I Asked Peat About His Legacy

M

metabolizm

Guest
I find it interesting that Peat talks about ending the digital culture but, as far as I can tell, spends a great chunk of his time online, reading articles and gathering research for his newsletters - not to mention reading and replying to emails, and reading online news sources. I can only assume that he's now come to depend on the internet to keep abreast of everything that's happening, and probably doesn't see a way around this, like most of us. I'd love to hear how this frequent internet use affects his health, and whether he simply sees it as a necessarily evil.
 

supercoolguy

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2015
Messages
411
I find it interesting that Peat talks about ending the digital culture but, as far as I can tell, spends a great chunk of his time online, reading articles and gathering research for his newsletters - not to mention reading and replying to emails, and reading online news sources. I can only assume that he's now come to depend on the internet to keep abreast of everything that's happening, and probably doesn't see a way around this, like most of us. I'd love to hear how this frequent internet use affects his health, and whether he simply sees it as a necessarily evil.

Yes, Interesting it would be.
 

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
I find it interesting that Peat talks about ending the digital culture but, as far as I can tell, spends a great chunk of his time online, reading articles and gathering research for his newsletters - not to mention reading and replying to emails, and reading online news sources. I can only assume that he's now come to depend on the internet to keep abreast of everything that's happening, and probably doesn't see a way around this, like most of us. I'd love to hear how this frequent internet use affects his health, and whether he simply sees it as a necessarily evil.
I think you're not putting his opinion in context.

There is nothing to indicate that Peat prefers to have his newsletters mailed out by slow mail than to send it out by email. His ideas published in paper does nothing to make it better than his ideas published in a pdf format. The metadata and the data are the same. For the reader, there is no difference at all except for the physical material used - one is ink and paper, the other is the screen and the representation of letters delivered and stored in digital form but presented on screen as letters, words, and paragraphs.

No one would call Peat a hypocrite for using email for distribution, but he would be called a Luddite if he preferred to still mail out his newsletter. Perhaps, he would also be criticized for making it less convenient for subscribers to share his work.

For the same reason, Ray would not also insist on reading material if they came published in paper. He understands well enough what matters is the meaning conveyed in the text, regardless of it being in digital form or in paper form.

But when the capture, storage, and interpretation of data is spoiled by digitization, then Ray Peat would see that as a problem.

Compare a doctor in the Amazon and a doctor in John Hopkins when they test a patient for hypothyroidism. The former would use analog tools as well as a mind optimized for analog observation, data collecting, and interpretation. This analog training doesn't see things in binary. It doesn't have a strict cut-off value to determine a person is hypo, eu, or hyperthyroid. He combines all his observations together, including those that cannot be digitized, and interprets it. He uses a simple neuro hammer to test the Achilles tendon reflex. He has to know how to do the test, as it's not simply a matter of pushing a button to get it done.

The latter would instruct the patient to go to the lab and take a blood test panel called a thyroid panel. This would consist of TSH, T3, T4, and more often not, it would not include the reverse T3. When the test results are received by the doctor, he would simply look at the numbers, and then determine based purely on those numbers if the person is hypo, eu, or hyperthyroid.

And because the latter costs more and has gee whiz "advanced" technology, it is seen by the uninitiated as superior and more trustworthy for superior interpretation, that it has high specificity and high sensitivity, meaning a high accuracy of interpretation whether the test shows a person to be negative of hypothyroidism or hyperthyroidism or positive of it.

But Ray Peat would not agree with that thinking, because the digital culture dispenses with a lot of data, and the lack of data makes the interpretation subject to error. And the reliance on digital data also makes the interpreter rely too much on the things that can be measured, and makes him dispense with the need to observe and obtain qualitative data, and to ask questions, and the need to overrule what the digital data is presenting, before making his interpretation.

That, I think, is what Ray Peat means when he laments the digitized or digital culture.
 
Last edited:
M

metabolizm

Guest
I think you're not putting his opinion in context.

