As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

[chat] is Beautiful

14647495152100

Posts

  • TavTav Registered User regular
    there is one dude in my company who i'm sure is very angry right now and i hope he's having a terrible day

    Sleep
  • amateurhouramateurhour One day I'll be professionalhour The woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered User regular
    It's kinda funny to think about twitter and facebook and zoom and how many mid and high level people are going to get fired based on their negative reactions to the verdict today.

    It's really fascinating seeing something like this through the eyes of an adult vs when I was in fifth or sixth grade when they read the OJ verdict


    Arch wrote: »

    I never expected this burn from captain bushmeat
    AtomikacredeikiSleepshrykeknitdan
  • TavTav Registered User regular
    AND he doubled down and posted a picture of looters that says "use code "BLM" for 15% off at Nike"

    I sent a polite message to my boss who owns the discord server. I guess this is why we can't have nice things.

    this doesn't even make sense!! The shoes would be 100% off!! At least have your shitty meme be accurate

    amateurhourChanusHahnsoo1Peewishryke
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    MrMister wrote: »
    Surely this isn't true? We can establish standards to evaluate quality of life, we can assess the relative quality of decision-making, we can see and recognize cases where people make decisions that are against their best interests, even repeatedly, even when it causes severe harm. People engage in indulgent activities that they do not enjoy and end up feeling shame and self-loathing. These are all common, normal experiences. Does procrastination improve quality of life?.

    As a matter of descriptive fact, the best measures of quality of life that we have for policy purposes are based off either choices people actually make or the choices that they report that they would make (QALY and DALY measures work this way).

    ...what?

    I either don't understand what this line means, or it's saying something deeply misleading. I choose to assume the former. What do you mean by this? Can you elaborate?

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
    Shivahn
  • amateurhouramateurhour One day I'll be professionalhour The woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered User regular
    Tav wrote: »
    AND he doubled down and posted a picture of looters that says "use code "BLM" for 15% off at Nike"

    I sent a polite message to my boss who owns the discord server. I guess this is why we can't have nice things.

    this doesn't even make sense!! The shoes would be 100% off!! At least have your shitty meme be accurate

    I'm sorry I didn't pay that much attention to it. It did say 100%


    Arch wrote: »

    I never expected this burn from captain bushmeat
  • jungleroomxjungleroomx Never pre-order anything. Registered User regular
    "Oh god, you're so tough, with your fucking open nose and throat" - Bill Burr to Joe Rogan, after Joe said masks were for "pussies."
    Evil MultifariousVanguardtyrannusamateurhourRear Admiral ChocodescAtomikaKetarzepherinFeralSnicketysnickChanusoverride367HappylilElfSleepKruiteshrykeMazzyxIncenjucarknitdanRMS OceanicAegisAlexandiersyndalis
  • amateurhouramateurhour One day I'll be professionalhour The woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered User regular
    What bothers me about this guy is that he's 50 and he's a little bootstrappy but he's english second language. He grew up in South America and came here with his family. Like he's not actually a shitty person, he just doesn't understand the world around us in this country because it isn't his and his families culture.

    We've had talk about it, from him being nervous and wanting to buy his first firearm to shitty stuff trump has done. He's one of those people that will read Fox and CNN and not know which side to believe.

    I really want to help him, offer advice, but shit he makes it tough when I also have to help him out with actual work too.

    Like, my career at this point is helping this person be better at being a person.


    Arch wrote: »

    I never expected this burn from captain bushmeat
  • TavTav Registered User regular
    i0ajrze5dywo.png

    yeah they knew what they were doing

    amateurhourHahnsoo1AtomikaMrMisterTTODewbackKanaoverride367SleepKruiteshrykeMazzyxChanusRMS Oceanic
  • EchoEcho Moderator mod
    Echo wrote: »
    Let they who have not posted about their balls in the wrong thread cast the first stone.
    zepherincB557RMS Oceanic
  • AtomikaAtomika She hungers. Registered User regular
    Kana wrote: »
    SanderJK wrote: »
    Heroin is so screwed up that I don't think it should ever be freely available. I could see a case for a guidance protocol for those addicted to keep a relatively good life while staying addicted, though methadone fills that role fairly well.
    Same goes for many opiods really. They're just too good at what they do.

