Newsletter Participation

[Energizer]

In the Back of the Tiger raw interviews Ray sounds a bit let down by how few people have responded to his newsletters with critical inquiry for example by looking into the studies and ideas that have influenced them. For those of us that are subscribed to his newsletter, perhaps we can renew the effort by emailing him if we pick up on anything that doesn't sound right, checking the sources in his articles and newsletters, and the ideas and also just jumping "off" more with questions we might have from the newsletters / articles. Sort of like a "virtual classroom"

As long as the criticism is coming from a familiarity with his work, I think it would be reasonable.

I think there's a lot of fear that people will overwhelm Ray, but it seems he is underwhelmed by the critical responses from people that have read his stuff to his work. He has said (paraphrasing) that the investigation into understanding reality is never complete and a collaborative effort would help out greatly.

What do you guys think of this idea?

 

[jb116]

In the Back of the Tiger raw interviews Ray sounds a bit let down by how few people have responded to his newsletters with critical inquiry for example by looking into the studies and ideas that have influenced them. For those of us that are subscribed to his newsletter, perhaps we can renew the effort by emailing him if we pick up on anything that doesn't sound right, checking the sources in his articles and newsletters, and the ideas and also just jumping "off" more with questions we might have from the newsletters / articles. Sort of like a "virtual classroom"

As long as the criticism is coming from a familiarity with his work, I think it would be reasonable.

I think there's a lot of fear that people will overwhelm Ray, but it seems he is underwhelmed by the critical responses from people that have read his stuff to his work. He has said (paraphrasing) that investigative work is never complete and a collaborative effort would help out greatly.

What do you guys think of this idea?

I think that Ray is unpredictable in what he responds to or how he responds. Even just email for example can be hit or miss. I've totally stopped emailing him because of this so I wouldn't even know where to begin in how to ask questions directly related to his newsletters.

 

[lampofred]

I think the only people who can talk to him on a critical scientific level are people of the caliber of Gerald Pollack, interviewees of On the Back of a Tiger.

I feel comfortable asking him ordinary questions but I would feel arrogant trying to debate his work.

 

[Lejeboca]

In the Back of the Tiger raw interviews Ray sounds a bit let down by how few people have responded to his newsletters with critical inquiry for example by looking into the studies and ideas that have influenced them. For those of us that are subscribed to his newsletter, perhaps we can renew the effort by emailing him if we pick up on anything that doesn't sound right, checking the sources in his articles and newsletters, and the ideas and also just jumping "off" more with questions we might have from the newsletters / articles. Sort of like a "virtual classroom"

As long as the criticism is coming from a familiarity with his work, I think it would be reasonable.

I think there's a lot of fear that people will overwhelm Ray, but it seems he is underwhelmed by the critical responses from people that have read his stuff to his work. He has said (paraphrasing) that the investigation into understanding reality is never complete and a collaborative effort would help out greatly.

What do you guys think of this idea?

Do you have a point to where in the interview he talks about this ?

My recollection of this part of the interview is that his sentiment was more about questions/requests to extend and further his ideas into other (possibly uncharted) directions rather than an invitation of a criticism per se. But I don't have on hand a reference within his interview where I've heard this.

I do think could be doable for us (collectively) to come up with such requests/questions, i.e., those that merit longer responses than what is possible in his audio interviews or email replies.

 

[mrchibbs]

I think the only people who can talk to him on a critical scientific level are people of the caliber of Gerald Pollack, interviewees of On the Back of a Tiger.

I feel comfortable asking him ordinary questions but I would feel arrogant trying to debate his work.

Sometimes it can be easy to forget, from listening to YouTube interviews, or even reading many of his newsletters, the level of scientific sophistication that Ray has. Then you read something like Mind & Tissue, or sometimes he completely loses Patrick Timpone on ORN, which I find incredibly funny.

 

[Energizer]

Do you have a point to where in the interview he talks about this ?

My recollection of this part of the interview is that his sentiment was more about questions/requests to extend and further his ideas into other (possibly uncharted) directions rather than an invitation of a criticism per se. But I don't have on hand a reference within his interview where I've heard this.

I do think could be doable for us (collectively) to come up with such requests/questions, i.e., those that merit longer responses than what is possible in his audio interviews or email replies.

It's in the raw interviews of On the Back of the Tiger and they haven't released those except I think maybe to some of the kickstarter backers but I found them elsewhere. He basically says he had higher hopes that his newsletter would generate more feedback. Not just criticism, but feedback overall. But on the bright side he did say that people keep sending him lots of interesting things.

I'm not sure whether to post them or not without Brad and Jeremy's permission. @bradley what do you think about posting the raw interview audio?

I think that Ray is unpredictable in what he responds to or how he responds. Even just email for example can be hit or miss. I've totally stopped emailing him because of this so I wouldn't even know where to begin in how to ask questions directly related to his newsletters.

I get your sentiment, but I wouldn't lose heart to keep emailing him. Maybe he's just trying to not encourage something that is going in the wrong direction. The one time I emailed him he responded back almost immediately.

