the fact that he [...] caused negative outcomes in several people including drug-induced psychosis is well-established
No, it isn’t: see Scott Alexander’s followup comment in which he reports that he “interviewed many of the people involved” and that his “main conclusion is that I was wrong about Michael making people psychotic.”
situation considered complicated, calling it pure selection effect is cope at best, enabling at worst. calling it pure causality would be a ridiculous witch hunt. truth is messier and counterfactuals are hard.
No, it isn’t: see Scott Alexander’s followup comment in which he reports that he “interviewed many of the people involved” and that his “main conclusion is that I was wrong about Michael making people psychotic.”
situation considered complicated, calling it pure selection effect is cope at best, enabling at worst. calling it pure causality would be a ridiculous witch hunt. truth is messier and counterfactuals are hard.
Thanks for the correction, I try to avoid drama and sometimes it means I miss correction comments and such.
I’m still wary of the process but don’t really want to engage more