    I think the basic idea of judging narcotics on personal impact and societal impact is a pretty solid foundation. For instance XTC users do take limited personal health risk every time they partake, but nobody ever becomes violent or a problem. Alcohol actual scores pretty bad on both scales, because it is weird in that most people do ok with alcohol (Not that it's particularly great, but 90% don't have a big impact), 5-10% of people go on a disastrous lifepath. Some become dangerous to themselves, some to others.



    Yeah, meth too.

    A really far gone meth or heroin addict is just like, a walking addiction. It feels like there's barely even a person in there, it's really unsettling and sad.

    I don’t have studies handy, but it’s been my understanding that it doesn’t take long for the debilitating neurological changes brought on by meth to become permanent with regular use, around six months to a year. From then on, you’ve got permanent schizophrenia and there’s no coming back; compare this to my heroin patients, of whom I’ve seen many get clean and go back to normal lives.

    I agree that chemical addiction, regardless of substance, tends to rob the afflicted of their former selves. Thankfully drugs like opiates and alcohol can be recovered from, with great effort; methamphetamines, not so much.

    FeralKanaSleep
  • MrMisterMrMister Jesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered User regular
    MrMister wrote: »
    Surely this isn't true? We can establish standards to evaluate quality of life, we can assess the relative quality of decision-making, we can see and recognize cases where people make decisions that are against their best interests, even repeatedly, even when it causes severe harm. People engage in indulgent activities that they do not enjoy and end up feeling shame and self-loathing. These are all common, normal experiences. Does procrastination improve quality of life?.

    As a matter of descriptive fact, the best measures of quality of life that we have for policy purposes are based off either choices people actually make or the choices that they report that they would make (QALY and DALY measures work this way). And sure, you can try to "correct" the results of those preference-based measures with the wisdom of the sages. For instance, Martha Nussbaum seems to think that instead of asking people what they want for their life, we should ask her what they should want for their life, and she knows the answer because she's fluent in ancient greek, well-read, and crackerjack at dinner parties. Mostly, though, she and her followers have still not been able to come up with a measure good enough to guide many resource allocation decisions, even if we were to simply take their word for it when it comes to what people are supposed to want (this is extremely hard to do systematically).

    I do agree that compulsions present a complication when reading people's preferences off their behavior, but would note that we do not see those indicators when it comes to most people's drinking. Many people may have cut back periodically for health reasons, and that does point toward something, but it is rare to "end up feeling shame and self-loathing" after drinking in moderation and enjoying it. I find it surprising to be pressed to argue that moderate drinking is fun and frequently "worth it!"

    The specific claim is not that moderate drinking isn't worth it

    It's that, it the cost of eliminating all problem drinking were simply also eliminating moderate drinking, it would be worth it—that the consequences of problem drinking substantially outweigh the benefits of moderate drinking

    I also (largely without data) claim that "moderate" drinking is less common than we'd like to believe, or rather that problem drinking is much more common than we'd like to believe

    If moderate drinking is worth it, then whether that counterbalances problem drinking depends on how worth it it is, how bad problem drinking is, and how many people do each.

    So, to make the comparison well, we would have both quantitative estimates of the quality of life associated with moderate drinking, teetotaling, and problem drinking, and then population breakdowns of how large the moderate and problem drinking segments are.

    It's plausible to me that this ends up positive, though neither of us is running these numbers.

  • MrMisterMrMister Jesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    Surely this isn't true? We can establish standards to evaluate quality of life, we can assess the relative quality of decision-making, we can see and recognize cases where people make decisions that are against their best interests, even repeatedly, even when it causes severe harm. People engage in indulgent activities that they do not enjoy and end up feeling shame and self-loathing. These are all common, normal experiences. Does procrastination improve quality of life?.

    As a matter of descriptive fact, the best measures of quality of life that we have for policy purposes are based off either choices people actually make or the choices that they report that they would make (QALY and DALY measures work this way).

    ...what?

    I either don't understand what this line means, or it's saying something deeply misleading. I choose to assume the former. What do you mean by this? Can you elaborate?

    As I understand it, QALY and DALY measures assign quality levels to health states primarily by surveying respondents and asking them how they would trade off being in that health state against other possibilities (e.g. chances of death, full recovery) and then inferring a quality weighting from that.

  • Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    I find the idea that people tend to make choices that maximize their quality of life to be unconvincing? It seems to be the opposite of reality. My impression is that most people do not eat healthy, exercise regularly, maintain good posture, moderate their indulgences and vices effectively, avoid procrastination, sleep a full 8 hours every night as best they can, save their money, etc.; instead, they strongly tend to make choices that produce short-term benefits or pleasure at the cost of long-term unhappiness or even harm, even when they say they would rather do those good, wise things, even when they know they would be happier tomorrow having done them.

    Inquisitor wrote: »
    I fucking hate you Canadians.
    P10MortiousShivahn
  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud friend pelican soft and relaxing mouthRegistered User regular
    I think meth is on the rise again in gay circles. It's sad. V sad.

    pelcan Mouth perfect size for put poster in to n\ap! inside poster sleep soundly put poster in Pelicn Mouth no problems because good Support for poster neck weak of big poster head
    Atomika
  • P10P10 An Idiot With Low IQ Registered User regular
    edited April 20
    i couldn't come up with a dumb joke so instead i will say that "choices that produce short-term benefits or pleasure at the cost of long-term unhappiness or even harm" has basically been my life under depression. hurray for maladaptive coping strategies :toot:

    P10 on
    Shameful pursuits and utterly stupid opinions
  • AtomikaAtomika She hungers. Registered User regular
    edited April 20
    I think meth is on the rise again in gay circles. It's sad. V sad.

    Seems to be on the rise everywhere

    It’s cheap and crazy addictive

    Virtually every homeless person I see at work, regardless of age, race, or gender, is on meth and most of their addictions are too far gone to be treatable

    Atomika on
  • SurfpossumSurfpossum A nonentity trying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered User regular
    Speaking of making good life choices, I've been playing a bit of Apex again recently and boy howdy that game sure is fun still.

    Simply moving from point a to point b is a delight.

    10 = yes, 1 = no; yes = 10, no = 1
  • MrMisterMrMister Jesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered User regular
    I find the idea that people tend to make choices that maximize their quality of life to be unconvincing? It seems to be the opposite of reality. My impression is that most people do not eat healthy, exercise regularly, maintain good posture, moderate their indulgences and vices effectively, avoid procrastination, sleep a full 8 hours every night as best they can, save their money, etc.; instead, they strongly tend to make choices that produce short-term benefits or pleasure at the cost of long-term unhappiness or even harm, even when they say they would rather do those good, wise things, even when they know they would be happier tomorrow having done them.

    Technically, what I said was that the best evidence we have for what's good for people is what they tend to choose, particularly under conditions of full information and with time to reflect. That is consistent with our best evidence sometimes being kind of bad.

    There's obviously a lot to say here, including regarding exactly what you're taking to reveal people's preferences (your examples could be resolved by asking people what they think is good for them rather than looking at what they actually do; but this introduces its own problems in other cases). Nonetheless, in broad strokes, is there some other, better source of evidence about what's good for people that doesn't involve consulting them in some way? I am unimpressed by theorists like Martha Nussbaum who have read a lot of great literature and claim that this qualifies them to understand the human condition and thereby to be systematically better at saying what's good for people better than the people themselves are.

    SleepshrykeEvil Multifarious
  • Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    MrMister wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    Surely this isn't true? We can establish standards to evaluate quality of life, we can assess the relative quality of decision-making, we can see and recognize cases where people make decisions that are against their best interests, even repeatedly, even when it causes severe harm. People engage in indulgent activities that they do not enjoy and end up feeling shame and self-loathing. These are all common, normal experiences. Does procrastination improve quality of life?.

    As a matter of descriptive fact, the best measures of quality of life that we have for policy purposes are based off either choices people actually make or the choices that they report that they would make (QALY and DALY measures work this way). And sure, you can try to "correct" the results of those preference-based measures with the wisdom of the sages. For instance, Martha Nussbaum seems to think that instead of asking people what they want for their life, we should ask her what they should want for their life, and she knows the answer because she's fluent in ancient greek, well-read, and crackerjack at dinner parties. Mostly, though, she and her followers have still not been able to come up with a measure good enough to guide many resource allocation decisions, even if we were to simply take their word for it when it comes to what people are supposed to want (this is extremely hard to do systematically).

    I do agree that compulsions present a complication when reading people's preferences off their behavior, but would note that we do not see those indicators when it comes to most people's drinking. Many people may have cut back periodically for health reasons, and that does point toward something, but it is rare to "end up feeling shame and self-loathing" after drinking in moderation and enjoying it. I find it surprising to be pressed to argue that moderate drinking is fun and frequently "worth it!"

