Kawoomba comments on Welcome to Less Wrong! (July 2012) - Less Wrong

20 Post author: ciphergoth 18 July 2012 05:24PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (843)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Kawoomba 23 February 2013 06:13:08AM 0 points [-]

The problem I see with television is that the average person spends 4 hours a day watching it. (...) Spending four hours a day in fantasy mode is not possible for me (I'm too motivated to DO something) and I don't seem to need anywhere near that much daydreaming.

What's wrong with live and let live (for their notion of 'living'). You can value "DO"ing something (apparently not counting daydreaming) over other activities for yourself, that's your prerogative, but why do you get to say who is and isn't "living"?

Comment author: Epiphany 23 February 2013 08:57:07AM *  2 points [-]

That was addressed here:

I imagine that if asked whether they would have preferred to watch x number of shows, or spent all of that free time on getting out there and living, most people would probably choose the latter - and that's sad.

It's not that I want to tell them whether they're "really living", it's that I think they don't think spending so much of their free time on TV is "really living".

Now, if you want to disagree with me on whether they think they are "really living", that might be really interesting. I acknowledge that mind projection fallacy might be causing me to think they want what I want.

Comment author: taelor 23 February 2013 11:18:15AM 2 points [-]

I suspect that many people who enjoy television, if asked, would claim that socializing with freinds or other things are somehow better or more pure, but only because TV is a low status medium, and so saying that watching TV isn't "real living" has become somewhat of a cached thought within our culture; I'd suspect you'd have a much harder time finding people who will claim that spending time enjoying art or reading classic literature or other higher status fictional media doesn't count as "real living".

Comment author: Nornagest 23 February 2013 09:40:05AM *  1 point [-]

It's not that I want to tell them whether they're "really living", it's that I think they don't think spending so much of their free time on TV is "really living".

I think I might actually expect people to endorse different activities in this context at different levels of abstraction.

That is, if you asked J. Random TV Consumer to rank (say) TV and socialization, or study, or some other venue for self-improvement, I wouldn't be too surprised if they consistently picked the latter. But if you broke down these categories into specific tasks, I'd expect individual shows to rate more highly -- in some cases much more highly -- than implied by the category rating.

I'm not sure what this implies about true preferences.

Comment author: Epiphany 23 February 2013 10:17:04AM 0 points [-]

I think I need an example of this to understand your point here.

Comment author: Nornagest 23 February 2013 10:40:04AM 1 point [-]

Well, for example, I wouldn't be too surprised to find the same person saying both "I'd rather socialize than watch TV" and "I'd rather watch Game of Thrones [or other popular TV show] than call my friend for dinner tonight".

Of course that's just one specialization, and the plausibility of a particular scenario depends on personality and relative appeal.