I think the only people who can talk to him on a critical scientific level are people of the caliber of Gerald Pollack, interviewees of On the Back of a Tiger.

I feel comfortable asking him ordinary questions but I would feel arrogant trying to debate his work.

Well, everyone is different. But I understand your reluctance. I just don't think the barrier to participation is as high as you are claiming. I imagine there are people out there that could challenge some of the ideas he writes about or differ in some ways that could be useful, and they may not necessarily be PhD Gerald Pollacks. Maybe they have some insight or know of some research that he might not know of, you might be surprised. For example, Pranarupa / Vashinvetala's blog, which Ray himself said was very entertaining.

Since Ray Peat isn't an insecure fellow nor a narcissist that needs people to suck up to him to feel good, he would very much welcome critical responses from us. So it's good that @Energizer for bringing this up with us. I'm glad that he has given us the green light on this. We should try to gang up on him and ask him really very challenging questions. We need to provoke his mind, to continue to let his mind develop. Seriously.

Even without the refereces he's included in his newsletters, what he writes invites a lot of questions that the short time of interviews with Patrick Timpone or with Jodelle or with the Herb Doctor can't really fit into. A of times, he goes over my head and I'd have to think deep and hard to unpack their meaning. On the last newsletter, I asked the questions to the forum, and I got answers that helped me understand his meaning.

But I'll admit that up until now, I have always considered Ray Peat to be a guru in the classical Oriental sense, where my only role is to listen and as. So the few times I've written to him, it's always to ask for an opinion. I've not challenged him on his ideas except for one time. And he didn't get back to me. I don't know why he didn't get back to me, but maybe he was just too busy.

On the references, I've began to look them up now. Not all of course, but those that interest me. Having SciHub is a godsend, and I like to use the fresh receipt of his newsletter to dig in. As if I defer it, I end up not doing it.

I think I'll start to just try to understand his newsletters more, and go to the references if I needed more detail. I won't be looking to challenge him, but when I have some doubt or disagreement with him, I won't shy away from writing him.

 

[yerrag]

Since Ray Peat isn't an insecure fellow nor a narcissist that needs people to suck up to him to feel good, he would very much welcome critical responses from us. So it's good that @Energizer is bringing this up with us. I'm glad that he has given us the green light on this. We should try to gang up on him and ask him really very challenging questions. We need to provoke his mind, to continue to let his mind develop. Seriously.

Even without the references he's included in his newsletters, what he writes invites a lot of questions than the short time of interviews with Patrick Timpone or with Jodelle or with the Herb Doctor can allow. A lot of times, he goes over my head and I'd have to think deep and hard to unpack their meaning. On the last newsletter, I asked the questions to the forum, and I got answers that helped me understand his meaning.

But I'll admit that up until now, I have always considered Ray Peat to be a guru in the classical Oriental sense, where my only role is to listen and ask. So the few times I've written to him, it's always to ask for an opinion. I've not challenged him on his ideas except for one time. And he didn't get back to me. I don't know why he didn't get back to me, but maybe he was just too busy.

On the references, I've began to look them up now. Not all of course, but those that interest me. Having SciHub is a godsend, and I like to use the fresh receipt of his newsletter to dig in. As if I defer it, I end up not doing it.

I think I'll start to just try to understand his newsletters more, and go to the references if I needed more detail. I won't be looking to challenge him, but when I have some doubt or disagreement with him, I won't shy away from writing him.

 

[Recoen]

It's in the raw interviews of On the Back of the Tiger and they haven't released those except I think maybe to some of the kickstarter backers but I found them elsewhere. He basically says he had higher hopes that his newsletter would generate more feedback. Not just criticism, but feedback overall. But on the bright side he did say that people keep sending him lots of interesting things.

I'm not sure whether to post them or not without Brad and Jeremy's permission. @bradley what do you think about posting the raw interview audio?



I get your sentiment, but I wouldn't lose heart to keep emailing him. Maybe he's just trying to not encourage something that is going in the wrong direction. The one time I emailed him he responded back almost immediately.



Well, everyone is different. But I understand your reluctance. I just don't think the barrier to participation is as high as you are claiming. I imagine there are people out there that could challenge some of the ideas he writes about or differ in some ways that could be useful, and they may not necessarily be PhD Gerald Pollacks. Maybe they have some insight or know of some research that he might not know of, you might be surprised. For example, , which Ray himself said was very entertaining.

Will you post a link to Pranarupa / Vashinvetala's blog please?

Do you email his newsletter email?

 

[Energizer]

Will you post a link to Pranarupa / Vashinvetala's blog please?

Do you email his newsletter email?

Certainly. Here you go:
headstand – Vashinvetala

No, his personal email: r a y p e a t @ g m a i l . c o m without the spaces

 

[BingDing]

I've never understood who RP's intended audience is for his newsletters. When I first started reading them I had to look up word after word because I don't have a background in organic chemistry or cell biology . I've learned a lot in the past eight years but still have a hard time understanding what he wants to say when I read his newsletters.

I feel like a churlish creep and an ingrate to say this, but I think Ray Peat is a very poor writer.