From the article:

    Consider when blogger Gwern explained that nicotine, actually, is not addictive, and is good for you, as long as you don't smoke it, over the course of 9,000 words, with over 100 references. It turns out, actually, nicotine is addictive, and is bad for you even if you don't smoke it, as you probably already obviously knew.

The first sentence is a link to the Gwern essay, which does indeed have over 100 references and is rigorously argued and appropriately caveated.

The second sentence is a link to a Substack essay, which has two screenshots of two individuals self-reporting “nicotine bad” on Twitter, one of whom smoked it.

By the content and construction of these sentences, the author makes it abundantly clear that he finds the second overwhelmingly more convincing than the first, and that the second essentially refutes the first.

Given that the only evidentiary standard this author appears to be able to apply is “how much does this agree what what I already believe”, I find that I agree with his claim that extra words don’t make his articles better, and I would extend this to say that fewer words would make them better still, with perfection achieved when the number of words reaches zero.

▲ eatitraw 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> The second sentence is a link to a Substack essay

The author of the second essay here! It's a pro-nicotine one — the OP just linked to the very end of it. Moreover Gwern himself reviewed my essay during Inkhaven (https://www.inkhaven.blog/), a 30-posts-in-30-days program.

I asked Gwern explicitly if he ever feels responsible for getting some people addicted to nicotine. His answer was something along of the lines of: “No, I explicitly warned people that (1) vaping/smoking is addictive and (2) if you ever was addicted to nicotine, even sublingual nicotine is enough to get people addicted”.

I do think it's important to warn people that they should be careful with the substance and watch their usage, so I included the screenshots in my essay!

	▲	jacquesm 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That's a complete cop-out then. He should have reasonably foreseen that that would be the exact effect. Most normal people reading his piece would come away with the opposite conclusion. The title alone: "On the benefits and lack of demerits of nicotine (research up to 2015)" Is enough to make people go 'oh, that's ok then' without investing in trying to understand the subtlety of the argument made. You can add 500 references and spend 30K words but you've already lost by the first line of the article. It would have taken 10 seconds to put a bit right at the top that says 'do not see this article as an excuse to go smoke or vape' or maybe even something harsher than that. With great power etc ...

▲ xrd 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yes, I hate to admit I am/was someone that assumed nicotine is bad, but Gwern's article is fascinating and well researched. This was a poor hill to die on for this article.

	▲	preg_match an hour ago \| parent [-]
		No nicotine is actually basically bad. Basically all the scientific evidence we have on nicotine products is that it’s bad and addictive. It is a stimulant though, which means it can, potentially, help people with conditions like ADHD. But then again, we have real medicine for those, that we know works. All the people who think nicotine is not that bad have clearly not used it long enough, and aren’t addicted enough. There does come a point where it will feel like your bones are trying to escape your body when you dare relinquish from nicotine. Then, it will be clear it is bad. If there are any doubts nicotine is bad, simply ask nicotine users. And by that I mean, not the people who used Zyn once or twice to study for an exam.

▲ throwawayy6767 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don't have a horse in the "is nicotine good/bad" race, but having lots of references and being argued to death isn't a proxy for being true. Gwern is a former wikipedia admin so peppering everything with references and going line by line, usenet style, to demolish someone's argument is his bread and butter. That just makes him an excellent rhetorician in the online community of people who relate to this argumentative style (typically people who read wikipedia a lot), not a source of truth. When it comes to fields I know a bit more about it's pretty easy to see through the irrelevant citation gish gallop.

▲ FeepingCreature 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

(To clarify the Gwernpost, nicotine isn't primarily addictive but habit forming. So for instance if you get your nicotine from cigarettes you end up habituated to smoking cigs, and so on. But you can use it to habituate to anything else as well.)

▲ TonyStr 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Ironically, the Substack essay which was linked to is titled "A Love Song to Nicotine" and is all about how the author enjoys using nicotine for productivity boosts, and doesn't feel like he experiences many downsides to using it.

▲ alexwennerberg 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> By the content and construction of these sentences, the author makes it abundantly clear that he finds the second overwhelmingly more convincing than the first, and that the second essentially refutes the first.

> Given that the only evidentiary standard this author appears to be able to apply is “how much does this agree what what I already believe”

Mainstream medical science along with common sense point to nicotine being addictive and bad for you. I don't really feel the need to interrogate that view, especially when "interrogating" in this context would mean spending dozens of hours of my life going line-by-line through each reference and trying to understand the context of a field which, frankly speaking, neither me nor the author of the article have any business trying to evaluate. The only winning move is not to play.

	▲	murderfs 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Mainstream medical science along with common sense point to nicotine being addictive and bad for you. Gwern's article cites many, many peer reviewed journal articles (aka mainstream medical science) about how nicotine's addictiveness is overblown, and you're citing three tweets. Common sense points to you being clueless in all of your writing, even though I haven't read it, and I don't really feel the need to interrogate that view.