Lumifer comments on Crazy Ideas Thread, Aug. 2015 - Less Wrong

7 Post author: polymathwannabe 11 August 2015 01:24PM

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

Comments (240)

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

Comment author: pianoforte611 11 August 2015 10:51:41PM *  6 points [-]

Not arbitrary! Those are not small effect sizes. To determine that someone's neurological development is such that they are not at the same level of risk for alcohol dependence as the general population, requires a test that doesn't exist. Moreover there is no need for such a test to exist because simple rules work better than complex rules. The drinking age law is simple and effective.

Comment author: Lumifer 12 August 2015 04:18:10PM 1 point [-]

Moreover there is no need for such a test to exist because simple rules work better than complex rules.

That rather depends on your definition of "better".

An even simpler rule is two words: "No alcohol" -- for everyone. As I recall, the US Prohibition wasn't such a great success, though.

Comment author: pianoforte611 12 August 2015 08:54:50PM 2 points [-]

The U.S. prohibition was very successful at its goals (whether those goals were correct depends on your values). The minimum drinking age is also quite effective at its goals.

Comment author: Salemicus 13 August 2015 10:47:45AM 4 points [-]

US prohibition was very successful at its goal of reducing alchohol consumption, and you are right that this is insufficiently appreciated. But it also resulted in massive organised crime. Your linked article is extremely unpersuasive on this point.

Although organized crime flourished under its sway, Prohibition was not responsible for its appearance, as organized crime’s post-Repeal persistence has demonstrated.

Ha! And lest anyone thinks I'm being unfair, that is literally its only discussion of the massive increase in organized crime caused by Prohibition. In an article that repeatedly discusses the possibility of people being socialised into different modes of behaviour, too!

Now, "don't cause a massive increase in organised crime" wasn't exactly a goal of the WCTU et al when they were campaigning for Prohibition. It was simply not on their radar, so you're kinda right that Prohibition succeeded in its goals. But looking at the implicit goals more broadly, Prohibition was a disaster, despite its success at its ostensible primary goal, in exactly the way that Lumifer's "blinking ad" example demonstrates.

Comment author: Lumifer 12 August 2015 09:24:22PM *  -2 points [-]

The U.S. prohibition was very successful at its goals

Heh. Was it successful, full stop? Do we want more of it? Was repealing Prohibition a mistake?

If I want my computer to not show me the blinking ad, I can smash my computer to bits. Was I successful at my goal? Yes, I was X-/

Comment author: pianoforte611 12 August 2015 09:31:42PM *  3 points [-]

I'm sorry, I find it very draining to respond to snarky, content light comments. I've provided substantial data to back my specific claims and I'm not going to get dragged into a meaningless debate.