4 ms·

> it's never too early to know I don't see this. Suppose, hypothetically, that we could detect right now every illness or condition that you're ever likely to

by foldr 6y ago

> it's never too early to know I don't see this. Suppose, hypothetically, that we could detect right now every illness or condition that you're ever likely to develop in the course of your life. Do you really want to read through that list? You're better off not worrying about it and enjoying your life.

echelon 6y ago
> You're better off not worrying about it and enjoying your life. I would rather have all of the information upfront so that I can make better informed decisions. We're all going to die. I'm not going to shy away from that by pretending it won't come.
- foldr 6y ago
  There's no 'pretence' involved in not reading the list. I'm perfectly aware of my mortality. I just don't see any value in placing bets on what's going to kill me.
  - shard 6y ago
    Everyone is living with an invisible list made up by them in their minds. This is what drives people to exercise, eat healthy foods, get vaccinated, and wash their hands. This just clarifies the list, perhaps adding some items, perhaps changing the priorities.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
DavidSJ 6y ago
I would absolutely read the list, in part because I simply value (self) knowledge. I notice that some people don't value knowledge for its own sake, and have trouble understanding those who make decisions solely for the sake of knowing, or solely to avoid dishonesty toward others, even at some narrow instrumental expense. But also, I would read the list of because of its instrumental value: * If I knew I were likely to die in ten years, I would live my life very differently than I do now. * If I knew I were at particular risk for certain illnesses, I would do what I can do minimize that risk.
- foldr 6y ago
  I can't really see how not reading the list would require dishonesty towards others. It's probably a good idea to live your life as if you were going to die in 10 years anyway. The chance of this happening is non-negligible unless you are very young. Similarly, as far as minimising risk of illnesses goes, 99% of what you could do is what everyone should be doing anyway: eating healthily and exercising. Fundamentally, the paradox here is that the extra stress caused by reading the list is likely to be much worse for you than the consequences of not knowing what's on the list.
  - DavidSJ 6y ago
    Not reading the list doesn't require dishonesty toward others, but I was making a more general point: There are lots of people who are very ready to tell "white lies" to others for the sake of those others. As it happens, I think they are often the same people who wouldn't read the list. And these sorts of people don't really seem to understand the other sort: the sort who want to know the truth even if it's not instrumental. --- On the other topics: if I lived like I were going to die in ten years, then I'd have to abandon multiple projects of mine which I expect to take more than ten years to come to fruition. I don't think this would be appropriate unless I actually had a good reason to believe my premature death would come to pass.
    - foldr 6y ago
      I mean live as if there's a reasonable chance that you'll die in ten years. But even so, do you get no intrinsic satisfaction from the work involved? Is there no-one who could continue the projects if you died? If it's 'no' to both questions, then maybe you should stop doing them anyway.
      - DavidSJ 6y ago
        There are always tradeoffs. I get intrinsic satisfaction from the projects. But I think both about the short-term and long-term. If I expected to die in 10 years, I'd do different things, because the balance of costs and benefits would work out differently.
abalone 6y ago
Nonsense. Catching cancer prior to stage 3 is HUGELY important. With prostate cancer it can be cut out or irradiated with a high cure rate at stage 2. Once it spreads though you are in a very different course.
- foldr 6y ago
  I think you're talking about cancer screening rather than the hypothetical in my post. I was not suggesting that no-one should ever get screened for any illness. But it's a balance. Too much screening and testing can be just as harmful as too little - or perhaps even more so. Prostate cancer is actually a classic example of this (see e.g. https://www.health.harvard.edu/healthbeat/the-pros-and-cons-of-psa-screening#:~:text=Concerns%20about%20PSA%20screening&text=One%20study%20estimated%20overdetection%20to,such%20as%20incontinence%20and%20impotence. https://www.health.harvard.edu/healthbeat/the-pros-and-cons-...)
  - abalone 6y ago
    Your hypothetical includes every illness and thus, cancer. It is extremely helpful to detect cancer early. The prostate cancer field is rapidly evolving, and the “controversy” over PSA testing in the US over the last decade is looking like a big mistake. See for example https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/fullarticle/2680144 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/fullarticle/268...
    - foldr 6y ago
      >Your hypothetical includes every illness and thus, cancer. I think there's a quantifier scope error here. I was saying "you don't want to see everything on the list", i.e. "it's not the case that for all x, you want to see x". You seem to be reading this as "For all x, you don't want to see x". Whatever the right answer is for specific cases (such as prostate cancer), I'm certainly not saying that all testing or screening is pointless. The paper you link to has a grand total of two citations listed on Google Scholar.
      - 6y ago

by foldr 6y ago

echelon 6y ago

> You're better off not worrying about it and enjoying your life. I would rather have all of the information upfront so that I can make better informed decisions. We're all going to die. I'm not going to shy away from that by pretending it won't come.

