Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Blueprint health protocol

protocol.bryanjohnson.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 202 posts

Re: Blueprint health protocol

#191

Post by epgui »

dang wrote: post #189
epgui wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it? I don’t agree with you here. My contribution was weak, but I do believe scientists have an ethical duty to say something, even if it’s not in the form of a complete lecture.

If you're going to say something on HN, please make it substantive. If don't have time or don't want to do that, please don't post. This applies to scientists the same as any other commenters.

> If you're going to say something on HN, please make it substantive.

I believe calling out pseudoscience as such is substantive. To be perfectly clear, I think not doing it would even be irresponsible. Also, substantiveness does not always require great detail, under most common usages of the term that I know of.

> This applies to scientists the same as any other commenters.

That is not at issue.

Re: Blueprint health protocol

#192

Post by dang »

epgui wrote: post #191
dang wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're going to say something on HN, please make it substantive. If don't have time or don't want to do that, please don't post. This applies to scientists the same as any other commenters.

> If you're going to say something on HN, please make it substantive. I believe calling out pseudoscience as such is substantive. To be perfectly clear, I think not doing it would even be irresponsible. Also, substantiveness does not always require great detail, under most common usages of the term that I know of. > This applies to scientists the same as any other commenters. That is not at issue.

Sorry, (and I promise it's nothing personal!) but just using the putdown "pseudoscience" is not enough to make a comment substantive. This is just standard HN moderation, and it's not a borderline call. Generally speaking if what you're doing can be described as "calling out", it's probably better to just not post it to HN anyhow. That's not the curious conversation we're looking for.

For the comment to count as substantive you have to explain something about why, and then you don't need the putdown part. People are slinging pejoratives and tropes like "pseudoscience" all over the internet. Adding "I'm a scientist" doesn't overcome this; besides which of course, anybody can say "I"m a" anything.

Re: Blueprint health protocol

#193

Post by epgui »

dang wrote: post #192
epgui wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you're going to say something on HN, please make it substantive. I believe calling out pseudoscience as such is substantive. To be perfectly clear, I think not doing it would even be irresponsible. Also, substantiveness does not always require great detail, under most common usages of the term that I know of. > This applies to scientists the same as any other commenters. That is not at issue.

Sorry, (and I promise it's nothing personal!) but just using the putdown "pseudoscience" is not enough to make a comment substantive. This is just standard HN moderation, and it's not a borderline call. Generally speaking if what you're doing can be described as "calling out", it's probably better to just not post it to HN anyhow. That's not the curious conversation we're looking for. For the comment to count as subs…

Is a "putdown" essentially an insult?

Because I used the word "pseudoscience" literally. Not as an insult, but as an academic word-label.

> People are slinging pejoratives and tropes like "pseudoscience" all over the internet.

Perhaps, but in this case, the most charitable reading is the literal one.

Re: Blueprint health protocol

#194

Post by dang »

epgui wrote: post #193
dang wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, (and I promise it's nothing personal!) but just using the putdown "pseudoscience" is not enough to make a comment substantive. This is just standard HN moderation, and it's not a borderline call. Generally speaking if what you're doing can be described as "calling out", it's probably better to just not post it to HN anyhow. That's not the curious conversation we're looking for. For the comment to count as subs…

Is a "putdown" essentially an insult? Because I used the word "pseudoscience" literally. Not as an insult, but as an academic word-label. > People are slinging pejoratives and tropes like "pseudoscience" all over the internet. Perhaps, but in this case, the most charitable reading is the literal one.

Ok, but the problem is that the term is an internet cliché and people are going to interpret it in the way it's commonly used, even if you don't intend it as a putdown.

Re: Blueprint health protocol

#195

Post by [deleted] »

dang wrote: post #194
epgui wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is a "putdown" essentially an insult? Because I used the word "pseudoscience" literally. Not as an insult, but as an academic word-label. > People are slinging pejoratives and tropes like "pseudoscience" all over the internet. Perhaps, but in this case, the most charitable reading is the literal one.

Ok, but the problem is that the term is an internet cliché and people are going to interpret it in the way it's commonly used, even if you don't intend it as a putdown.

[deleted]

Re: Blueprint health protocol

#196

Post by dang »

[deleted] wrote: post #195
dang wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, but the problem is that the term is an internet cliché and people are going to interpret it in the way it's commonly used, even if you don't intend it as a putdown.

[deleted]

We have to moderate by effects, not intent. No one can know your intent but effects are observable, they're what matter (because they're what affect the site), and you're responsible for them. (I don't mean you personally, of course; I mean all commenters.) Because of this, the burden is on the commenter to disambiguate. This is also standard HN moderation btw: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

I feel like we've drifted a bit, which is largely my fault, but the basic point is that when I look at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38841126 - it's not a borderline case. That kind of comment isn't ok here.

