Elizabeth

Wiki Contributions

Comments

Looking at the list, I don't see any vitamins or minerals listed. It tests a variety of markers, but not raw micronutrients.

Lightspeed grants were just announced, with a July 6th deadline. They are unusually promising as a source of funding, so it might be worth your while to meet that deadline. 

I see it did cite a specific vegan hazard ratio, however that ratio is tied with pescetarianism in men, and well above both pescetarianism and 1/week meat consumption in women. If you take this at face value it suggests small-but-present meat consumption, in addition to millk and eggs, are good for women, and fish at least is good for men. 

[Note that the pescevegetarian and semivegetarian categories include unlimited milk and egg consumption]

 

Thank you for the empathy, this has been extremely challenging.

I think something similar to "why the post gave you the impression it did" could be helpful, and I'm even more interested in what you think could be done to convey the important, true points with as little animosity-due-to-misreading as possible

I feel like I'm in a bit of a trap here.

I don't think anyone thought "oh, Elizabeth's statement is obviously true but I will argue with her and make obviously false claims" while twirling a mustache. That's not how people work. But I also think my words were extremely clear, and if they're being misread this often there's a systemic problem in the readers. 

I realize this is a big claim; frequent misunderstandings are by default the fault of the author. But a lot of people got it, and I don't know what I could have done to get a different outcome. You can argue the framing of the post was suspicious, and I can see why that would be true for this post and why it would make people overly aggressive in rebuttals. But what about when I was offering nutritional tests and vegan supplements? And that one was at least pretty overt, some private ones were mental jui-jitsu to which my only defense was stating my own opinions very plainly.

Relatedly: this is not my first time asking for this evidence. Every time I posted installments of my nutrition testing program, someone would say "this sample size is too small" and I'd say "you are correct, do you know of anything better?", and nothing would come of it. It took this post for someone to send me the 7th Day Adventist data. 

So if I focus on productively treating the object level problem, people push back in ways that can't be argued with because they're not epistemically cooperative. If I try to engage in a way that feels epistemically tractable, people get even angrier and impugn my motives more. 

Given the context I laid out, is there anything I could have done to create a more productive discussion with you, personally?

It feels weird to me that you describe this as "missing context", when the whole point of the post is "I might be missing evidence, please show it to me". The 7DA data is easily the best answer I've gotten so far and it makes me very glad I asked. 

What kind of certainty are you looking for? Can applicants change their mind between being offered money and starting the project? If you're considering multiple projects, should you apply separately for them?

This feels very epistemically cooperative, thank you.

The answer is primarily point 1,  although whether that's distinct from point 2 depends on the definition of "widely recognized" .  Which brings me to your question:

in which case I’m still confused why you wrote this post instead of just presenting this information

The answer is that I did present the information, and proactively provided help, and I got pushback that only made sense if people disagreed with "veganism is a constraint on a multidimensional problem". But they would never defend that position.  Announcing my own view and asking for counter-evidence was my Plan C after "offering help" and "asking why certain people thought that help was harmful" failed. 

Load More