GLP-1 and self-image — 6 month update

dan_philly said:

Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.

I read this differently from dan_philly, on substance rather than tone. I would resist the confidence. Half of what this board was certain about two years ago has since been quietly dropped, and nobody went back to correct the threads.

I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.

dan_philly said:

Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.

That holds where the measurement is reliable. Where it is noisy — and a lot of what gets tracked here is noisy — the same reasoning produces confident nonsense.

dan_philly said:

Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.

Thank you — that is the clearest version of this I have read, and I have read a lot of them. I will report back once I have actually tried it.

From the other side of the consultation, briefly. The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated. Those two sets overlap less than the confident tone of most write-ups suggests, and the second set is where nearly all the disagreement on this board comes from.

GenomicsKate said:

The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.

Second this. Nothing to add that would improve it.