Re: Blueprint health protocol

#197

Post by ecmascript »

bawolff wrote: post #105
ecmascript wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you link me to a statement where he actually tells people to buy sheets with silver in them? Honestly, I've followed him for quite a while and pretty much all of his content is wholesome and while a bit culty, it's not like he is forcing anyone to do anything. For the stuff that actually makes him money, he is a lot less sales-pushy than the overwhelming majority of youtubers. You can get his protocol for free an…

In the section "Blueprint Protocol Starter Guide" he lists it under stuff he uses ("grounding sheets"). He doesn't explicitly say to buy it (and in fine print says its not an endorsement) but clearly the links are there to encourage people to buy these products. I dont know if he's getting a cut but half the products getting promoted have discount codes which is suggestive. > it's not like he is forcing anyone to do…

Oh wow. So he has an affiliate link, which he doesn't push anywhere except on his website. Such a criminal behavior.

> Snake-oil salesmen generally don't.

Dude. Snake-oil doesn't do shit for you while if you follow the blueprint protocol maybe you won't live longer but the probability increases (by being healthy).

What I am saying is it's fine to make money of something you have spent so much time in researching and building. Who cares? He's giving out most of the advice, diet etc etc for free. Sure you will be able to buy some products in the future but you don't have to. It doesn't mean that lots of the advice is good advice for your health.

I just don't understand the phenomena of hating on a guy that is super wholesome, tells people to be more healthy and live longer.

Re: Blueprint health protocol

#198

Post by ecmascript »

GaryNumanVevo wrote: post #84
ecmascript wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Personally, I'm against using my children as blood banks C'mon dude. Stop the hate and grow up. If my father called me today and asked for my blood in order to live longer I would gladly help him. I want my father to be healthy and live as long as possible. Besides giving blood is not bad for you, it can even have positive health effects that several studies have shown. You also have to assume that the blood giving…

There's a massive gulf between "life saving blood donations" and "my father wants my blood for a vanity health project"

So you're telling me you wouldn't donate blood to your family members if they believed they maybe would live longer? Even if it's just for a trial.

Re: Blueprint health protocol

#199

Post by bawolff »

ecmascript wrote: post #197
bawolff wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the section "Blueprint Protocol Starter Guide" he lists it under stuff he uses ("grounding sheets"). He doesn't explicitly say to buy it (and in fine print says its not an endorsement) but clearly the links are there to encourage people to buy these products. I dont know if he's getting a cut but half the products getting promoted have discount codes which is suggestive. > it's not like he is forcing anyone to do…

Oh wow. So he has an affiliate link, which he doesn't push anywhere except on his website. Such a criminal behavior. > Snake-oil salesmen generally don't. Dude. Snake-oil doesn't do shit for you while if you follow the blueprint protocol maybe you won't live longer but the probability increases (by being healthy). What I am saying is it's fine to make money of something you have spent so much time in researching and…

From my perspective, it seems like he is manipulating vulnerable people who are terrified of death into wasting money on products that are at best unlikely to help and at worst might be harmful to a person's health for his own financial benefit. Some of the advice potentially being beneficial doesn't change that.

I find this about as wholesome as the Nigerian prince who intends to give me part of his fortune out of the goodness of his heart.

Re: Blueprint health protocol

#200

Post by ecmascript »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #116
ecmascript wrote: post #23

I think Bryan is an interesting dude and no matter if you think he is insane or not, it's interesting to follow and the message is a good one. He is literally telling people to sleep more, exercise more, eat better etc etc. How can you be against that?

That's an appeal to emotion and / or straw man; nobody is against telling people to sleep more / exercise more / eat better. Anyone can say that, it's not unique. What else is this fellow saying / advocating? What are his motivations? Is there a catch? Is he selling or promoting something?

> nobody is against telling people to sleep more / exercise more / eat better

Actually, I am not so sure. People today are effing insane, especially on the internet.

His motivations are as clear as a blue sky to me. He is building a company, the company will make money by selling products like meal replacements or good olive oil (maybe other things in the future, who knows). But in general that is probably just a way around the problem of financing the whole ordeal since he is obsessed with health and trying to figure out the optimal way to live in order to age the best way possible.

Most diet studies are just as good or bad as his because the issue with diets is that there can be so many factors playing in so it's hard to know if it's the diet or other factors weighing in. He is just trying stuff with the help of doctors and dieticians (and probably others as well) and I applaud that. Maybe things work for him that will also work for the majority of people, in fact I think it is likely.

Sure it is culty, but you kind of have to be in order to be able to live like he does. It's an extreme form of living and not for everyone but I think most people today can learn a lot from him by simply doing some of the things he does.

Today we live in a world where many countries have like 50% of the population being fat and many are even obese. If you go to any store in many western countries at least they are optimized for you to pick candy and sugar water at the end. It's hard to find healthy products in many cases, you have to read the label on basically everything. If you go on a road trip, pretty much the only restaurants by the roads are fast food that is super bad for you. It is HARD to be healthy today and the statistics clearly shows it. So much so that in my country at least many clothing stores have started to display fat models in commercials because people (mostly women) demands it. We also have mukbangs on youtube, super obese people spreading their crap online but the one that gets a lot of hate is a guy that tells people to be more healthy. That is the insane part to me.

Post reply on HN