= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
hyporational 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)
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.