5 ms·

>> "enjoyment is subjective" and "who is the critic to judge," > ...are both valid positions and ones that I hold axiomatically true. Maybe in some cases, but

>> "enjoyment is subjective" and "who is the critic to judge," > ...are both valid positions and ones that I hold axiomatically true. Maybe in some cases, but I don't think it's correct axiomatically assume every repeated behavior labeled as "entertainment" is one that at least someone "enjoys." > there exist people who find the same level of "happiness", "enjoyment" and "joy" - broadly defined - from slot machines as from any other activity. I think that's an assumption, and I'm pretty skeptical of it, personally. I have not doubt there are people who genuinely enjoy other types of gambling (e.g. poker), but I doubt slot machines are anything better than an expensive distraction. They're just profitable Skinner boxes [1] that use variable-ratio positive reinforcement [2] to attempt to create a lasting habit that's resistant to "extinction" [3]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning_chamber#Commercial_applications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning_chamber#C... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforcement#Simple_schedules https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforcement#Simple_schedules [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_(psychology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_(psychology)

AndrewKemendo 9y ago
There is a category error though I think that gets conflated in these types of evaluations. For example you say "genuinely enjoy" - which makes a distinction between something which is not "genuine." This is the same philosophical distinction between epicureanism and hedonism. The former is claimed to be long term and holistic, the latter claimed as short term and vapid. However making such distinctions are laced with cultural and other value based backgrounds. The idea that an "expensive distraction" in the form of a slot machine is not happiness in the same way as Poker typifies this conflation. You can also try and evaluate it from a utilitarian perspective. Perhaps the enjoyment from hitting a huge jackpot is several magnitudes greater than winning a pot of poker. It's also possible that the sadness from consecutively losing at slots is greater than the sadness from losing a single pot of Poker. Also there is a utility calculation in there for people who like strategy vs people who don't etc... So I think it's impossible to say that poker (or whatever) is objectively better than slots (or whatever) because it scratches certain itches more or less. It's also true that you can try and analyze second third etc... order effects of these things and evaluate the impact positively or negatively. Again though, it's a value trap and there is context that may tip the scales one way or another for a given scenario. One way I think of this is with drug addicts. For a large percentage of hard drug addicts, they will substitute doing eg. Heroin, for being addicted to Caffeine, Cigarettes and support group meetings. Socially we view this as a positive substitution because the user is now using socially acceptable forms of addiction and have lowered their support of an illicit market, are less likely to die from an overdose etc... again though "dying of an overdose" isn't objectively a bad thing, it's a socially and contextually bad thing. Doug Stanhope's mom famously died of a controlled overdose at a "goodbye party" as her way of committing suicide. Everyone at the party knew it was happening and supported it, so the context was different and thus it was acceptable. I think it's fine to add a value judgment onto how you interpret certain behaviors in the context of your personal code. However we as a species don't have a collectively agreed upon code of ethics. We are generally groomed and forced into the social code that we're brought up in. So to mandate morality is just reinforcing an arbitrary social code. You can try and get evolutionary biology on things, in terms of social codes driving "fitness" etc...however I feel the fitness argument seems to have diverged long ago from a social structure perspective. The most intelligent and "woke" people are having the least amount of babies.

AndrewKemendo 9y ago

There is a category error though I think that gets conflated in these types of evaluations. For example you say "genuinely enjoy" - which makes a distinction between something which is not "genuine." This is the same philosophical distinction between epicureanism and hedonism. The former is claimed to be long term and holistic, the latter claimed as short term and vapid. However making such distinctions are laced with cultural and other value based backgrounds. The idea that an "expensive distraction" in the form of a slot machine is not happiness in the same way as Poker typifies this conflation. You can also try and evaluate it from a utilitarian perspective. Perhaps the enjoyment from hitting a huge jackpot is several magnitudes greater than winning a pot of poker. It's also possible that the sadness from consecutively losing at slots is greater than the sadness from losing a single pot of Poker. Also there is a utility calculation in there for people who like strategy vs people who don't etc... So I think it's impossible to say that poker (or whatever) is objectively better than slots (or whatever) because it scratches certain itches more or less. It's also true that you can try and analyze second third etc... order effects of these things and evaluate the impact positively or negatively. Again though, it's a value trap and there is context that may tip the scales one way or another for a given scenario. One way I think of this is with drug addicts. For a large percentage of hard drug addicts, they will substitute doing eg. Heroin, for being addicted to Caffeine, Cigarettes and support group meetings. Socially we view this as a positive substitution because the user is now using socially acceptable forms of addiction and have lowered their support of an illicit market, are less likely to die from an overdose etc... again though "dying of an overdose" isn't objectively a bad thing, it's a socially and contextually bad thing. Doug Stanhope's mom famously died of a controlled overdose at a "goodbye party" as her way of committing suicide. Everyone at the party knew it was happening and supported it, so the context was different and thus it was acceptable. I think it's fine to add a value judgment onto how you interpret certain behaviors in the context of your personal code. However we as a species don't have a collectively agreed upon code of ethics. We are generally groomed and forced into the social code that we're brought up in. So to mandate morality is just reinforcing an arbitrary social code. You can try and get evolutionary biology on things, in terms of social codes driving "fitness" etc...however I feel the fitness argument seems to have diverged long ago from a social structure perspective. The most intelligent and "woke" people are having the least amount of babies.