    The specific claim is not that moderate drinking isn't worth it

    It's that, it the cost of eliminating all problem drinking were simply also eliminating moderate drinking, it would be worth it—that the consequences of problem drinking substantially outweigh the benefits of moderate drinking

    I also (largely without data) claim that "moderate" drinking is less common than we'd like to believe, or rather that problem drinking is much more common than we'd like to believe

    If moderate drinking is worth it, then whether that counterbalances problem drinking depends on how worth it it is, how bad problem drinking is, and how many people do each.

    So, to make the comparison well, we would have both quantitative estimates of the quality of life associated with moderate drinking, teetotaling, and problem drinking, and then population breakdowns of how large the moderate and problem drinking segments are.

    It's plausible to me that this ends up positive, though neither of us is running these numbers.

    So this was my original question: how do you produce a quantitative estimate of the quality of life benefits of moderate drinking, especially compared to the more easily quantifiable aspect of problem drinking, e.g. person years lost, health costs, drunk driving numbers

    I don't know, it seems flatly obvious to me that the benefits indulging a gustatory pleasure can't match the weight of the consequences. This immediately reminds me of arguing that the pleasure we get from eating meat can outweigh the moral value of animal lives, if the pleasure is significant enough. Sure, the feeling that these are equivalent can motivate individual decisions, but that doesn't mean that the decision is sound; it just explains it. The benefits of alcohol seem to fall into an entirely different category of impact, one profoundly more trivial than the negative consequences of problem drinking.

    Even if everyone surveyed "strongly agrees (5)" that moderate drinking greatly improves their quality of life, it doesn't square the comparison, and it sure seems like processing this complex comparison through the brutal machinery of quantitative analysis will produce unsatisfying results

    Inquisitor wrote: »
    I fucking hate you Canadians.
    Shivahn
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited April 20
    MrMister wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    Surely this isn't true? We can establish standards to evaluate quality of life, we can assess the relative quality of decision-making, we can see and recognize cases where people make decisions that are against their best interests, even repeatedly, even when it causes severe harm. People engage in indulgent activities that they do not enjoy and end up feeling shame and self-loathing. These are all common, normal experiences. Does procrastination improve quality of life?.

    As a matter of descriptive fact, the best measures of quality of life that we have for policy purposes are based off either choices people actually make or the choices that they report that they would make (QALY and DALY measures work this way).

    ...what?

    I either don't understand what this line means, or it's saying something deeply misleading. I choose to assume the former. What do you mean by this? Can you elaborate?

    As I understand it, QALY and DALY measures assign quality levels to health states primarily by surveying respondents and asking them how they would trade off being in that health state against other possibilities (e.g. chances of death, full recovery) and then inferring a quality weighting from that.

    Gotcha. I'm glad you clarified, because I definitely didn't understand what you were saying.

    Now that I do, I still don't think it quite works. The surveys you're talking about are social preference surveys - they assess (in less blunt ways) whether I'd prefer to be, say, blind vs paraplegic. And it's true that I'm making a "choice" in the sense that I'm choosing between two options on a piece of paper, but I think that's a bit of equivocation on the word 'choice.' If you ask me to mark on a piece of paper which is healthier, being vegetarian or eating meat, I will mark vegetarian every time. Yet I'm not a vegetarian. Choices that require effortful, real world behavior are categorically different from choices between abstract hypotheticals.

    That difference between preference and behavior that I think renders your response and EM's objection askew of each other. Just because somebody reports a preference for an outcome doesn't mean they make the behavioral choices necessary to achieve that outcome, and I don't think that these are merely edge cases like addiction. Rather, I think it's fundamental to the human condition that we all make choices that lead to outcomes we didn't necessarily prefer, which is why we have millennia of legal and moral and philosophical and religious writings imploring us to overcome our baser instincts.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • JebusUDJebusUD Adventure! Candy IslandRegistered User regular
    The sense of relief here is palpable. The jury made the right decision and the city won't burn tonight.