foldr 6y ago
There's no 'pretence' involved in not reading the list. I'm perfectly aware of my mortality. I just don't see any value in placing bets on what's going to kill me.
- shard 6y ago
  Everyone is living with an invisible list made up by them in their minds. This is what drives people to exercise, eat healthy foods, get vaccinated, and wash their hands. This just clarifies the list, perhaps adding some items, perhaps changing the priorities.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

DavidSJ 6y ago

I would absolutely read the list, in part because I simply value (self) knowledge. I notice that some people don't value knowledge for its own sake, and have trouble understanding those who make decisions solely for the sake of knowing, or solely to avoid dishonesty toward others, even at some narrow instrumental expense. But also, I would read the list of because of its instrumental value: * If I knew I were likely to die in ten years, I would live my life very differently than I do now. * If I knew I were at particular risk for certain illnesses, I would do what I can do minimize that risk.

foldr 6y ago
I can't really see how not reading the list would require dishonesty towards others. It's probably a good idea to live your life as if you were going to die in 10 years anyway. The chance of this happening is non-negligible unless you are very young. Similarly, as far as minimising risk of illnesses goes, 99% of what you could do is what everyone should be doing anyway: eating healthily and exercising. Fundamentally, the paradox here is that the extra stress caused by reading the list is likely to be much worse for you than the consequences of not knowing what's on the list.
- DavidSJ 6y ago
  Not reading the list doesn't require dishonesty toward others, but I was making a more general point: There are lots of people who are very ready to tell "white lies" to others for the sake of those others. As it happens, I think they are often the same people who wouldn't read the list. And these sorts of people don't really seem to understand the other sort: the sort who want to know the truth even if it's not instrumental. --- On the other topics: if I lived like I were going to die in ten years, then I'd have to abandon multiple projects of mine which I expect to take more than ten years to come to fruition. I don't think this would be appropriate unless I actually had a good reason to believe my premature death would come to pass.
  - foldr 6y ago
    I mean live as if there's a reasonable chance that you'll die in ten years. But even so, do you get no intrinsic satisfaction from the work involved? Is there no-one who could continue the projects if you died? If it's 'no' to both questions, then maybe you should stop doing them anyway.
    - DavidSJ 6y ago
      There are always tradeoffs. I get intrinsic satisfaction from the projects. But I think both about the short-term and long-term. If I expected to die in 10 years, I'd do different things, because the balance of costs and benefits would work out differently.

abalone 6y ago

Nonsense. Catching cancer prior to stage 3 is HUGELY important. With prostate cancer it can be cut out or irradiated with a high cure rate at stage 2. Once it spreads though you are in a very different course.

foldr 6y ago
I think you're talking about cancer screening rather than the hypothetical in my post. I was not suggesting that no-one should ever get screened for any illness. But it's a balance. Too much screening and testing can be just as harmful as too little - or perhaps even more so. Prostate cancer is actually a classic example of this (see e.g. https://www.health.harvard.edu/healthbeat/the-pros-and-cons-of-psa-screening#:~:text=Concerns%20about%20PSA%20screening&text=One%20study%20estimated%20overdetection%20to,such%20as%20incontinence%20and%20impotence. https://www.health.harvard.edu/healthbeat/the-pros-and-cons-...)
- abalone 6y ago
  Your hypothetical includes every illness and thus, cancer. It is extremely helpful to detect cancer early. The prostate cancer field is rapidly evolving, and the “controversy” over PSA testing in the US over the last decade is looking like a big mistake. See for example https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/fullarticle/2680144 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/fullarticle/268...
  - foldr 6y ago
    >Your hypothetical includes every illness and thus, cancer. I think there's a quantifier scope error here. I was saying "you don't want to see everything on the list", i.e. "it's not the case that for all x, you want to see x". You seem to be reading this as "For all x, you don't want to see x". Whatever the right answer is for specific cases (such as prostate cancer), I'm certainly not saying that all testing or screening is pointless. The paper you link to has a grand total of two citations listed on Google Scholar.
    - 6y ago