Veganism: low vs high perspective.

[Shane Hanlon]

10 minutes ago, Shane Hanlon said:

42 minutes ago, integral said:

The scientific consensus evidence-based approach has grotesque limits.

Another example of a valid idea. But the contexts you put it in don't work. Like because science has limits and can be critiqued, that doesn't mean that when there is overwhelming scientific evidence for a particular conclusion we can throw all of that out because of a lot of people I saw on the internet were unhealthy vegans.

Climate change isn't real because this was a cold winter in Vermont. This is how it sounds to us.

[integral]

12 minutes ago, Shane Hanlon said:

I think we all identify the most with the "sage" column.

No, your functioning at the scientific evidence level. And you've stated scientific evidence over and over again.

The sage level strongly considers large scale pattern recognition. And you guys are not interested in that.

Because that's why you think my epistemology is insane, because I value the patterns Strongly, while you think it's literally crazy. "and the science disproves it"

12 minutes ago, Shane Hanlon said:

Backed by overwhelming scientific evidence.

How your current epistemology system works is scientific evidence is placed at a importance of 9 out of 10, and pattern recognition is placed at maybe a one or two out of 10.

Can you see how the sage is not doing it this way?

Edited 7 hours ago by integral

[integral]

1 minute ago, Shane Hanlon said:

Climate change isn't real because this was a cold winter in Vermont. This is how it sounds to us.

I know.

[integral]

I said it multiple times now.

You think I'm literally crazy because I don't share your epistemology.

[integral]

22 minutes ago, Shane Hanlon said:

So when we hear you talk about all of the malnourished vegans, we look around and are like "where?". You can imagine those anti-scientific claims seem alarmist, motivated by some desire not to give up your current wroldview or way of life, and just plain wrong.

The points about malnutrition I made were to advise on being very careful to avoid it.

My position is not that veganism is impossible. My position is to make sure everyone is doing it right through rigorous experimentation, observation, testing, and to consider all the factors of failure cases to avoid them.

This is why I'm placing veganism at a status of very difficult and requiring a lot of experience and expertise and money.

If you're doing this in a cheap way, you're doing it wrong. Because you're taking your health for granted, and you don't realize the risk you're putting yourself into. And you're not spending money or doing the work to make sure it is 100% happening correctly.

You can be doing veganism wrong for a decade before problems show up. This is why it's difficulty is so high.

Edited 7 hours ago by integral

[Shane Hanlon]

22 minutes ago, integral said:

You think I'm literally crazy because I don't share your epistemology.

@integral I think you are using the model of integral theory as a map you don't fully understand and projecting how you make sense of it onto the world. Rather than deeply understanding it for yourself.

At higher levels, science is still important.

It also makes us feel like you don't actually understand how higher levels of development operate because you are assuming our epistemology based off of small conversations in which we are making important nuanced points involving holism and complexity. Yet you think we are limited to the scientific and rational worldview only because we believe the science to be an important point of contact when determining how to think about something.

You make veganism sound like getting a PHD with a blindfold on. It isn't that hard. Just not as simple as turning animal products off.

 

[Shane Hanlon]

30 minutes ago, integral said:

Can you see how the sage is not doing it this way?

I value pattern recognition. My pattern is that veganism has worked for me and the people I know.

I do value scientific consensus too. When my patterns (veganism is healthy) line up with the science (veganism is healthy), it is easy to make sense of.

Your patterns are different. Ok. Then how can you integrate a pattern of unhealthy vegans with strong scientific evidence that it is healthy. There is a discrepancy there that demands more than just dismissing science. Somehow you have to resolve that tension with a higher order understanding.

Maybe veganism can be unhealthy for some people some of the time in some contexts, but is generally healthy overall for most people when doen properly. Maybe you can find a large sample size of unhealthy vegans online when you look for it. Maybe your pattern recognition is biased. Or maybe you have a different higher order explanation. But somehow you have to integrate the scientific consensus into your understanding for it to not be nonsense jibberish.

[integral]

12 minutes ago, Shane Hanlon said:

It also makes us feel like you don't actually understand how higher levels of development operate because you are assuming our epistemology based off of small conversations in which we are making important nuanced points involving holism and complexity. Yet you think we are limited to the scientific and rational worldview only because we believe the science to be an important point of contact when determining how to think about something.