    I don't have courage but I have something else.
    IncenjucarChanusRMS OceanicAtomika
  • MrMisterMrMister Jesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered User regular
    edited April 20
    Feral wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    Surely this isn't true? We can establish standards to evaluate quality of life, we can assess the relative quality of decision-making, we can see and recognize cases where people make decisions that are against their best interests, even repeatedly, even when it causes severe harm. People engage in indulgent activities that they do not enjoy and end up feeling shame and self-loathing. These are all common, normal experiences. Does procrastination improve quality of life?.

    As a matter of descriptive fact, the best measures of quality of life that we have for policy purposes are based off either choices people actually make or the choices that they report that they would make (QALY and DALY measures work this way).

    ...what?

    I either don't understand what this line means, or it's saying something deeply misleading. I choose to assume the former. What do you mean by this? Can you elaborate?

    As I understand it, QALY and DALY measures assign quality levels to health states primarily by surveying respondents and asking them how they would trade off being in that health state against other possibilities (e.g. chances of death, full recovery) and then inferring a quality weighting from that.

    Gotcha. I'm glad you clarified, because I definitely didn't understand what you were saying.

    Now that I do, I still don't think it quite works. The surveys you're talking about are social preference surveys - they assess (in less blunt ways) whether I'd prefer to be, say, blind vs paraplegic. And it's true that I'm making a "choice" in the sense that I'm choosing between two options on a piece of paper, but I think that's a bit of equivocation on the word 'choice.' If you ask me to mark on a piece of paper which is healthier, being vegetarian or eating meat, I will mark vegetarian every time. Yet I'm not a vegetarian. Choices that require effortful, real world behavior are categorically different from choices between abstract hypotheticals.

    That difference between preference and behavior that I think renders your response and EM's objection askew of each other. Just because somebody reports a preference for an outcome doesn't mean they make the behavioral choices necessary to achieve that outcome, and I don't think that these are merely edge cases like addiction. Rather, I think it's fundamental to the human condition that we all make choices that lead to outcomes we didn't necessarily prefer, which is why we have millennia of legal and moral and philosophical and religious writings imploring us to overcome our baser instincts.

    Yeah, I have not been careful in distinguishing between preferences revealed in actual choice situations versus hypotheticals, though they're different methodologies. My reason for not distinguishing them is that I believe that both would associate moderate drinking with positive quality of life, given both that people actually choose to drink moderately, and that the dominant cultural attitude to doing so is positive. My expectation is that people would both actually choose to have a drink at the pub with friends, and would also say that they'd like to have a drink at the pub with friends if asked hypothetically about it.

    Instead, the contrast I've had in mind to both revealed preference and hypothetical choice methodologies is expert choice, where we ask someone (Nussbaum, as I've been harping on), who's supposed to be an expert, and they simply assign quality weights on the basis of their great wisdom regardless of what the plebs either do or say. That was the only way that I could see to getting to "moderate drinking is bad, actually, even for the people who think they're enjoying it and who continue to say so even when informed of all relevant health info."

    MrMister on
    Surfpossum
  • credeikicredeiki Registered User regular
    edited April 20
    I find the idea that people tend to make choices that maximize their quality of life to be unconvincing? It seems to be the opposite of reality. My impression is that most people do not eat healthy, exercise regularly, maintain good posture, moderate their indulgences and vices effectively, avoid procrastination, sleep a full 8 hours every night as best they can, save their money, etc.; instead, they strongly tend to make choices that produce short-term benefits or pleasure at the cost of long-term unhappiness or even harm, even when they say they would rather do those good, wise things, even when they know they would be happier tomorrow having done them.

    The people I do know who eat healthy, exercise regularly, devote themselves to long-term goals instead of playing videogames, and in all ways optimize for a wise lifestyle are anxious and miserable

    I don't think you can take for granted that the things we think of as 'healthy' choices lead to happiness

    credeiki on
    Steam, LoL: credeiki
    HappylilElfMrMisterIncenjucarshrykecB557ChanusKamiroKetar
  • MrMisterMrMister Jesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered User regular
    MrMister wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    Surely this isn't true? We can establish standards to evaluate quality of life, we can assess the relative quality of decision-making, we can see and recognize cases where people make decisions that are against their best interests, even repeatedly, even when it causes severe harm. People engage in indulgent activities that they do not enjoy and end up feeling shame and self-loathing. These are all common, normal experiences. Does procrastination improve quality of life?.

