Jobs was one of a kind, and to attribute his achievements even in part, to hallucinogens is a fallacy. If it was true, there would be more people like Steve Jobs in the world today.
I think Steve was wrong on this, as he was wrong on other things, i.e. that pancreatic cancer could be treated with a special diet. Maybe if Steve sought medical attention earlier he would still be with us today changing the world.
The man himself asserted that certain experiences are integral to his outlook, and by extension a certain measure of his success. Maybe you don't like how he came by those experiences - so what? What fallacy is being committed here?
I wouldn't conflate his position on hallucinogens with his opinion on alternative medicine. He doesn't have to be either all right or all wrong.
> Concluding that he wouldn't been the same successful person without doing LSD. There's no evidence of causation. That's the fallacy.
Who's making that conclusion? As far as I can tell, nobody's attributing his success entirely to LSD. I'm sure he'd have been successful without it. But a person is a product of their experiences, and he plainly states that LSD factored strongly into it. You can disbelieve him, but I don't know why one would have trouble believing that.
I tend to agree that this is only getting so much play right now because of the Jobs connection, which is getting annoying for some, but that doesn't make the points being made any less valid.
Everyone who even brings up that he used LSD as a point of interest. At least that's the implication being made.
> that doesn't make the points being made any less valid.
No, the points are not valid. That's why we have a scientific method that proves causation.
It's the exact same fallacy that someone falls into with e.g. alternative medicine. A person's cancer went into remission while they were eating tree bark. They are free to believe it helped them, but that doesn't mean it's scientifically, or even remotely, the case. Taking their word for it doesn't make it true.
The notion that psychadelics affect a person's outlook is not that great a leap to make, and others have already posted links to studies supporting that. While I'm not asserting that LSD was the lynchpin to his success, I really don't see that it's the same as alternative medicine at all.
Unless you were a personal friend of Steve Jobs, I don't see how you can possibly support this statement. You're saying that you know, for sure, that Steve's experiences with drugs did not influence his intellectual development or his sense of aesthetics in any useful way?
My dad died nine months after being diagnosed with Pancreatic Cancer, which was three months longer than expected. Steve Jobs died years later, after the Whipple Surgery and a liver transplant.
I'm sorry for you loss. Jobs had a rare type of pancreatic cancer, islet cell neuroendocrine tumour, which accounts for ~1.3% of cases. With early enough treatment, the prognosis for this type of cancer is much better than other types of pancreatic cancer.
Slightly different situation, as Steve Jobs had an extremely rare form of pancreatic cancer that is much less fatal than the common one, that he chose not to treat thereby making it fatal.
I think Steve was wrong on this, as he was wrong on other things, i.e. that pancreatic cancer could be treated with a special diet. Maybe if Steve sought medical attention earlier he would still be with us today changing the world.