= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
brazil84 comments on Outside the Laboratory - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (336)
Sigh. So you really think that the cause of obesity is that food is just too yummy, too attractive?
Before you answer, think about different countries, other than US. Japan, maybe? France?
Please try to avoid the typical mind fallacy. People around me don't seem to have the urge to overeat pizza. A lot of them just don't like it, others might eat a slice once in a while but no more. Nobody is obsessed with pizza and I doubt many will agree that "pizza tastes really good" -- they'll either say "it depends" or shrug and say that pizza is basic cheap food, to be grabbed on the run when hungry.
No one -- not a single person around me -- shows signs of having to exert significant will power to avoid stuffing her face with pizza.
Presumably there is a logical "AND" between you sentence parts. Depends on what do you mean by "taste really good" (see above about pizza) and by "a lot".
People generally overeat not because the food is too yummy. People generally overeat for hormonal and psychological reasons.
Absolutely. (And too available.)
I've been thinking about this question pretty intensely for a couple years now.
Where did you get the impression that I am going just by my own experiences?
Roughly what percentage of the people around you are overweight or obese? Of those who are overweight or obese, do they seem to have the urge to eat any foods or types of foods to excess?
For purposes of this exchange, I will define "taste really good" as being at the high end of "yummy." Since you used the word "yummy" before, you presumably know what you meant.
I will define "a lot" as more than 5 million Americans.
Ok, now do you agree that there exist certain foods which (1) are considered to be very yummy by a majority of Americans; (2) which a lot of Americans have a problem with (in the sense that they have difficulty controlling their consumption of these foods); and (3) which are like an addiction (in the sense that some people feel compelled to overconsume such foods despite knowing or having received professional advice that they are consuming too much food)
Well then, you have an unusual viewpoint :-) Any evidence to support it?
Because you didn't offer any data or other evidence. It looked just like a classic stereotype -- look at all these fat Americans who can't stop shoving pizzas into their pieholes!
10-15%, maybe?
Nope, not to my knowledge. Of course some might be wolfing down bags of cookies in the middle of the night, but I don't know about it :-)
I will still say no because I don't think food is addictive. But let me try to see where to do you want to get to.
Let's take full-sugar soda, e.g. Coca-Cola. There certainly has been lots of accusatory fingers pointed at it. The majority of Americans drinks it, so I guess (1) is kinda satisfied. Do people have difficulty controlling their consumption of it? Yep, so (2) fits as well. On the other hand, these people tend to have difficulty controlling a lot of things in their lives, for example credit cards, so I'm not sure there is anything food-specific going on here. Is it like an addiction? Nope, I don't think so. "Knowing professional advice" is way too low an incentive for people to change their ways.
You're not doing it either, y'know.
I think you have now (re?)defined at least two words, super-stimulus and addictive, to fit your purposes. Tobacco doesn't fit your definition of addictive either.
I'm neither proposing nor defending a hypothesis.
I did define "super-stimulus", but I don't think I tried to define "addictive" (and that's a slippery word, often defined to suit a particular stance).
Have you read this relevant article? It's confusing when you say you're disagreeing with a definition, when you actually mean you're disagreeing with the connotation.
I am not sure what are you referring to...?
Addiction is "a slippery word, often defined to suit a particular stance".
Super-stimulus is "mostly used to demonize certain "bad" things (notably, sugar and salt) with the implication that people can't just help themselves and so need the government (or another nanny) to step in and impose rules.".
Sure, you finally explicitly said these things but you could have said you disagreed with the connotations in the first place, which would have made the discussion about definitions pointless and perhaps dissolved some disagreement.
I do, but I prefer to stay focused on the subject at hand.
Let's see if I have this straight -- any time someone makes a generalization about human nature without simultaneously volunteering data or other evidence, one can reasonably assume that they are engaged in the typical mind fallacy? Do I understand you correctly?
And of those 10-15%, roughly what percentage have tried to lose weight and failed?
So let's see if I understand your position:
You deny that there are a lot of people who consume certain foods even while knowing that they are consuming too much food?
If it contradicts one's personal experience then yes, one can reasonably assume. Subject to being corrected by evidence, of course.
I don't know. None of them visibly yo-yos. Pretty much everyone once in a while says "I could lose a few pounds", but it's meaningless small talk on the order of "Weather is beastly today, eh?"
No, I don't deny that, I just think that the word "addiction" is not the appropriate one.
Well your personal experience contradicts mine. So please try to avoid engaging in the Lumifer Typical Mind Fallacy. Thank you.
But you do know that none of them have a difficult-to-resist urge to eat certain foods or types of foods?
Well please answer the question I asked and not the question you imagine I had asked.
I asked (among other things) if there were certain foods which "are like an addiction (in the sense that some people feel compelled to overconsume such foods despite knowing or having received professional advice that they are consuming too much food)"
I was careful to say "like an addiction" and to describe what I actually meant.
So it seems you DO agree with me that there exist certain foods which (1) are considered to be very yummy by a majority of Americans; (2) which a lot of Americans have a problem with (in the sense that they have difficulty controlling their consumption of these foods); and (3) which are like an addiction (in the sense that some people feel compelled to overconsume such foods despite knowing or having received professional advice that they are consuming too much food)
Right?