    As a matter of descriptive fact, the best measures of quality of life that we have for policy purposes are based off either choices people actually make or the choices that they report that they would make (QALY and DALY measures work this way). And sure, you can try to "correct" the results of those preference-based measures with the wisdom of the sages. For instance, Martha Nussbaum seems to think that instead of asking people what they want for their life, we should ask her what they should want for their life, and she knows the answer because she's fluent in ancient greek, well-read, and crackerjack at dinner parties. Mostly, though, she and her followers have still not been able to come up with a measure good enough to guide many resource allocation decisions, even if we were to simply take their word for it when it comes to what people are supposed to want (this is extremely hard to do systematically).

    I do agree that compulsions present a complication when reading people's preferences off their behavior, but would note that we do not see those indicators when it comes to most people's drinking. Many people may have cut back periodically for health reasons, and that does point toward something, but it is rare to "end up feeling shame and self-loathing" after drinking in moderation and enjoying it. I find it surprising to be pressed to argue that moderate drinking is fun and frequently "worth it!"

    The specific claim is not that moderate drinking isn't worth it

    It's that, it the cost of eliminating all problem drinking were simply also eliminating moderate drinking, it would be worth it—that the consequences of problem drinking substantially outweigh the benefits of moderate drinking

    I also (largely without data) claim that "moderate" drinking is less common than we'd like to believe, or rather that problem drinking is much more common than we'd like to believe

    If moderate drinking is worth it, then whether that counterbalances problem drinking depends on how worth it it is, how bad problem drinking is, and how many people do each.

    So, to make the comparison well, we would have both quantitative estimates of the quality of life associated with moderate drinking, teetotaling, and problem drinking, and then population breakdowns of how large the moderate and problem drinking segments are.

    It's plausible to me that this ends up positive, though neither of us is running these numbers.

    So this was my original question: how do you produce a quantitative estimate of the quality of life benefits of moderate drinking, especially compared to the more easily quantifiable aspect of problem drinking, e.g. person years lost, health costs, drunk driving numbers

    I don't know, it seems flatly obvious to me that the benefits indulging a gustatory pleasure can't match the weight of the consequences. This immediately reminds me of arguing that the pleasure we get from eating meat can outweigh the moral value of animal lives, if the pleasure is significant enough. Sure, the feeling that these are equivalent can motivate individual decisions, but that doesn't mean that the decision is sound; it just explains it. The benefits of alcohol seem to fall into an entirely different category of impact, one profoundly more trivial than the negative consequences of problem drinking.

    Even if everyone surveyed "strongly agrees (5)" that moderate drinking greatly improves their quality of life, it doesn't square the comparison, and it sure seems like processing this complex comparison through the brutal machinery of quantitative analysis will produce unsatisfying results

    I agree that if it were anything like 50-50 on becoming an alcoholic, then drinking would be insane. But my understanding is that it is not anywhere near that. So even though being an alcoholic is much worse than moderate drinking is good, we need to account for the the fact that many more people are able to drink moderately without becoming alcoholics (this is the opposite of the meat eating comparison, where more chickens are killed for food every year than there exist people on the planet).

    I also think that there's no alternative to approaching these questions than using quantitative analysis. Well, there is an alternative--we can just make stuff up--but it's not very good.

  • SurfpossumSurfpossum A nonentity trying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered User regular
    Here is the dilemma: on the one hand you have quantitative analysis, and on the other you have what my mother thinks is good for people.



    Spoiler: you will not agree.

    10 = yes, 1 = no; yes = 10, no = 1
    MrMister
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    I find the idea that people tend to make choices that maximize their quality of life to be unconvincing? It seems to be the opposite of reality. My impression is that most people do not eat healthy, exercise regularly, maintain good posture, moderate their indulgences and vices effectively, avoid procrastination, sleep a full 8 hours every night as best they can, save their money, etc.; instead, they strongly tend to make choices that produce short-term benefits or pleasure at the cost of long-term unhappiness or even harm, even when they say they would rather do those good, wise things, even when they know they would be happier tomorrow having done them.

    What other measure are you proposing? Who are you to decide that the long-term costs out-weight the short-term benefits for the people in question?

  • MrMisterMrMister Jesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered User regular
    Also, this is not related, but: I've complained a few times in chat about Spotify tryin to hit me up with indie sadgirl covers, which are a tired genre.

    And now they hit me with... a twee indie... folk-guy?... cover of.... A Little Bit Alexis!?!?!?!

