army1987 comments on Outside the Laboratory - Less Wrong

63 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 21 January 2007 03:46AM

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

Comments (336)

Sort By: Old

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

Comment author: Lumifer 16 December 2013 06:50:30PM 0 points [-]

Or fatty.

Not sure about that. Fat makes food more tasty (mostly through contributing what's called "mouth feel"), but it doesn't look like a super-stimulus to me.

Shouldn't pretty much any cooked food be a super-stimulus

Well, depends on how do you want to define "super-stimulus". I understand it to mean triggering hardwired biological preferences above and beyond the usual and normal desire to eat tasty food. The two substances specifically linked to super-stimulus are sugar and salt.

Again, super-stimulus is not the same thing as yummy.

Comment author: [deleted] 16 December 2013 06:58:14PM 1 point [-]

The two substances specifically linked to super-stimulus are sugar and salt.

I'm not sure it's that simple -- chocolate is more of a super-stimulus than fruits for most people.

Comment author: Lumifer 16 December 2013 07:03:30PM 0 points [-]

True. On the other hand, take away the sugar and see how many chocoholics are willing to eat 99% dark chocolate :-/

Comment author: hyporational 16 December 2013 07:18:48PM *  0 points [-]

Ever seen a child lick butter off a slice of bread? Don't tell me they would lick off just salt too.

Comment author: Lumifer 16 December 2013 07:25:36PM 0 points [-]

I've seen both. In the case of salt it's lick finger, stick it into the salt bowl, lick clean, repeat.

Comment author: hyporational 16 December 2013 07:27:31PM 0 points [-]

Ah, now that you reminded me I've seen the latter too, dammit.

Comment author: [deleted] 17 December 2013 08:31:16AM 2 points [-]

Dunno about 99% (though if you set the bar as low as "willing to eat" I probably would), but I do find 85% dark chocolate quite addictive (as in, I seldom manage to buy a tablet and not finish it within a couple days). But I know I'm weird.

Comment author: Lumifer 17 December 2013 04:50:25PM 1 point [-]

buy a tablet and not finish it within a couple days

A couple of days! :-) That's not what "addiction" means.

Comment author: [deleted] 18 December 2013 08:35:49AM *  0 points [-]

I meant it in the colloquial ‘takes lots of willpower to stop’ sense, not the technical ‘once I stop I get withdrawal symptoms’ sense. (Is there a technical term for the former?)

(OK, it does seem to me that whenever I eat chocolate daily for a few weeks and then stop, I feel much grumpier for a few days, but that's another story, and anyway it's not like I took enough statistics to rule out it being a coincidence,)

Comment author: Lumifer 18 December 2013 04:06:13PM 1 point [-]

I meant it in the colloquial ‘takes lots of willpower to stop’ sense, ... (Is there a technical term for the former?)

The verb "like" and a variety of synonyms :-D

Comment author: [deleted] 19 December 2013 07:30:14AM 0 points [-]

Not quite -- I'm talking about the upper extreme of what Yvain here calls “wanting”, though that word in the common vernacular has strong connotations of what he calls “approving”.

Comment author: Lumifer 19 December 2013 04:12:55PM 1 point [-]

I know some chocoholics. Trust me, if it takes you a couple of days to finish a chocolate bar, you're not addicted :-D

Comment author: hyporational 19 December 2013 04:32:34PM 0 points [-]

Is there something wrong with binging or compulsion? Withdrawal symptoms would imply dependence, but not necessarily addiction.