>What makes you think that even if you're sure your mind is stable, that it's not left in it's local minima of abilities?

I don't think anybody needs to justify to anyone else why they don't want to tamper with their mind. This is by definition a subjective topic. If this person's intuition is that tampering with their mind will destabilize it, that's legitimate. Nobody is in a place to question someone's intuitions about their own mind. Other minds are alien experiences -- unknowable. Not everyone can, wants to, or needs to push their consciousness to the theoretical idea maximum of its capacity as defined by another fully isolated subject. It's deeply irresponsible for anyone to suggest, or aggressively advocate, otherwise.

I am pretty certain that subjects treated for paranoid schizophrenia would disagree with you (or probably mostly their doctors).

I think you’re missing the main point of my message that if you accept minds are alien to each other then you can’t possibly give any suggestions on whether it’s good or bad to affect one’s mind.

Your “deeply irresponsible” is equally invalid in your point of view as my point. But frankly I deeply disagree with it. If our minds were that different our education system would never work for example, or sports coaches would never be able to train other people. People are variant, but their variation is finite.

In that respect you are correct. I thought I had specified in the comment, but it appears I deleted it by mistake while editing. I was specifically talking about people who are not unwell in some way. I was replying to a comment specifically poking another to justify their lack of desire to try this "technology" out.

My point should be taken as "nobody needs to explain to you why they don't want to try your 'psychotechnology', you're not visibly an expert in this, nor is this author". This is more a case of someone on the street offering you a powered substance, as opposed to case, a pharmacist handing you tablets from Pfizer.

I'm genuinely confused by your argument. This is simply conscious training for the mind. Do you believe your mind developed in a vacuum? You do train your mind with habits, experiences, internal and external input, constantly. How is it worse than that to take it to the conscious, intentional level?

Because we don't know what the full implications of training with untested, pseudoscientific 'tricks' from some website will be? Because for some people alterations in perception might be destabilizing? Because someone does not fully understand it? Because it's possible to train your mind to do the wrong things as a healthy person with no idea what you're doing?

Your assessment of site's content is just that -- an assessment by a random person on the internet about a subject they can't concretely demonstrate expertise in. A subject that, if misapplied, can ruin people's lives. If someone says "no I'm fine", that's enough.

Like I said before, I don't think anybody needs to justify to anyone else why they don't want to tamper with their mind. It's baffling to me why this isn't sufficient.

Not every random website on the internet is wrong and you can always cross-check information with respected books, authors and some personal advice from real people.