    This is after they already tried to ply me with the original A Little Bit Alexis; didn't stick, so they were like I know--

    Hahnsoo1Donkey KongcB557ChanusRear Admiral ChocoEddy
  • amateurhouramateurhour One day I'll be professionalhour The woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered User regular
    Wife is home and dinner is planned. Steaks, green beans, and zucchini


    Arch wrote: »

    I never expected this burn from captain bushmeat
    SummaryJudgmentAtomika
  • PowerpuppiesPowerpuppies Registered User regular
    credeiki wrote: »
    I find the idea that people tend to make choices that maximize their quality of life to be unconvincing? It seems to be the opposite of reality. My impression is that most people do not eat healthy, exercise regularly, maintain good posture, moderate their indulgences and vices effectively, avoid procrastination, sleep a full 8 hours every night as best they can, save their money, etc.; instead, they strongly tend to make choices that produce short-term benefits or pleasure at the cost of long-term unhappiness or even harm, even when they say they would rather do those good, wise things, even when they know they would be happier tomorrow having done them.

    The people I do know who eat healthy, exercise regularly, devote themselves to long-term goals instead of playing videogames, and in all ways optimize for a wise lifestyle are anxious and miserable

    I don't think you can take for granted that the things we think of as 'healthy' choices lead to happiness

    That's super interesting. There's a huge positive correlation between those choices and happiness in my circles!
    shryke wrote: »
    I find the idea that people tend to make choices that maximize their quality of life to be unconvincing? It seems to be the opposite of reality. My impression is that most people do not eat healthy, exercise regularly, maintain good posture, moderate their indulgences and vices effectively, avoid procrastination, sleep a full 8 hours every night as best they can, save their money, etc.; instead, they strongly tend to make choices that produce short-term benefits or pleasure at the cost of long-term unhappiness or even harm, even when they say they would rather do those good, wise things, even when they know they would be happier tomorrow having done them.

    What other measure are you proposing? Who are you to decide that the long-term costs out-weight the short-term benefits for the people in question?

    Saying "this way of drawing a conclusion sucks" carries no burden to present a defense for the opposite conclusion, unless you're inside a trolley problem.

    sig.gif
    Feral
  • Hahnsoo1Hahnsoo1 Make Ready. We Hunt.Registered User regular
    edited April 20
    MrMister wrote: »
    Also, this is not related, but: I've complained a few times in chat about Spotify tryin to hit me up with indie sadgirl covers, which are a tired genre.

    And now they hit me with... a twee indie... folk-guy?... cover of.... A Little Bit Alexis!?!?!?!

    This is after they already tried to ply me with the original A Little Bit Alexis; didn't stick, so they were like I know--

    This was hilarious. And it also led me to another video of Noah Reid (who plays Patrick on the show) playing "A Little Bit Alexis" in a folk country style at a convention, with Annie Murphy (Alexis) doing her bit, and it was also hilarious (there is one specific part that made me spit-take, and I think it will be obvious when you see/hear it):

    Hahnsoo1 on
    Di87pOF.jpg
    PSN: Hahnsoo | MH Rise: Hahnsoo, Switch FC: SW-0085-2679-5212
    MrMister
  • Donkey KongDonkey Kong For Workgroups Version 3.11 Registered User regular
    Oh shit discord's deal with microsoft fell through because Discord rejected the 12 billion dollar offer. That is... breathtaking. Imagine saying no to an overvaluation that large.

    Thousands of hot, local singles are waiting to play at bubbulon.com.
    Hahnsoo1IncenjucarcB557HappylilElfSummaryJudgmentCouscousChanusRMS OceanicAtomikaPowerpuppiesdescoverride367ArchAiouaWinkyKetarSnicketysnickAegisAlexandiersyndalis
  • SurfpossumSurfpossum A nonentity trying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered User regular
    I don't actually know if I want to put quantitative analysis in that dilemma as opposed to something like, "letting people decide what's good for them even if you disagree," but I wanted to use the big words everyone was using.

    10 = yes, 1 = no; yes = 10, no = 1
    MrMistershryke
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    I find the idea that people tend to make choices that maximize their quality of life to be unconvincing? It seems to be the opposite of reality. My impression is that most people do not eat healthy, exercise regularly, maintain good posture, moderate their indulgences and vices effectively, avoid procrastination, sleep a full 8 hours every night as best they can, save their money, etc.; instead, they strongly tend to make choices that produce short-term benefits or pleasure at the cost of long-term unhappiness or even harm, even when they say they would rather do those good, wise things, even when they know they would be happier tomorrow having done them.