That's a failure in the way the AI extracted the epistemology from Emerald. I'm aware holism has been unlocked already. But there's so many levels to holism that it doesn't really matter.

Domain specific insights don't happen just because you can do a bit of holism.

You can prove anything with nutrition science. Carnivore, paleo.. It doesn't matter it's all true according to nutrition science. 

Quote

But somehow you have to integrate the scientific consensus into your understanding for it to not be nonsense jibberish.

Reframe all the science you have learned as anecdotes and everything that you have learned on this topic as anecdotal.

Integrate your personal anecdotal experiences of science, with all personal anecdotal experiences of positive and negative veganism, and all anecdotal experiences of others, both positive and negative. Narrowing down all of that data, unbiasedly.

Carefully use science as a anecdotal guide, everything taken with a grain of salt to make an educated guess on where you should take your health.

Carefully test many approaches, carefully observe your own behavior change and physical signs and mental signs, self-assessment. Study people who have made mistakes along the path and avoid making those mistakes yourself.

Everything is anecdote, everything is partial truth, everything has to be narrowed down in a blender without bias. Nothing is sacred. Everything is full of shit.

All of science, personal experiences, external experiences  is understood as just a piece of the puzzle to guide your own personal experiment on your own body.

Now you're thinking like a scientist, with a fresh paradigm.

[Shane Hanlon]

@integral I hear you. We have to use all of our ways of knowing and integrate them in their proper context in order to deeply know something. However, I feel like you are grappling with complexity but not fully resolving it in a systematic or holistic way. To reduce all science to anecdotes doesn't really integrate a real understanding of science or the scientific method. Not all science is the same and science can be critiqued, but I feel your approach seems rather confused.

At what point do you end up going off the rails on veganism?

Edited 6 hours ago by Shane Hanlon

[integral]

9 minutes ago, Shane Hanlon said:

To reduce all science to anecdotes doesn't really integrate a real understanding of science or the scientific method.

You can find seemingly rigorous scientific evidence supporting completely opposite conclusions. You can find compelling studies showing:
- Vegan diets are optimal for health
- Carnivore diets are optimal for health  
- Paleo diets are optimal for health
- Mediterranean diets are optimal for health
And so on...

So in nutrition specifically, treating studies as "just another anecdote" isn't about confusion or lack of system - it's about recognizing that even apparently rigorous nutrition science often can't resolve these contradictions. The field is uniquely complex because:
- Individual variation is huge
- Variables are nearly impossible to fully control
- Long-term studies are rare
- Funding often biases research
- Self-reporting is unreliable

There is a huge problem and in order to solve that problem you need to be able to narrow down all the variables without knowing. There is no "truth" to help you hold your hand when navigating this.

That doesn't mean you can't take pieces of important knowledge like the importance of vitamin C on the skin, and not incorporate foods high in vitamin C into your diet. You have to do the best you can with the knowledge that you have available to you.

When I say you have to take everything as anecdote I am also saying use all of it to come up with an effective strategy on your body through experimentation and testing on your body.

But you're not going to sit there and take an omega-3 supplement and just assume that you're now healthier. In 4 months from now you might get dizzy and feel light-headed all the time and not know why and then realize that the omega-3 you were taking thinned your blood. Trial and error.

[RendHeaven]

@integral Although I pretty much agree with everything you've written regarding the content of your words against veganism, your tone does come across as somewhat dogmatic. It feels like you are crusading.

This is not a personal attack, just a bit of feedback.

[integral]

3 minutes ago, RendHeaven said:

@integral Although I pretty much agree with everything you've written regarding the content of your words against veganism, your tone does come across as somewhat dogmatic. It feels like you are crusading.

This is not a personal attack, just a bit of feedback.

Yeah I definitely I tend to do that lmao, maybe I'll add vibe detector to the comment box that will warn me when my tone is counterproductive. 

[Shane Hanlon]

I’m tired with all the back-and-forth, so here’s my final post to lay it out as clearly as I can. These are the main points that are irrefutable.

Veganism can be a healthy diet for most people
A well-planned vegan diet provides everything you need. It might not work perfectly for everyone, but for the vast majority, it’s a healthy choice.

Veganism is about more than just your health
It’s not just about feeling good or optimizing your own body. Veganism considers the well-being of all life, including animals, ecosystems, and the planet.

