that it's an isolated data point, and you're vying for the olympic goal for jumping to conclusions.

he's being ironic

https://i.rdrama.net/images/17204020385384521.webp

So you agree as Bayesian prior’s are literally assumptions.

Anecdata.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com