Good. Do notice that, as opposed to you, I did not attempt to "make a generalization about human nature" on the basis of my personal experience.
Of course not.
I am not inclined to play fisking games (or lets-adjust-this-definition-to-split-the-hair-in-half games) on these forums. No, I do not agree with you. You have enough information to figure out how and why.
Ummm, here's one thing you said before:
You didn't offer any evidence or data to back this up.
It contradicts my personal experience.
Therefore you have committed the Lumifer Typical Mind Fallacy.
Please try to avoid it in the future.
Lol, then your personal experience doesn't even contradict my basic point.
Say what? You just redefined my words so that you could answer a different question.
I asked (among other things) if you agreed that there are foods which are "like an addiction (in the sense that some people feel compelled to overconsume such foods despite knowing or having received professional advice that they are consuming too much food)"
You reinterpreted that question as though I was asking whether certain foods are addictive. So that you could easily answer "no" using your own definition of "addictive."
Please answer the question I asked -- not the question you wish or imagine I asked.
Yes, I have enough information to make a pretty good guess as to why you are evading my question.
Contrary opinion:
Also, while I don't find pizza to be at all addictive, my experience is that hamburgers are very much so. I've had experiences where I successfully avoided eating any meat for two months in a row, then succumbed to the temptation of eating a single hamburger and then ate some several times a week for the next month.
Interesting. I just get such consistent meat cravings that I don't even bother trying to not eat meat. I just buy a certain amount and eat it as a basic food group.
Yes, I am aware that such exist :-)
It's really a definitions argument, about what one can/should apply the word "addiction" to. As such it's not very interesting, at least until it gets to connotations and consequences (e.g. if it's an addiction, the government can regulate it or make it illegal).
It's human to succumb to temptations. Not all temptations are addictions.
Succumbing to a temptation occasionally is one thing. But even a single case of that happening leading to a month-long relapse? That's much more addiction-ish.
The government can regulate or ban things as public health risks which are not deemed addictions though, and things which are recognized as addictive are not necessarily regulated or banned.
All true, but if you look at it from a different side: if you want to regulate or ban something, would you rather call it an addiction or an unfortunate exercise of the freedom choice? :-)
Well, the latter characterization would certainly not aid me in my attempts to get it banned, but if calling it an addiction were likely to result in semantic squabbling, I'd probably just call it a public health risk.
If you're liberal enough about what people are allowed to do, should you call anything an addiction? I'm not sure if politics connotatively hijacking scientific terminology is a good reason to change the terminology. Would you suggest something like that?
Sure. I would call things which change your personal biochemistry in the medium term (e.g. opiates) addictive. I think it's a reasonable use of the term.
There are opiate receptors in the brain because your brain produces transmitters that bind to those receptors. You should expect certain behaviours you engage to change your personal biochemistry in various time spans as well.
Casomorphins in dairy have opioid effects, as does chocolate. Overconsumption of high-sugar high-fat foods alters opioid receptors in the brain. Naloxone, a drug for treating opiate overdose, is effective in reducing binging.
It also seems that food scientists specifically try to make food as addictive as possible, which seems like an expected outcome from a capitalist food market -- whatever encourages the most consumption will win greater market share.
Is it an addiction on par with heroin, alcohol, or tobacco? I doubt it, but using an addiction model might be helpful in treating overeating.
Don't have links handy but my impression is that this was tried, lots of times, and failed badly.
As to the general question of food being addictive, this is mostly an issue of how you define "addictive". I find it useful to draw boundaries so that food (as well as, say, sex or internet) do not fall within them.
On the other hand, I don't see a sharp divide between "food" and "drugs". Eating certain kinds of food clearly has certain biochemical consequences.
What word would you use for people who eat so much they can't move, get HIV from prostitutes, or play WoW with such dedication they die? These people clearly have something in common, and it's definitely more specific than stupidity.
That is not self-evident to me.
Sick (in the medical sense, I bet their hormonal system is completely screwed up).
Regular guys with bad judgement and worse luck.
Guys who do not know their limits.
An unlucky choice of examples, I guess. Switch the question to "could brains that can't seem to be able to regulate their behaviour to the point they're severely damaged by it have something in common in their basic physiology that predisposes them to dysregulation when exposed to certain sensory stimuli?" This is still vague enough there's room for evasion, so if you want to continue that way, I suppose it's better we forget about this.
Well, as I have said several times it's a matter of definition and how wide you want to define "addiction" is arbitrary.
Sure, you can define it as positive-feedback loops that subvert conscious control over behavior or something like that -- but recall that all definitions must serve a purpose and without one there is no reason to prefer one over another. What's the purpose here?
Note that the purpose cannot be "Can we call eating disorders addictions?" because that's a pure definition question -- however you define "addiction" will be the answer.
The purpose is to recognize harmful behaviours that people could benefit from fixing and that those behaviours might have similarities that can be exploited. If you browse porn 12 hours a day, it's quite probable you realize you have a problem, but have significant difficulty in changing your behaviour. If you want to browse porn 12 hours a day, then that's fine too, and nobody should try to fix you without your permission.
I don't care what you call them, it suffices that the above purposes are fulfilled and that people understand each other.