[troutwine]

It is a wild claim. I think it's important to understand that LessWrong -- whatever it eventually became -- comes out of the SF Bay Area "Rationalist" community. Despite claims to generality, it's a narrow way of reasoning about the world with some odd outcomes. Personally, I think the notion of an "information hazard" is a fine story point in a Neal Stephenson story but taking the idea seriously enough to have nightmares about Roko's basilisk and to ban discussion of it[1] is pushing past the bounds of 'rationality' I think. That a chunk of the core LessWrong crowd went into Effective Altruism ends-justify-the-means think or into neo-reactionary circles -- to a less degree -- is also worth noting: despite claims with regard to general well-being both political ideologies are more than happy to cause mass suffering so long as the expected outcomes are good, eventually, maybe.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roko%27s_basilisk#Reactions

[theragra]

This claim does not look so wild of you encounter people outside your usual educated and smart bubble. Just recently in the sauna a girl explained to me how salt is good to your soul. But not white chemical salt from the store. Only raw salt from under the ground, 10€ per small bottle. She does not sell it, just a victim herself.

[SlickNixon]

Maybe she likes the way eating raw salt makes her feel.

[troutwine]

No, the claim is still wild. Ignorance of chemistry in one person or woo-woo beliefs is not an indication for the article's general claims about humanity. You also do not know me or my social circle. There's a cynicism in your post that says maybe more about you than about the claim in the article, friend.