Nunle

So I haven’t seen many studies like this one before. Personally I find stuff like this interesting in it’s on case, however, given it’s a UK based research group and given the sentiment that produced the sacking of David Nutt it’s clearly of political interest to.

The best summary comes The Lancet page,

You can see that the classification of drugs seems independent of mean harm. The paper also gives an excellent summary table, Which is only really useful once you read what the authors mean by: Acute, Chronic, Intravenous, Pleasure, Psychological Dependence, etc… I suggest you refer to their comments on "Categories of Harm" and “Assessment of Harm”.

Sorry for being away for so long. On the plus side I have had a good holiday. I’ll now try and get back into the habit of posting. Not that it really matters since no-one seems to read this blog.

Anyway, some things for your enjoyment.

1. Plato
2. Gravity
3. ClimateGate
4. You’ve heard of this one already

It depends on what you want. Do you want to take the upper ground, demonstrate your superiority and grab some self-righteousness? Then yes, being right is enough. Do you want to convince people to think like you, talk like you and walk like you? Then no, being right is not enough. Indeed being right is sometimes being wrong.

In reply to a recent Jack of Kent post, it is definitely not enough to be right if one wants to have a long lasting effect. Why should you believe me? I present the following argument and hope that you might trust in my several years experience in IT consulting. I should also be mentioned that the Deloitte training went through specifically included the statement, “being right is sometimes being wrong.” Deloitte is the second largest (gross revenue) professional services firm worldwide, so they’ve got to be doing something right.

1. People are relationally oriented.
2. It is well accepted that to convince someone of something it is easier if you they have some form of relationship with you. For example if that
1. empathise,
2. sympathise,
3. identify, or
4. respect you.
3. A pure demonstration of facts to contradict someone is a demonstration of social dominance which will often damage any existing or potential relationship.
1. One must consider the purpose of presenting the facts. Is it to prove the other person wrong or is it to help the other person understand why they are wrong?
4. THEREFORE, “being right” as in contradicting someone is often a disservice.
1. In many cases it is better to guide the person to a better understanding by helping them.
2. Use the facts to guide rather than stop.