Should we Inject Skepticism Into The Way of Peat?

[narouz]

...and another related article, again from Sullivan's site.
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2010/05/24/compassionate-realism/

Compassion Meets Skepticism
MAY 24 2010 @ 7:59AM
Development expert William Easterly rides the lecture circuit:

I feel kind of like I am on a long personal intellectual journey trying to figure out how to reconcile my compassion for the world’s poor with my painfully honest realization that there is no reliable evidence on exactly what to do to end poverty. Each new public lecture is trying out a solution to the conundrum on a smart audience, and then they educate me some more to take the next step (which will be tried in the next lecture).

I am trying to convince people that rigorous skepticism is a creative force because most of the damage is done by overconfident people who thought they knew the answer when they didn’t.

 

[narouz]

A Thought Experiment

A thought experiment for your consideration:

Let's imagine that a new Peat-oriented forum comes into existence.
Before being able to post, one must first become a member.
When one clicks on the "register" button,
one is guided to this screen and these greetings and messages:

[centre]"Welcome to the Peat Belief Forum!
We hope you will make a new and cozy home for yourself here!

At Peat Belief Forum we understand that many of you come to us
after rocky routes through other destructive diet programs.
This can truly be stressful, depressing, and even disabling.

Here, as we say, we hope you will find a sheltering haven and home.
Here, you know you will be surrounded by fellow believers.
We know this, because no Peat disbelievers are allowed!

At Peat Belief Forum we promote and trust in the ideas of the great man, Ray Peat.
Trust, belief, and optimism are our watchwords!
If you don't want to share in the spirit of those watchwords,
Peat Belief Forum is not for you.

At Peat Belief Forum, this is what we believe:
The Peat diet is clearly the most delicious diet ever invented by man.
And it is an easy, almost effortless diet:
no fussy restrictions, no limits, no suffering.
His diet is almost unlimited and is as varied as the paradise of nature's bounty!
The diet redefines the concept of "satisfaction":
when you eat this diet, you will have no other wants or desires or cravings.
Almost as soon as the first gelatin package melts in your mouth,
you will begin to get in touch with your natural, instinctual appetites.
All the evil foods of your past will quickly become repulsive to you!
The Ray Peat diet is a limitless garden of sensual and aesthetic delight.
Everyone at this forum agrees to this--in advance!
We like to say here at Peat Belief Forum,
if you can't say something nice about Peat,
don't say anything at all!

At Peat Belief Forum, you will never experience negativity, doubt, or confusion--
and the resulting stress those mental states incur.
We encourage optimism, positivity, devotion, trust and hope.
Not only do we encourage it, we demand it!
It is the least we can do in our mission to provide you with a Peat haven and home.
We are a place of healing--not rancor and doubt!

Let's get started!
Let's begin the journey to PeatDom together, unified as brothers and sisters!
Let us always keep the light of belief firmly in front of us as our goal,
and banish to the wasteland any doubts or uncertainty!
May Peat be with you![/centre]

Please choose the number which most closely sums up your impression or reaction:

1. Sign me up!

2. Too negative...count me out.

3. Sounds pretty good as far as they go,
but I'd like more assurances that no negative posters would be allowed.

4. I like the emphasis on solidarity--brotherhood and sisterhood. I'm in!

5. I'm attracted to the non-stressful environment,
but would we be allowed to continue with our prescription anti-depressants?

6. They never straight-up say that Peat is a hero
and that he is always right.
That's a deal-breaker for me.

7. The diet sounds way to restrictive to me. No way.

8. Bottom line: do they provide Lithium or strong sedatives if we don't find peace there?
Until they provide this guarantee in writing, no way I join.

9. For me, I don't care what Peat says; I just want everbody to agree with it.
They avoid making a clear statement to this effect. Not joining until they do.

10. I'm skeptical. I prefer an honest, open exchange of critical thinking, even if
that proves a little stressful. I like the idea of finding a Peat support system,
but not at the expense of being able to express my honest thoughts civilly.

11. Other

 

[tobieagle]

Re: A Thought Experiment

[centre]"Welcome to the Peat Belief Forum!
We hope you will make a new and cozy home for yourself here!

At Peat Belief Forum we understand that many of you come to us
after rocky routes through other destructive diet programs.
This can truly be stressful, depressing, and even disabling.

Here, as we say, we hope you will find a sheltering haven and home.
Here, you know you will be surrounded by fellow believers.
We know this, because no Peat disbelievers are allowed!

At Peat Belief Forum we promote and trust in the ideas of the great man, Ray Peat.
Trust, belief, and optimism are our watchwords!
If you don't want to share in the spirit of those watchwords,
Peat Belief Forum is not for you.

At Peat Belief Forum, this is what we believe:
The Peat diet is clearly the most delicious diet ever invented by man.
And it is an easy, almost effortless diet:
no fussy restrictions, no limits, no suffering.
His diet is almost unlimited and is as varied as the paradise of nature's bounty!
The diet redefines the concept of "satisfaction":
when you eat this diet, you will have no other wants or desires or cravings.
Almost as soon as the first gelatin package melts in your mouth,
you will begin to get in touch with your natural, instinctual appetites.
All the evil foods of your past will quickly become repulsive to you!
The Ray Peat diet is a limitless garden of sensual and aesthetic delight.
Everyone at this forum agrees to this--in advance!
We like to say here at Peat Belief Forum,
if you can't say something nice about Peat,
don't say anything at all!

At Peat Belief Forum, you will never experience negativity, doubt, or confusion--
and the resulting stress those mental states incur.
We encourage optimism, positivity, devotion, trust and hope.
Not only do we encourage it, we demand it!
It is the least we can do in our mission to provide you with a Peat haven and home.
We are a place of healing--not rancor and doubt!

Let's get started!
Let's begin the journey to PeatDom together, unified as brothers and sisters!
Let us always keep the light of belief firmly in front of us as our goal,
and banish to the wasteland any doubts or uncertainty!
May Peat be with you![/centre]

made my day

 

[4peatssake]

Oh what the hell!

Bertrand Russell on skepticism and dogma

“Neither acquiescence in skepticism nor acquiescence in dogma is what education should produce. What it should produce is a belief that knowledge is attainable in a measure, though with difficulty; that much of what passes for knowledge at any given time is likely to be more or less mistaken, but that the mistakes can be rectified by care and industry. In acting upon our beliefs, we should be very cautious where a small error would mean disaster; nevertheless it is upon our beliefs that we must act.

This state of mind is rather difficult: it requires a high degree of intellectual culture without emotional atrophy. But though difficult, it is not impossible; it is in fact the scientific temper. Knowledge, like other good things, is difficult, but not impossible; the dogmatist forgets the difficulty, the skeptic denies the possibility. Both are mistaken, and their errors, when widespread, produce social disaster.”

— Bertrand Russell, British philosopher, logician, mathematician, historian, Nobel Prize Laureate in Literature (1872-1970), On Education, Especially in Early Childhood, 1926

About Russell

Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell, OM, FRS (18 May 1872 – 2 February 1970) was a British philosopher, logician, mathematician, historian, and social critic. At various points in his life he considered himself a liberal, a socialist, and a pacifist, but he also admitted that he had never been any of these in any profound sense. He was born in Monmouthshire, into one of the most prominent aristocratic families in Britain.

Russell led the British "revolt against idealism" in the early 20th century. He is considered one of the founders of analytic philosophy along with his predecessor Gottlob Frege and his protégé Ludwig Wittgenstein. He is widely held to be one of the 20th century's premier logicians. He co-authored, with A. N. Whitehead, Principia Mathematica, an attempt to ground mathematics on logic. His philosophical essay "On Denoting" has been considered a "paradigm of philosophy." His work has had a considerable influence on logic, mathematics, set theory, linguistics, computer science (see type theory and type system), and philosophy, especially philosophy of language, epistemology, and metaphysics.

Russell was a prominent anti-war activist; he championed anti-imperialism and went to prison for his pacifism during World War I. Later, he campaigned against Adolf Hitler, then criticised Stalinist totalitarianism, attacked the United States of America's involvement in the Vietnam War, and was an outspoken proponent of nuclear disarmament. In 1950, Russell was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature, "in recognition of his varied and significant writings in which he champions humanitarian ideals and freedom of thought."

Ray Peat on Bertrand Russell

Bertrand Russell (1872-1970), orphaned at the age of four, went to live with his grandmother, who chose not to send him to school, but provided tutors. He didn't experience a sense of academic pressure, and was able to read whatever he wanted in his late grandfather's library. He didn't realize that he was unusually bright until he went to Cambridge. The unusual freedom of his childhood must have contributed to his willingness to hold unpopular opinions. In 1916 he was fined, and in 1918 imprisoned for 6 months, for opposing the war.

In 1927, Russell and his wife, Dora Black, started a school. He later wrote that, although the average student at the school was very bright, an exceptionally bright student was likely to be ostracized by the less bright students. He commented on the harm done to the brightest students by their social isolation, probably thinking about his own education in relative isolation.

This entire article by Ray is fantastic and gives great insight into his thinking about education, intelligence and the pursuit of knowledge.

http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/intelligence.shtml

When questions are answered, curiosity is rewarded, and the person is enlivened. In school, when following instructions and conforming to a routine is the main business, many questions must go unanswered, and curiosity is punished by the dulling emptiness of the routine.

Narouz, I'm going to throw down the gauntlet here and invite you to consider suspending judgement for a short while to really consider what both Bertrand Russell and Ray Peat are actually saying. You can see the Peat is an admirer of Bertrand and applauds him as a "free thinker," making special note of how he was able to develop his intellect outside the confines of academia - The unusual freedom of his childhood must have contributed to his willingness to hold unpopular opinions.

I daresay the person holding on to dogma here is you, Narouz and your stubborn refusal to even consider for but a moment an argument against skeptism being necessary in the attainment of true knowledge, true scientific discovery and free thinking.

Do you actually study Ray Peat?

 

[Jenn]

"I tend to challenge the orthodoxy of the forum that Peat's diet is delicious, varied, satisfying, fun, easy, whatever."

Hon...you haven't tasted MY cooking.

What time's dinner?

Sorry...we just ate. We had an orange cheesecake smoothie....Oh, and I had a pickle too. :P Oh, and some hard candy afterwards.

 

[j.]

No one posting in this thread is hypothyroid. Hypothyroid people don't have this much energy to waste.

 

[4peatssake]

"I tend to challenge the orthodoxy of the forum that Peat's diet is delicious, varied, satisfying, fun, easy, whatever."

Hon...you haven't tasted MY cooking.

What time's dinner?

Sorry...we just ate. We had an orange cheesecake smoothie....Oh, and I had a pickle too. :P Oh, and some hard candy afterwards.

Another time then? I'm just about to eat - potatoes for me, loaded with butter N salt- I love them so.

Have already had coffee, milk, gelatin, sugar.

But first I must go immediately to your blog and find that orange cheesecake smoothie recipe! That'll be on tomorrow's menu!

 

[Jenn]

Re: A Thought Experiment

11. Other

This one. I am not a Peat worshiper. I think he's right about a lot of things related to bodily functions but a terrible writer. He seriously needs an editor. I take what I want an leave the rest.

You are not really in your body are you? You never really KNOW when something is right. It's an intellectual exercise that never really gets answered in your being. Your structure is outside of your self.

You are dealing with people who have gut instincts about things (the ones who are really bothered by the perceived lack of substance. ) who KNOW when they have found something that works for them.

 

[narouz]

Oh what the hell!

Bertrand Russell on skepticism and dogma

“Neither acquiescence in skepticism nor acquiescence in dogma is what education should produce. What it should produce is a belief that knowledge is attainable in a measure, though with difficulty; that much of what passes for knowledge at any given time is likely to be more or less mistaken, but that the mistakes can be rectified by care and industry. In acting upon our beliefs, we should be very cautious where a small error would mean disaster; nevertheless it is upon our beliefs that we must act.

This state of mind is rather difficult: it requires a high degree of intellectual culture without emotional atrophy. But though difficult, it is not impossible; it is in fact the scientific temper. Knowledge, like other good things, is difficult, but not impossible; the dogmatist forgets the difficulty, the skeptic denies the possibility. Both are mistaken, and their errors, when widespread, produce social disaster.”

— Bertrand Russell, British philosopher, logician, mathematician, historian, Nobel Prize Laureate in Literature (1872-1970), On Education, Especially in Early Childhood, 1926

About Russell

Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell, OM, FRS (18 May 1872 – 2 February 1970) was a British philosopher, logician, mathematician, historian, and social critic. At various points in his life he considered himself a liberal, a socialist, and a pacifist, but he also admitted that he had never been any of these in any profound sense. He was born in Monmouthshire, into one of the most prominent aristocratic families in Britain.

Russell led the British "revolt against idealism" in the early 20th century. He is considered one of the founders of analytic philosophy along with his predecessor Gottlob Frege and his protégé Ludwig Wittgenstein. He is widely held to be one of the 20th century's premier logicians. He co-authored, with A. N. Whitehead, Principia Mathematica, an attempt to ground mathematics on logic. His philosophical essay "On Denoting" has been considered a "paradigm of philosophy." His work has had a considerable influence on logic, mathematics, set theory, linguistics, computer science (see type theory and type system), and philosophy, especially philosophy of language, epistemology, and metaphysics.

Russell was a prominent anti-war activist; he championed anti-imperialism and went to prison for his pacifism during World War I. Later, he campaigned against Adolf Hitler, then criticised Stalinist totalitarianism, attacked the United States of America's involvement in the Vietnam War, and was an outspoken proponent of nuclear disarmament. In 1950, Russell was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature, "in recognition of his varied and significant writings in which he champions humanitarian ideals and freedom of thought."

Ray Peat on Bertrand Russell

Bertrand Russell (1872-1970), orphaned at the age of four, went to live with his grandmother, who chose not to send him to school, but provided tutors. He didn't experience a sense of academic pressure, and was able to read whatever he wanted in his late grandfather's library. He didn't realize that he was unusually bright until he went to Cambridge. The unusual freedom of his childhood must have contributed to his willingness to hold unpopular opinions. In 1916 he was fined, and in 1918 imprisoned for 6 months, for opposing the war.

In 1927, Russell and his wife, Dora Black, started a school. He later wrote that, although the average student at the school was very bright, an exceptionally bright student was likely to be ostracized by the less bright students. He commented on the harm done to the brightest students by their social isolation, probably thinking about his own education in relative isolation.

This entire article by Ray is fantastic and gives great insight into his thinking about education, intelligence and the pursuit of knowledge.

http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/intelligence.shtml

When questions are answered, curiosity is rewarded, and the person is enlivened. In school, when following instructions and conforming to a routine is the main business, many questions must go unanswered, and curiosity is punished by the dulling emptiness of the routine.

Narouz, I'm going to throw down the gauntlet here and invite you to consider suspending judgement for a short while to really consider what both Bertrand Russell and Ray Peat are actually saying. You can see the Peat is an admirer of Bertrand and applauds him as a "free thinker," making special note of how he was able to develop his intellect outside the confines of academia - The unusual freedom of his childhood must have contributed to his willingness to hold unpopular opinions.

I daresay the person holding on to dogma here is you, Narouz and your stubborn refusal to even consider for but a moment an argument against skeptism being necessary in the attainment of true knowledge, true scientific discovery and free thinking.

Do you actually study Ray Peat?

I have read that article by Peat, but not recently and not with the specific topic of "skepticism" in mind.
It is interesting to note Peat's comments on Russell
and to wonder how (if any) and to what extent he might share Russell's take on skepticism.
But I don't see anything here to support a conclusion that Peat subscribed to Russell's
specific and unique terminology and views in regard to skepticism and dogma.
It would seem that Russell sortuv redefines skepticism in his own way.
I mean, relying upon the normal definitions of the word,
if we say someone is skeptical,
that does not mean that he/she can believe nothing.
Those are the general meanings of the word I have in mind
when I say that Peat is skeptical.

But it is an interesting linkage, Russell and Peat.
Worth further exploration.

Do I "study" Peat?
I wouldn't say so.
I read and listen to a whole lot of his stuff, but "study"...I wouldn't choose that word.

 

[4peatssake]

Re: A Thought Experiment

This one. I am not a Peat worshiper. I think he's right about a lot of things related to bodily functions but a terrible writer. He seriously needs an editor.

HA that is fun. I love his writing. And I'm an editor!!!



But Peat worshiper, I certainly am not.

I take what I want an leave the rest.

Words to live by.

 

[narouz]

Re: A Thought Experiment

You are not really in your body are you? You never really KNOW when something is right. It's an intellectual exercise that never really gets answered in your being. Your structure is outside of your self.

You are dealing with people who have gut instincts about things (the ones who are really bothered by the perceived lack of substance. ) who KNOW when they have found something that works for them.

I'm not sure if you're directing these to questions/statements to me, specifically, Jenn.
I mean when you use "you" this way--maybe it's the indefinite or abstract "you"...?

But, assuming you do mean me:
"You are not really in your body are you?"
Well...I have been under that impression.

"You never really KNOW when something is right."
Here too...I would say that I do sometimes really know that.
For instance, I know within about 15 seconds whether like a song.
Is that the same thing as knowing that it is "right"...?
I guess. Right for me.

"It's an intellectual exercise that never really gets answered in your being."
I wouldn't say that I only know if "something is right" through an "intellectual exercise."
I mean...I know, say, if a girl is pretty to me without thinking about it.
I knew a few minutes ago that I needed to use the bathroom without thinking about it.
I knew when I went outside a while ago that it was too cold and I put on my jacket without
much if any "intellectual exercise."
I knew that I liked the medium cheddar cheese better than the sharp, at breakfast,
although my intellect was, arguably, involved....

"You are dealing with people who have gut instincts about things...who KNOW when they have found something that works for them."

Okay. I do understand notion of "gut instincts."
And I understand the idea that people can "know" certain things through "gut instincts"
and that people "know when they have found something that works for them."
And, I don't have a problem accepting the possibility that I am "dealing with people"
who know things in those ways.
I guess I know certain things in those ways, too, maybe.

Then again...I haven't devoted a lot of thought to this whole "gut instinct" thing.
It would seem to probably be misleadingly named.
I mean...how much do we really know based in our digestive organs?
As I think on it, it would seem pretty clearly to be a kind of metaphor:
the idea that we know something without using our intellects...based sheerly in our body....

Anyhoo...
...is it an argument against skepticism on the forum?
I'm not grasping it.

"...(the ones who are really bothered by the perceived lack of substance. )..."

I suppose this could be a reference to your estimate of the content of my posts.
I'm guessing you don't think too much of them.
If so, I'm okay with that. :)

 

[Rayser]

Dear narouz,

again I want to emphasize that I never meant to hurt your feelings. You sound like a nice person and if it was a pat on the back you were looking for I would gladly offer it. I think it is amazing how many people find the time between their jobs and private lives (and that includes everybody in this forum) to evolve, to study, to improve and to help others. I read the peatarian-forum, too but I noticed that here, in the raypeatforum, lots of people showed up with problems and actually received the help they needed. It made my eyes water to read about their success and I came to admire every one of you who put in their time. That includes you, narouz. That you struggle with it and still live according to what you find in Ray Peat's work must be hard and I hope you get the benefits from it you were looking for.

But I still do not understand the purpose behind your discussions wether there should be a Ray Peat diet or not and if people should stick strictly to it or only get some pointers, wether it is too liquid or not delicious enough or too hard or if others are bothered by friends not getting it. My friends want me to be happy and healthy. They accept me for who I am. If I told them I ate worms they would probably refuse to come for dinner but they would be glad to see me doing great. There was a time when I didn't and I talked more to doctors than to friends. Today my friends would rather talk to me before talking to doctors. If your friends don't even accept your diet (something you chose and can change any time) how are they supposed to accept your character? Would they mock you for your hair and clothes? They would not be any friends of mine.

You find the diet you chose difficult and don't seem to believe others who say they don't. I think it's in the cooking and in the quality of the food you buy but of course it's also a question of personal taste. If it were only milk and cheese and fruit I could eat I would be happy. But all the other things I love turn out to be food that helps me stay healthy, stay sharp, be creative and enable my brain to reach a capacity I never found possible before. That's a kind of joy no food can ever give me. (And I love food.) A friend of mine was impotent until he switched (very willingly and without ever complaining - I suppose his suffering pressured him to do just anything) to a diet without PUFA and with lots of dairy. He told me later (he lives on a different continent) there were some moment when he wanted to call me and thank me for recommending Ray Peat's newsletters. I'm kind of glad I never received those calls (and some other women would have found them kind of strange, too I imagine) but I am happy for him and very sure he never mourned having his daily beer and his salads and the fish thrice a week (for the heart).

You say you want to talk about your difficulties adjusting to your diet to make it psychologically easier for newbies who struggle. Again I wonder: compared to what is it difficult? What are you missing? And if you are missing it that much why do you make your life miserable by avoiding it?
I have a friend who is a cook and who reads Ray Peat. Still there are things he will not give up because you can't be a proper cook the way he was taught to be without them. Without grains and products made from grains he couldn't work the way he does. I accept that. He accepts that what he cooks is not necessarily healthy but delicious which is more important to him. I get that.

But when you chose what you eat according to scientific work - who is helped by your complaints? As harsh as your summary of my words sounds ... you are not that wrong. A little I meant it like that: Shut up and stop complaining. There are so many more important things to discuss. After all "diet" is not even a quarter of what Ray Peat's work is about and it offends him to be reduced to this. He says he knows people don't know the first thing about him when they talk about his "diet" or "regimen" or "program". His early newsletters (before 2006) where hardly ever about anything dietary.

Forgive me for not placing "accusations" in the proper ones of your threads but there are so incredibly many threads and most have been silent for a while.
I can't help but notice that you place an awful lot of energy and time into discussing how a special diet feels and how it is to go through with it and I don't understand. You are a smart person - why not talk about things you can still discover instead of whining about something you are already doing and obviously have no intention on giving up? Why not engage in a more intellectually challenging discussion? I don't mean to suggest you have to but I would sure like to read you there instead of having you lurking behind every diet-thread to lure people into discussing their obstacles with Ray Peat' diet.

It doesn't have anything to do with him (please note I am using a small "h" here) being unerring and without fail. He is not Jesus (I don't even think he believes in him - that would be an interesting discussion I think). I just say: I haven't found him to be wrong so far. I check his references but I quit reading those other scientists and bloggers I had been reading before Ray Peat because I noticed there was always something amiss with them, something wrong or missing. I started to wonder about serotonin before I discovered Ray Peat.
If you think Ray Peat makes mistakes, let's discuss those. That sounds like fascinating stuff. He'd love that, too. There is hardly anyone even among his science-friends who can challenge him. All I have ever found were some superficial comments without any scientific basis and usually even without references by people attacking Peat without having read or understood him.

At the moment I study the diaries of Wilhelm Reich on Orgon energy and ways to counter the effects of radioactive radiation on living tissue (Ray Peat recommended him). Before that I read Szent-Gyorgy's view on energy and Ray Peat's thoughts on that. I have been studying William Blake for a while now and am nowhere near done with him. I am in contact with some of Ivan Illich's former students in Bremen (He died in 2008) to discuss his work, especially about alphabetization as a tool of oppression and colonialisation. There is so much more than a diet to consider. I constantly eat or drink something from the time I wake up until the time I go to bed but I don't understand why anybody would use (Please note that I don't say "waste") that much of his short time pondering on the hardships of not eating soy salad with corn oil.

 

[Rayser]

Rayser, you are my sister.

Oh and hot chocolate WITH cheesecake....you are an inspiration!

I always wanted a sisters. That's great. I'll let my parents know. Welcome to the family.

 

[Rayser]

Please forgive me. I am new when it comes to posting in this forum. Yet I have been reading many posts every now and then over the last year. I found a lot of useful information here and for that I thank everybody.

I am still not clear about narouz' agenda. I am sorry to put it like that for I mean no disrespect since he is always very respectful. But I notice that about a quarter of the entire text in this forum is him (her?) trying to state in different threads what is or is not a "Peat diet" or complaining about how hard it is, how liquid, how boring, how frugal and frustrating and harsh and extreme and elitist and misunderstood. Disagreeing with the people who stick to a diet and with the ones who don't.

Narouz has some good points, and info, but reading everything he writes would be a huge, huge waste of time. I sort of skim through his posts and skip at least half of what he writes. He is very repetitive and talks a lot about things that are irrelevant or unimportant.

Dear j. - I have found a lot of very useful information in your threads over the past months. Thank you!
I agree about narouz' good points and I wish he would put his energy and time into something a little less ... I can't really think of not offensive word so I will not use one.

 

[narouz]

A Toolkit for Censorship

"You find the diet you chose difficult and don't seem to believe others who say they don't."

I do believe that some immediately and even rapturously fall in love with the Peat diet and crave nothing else.
But I am skeptical, in general, about what seems to me
a strong current of spinning or massaging or rationalizing
about the deliciousness, satisfaction, variety, ease (etc).

In the original thread which spawned this one, for instance,
a poster was saying that she had come to think of the lack of variety in a Peat diet
as a virtue.
And others were posting to congratulate her on this way of looking at things.

It's not that I doubt such a poster's truthfulness.
I don't.
I was just highlighting an instance of our tendency on this forum
to want
to view or interpret or rationalize our experience of a Peat diet positively.
And, conversely, our tendency to want to censor critical viewpoints.

Now, am I saying it is wrong to be positive here?
Not at all, and I think one can find many instances of me posting in a positive way here.

But I think we need to careful about that.
I think we need to be skeptical about it.

On a forum like this there is a natural, human tendency
to drift into an insular, us-against-the-world mindset.
There is a tendency to feel pride and affirmation in belonging.
There is a tendency towards feelings of superiority:
"99.99% of the world is stupid and I don't pay any attention to what they say."
And there is tendency to want to portray
our diet and path in rosy ways.

All those tendencies are not scientific
in the sense that they are not skeptical.
When one wants to see the outcome of an experiment turn out in a pre-determined way,
this can lead to trouble with the science.

....

You say you want to talk about your difficulties adjusting to your diet to make it psychologically easier for newbies who struggle. Again I wonder: compared to what is it difficult? What are you missing? And if you are missing it that much why do you make your life miserable by avoiding it?

Several things here.
On your point that, "Again I wonder: compared to what is it difficult?"
I guess compared to most people's diets in the developed world.
You noted in your previous post that you had watched people die from lack of food
and that milk would've been a blessing to those (or something to that effect).

I don't think that is a very helpful way of exploring whether or not a Peat diet is enjoyable.
Compared to the diet of a person dying because they have nothing to eat:
yes, by all means, the Peat diet looks luxuriant indeed!
But where does that insight take us?

Really, what I sense behind your way of exploring the question,
is an intention to shame.
You wish to shame me for not being grateful that I have anything to eat at all.

Shame is just one of the many subtle coercive tactics employed by those who aren't comfortable with dissent.
"Shame on you for being so selfish and ungrateful!
You have a wonderful Peat diet and yet you dare to speak ill of it.
Shut your sniveling mouth and slug back your milk and gelatin--and be thankful you've got it!"

It is a way of stamping out and eradicating doubt
in an effort to achieve a protected cocoon of Belief.

On you question: "And if you are missing it that much why do you make your life miserable by avoiding it?"
Please, I'm not making my life miserable.
I'm fine.
I think what you may really mean is something like,
"Why, dammit, are you making all of us miserable by refusing to play along with our game--
our rosy, everything-is-wonderful-in-PeatLand game? Don't question us!"

You note:
"You say you want to talk about your difficulties adjusting to your diet to make it psychologically easier for newbies who struggle."
Yes, that is one beneficial result of not censoring critical portrayals of a Peat diet.
But there are others.
For me, I just don't like being part of a propaganda effort--
even if that propaganda supports the team I'm playing on.
I have this attraction to truth, for some reason.

...........

But when you chose what you eat according to scientific work - who is helped by your complaints? As harsh as your summary of my words sounds ... you are not that wrong. A little I meant it like that: Shut up and stop complaining. There are so many more important things to discuss.

Obviously another coercive tool from your Censoring Toolkit:
belittle the poster for negativity.
"Get on board with our unstated Rule of Positivity, or get the hell out, babywhiner!"

Then: "There are so many more important things to discuss."
Diverse toolkit there, Ms. Ratchet--I mean Ms. Rayser!
Here you try the gambit of ruling that my views are "unimportant."
I think what you mean to say is, more simply: "I don't like what you're saying."

But presuming to speak for some consensus of Importantness gives it a higher, more righteous tone.

After all "diet" is not even a quarter of what Ray Peat's work is about and it offends him to be reduced to this. He says he knows people don't know the first thing about him when they talk about his "diet" or "regimen" or "program".

Now this is great one--I don't run across this repressive gambit very often.
In such a gambit,
the player presumes to speak for Peat himself
and says that discussions about diet--well, critical discussions of a Peat diet--
are out of order,
contemptible because they reveal a gross misunderstanding of Peat,
and, in fact, offensive to Peat himself.

Nice try.

I can't help but notice that you place an awful lot of energy and time into discussing how a special diet feels and how it is to go through with it and I don't understand.

I like the ideas of Ray Peat and I'm interested in diet and nutition and health.
What's not to understand?

You are a smart person - why not talk about things you can still discover instead of whining about something you are already doing and obviously have no intention on giving up?

Back to your bread-and-butter maneuver: "Shut up, whining baby! Join the Team or get out!"
But let me also just note: the whining thing, as your evaluation
of the general nature of my posting, is, I think, overplayed by you.
First, you admit that you don't read my stuff because you think it's stupid.
That's fine with me, but if it's true, how do you know it's all whining?
Second, you say yourself that you are basing your complaints about my posts
upon going back and reading old threads.
I have to ask: why are you doing that if you think it is so wasteful and dumb?
And I'd add that, were you to survey the total content of the stuff I post here,
I dare say the majority of it is not "whining,"
especially as you consider my posts from, say, the last several months.
I'm not backing off at all from my right to whine if I want to,
nor from my view that honest posts are generally good even if negative ("whiny" to you),
nor from my view that those negative, older posts are valid and even "important."
I'm just saying you're misrepresenting the general nature of my input.

The "whiny" charge is a little like the too-handy charge men often make against women.
They say the woman is being "bitchy."
What those men really mean, much of the time,
is that they don't like those women
presuming they have the power to speak up and say what they really think.

Why not engage in a more intellectually challenging discussion?

As above, when you object to my posts by saying,
that they are not "Important,"
here you use a similar tactic by charging the posts
are not "intellectually challenging" enough
for you or the forum.

Here to, if we clear out the fancy language,
I think you're simply saying you don't like what I'm saying.
You think it sounds more convincing
if you couch your charge in pseudo-scholarly language: not "intellectually challenging."

Honestly, I think this thread could be a contender for Most Intellectually Challenging.
The issues of skepticism vs belief, faith vs doubt;
the contemplation of the ideas of Peat and Russell in light of those topics;
the self-reflective exploration of forum tendencies like group-think, tendencies to censor dissent, etc...

...those, to me, are pretty heavy-duty subjects,
and ones we seldom get into here.

Oh yes, I forgot!
Of course there are j.'s posts.
How could I forget them?!
Those gems of deep thought and intellectual inquiry.
Well...I still say this post is up there--after his, of course! :)

I don't mean to suggest you have to but I would sure like to read you there instead of having you lurking behind every diet-thread to lure people into discussing their obstacles with Ray Peat' diet.

"Lurking," "luring"...
Ah yes, the hidden menace,
the creeping threat which must be uprooted and extirpated
for the good of the group!

 

[j.]

Almost any diet restricts chocolate and sugar, for example. Peat diet embraces these, so it's extremely easy to see why so many like the Peat diet. Narouz has a weird taste and tries to rationalize it by just assuming and calling other people dishonest, even when there is nothing wrong with having a weird taste.

 

[j.]

Re: A Toolkit for Censorship

"Lurking," "luring"...
Ah yes, the hidden menace,
the creeping threat which must be uprooted and extirpated
for the good of the group!

I just want to point out that Narouz is about to submit a dissertation on how to create a straw man. He is fantastic at rebutting arguments no one ever made. (another recent example is arguing against the idea Peat is infallible or inerrant, an argument the other poster never made, but since Narouz has an inclination for making things up and waste time, he devotes a great amount of time having arguments with himself).

 

[narouz]

Re: A Toolkit for Censorship

"Lurking," "luring"...
Ah yes, the hidden menace,
the creeping threat which must be uprooted and extirpated
for the good of the group!

I just want to point out that Narouz is about to submit a dissertation on how to create a straw man. He is fantastic at rebutting arguments no one ever made. (another recent example is arguing against the idea Peat is infallible or inerrant, an argument the other poster never made, but since Narouz has an inclination for making things up and waste time, he devotes a great amount of time having arguments with himself).

"If you think your diet is not the healthiest possible for you, I suggest you do your research and try to improve it. I have done mine and after many years I found Ray Peat and found him to be right every single time."

Hey!
I thought you said my posts are
"a huge, huge waste of time,"
are "very repetitive,"
and "irrelevant or unimportant."
Are you a masochist!?

 

[Rayser]

Narouz, you are very talented at shadow boxing. It's not even my shadow you're fighting here.
I never said or wrote anywhere that I thought you or anything you thought or wrote was stupid.
But what you write (again) gives me nothing. Not one new information or thought.
I find it tiresome that you attack me for (as you believe) attacking you - which I never did.
If you spent as much time reading what others wrote you might not find yourself in need of writing that much yourself in defense of accusations that were never made.
By the way: I live in Europe and I have never seen anyone starve to death and never said I did.
You must have noticed somewhere along the way that you can influence nearly every aspect of your physical and psychological well being by changing your diet accordingly.
That was the point I wanted to make: That you didn't change your diet according to what you read in Ray Peat's work because you thought it would taste better than anything you ever had before. You changed it for your health, I presume ...?
If you don't like the taste of what you eat, nobody in the world will be able to explain this away.
Still you never mentioned what exactly it is that you miss?
I think your idea that everybody in the first world has a better tasting diet than you is really stupid. There, I said it.
Everybody I know has some kind of allergy and cannot eat nuts or gluten or tomatoes ... the list is endless. People eat without fat or without sugar so they don't get fat. They have diets for their hearts or for some medical condition. Many I know are vegetarians or vegans. Some are on a BTD or on a SAD or just skip dinner or don't eat sweets because of their teeth or don't eat food they haven't prepared themselves. I do not know one person (and I know lots of people) who does not avoid something they love for some reason or eat something they hate because they think it's good for them.
I have been reading your posts every now and then for a year now. The only times I found you to be positive was when somebody agreed with you and confessed they had trouble with milk or orange juice or coffee or something else on the list.

May I ask you one question? It is really the only answer I am interested in and I will not bother you again, I promise: Do you seriously think that it is wholesome, necessary, healthy or helpful (any will do) to list the reasons why you do not like a part of your life you could change easily but chose not to?

 

[j.]

Re: A Toolkit for Censorship

"Lurking," "luring"...
Ah yes, the hidden menace,
the creeping threat which must be uprooted and extirpated
for the good of the group!

I just want to point out that Narouz is about to submit a dissertation on how to create a straw man. He is fantastic at rebutting arguments no one ever made. (another recent example is arguing against the idea Peat is infallible or inerrant, an argument the other poster never made, but since Narouz has an inclination for making things up and waste time, he devotes a great amount of time having arguments with himself).

"If you think your diet is not the healthiest possible for you, I suggest you do your research and try to improve it. I have done mine and after many years I found Ray Peat and found him to be right every single time."

Hey!
I thought you said my posts are
"a huge, huge waste of time,"
are "very repetitive,"
and "irrelevant or unimportant."
Are you a masochist!?

Again, the quote is irrelevant. That is just an observation that Ray Peat was right in the past, not that he is inerrant, the straw man you created. It's true that most of your posts are irrelevant and unimportant, but sometimes I am bored and read.