It's impossible to give a detailed explanation in every moderation comment, or even in 1% of them. It takes me many minutes, often an hour or more, and sometimes even several hours, to write a thoughtful, in-depth explanation, and then I have to vet it as carefully as I can to try to make sure that I haven't inadvertently made things worse.

Much as I would like to "add to the conversation" everywhere I post, I don't have hundreds of hours a day. I simply have no choice in most cases but to point to the guidelines and trust commenters to figure out how they might have broken them.

But as I have some extra time just now (which I didn't yesterday when I saw your reply) I have come back to try to give you more information.

First, your GP comment was not substantive. It pattern-matched to a snarky putdown ("$group-being-put-down rediscovers $generic-related thing"). You may not have intended it that way, but there wasn't enough information there to track any better intent. When your intent is not to post a snarky putdown, you need to include enough information in your comment to disambiguate that. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

Second, it was nationalistic/regional flamebait because you were putting down one region in favor of another. That leads to hellish flamewars and users can't do that here—regardless of which nation/region they're downing or upping. This applies even when you feel like you're merely defending one region against something unfair in another (because in fact it always feels that way).

Third, even if we ignore the first two points, you didn't engage with anything specific or interesting in the article. You simply took the most superficial detail (the word 'somatic' in the title) and combined it with the most superficial detail about yoga (it's also 'somatic'*). This was a classic case not only of a shallow dismissal but also of a generic tangent, which the site guidelines ask commenters not to do—because it usually leads to shallow, generic, and ultimately nasty discussion.

A better comment would have taken specific, interesting things about somatic therapy and linked them to specific, interesting things about yoga in a way that illuminated the connection rather than denouncing with pejoratives.

Your follow-up comment did a little better job of this - but "movement, consciousness and health" is still much too generic to capture anything meaningful about the somatic variations of psychotherapy that are the topic of the article. Meanwhile your sentence "the west insists on reinventing the wheel and marketing these “discoveries” as their own invention" is more nationalistic flamebait of exactly the type we ask users not to post here.

I completely understand the feeling when something you're close to feels "taken" by some other entity and passed off as its own. I have that reaction with things I care about too. But I'm afraid you misread the somatic therapists and jumped to an incorrect conclusion, in at least two ways. First, what they're doing is not at all the same thing as yoga. Second, they're well aware of the similarities with yoga and credit it. They're not passing it off as their own invention. In fact, the Bassel van der Kolk book about trauma which is central to the article contains an entire chapter about yoga.

(* and btw yes, I know that most forms of yoga do not involve somatic poses and that the word yoga does not imply it.)