3 ms·

I wonder if we're approaching the point of recognizing sugar addiction as a real thing. Just watch a number of children and you'll see, even from a young age,

by cletus 8y ago

I wonder if we're approaching the point of recognizing sugar addiction as a real thing. Just watch a number of children and you'll see, even from a young age, a wide variety of reactions to sugar. For example, one I cna think of has always (and continues to be) "sensible" with sugar. Like if she has a soda, she'll stop when she's had enough. If there are chocolates there she'll have one or two. One of her sisters just can't help herself. She literally can't stop eating any chocolates that are available. If she gets a soda, she'll literally inhale it and then try and drink her sisters' sodas. Having seen this from such a young age I can't help but think that there's just luck involved here as in some people have a genetic predisposition to what I can only call sugar addiction. What probably mitigated this in the past was that foods were lower sugar and sugary food and drinks were less available to many people. Like I'm just comparing what I had in the house growing up compared to what I see in pantries now. But yes, cereal is pretty much universally terrible but it is convenient.

erikpukinskis 8y ago
It’s interesting that you attribute a difference among sisters to genes. Sisters are similar genetically, but cannot occupy the same social space. They cannot occupy the same material space. My explanation for the difference you observed is that siblings somewhat have non-overlapping coping strategies. If one gets angry, the other is being yelled at. If one eats more than their share, the other eats less. If one is asking people to leave them alone, the other is being left alone. This creates major difference in subjective experience and coping strategies just by virtue of being socially juxtaposed.
- cletus 8y ago
  So what I think you're referring to is something I might otherwise call the Pauli Exclusion Principle for Children (or PEPC) for short. Just like fermions, children it seems can't occupy the same state. This means that if one child is the "good one", a sibling won't be. They'll find their own niche. They could be the clown, or the athlete or the bookworm or whatever. So if I read your comment correctly, you're essentially saying something similar with coping strategies. I can't and don't disagree with that idea but it's not mutually exclusive with genetic predisposition either. Just imagine two sisters do have a genetic predisposition to "sugar addiction". It doesn't mean they'll both become sugar addicts.

by cletus 8y ago

erikpukinskis 8y ago

It’s interesting that you attribute a difference among sisters to genes. Sisters are similar genetically, but cannot occupy the same social space. They cannot occupy the same material space. My explanation for the difference you observed is that siblings somewhat have non-overlapping coping strategies. If one gets angry, the other is being yelled at. If one eats more than their share, the other eats less. If one is asking people to leave them alone, the other is being left alone. This creates major difference in subjective experience and coping strategies just by virtue of being socially juxtaposed.

cletus 8y ago
So what I think you're referring to is something I might otherwise call the Pauli Exclusion Principle for Children (or PEPC) for short. Just like fermions, children it seems can't occupy the same state. This means that if one child is the "good one", a sibling won't be. They'll find their own niche. They could be the clown, or the athlete or the bookworm or whatever. So if I read your comment correctly, you're essentially saying something similar with coping strategies. I can't and don't disagree with that idea but it's not mutually exclusive with genetic predisposition either. Just imagine two sisters do have a genetic predisposition to "sugar addiction". It doesn't mean they'll both become sugar addicts.