    What other measure are you proposing? Who are you to decide that the long-term costs out-weight the short-term benefits for the people in question?

    Saying "this way of drawing a conclusion sucks" carries no burden to present a defense for the opposite conclusion, unless you're inside a trolley problem.

    I don't get where you are going with this or how it connects to what I'm saying.

    My point is that EM's entire argument is making an inherent assumption about what quality of life is based on their own, largely unstated but still obviously there, criteria. But why should we view that criteria as superior to the one people chose for themselves?

  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Not a Fictional Character Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    Me and my extra chins are happier than, like, 90% of humanity, easy.

  • Hahnsoo1Hahnsoo1 Make Ready. We Hunt.Registered User regular
    credeiki wrote: »
    I find the idea that people tend to make choices that maximize their quality of life to be unconvincing? It seems to be the opposite of reality. My impression is that most people do not eat healthy, exercise regularly, maintain good posture, moderate their indulgences and vices effectively, avoid procrastination, sleep a full 8 hours every night as best they can, save their money, etc.; instead, they strongly tend to make choices that produce short-term benefits or pleasure at the cost of long-term unhappiness or even harm, even when they say they would rather do those good, wise things, even when they know they would be happier tomorrow having done them.

    The people I do know who eat healthy, exercise regularly, devote themselves to long-term goals instead of playing videogames, and in all ways optimize for a wise lifestyle are anxious and miserable

    I don't think you can take for granted that the things we think of as 'healthy' choices lead to happiness
    I mean, I have a bunch of people in my circle who make healthy choices in terms of diet and exercise, and their happiness/sadness are not especially correlated with those choices, but it's the frickin' Bay Area. You can't toss a string of organic healing crystals without hitting at least one health junkie out here. But it's not especially correlated with day drinkers and boozehounds, either. I think the benefits/consequences of those choices are pretty much distant and invisible, which makes them hard to see for most people. I am most certainly paying for my excesses of my youth, and while I was never a big drinker (LOL Asian low alcohol tolerance), certainly my diet has led to my current chronic health problems (which I'm managing nicely, and don't impact my happiness that much currently).

    Di87pOF.jpg
    PSN: Hahnsoo | MH Rise: Hahnsoo, Switch FC: SW-0085-2679-5212
  • HappylilElfHappylilElf Registered User regular
    Oh shit discord's deal with microsoft fell through because Discord rejected the 12 billion dollar offer. That is... breathtaking. Imagine saying no to an overvaluation that large.

    I kinda hope the rejection notice is just a single line:

    "No, we saw what you did to Skype."

    override367Echo
  • Hahnsoo1Hahnsoo1 Make Ready. We Hunt.Registered User regular
    I'm kinda in a music rabbit hole currently, as I just watched Adam Neely's recent screed about Celine Dion and the perfect pop modulation and Two Set Violin (two classical violinist NERDS) react to Montero (Call Me By Your Name) and make some surprisingly deep observations about some of the music theory behind it while also making jokes that only classical musicians would understand.

    Di87pOF.jpg
    PSN: Hahnsoo | MH Rise: Hahnsoo, Switch FC: SW-0085-2679-5212
  • SixSix Tech Sgt Chen Registered User regular
    edited April 20
    I hope you’re all drunk on whatever gets you high.

    Six on
    steamcommunity.com/id/thenumbersix/
    Switch Friend Code: SW-1335-2661-4136
    schussVanguardcredeiki
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    Oh shit discord's deal with microsoft fell through because Discord rejected the 12 billion dollar offer. That is... breathtaking. Imagine saying no to an overvaluation that large.

    I kinda hope the rejection notice is just a single line:

    "No, we saw what you did to Skype."

    12 billion means who gives a shit?

    Feral
  • SummaryJudgmentSummaryJudgment Today we will paint a mountain that owes us nothing. Registered User regular
    Oh shit discord's deal with microsoft fell through because Discord rejected the 12 billion dollar offer. That is... breathtaking. Imagine saying no to an overvaluation that large.

    Wow, I just got the spins hearing that

    What the hell

    And will the morning come
    All I know; we'll never see the sun
    But together we'll fight the long defeat
This discussion has been closed.