Animals don’t have to suffer for us to eat
Factory farming causes extreme suffering to hundreds of billions of animals every year. The reality is, we don’t need to eat animals to survive or thrive. By going vegan, you’re choosing not to contribute to that harm.

Animal agriculture is destroying the planet
It’s one of the leading causes of deforestation, water pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions. A plant-based diet has a much smaller impact on the environment and is one of the best ways to prevent ecological crises.

Veganism acknowledges that everything is connected
The health of humans, animals, and the planet are all deeply intertwined. By going vegan, you’re supporting a more compassionate and sustainable world for everyone.

That’s it. That’s the big picture. Veganism isn’t only about a healthy individual, it’s about creating a healthier, kinder, and more sustainable world for all life.

I know it’s not an easy change for everyone, and that’s fine. But at least let’s be clear about what veganism really is.

And your tone is fine. It's your understanding that is missing important insights and context. Integrate ecology and other beings experience into your understanding of nutrition and you will likely end up at veganism or something close to it. We can be vegan and create effective systemic change in other ways at the same time. It is not either or. It is Both And.

[integral]

HAHAHA I accomplished absolutely nothing. 🤣

Most truth can only come from massive suffering.

I wonder if that's by Design.

Edited 5 hours ago by integral

[Emerald]

4 hours ago, integral said:

How would you know?

You're assuming what I'm saying is crazy because I don't share your epistemology.

This is very important. When someone else doesn't share your epistemology, your reactionary mechanisms are to assume it's completely crazy.

So the only conversation that we could possibly have is to take the time and understand each other's epistemology.

But I already know your epistemology because I inhaled it my whole life. And believed it for a portion of my life.

The scientific consensus evidence-based approach has grotesque limits. And most people that are in love with this whole concept have not had the real world experiences of when Theory does not match up with practice.

You will only know that science got it wrong after you have direct experience showing you that it actually doesn't work in practice.

But at this very moment that will only happen after you experience a health problem on the vegan diet.

Even if I showed you thousands of videos of people who failed veganism. It will not be enough, it has to be personal.

Until then you will never need to question anything.

It's when you're survival is at stake that you're forced to question what you know and how you know it.

LFMAOOO 🤣🤣 I genuinely laughed so hard when I read this. Mostly because I get your perspective and it just looks like a super one-sided biased sheet.

There's a misunderstanding. There's no point talking about the content. If we talk about any specific point we're just going to go back and forth in an endless loop. Arguing endlessly back and forth going nowhere.

That's how every discussion of this kind happens.

The only healthy conversation that we can have is about epistemology.

Until then we're just going to be talking past each other.

I never said you were crazy. I was saying that you were saying untrue things... and that what you were saying negates the scientific consensus and is thus not a holistic perspective.

To me, given what you've said about once being Vegan... it comes across to me that you're defending your choice to stop being Vegan to yourself by creating these narratives and convincing yourself that your perspectives is a higher perspectives based in health concerns.

And you could just make that personal decision without having to go on such a mission about it.... which indicates to me that your views are more based in your own guilt about your dietary change and feeling like you need to narrativize (in lieu of real evidence) that Veganism is this horrible unhealthy diet that makes people look like skulls.

And my bet is that it could be a way of assuaging personal guilt around making choices that are against your own values.

So, really be honest with yourself and question why you're holding onto these fear-mongery "Veganism kills" ideas.

But regarding your point about getting perspectives from individual people about their experiences and lifting that up above the scientific consensus... the thing is that you could find all sorts of personal anecdotes of people touting the benefits or drawbacks of any diet.

And hearing others talk about a diet that happen to agree with you, just is not an accurate measure of how healthy or unhealthy a diet is.

I could find a tons of personal anecdotes from people who are experiencing tons of health benefits from the Vegan diet and who had all sorts of health problems from an omnivorous diet. I hear them often because I watch a lot of pro-Vegan content. 

And you probably hear a lot of anti-Vegan anecdotes and perspectives because you watch a lot of anti-Vegan content that probably touts the benefits of other diets.

But these personal anecdotes don't hold any objective weight over how healthy a diet is because you can't possible hear every single anecdote in the world. You're going to be mostly listening to the ones that already agree with your worldview.

And you cant's chalk that up to "Well I'm coming from a more holistic perspective... so in that holistic perspective personal anecdotes can be better than scientific studies ". 