There is nothing to indicate that Peat prefers to have his newsletters mailed out by slow mail than to send it out by email. His ideas published in paper does nothing to make it better than his ideas published in a pdf format. The metadata and the data are the same. For the reader, there is no difference at all except for the physical material used - one is ink and paper, the other is the screen and the representation of letters delivered and stored in digital form but presented on screen as letters, words, and paragraphs.

No one would call Peat a hypocrite for using email for distribution, but he would be called a Luddite if he preferred to still mail out his newsletter. Perhaps, he would also be criticized for making it less convenient for subscribers to share his work.

For the same reason, Ray would not also insist on reading material if they came published in paper. He understands well enough what matters is the meaning conveyed in the text, regardless of it being in digital form or in paper form.

But when the capture, storage, and interpretation of data is spoiled by digitization, then Ray Peat would see that as a problem.

Compare a doctor in the Amazon and a doctor in John Hopkins when they test a patient for hypothyroidism. The former would use analog tools as well as a mind optimized for analog observation, data collecting, and interpretation. This analog training doesn't see things in binary. It doesn't have a strict cut-off value to determine a person is hypo, eu, or hyperthyroid. He combines all his observations together, including those that cannot be digitized, and interprets it. He uses a simple neuro hammer to test the Achilles tendon reflex. He has to know how to do the test, as it's not simply a matter of pushing a button to get it done.

The latter would instruct the patient to go to the lab and take a blood test panel called a thyroid panel. This would consist of TSH, T3, T4, and more often not, it would not include the reverse T3. When the test results are received by the doctor, he would simply look at the numbers, and then determine based purely on those numbers if the person is hypo, eu, or hyperthyroid.

And because the latter costs more and has gee whiz "advanced" technology, it is seen by the uninitiated as superior and more trustworthy for superior interpretation, that it has high specificity and high sensitivity, meaning a high accuracy of interpretation whether the test shows a person to be negative of hypothyroidism or hyperthyroidism or positive of it.

But Ray Peat would not agree with that thinking, because the digital culture dispenses with a lot of data, and the lack of data makes the interpretation subject to error. And the reliance on digital data also makes the interpreter rely too much on the things that can be measured, and makes him dispense with the need to observe and obtain qualitative data, and to ask questions, and the need to overrule what the digital data is presenting, before making his interpretation.

That, I think, is what Ray Peat means when he laments the digitized or digital culture.

Yeah, I think you're probably right. It's easy to misinterpret "digital culture" as just "the internet and smartphones", but it would seem Ray is referring to something deeper than that - a way of thinking. The different methods for determining thyroid function are a good example.
 

Luann

Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2016
Messages
1,615
I find it interesting that Peat talks about ending the digital culture but, as far as I can tell, spends a great chunk of his time online, reading articles and gathering research for his newsletters - not to mention reading and replying to emails, and reading online news sources. I can only assume that he's now come to depend on the internet to keep abreast of everything that's happening, and probably doesn't see a way around this, like most of us. I'd love to hear how this frequent internet use affects his health, and whether he simply sees it as a necessarily evil.

well, i sort of have this concept of using digital means to fix some problems that were caused by digital culture, or proto-digital-culture. Peat is doing something like that
Yeah, I think you're probably right. It's easy to misinterpret "digital culture" as just "the internet and smartphones", but it would seem Ray is referring to something deeper than that - a way of thinking. The different methods for determining thyroid function are a good example.
i like this summary. i have just started reading Dmitry Orlov and his ideas seem to overlap here. human brains relying on machine processes etc
 

lampofred

Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
3,244
Yeah, I think you're probably right. It's easy to misinterpret "digital culture" as just "the internet and smartphones", but it would seem Ray is referring to something deeper than that - a way of thinking. The different methods for determining thyroid function are a good example.

the thyroid example is really good. pulse and temperatures don't lie, abstract things like TSH, free T3, free T4, don't really mean much because they are metrics without context. i wonder what other health related things can be viewed from the analog lens as opposed to digital?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom