Should we Inject Skepticism Into The Way of Peat?

[kiran]

narouz, have you read this article? http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/in ... edge.shtml

I have indeed, kiran.
An excellent essay!
Does it by any chance contain, in your view, evidence that I am mentally ill?

It does recommend LSD though. ;P

You are seeing group-think where there isn't any, or at least not very much. I think most people's tastes really do change after eating Peat.

 

[j.]

You are seeing group-think where there isn't any, or at least not very much.

People talked about their personal experiences, many just happened to be different from Narouz's (the only honest man in this forum). The accusation of groupthink is pure idiocy.

 

[narouz]

You are seeing group-think where there isn't any, or at least not very much.

I humbly and I daresay sanely would disagree.

I think most people's tastes really do change after eating Peat.

Yes, I think this may indeed be true, and I've said so here on the forum.
And I've wondered if it might be the case with my own experience.
Being skeptical concerning my own desire to see a rosy outcome to my own Peat experiences, however,
I have reserved judgement on this.

What is interesting and significant regarding your statement, kiran,
that "people's tastes really do change after eating Peat":
notice the almost complete absence of even that minor, not full-fledged, not instant and complete
over the top description of Peat diet experience here on the board.

I would tend to suspect less group-think
if we saw more descriptions like:
"When I first tried the Peat diet, I hated it! It was very restrictive.
I didn't love eating all that fruit and milk!
Over time, over the months, I've grown to be more at peace with it..." etc

Now, in those kinds of testimonies, I would note that "being more at peace with"
does not translate into "the Peat diet is the most delicious on the planet!"

But as I say: my sense is that the near non-existence
of even those kinds of non-hyperbolic and ambiguous--at least--experiences
points toward group-think.

People feel very welcomed and encouraged here to post rave reviews.
Mixed or negative reviews...not so much.
Can you blame them for not speaking up
when you review this thread?!

 

[j.]

People feel very welcomed and encouraged here to post rave reviews.
Mixed or negative reviews...not so much.

Hilarious. No one was banned for such a thing, I'm not even aware of other poster being criticized for posting he didn't like the Peat diet. You've been criticized, but mainly for accusing others of dishonesty out of the blue, and attacking all sorts of views you attribute to them which they never expressed.

 

[j.]

"When I first tried the Peat diet, I hated it! It was very restrictive.
I didn't love eating all that fruit and milk!
Over time, over the months, I've grown to be more at peace with it..." etc

Now, in those kinds of testimonies, I would note that "being more at peace with"
does not translate into "the Peat diet is the most delicious on the planet!"

Except that the last thread you hijacked was like that. She had some negative view of an aspect of the diet, and later she saw a positive aspect. She even said that the diet didn't have great variety, but had some advantage despite that.

 

[narouz]

Subjective Experiences Can Be Reasonably Explored

...Narouz's (the only honest man in this forum).

I don't think so.
On the other hand,
I would have to assess that I am in the distinct minority
when it comes to wanting to view our own subjective experiences with a Peat diet
skeptically.
And self-skeptically.

That I do look at our experiences here skeptically
does not mean that I think other posters are "liars,"
as 4peats has inflamingly construed it.
Nor does it mean that I am arrogant, as your characterization implies.

Here's one important question or issue in all of these concerns:
Do I have the right, is it legitimate, is it reasonable
for me to question the subjective expressions of posters here
concerning their way of describing a Peat diet?

The argument from most quarters here (on this thread)
is that I am automatically disqualified from that area.
It is off-limits.

Those who take that general position see it like this:
they can describe their subjective experience of the Peat diet however they like
and I am not allowed to question it or be skeptical about it.
I must accept and believe what they say as true.

Any questioning or skepticism by me constitutes character assassination,
charges that I am calling posters out as "liars"
and that I am posing as "the only honest man" in the forum.

Of course there is no way I can clinically "prove"
whether or not what posters say about a Peat diet is true.
How can one measure wishful thinking,
or the distortions induced by "the power of positive thinking"
or by punitive attitudes like: "don't be an ungrateful baby: eat what's put in front of you,
be grateful for it, and stop whining!"...?
How can one measure in a laboratory
all the myriad ways in which humans delude themselves, in ways large and small?
What machine can I hook somebody up to
that will reveal if somebody is
saying what he knows many will congratulate him upon,
or saying what he has found through careful self-observation to be the straight and unadorned truth?

The fact that these are subjective experiences does not give them a privileged, unquestionable status.
jenn implied, for instance, along such lines,
that such experiences should be off limits--they should not be questioned,
for the reason that they are "gut" reactions--and therefore, presumably, unimpeachable.

I'm sorry. They are.
They might not be able to be explored in a lab, scientifically.
But that does not mean they can not or should not be explored reasonably.
And skeptically.
Such investigations are the stuff of millions of novels
which explore the complex, subjective world of human experience.
While novels generally do not "prove" things scientifically,
it is generally granted that they do get at truths of human experience.

Now, I do believe they should be explored civilly.
That is why I try to avoid focusing on individuals.
I would say, if you look back at my pertinent posts,
I mostly try to explore such things with a sense of humor.
And I try to avoid the appearance of "calling out" any individual in an insulting way.
Have I been perfect in that respect?
No.
Have I made mistakes?
Yes.

But, on the whole, I've tried to carry out a civil and reasonable exploration
of a complicated and difficult area of subjective Peatian experience.
That it is subjective does not mean that it can't be reasonably explored.

 

[j.]

I'm going to explore the idea that narouz is a rapist. It doesn't mean I think he is a rapist, but it's something that I have a right to wonder about. Maybe he is a nazi. Maybe he likes killing people. Maybe he has been brainwashed, is member of a cult, encourages groupthink to enforce an orthodoxy of views.

Of course, Narouz might not be any of that, I'm not attacking his character (the last thing on my mind). But is it valid to explore that? I'm sorry, it is.

 

[narouz]

"When I first tried the Peat diet, I hated it! It was very restrictive.
I didn't love eating all that fruit and milk!
Over time, over the months, I've grown to be more at peace with it..." etc

Now, in those kinds of testimonies, I would note that "being more at peace with"
does not translate into "the Peat diet is the most delicious on the planet!"

Except that the last thread you hijacked was like that. She had some negative view of an aspect of the diet, and later she saw a positive aspect. She even said that the diet didn't have great variety, but had some advantage despite that.

I responded in that case because
the original poster seemed to be doing an interesting mental maneuver:
she was, it seemed to me, attempting to transform
a Peat diet hardship
into a Peat diet virtue:
Having little variety was transformed into to having the best kind of variety--very little.
At first she was saddened by the restriction.
She then transformed that into a freedom:
the freedom not to have to chose.

She and others protested my interpretation because they said
that this original poster
was not commenting on any pleasure aspect of her diet experience.
She was just addressing what worked in terms of digestibility (as I recall).

Three days later the same original poster
was saying the Peat diet was "the most delicious diet" in her experience.

Surely you can see why such a narrative fascinated me.

I did enter the thread abruptly and clumsily.
I offered apologies at that time.

 

[narouz]

I'm going to explore the idea that narouz is a rapist. It doesn't mean I think he is a rapist, but it's something that I have a right to wonder about. Maybe he is a nazi. Maybe he likes killing people. Maybe he has been brainwashed, is member of a cult, encourages groupthink to enforce an orthodoxy of views.

Of course, Narouz might not be any of that, I'm not attacking his character (the last thing on my mind). But is it valid to explore that? I'm sorry, it is.

Well...while it does sound like fun to me,
and I'll hope you'll pursue such an imaginative project,
I would note that it does violate my stated personal guidelines:
-avoid "calling out" an individual in any insulting way
-avoid incivility

 

[j.]

I would note that it does violate my stated personal guidelines:
-avoid "calling out" an individual in any insulting way
-avoid incivility

HAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[j.]

I responded in that case because
the original poster seemed to be doing an interesting mental maneuver:
she was, it seemed to me, attempting to transform
a Peat diet hardship
into a Peat diet virtue:
Having little variety was transformed into to having the best kind of variety--very little.

You might not be calling the poster an idiot directly. But the message is "ttramone is an idiot", which she would be if her post was what you summarized. The problem is, she didn't say what you're attributing to her. This is what she finds as an advantage of the diet.

But I'm actually finding that having this foundation of eating is so much easier than preparing different meals each day.

So the advantage she found is about time. In case it wasn't clear, she further writes:

I also realised after cooking some lamb the other day that I hate cooking. I have better things to do with my time.

Again, about time. Is there any way to mock that view? Of course not, it's completely reasonable. So you of course don't mention anything about what was the actual essence of her opening post in that thread.

Calling people idiots, cult members, groupthinkers, dishonest, or self-deceived in elaborate ways doesn't mean one isn't calling them all those things.

 

[juanitacarlos]

Well, I can't stay away, it's like a car crash.

And I have to chime in when narouz starts telling complete lies.

"When I first tried the Peat diet, I hated it! It was very restrictive.
I didn't love eating all that fruit and milk!
Over time, over the months, I've grown to be more at peace with it..." etc

Now, in those kinds of testimonies, I would note that "being more at peace with"
does not translate into "the Peat diet is the most delicious on the planet!"

Except that the last thread you hijacked was like that. She had some negative view of an aspect of the diet, and later she saw a positive aspect. She even said that the diet didn't have great variety, but had some advantage despite that.

I responded in that case because
the original poster seemed to be doing an interesting mental maneuver:
she was, it seemed to me, attempting to transform
a Peat diet hardship
into a Peat diet virtue:
Having little variety was transformed into to having the best kind of variety--very little.
At first she was saddened by the restriction.
She then transformed that into a freedom:
the freedom not to have to chose.

No mental 'maneuver' narouz - it just happened. What is the problem with this, pray tell? And stop colouring all my original comments with your descriptive nonsense - where did I say that very little variety is the best kind of variety? As I stated in my posts, the perfunctory nature of my current diet is helping me with some of my eating issues. This surprised me.

She and others protested my interpretation because they said
that this original poster
was not commenting on any pleasure aspect of her diet experience.

Yes, they were correct. So do you get that?

She was just addressing what worked in terms of digestibility (as I recall).

No, you recalled incorrectly. Feel free to retract your statement.

Three days later the same original poster
was saying the Peat diet was "the most delicious diet" in her experience.

Absolute bull****. You are just making stuff up in your head. Here is my exact quote, which I might add, was directly in response to you, which you've ignored:

It's not the most delicious diet in the world to me. Although it's pretty tasty! But I'm not here because I was looking for the most delicious diet. I was eating the most delicious diet in the world (to me) and I got really fat, and really sick (cancer and bucketload of other stuff). I'm here because I believe Peat offers me a chance out of my sickness and to better health. That is the number one reason. If I was really happy and healthy, I absolutely guarantee you that I would not know who Ray Peat is, I would not be on this forum, and I would be blissfully getting on with my life, oblivious to all of this...

Could I have been any clearer to you.

Surely you can see why such a narrative fascinated me.

Yeah it's fascinating because you're just making stuff up. You talk about truth and skepticism and you are totally lacking in both when it comes to yourself.

 

[j.]

Come on, ttramone! We know that you love the freedom to not have to choose!

 

[j.]

Narouz is such a complete idiot. He is proof of the failure of the educational system. Just write, and write, and write, whatever comes to your mind, real or imagined. When you are discussing something or someone, feel free to bring whatever recollection or notion they trigger as if it were real.

Most academic writing is actually like Narouz's. Complete idiocy and bull****.

 

[juanitacarlos]

I responded in that case because
the original poster seemed to be doing an interesting mental maneuver:
she was, it seemed to me, attempting to transform
a Peat diet hardship
into a Peat diet virtue:
Having little variety was transformed into to having the best kind of variety--very little.

You might not be calling the poster an idiot directly. But the message is "ttramone is an idiot", which she would be if her post was what you summarized. The problem is, she didn't say what you're attributing to her. This is what she finds as an advantage of the diet.

But I'm actually finding that having this foundation of eating is so much easier than preparing different meals each day.

So the advantage she found is about time. In case it wasn't clear, she further writes:

I also realised after cooking some lamb the other day that I hate cooking. I have better things to do with my time.

Again, about time. Is there any way to mock that view? Of course not, it's completely reasonable. So you of course don't mention anything about what was the actual essence of her opening post in that thread.

Calling people idiots, cult members, groupthinkers, dishonest, or self-deceived in elaborate ways doesn't mean one isn't calling them all those things.

Yes J. When I was writing that post, it was about a lot of things, but the deliciousness of eating certain foods was not part of it. Worshiping at the temple of Peat was also not on my mind. Group lovin' didn't cross my mind either. narouz added all that stuff because of his own agenda. and then completely ignored my clarifications.

 

[juanitacarlos]

Come on, ttramone! We know that you love the freedom to not have to choose!

Oh j, I don't know if I like freedom of choice or not! Can you please tell me what I like because I have no idea what I'm thinking or feeling!

 

[narouz]

Three days later the same original poster
was saying the Peat diet was "the most delicious diet" in her experience.

Absolute bull****. You are just making stuff up in your head. Here is my exact quote, which I might add, was directly in response to you, which you've ignored:

It's not the most delicious diet in the world to me. Although it's pretty tasty! But I'm not here because I was looking for the most delicious diet. I was eating the most delicious diet in the world (to me) and I got really fat, and really sick (cancer and bucketload of other stuff). I'm here because I believe Peat offers me a chance out of my sickness and to better health. That is the number one reason. If I was really happy and healthy, I absolutely guarantee you that I would not know who Ray Peat is, I would not be on this forum, and I would be blissfully getting on with my life, oblivious to all of this...

ttramone-
This was your post I was referring to:

I'm not sure if this came through in my original post, but I think the Peat Diet (you know the one) is the most delicious and satsifying diet that has, or will ever exist. And I don't give a f*** if anyone thinks differently. Variety is hell. Ray Peat is God. The End.

I hadn't seen the one you cite, above.
(Was it posted just recently? I hadn't seen it. Sorry)
Any in case the two statements do seem to contradict.

 

[juanitacarlos]

Three days later the same original poster
was saying the Peat diet was "the most delicious diet" in her experience.

Absolute bull****. You are just making stuff up in your head. Here is my exact quote, which I might add, was directly in response to you, which you've ignored:

It's not the most delicious diet in the world to me. Although it's pretty tasty! But I'm not here because I was looking for the most delicious diet. I was eating the most delicious diet in the world (to me) and I got really fat, and really sick (cancer and bucketload of other stuff). I'm here because I believe Peat offers me a chance out of my sickness and to better health. That is the number one reason. If I was really happy and healthy, I absolutely guarantee you that I would not know who Ray Peat is, I would not be on this forum, and I would be blissfully getting on with my life, oblivious to all of this...

ttramone-
This was your post I was referring to:

I'm not sure if this came through in my original post, but I think the Peat Diet (you know the one) is the most delicious and satsifying diet that has, or will ever exist. And I don't give a f*** if anyone thinks differently. Variety is hell. Ray Peat is God. The End.

I hadn't seen the one you cite, above.
(Was it posted just recently? I hadn't seen it. Sorry)
Any in case the two statements do seem to contradict.

Now you're being disingenous narouz.

 

[narouz]

Now you're being disingenous narouz.

?
I'm not trying to be...
What are you saying?
I did miss the other quote of yours.

 

[narouz]

She was just addressing what worked in terms of digestibility (as I recall).

No, you recalled incorrectly. Feel free to retract your statement.

What I was trying to say--what I recall--
is that you or 4peats said I should not construe your original post as commenting on diet pleasure.
Just on the diet working for you for other reasons.
Is that not correct?

I thought that was the nature of the misinterpretation you (or 4peats) said I made.
I will be happy retract that misinterpretation and offer my apology.
Is that the correct retraction?