You have to actually study it in a more controlled way to get a real empirical sense of what's going on.

And if your perspective is that personal anecdotes hold more weight than peer reviewed double blind studies, that's just a negation of the scientific perspective.

And for your perspective to be holistic, it can't negate science or any other perspective.

Holistic means whole. If you're negating empiricism and science to uphold your views, then you're not being holistic. You're just lying to yourself and doing mental gymnastics to find a way to square the circle.

And it comes across as silly and pompous that you view your perspective as more holistic just because you view selective anecdotes from people who agree with you as more reflective of truth than controlled studies and meta-analyses that directly measure the physiological impacts of different diets on a variety of people.

Edited 4 hours ago by Emerald

[gambler]

There’s way too much to read to catch up but @Emerald, do you think that there are no genuine individual cases where veganism was incompatible with their biology? 

[Emerald]

3 hours ago, Shane Hanlon said:

I feel like Leo deeply communicating psychological pitfalls of humanity has this community trapping themselves at lower paradigms and projecting these traps they understand onto others without deeply reconsidering their own beliefs and worldviews based on these same traps.

100%

I find that applying Spiral Dynamics on the individual level is totally counter-productive for the reasons you mentioned.

It's incredibly helpful for understanding collectives. But everyone starts identifying themselves as a "Tier 2" multi-perspectival thinker without understanding what being multi-perspectival really entails. 

And it locks them in place in the mono-lens perspective they're coming from.

[Emerald]

1 minute ago, gambler said:

There’s way too much to read to catch up but @Emerald, do you think that there are no genuine individual cases where veganism was incompatible with their biology? 

I never said that no one would have negative effects on a Vegan diet. That would be an unsubstantiated claim. Any diet could potentially react negatively with someone's individual make-up.

What I said was that the scientific consensus is that the Vegan diet is a diet where you can get all your nutritional needs met at any phase of life... and that's its associated with better health and longevity according to various studies and meta-analyses. And it's associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality... and lower risk of heart disease and stroke.

And these are all scientifically based claims.

And I said that Integral's perspective was making unsubstantiated alarmist claims that Vegans are generally unhealthy and start looking like skulls and have all these health problems. And I said that his perspective is not holistic because he is valuing personal anecdotes from people who agree with him over the scientific consensus to maintain his unsubstantiated 'Veganism inherently causes health problems' claim.

But I'm sure that some people could react negatively to a Vegan diet. It's just not common that people do. There has to be something really specific going on... like a particular condition.

Like I know that people with epilepsy often benefit from a Ketogenic diet, which would be much more difficult on a Vegan diet compared to an animal-based diet.

There are also cases where people who already have auto-immune issues could have a negative reaction to quite a lot of plants. So, that might make a Vegan diet more challenging.

But for most people, Veganism doesn't create any health problems. 

That said, it's really common when someone quits Veganism that they come up with ways to rationalize their decision to themselves... and adopting beliefs that Veganism is unhealthy can be one such rationalization.

That's what I think is going on with Integral.

[gambler]

We should be talking about the data then. I learned that you shouldn’t rely on consensus of opinion, but rather on the consensus of data. The data needs to be irrefutable. It’s an appeal to authority to rely on the opinion of the scientific community, and if the opinion is actually incorrect, then you’d be arriving at an erroneous conclusion. So we need to look at the data and compare it to what’s being claimed and the data needs to back the claim irrefutably. 
 

What’s the irrefutable data that backs the claim that veganism is healthy for most people?

[Emerald]

4 minutes ago, gambler said:

We should be talking about the data then. I learned that you shouldn’t rely on consensus of opinion, but rather on the consensus of data. The data needs to be irrefutable. It’s an appeal to authority to rely on the opinion of the scientific community, and if the opinion is actually incorrect, then you’d be arriving at an erroneous conclusion. So we need to look at the data and compare it to what’s being claimed and the data needs to back the claim irrefutably. 
 

What’s the irrefutable data that backs the claim that veganism is healthy for most people?

Here's a study about plant based diets and their inverse relationship with all-cause mortality... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33951994/

But there was a very large meta-analysis where they cross referenced thousands of individual studies on the impact of diet on all-cause mortality (and maybe some other factors). And they found that the fewer animal products and the more plants are in someone's diet, the lower the risk of all-cause mortality.

I'll try to track that one down again.