How not to convince me

TL;DR: That which is presented without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

In this blog posting, the author takes on the role of a father, advising his son. His wisdom entails, in so many words, that women are goddesses in hiding, men can be gods too, but men have to work for it. And that work consists of - you guessed it - withholding orgasm. He claims that orgasm "weakens you and opens the door to diseases."

Nothing new there.

The appallingly condescending tone of the thing does not do an awful lot to convince me, but that is the least of the troubles.

In the ensuing reddit discussion, he clarified he was not actually talking about orgasm - but rather ejaculation. That he is well aware of the distinction, and knew of the existence of nonejaculatory orgasms. He said that he used orgasm as a short-hand, "because it was a mere 500 word posting". I'm not buying this, but let's let that one slip.

He said he was not talking about serious illness, but stuff like the flu or herpes. Upon request for evidence, he refused to "give away free data", because he felt offended by my criticism.

That one is highly amusing. The sheer creativity of authors covering up their lack of evidence is truly astounding. I tried it quite a few times, to no avail. There is always some reason why they don't, can't, won't come up with real data.

True, I was very harsh. I'm fed up with all the bullshit that people tout with regard to male sexuality and orgasm, and right now, I'm not in the mood to mince words. It will probably mean that I and this fellow will never be friends, but that's a loss I'll just have to live with.

Here's what I think: He does not have any data. Nor does he have any explanation for how this is supposed to work. Apart from maybe something or other about energy, or maybe zinc.

He has a few personal anecdotes and vague impressions, he's read a few books that propagate old religious superstitions about qi and retention. Books that, themselves, rely on anecdotal evidence and "old wisdom" or "spiritual science", which is just a nice way of saying "crap that someone pulled out of their arse".

The saddest part is that, apart from being uncapable to put his message into clear words, this guy is not a liar or deliberately trying to fool people. I'm sure he absolutely believes what he says. He thinks he is being rational, and giving good advice. He just does not know what constitues evidence, and how to phrase his message so that it conveys a confidence level lower than 1.

Just in case, I know how it feels. You have this big revelation, this truly and utterly deep truth that shook your world and made you well. You want to convey it. Everyone should know this! Everybody will love your message! They just have to understand.

Been there, done that. Got the "stupid" label well on my forehead.

But that just ain't how it works. Son.

If you want to convince me, I suggest you do the following:

• Use a non-condescending, humble style. You are not an authority. Don't try to act like one.
• Have at least an inkling of a coherent theory. There is no reason to believe claims without explanation.
• Caveats are a good thing. Anticipate counter-arguments and possible refutations. That shows that you thought this through before writing.
• Show your evidence, or at least admit that there is none. Your personal experience is quite fine, it just means that it is not my experience, so there is no reason for me to believe it if those experiences don't match.
• Whenever you're engaging in speculation, admit to it. There is nothing wrong with speculation, and the status of your claims is an integral part of the message.
• Whenever you do not know for sure, admit to it. There is nothing wrong with that. It supports the reader's evaluation of your claims.