Happy to offer a free virtual session for founders if there is interest here, as our work is always gifted.
I find it concerning you list experience providing psychotherapy in clinical practice on your CV. These terms are strongly associated with someone who has specific training, a license, and is answerable to an ethics board. It may give a mistaken impression to someone who is considering working with you.
Converse curiously; don't cross-examine.
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
Don't be curmudgeonly. Thoughtful criticism is fine, but please don't be rigidly or generically negative.
Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
I know it feels important to protect vulnerable people from being harmed by frauds, and related concerns. But we can safely assume that HN readers are reasonably competent and discerning adults, who can make up their own mind about these things.
I have benefited from psychedelics. I have also spent a lot of time with many survivors of severe domestic abuse / IPV / coercive control. Inducing psychedelic states in a workplace context in general would give me pause, but particularly so since it is likely to involve this population. The lifetime prevalence for US women is about 25%[1], and 10% for men[2], so this is a live issue in a workplace of any size.
I disagree that it's reasonable to expect readers to fully assess these service offerings. Issues around informed consent when doing psychological/spiritual work are complex and benefit from many perspectives. This is one of the reasons mental health is a regulated industry, with strict rules around client relationships, and ongoing ethics classes required to maintain licensure. If this were a piece of software impacting human health and I saw such potential technical issues, I would raise those as well.
I don’t believe this person is a fraud, and did not intend to give the impression I did. They are navigating a difficult and undeveloped regulatory landscape. There may be some social nuance I am missing, and I'm hoping this context improves the discussion.
[1] https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(21)02664-7/full... [2] https://www.cdc.gov/intimate-partner-violence/about/intimate...
My main concern was the cross-examining style of your original comment and it seems like you accept that the comment could have been better in that regard. Many thanks.