5 ms·

Nah. What's true for you isn't true for everyone. If I go on a date in a high end restaurant and hit it off with my date, I might want to show her something br

Nah. What's true for you isn't true for everyone. If I go on a date in a high end restaurant and hit it off with my date, I might want to show her something briefly or look up something, and we would both be on bored with it and having a good time. In that case, the phone is enhancing the experience, not taking away from it.

Dylan16807 2y ago
> What's true for you isn't true for everyone. That is why I said "a lot", not everyone. Your "Nah." is not true, by your own argument. > briefly There is a reason I said "or minimal". That's minimal.
- ruthmarx 2y ago
  The problem with your point is your making an unwarranted assumption about most people. It's no different from insisting someone would like a variation of something they have no interest if they would only try it. Or to put it in simpler terms, you seem to think you know better than "a lot" of people.
  - consteval 2y ago
    I mean, yes: this point is true. Usually that's how things are. It's not a matter of knowing better, it's a matter of people not considering X. If they don't think about X they wouldn't even know to change it or try something else. Truly, you don't know something until you try it. If you never try it you just don't know. At least for most things, some things are obvious. Also, there's arguments about phones being addictive. That changes things a lot.
    - ruthmarx 2y ago
      > I mean, yes: this point is true. Usually that's how things are. Strongly disagree. > It's not a matter of knowing better, it's a matter of people not considering X. You're making the same mistake the other fellow is; you're assuming the other people haven't considered x, when they likely have.
      - Dylan16807 2y ago
        Do you think "considering" is enough to reach a correct conclusion? I'm not making the mistake of thinking they didn't consider it. I think every human is bad at considering. But it's also true that a lot of them really haven't considered it.
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    > unwarranted assumption about most people I said a lot. Not most. > It's no different from insisting someone would like a variation of something they have no interest if they would only try it. You shouldn't push people to do things, but as an objective true or false question, it's true a lot of the time. > Or to put it in simpler terms, you seem to think you know better than "a lot" of people. Are you implying that such a thought is obviously wrong? It's not. I can list a thousand topics where enough people disagree that many of them have to be wrong. People are wrong all the time. "A lot" of people being wrong about something is the default for most situations. I'm not saying which specific people are wrong, that is beyond my abilities. I'm talking statistics, and I think there's plenty of evidence for it. Edit: Also, you distracted me from the far more obvious answer, desires are complicated! Someone can want to use their phone and also want to avoid interruption. So they might have picked the same thing I would pick, zero "knowing better" involved.
    - ruthmarx 2y ago
      > I said a lot. Not most. Sigh. Do you find being pedantic like this productive, honestly? Fine, though. You're making an unwarranted assumption about a lot of people. Happy? > but as an objective true or false question, it's true a lot of the time. No, it isn't. This is purely your preference. > Are you implying that such a thought is obviously wrong? In this case dealing with subjective preferences it absolutely is, and you absolutely are. > I can list a thousand topics where enough people disagree that many of them have to be wrong. Those topics would likely be far more objective in nature, as opposed to dealing with individual preferences as is the case here. > I'm talking statistics, and I think there's plenty of evidence for it. So make your argument instead of just insisting you're right. Let's see the evidence.
      - Dylan16807 2y ago
        You seem to be objecting to the entire idea of people en masse having preferences that screw up their own enjoyment? Cool, that's super easy to prove. Ignore dinners, go look at the science of addiction. I can link the Wikipedia page if you want, it's full of links to evidence. Also "most" versus "a lot" isn't pedantic. There's a ton of statements that are true of 5% of people but it would be ridiculous to suggest it's a majority.

Dylan16807 2y ago

> What's true for you isn't true for everyone. That is why I said "a lot", not everyone. Your "Nah." is not true, by your own argument. > briefly There is a reason I said "or minimal". That's minimal.

ruthmarx 2y ago
The problem with your point is your making an unwarranted assumption about most people. It's no different from insisting someone would like a variation of something they have no interest if they would only try it. Or to put it in simpler terms, you seem to think you know better than "a lot" of people.
- consteval 2y ago
  I mean, yes: this point is true. Usually that's how things are. It's not a matter of knowing better, it's a matter of people not considering X. If they don't think about X they wouldn't even know to change it or try something else. Truly, you don't know something until you try it. If you never try it you just don't know. At least for most things, some things are obvious. Also, there's arguments about phones being addictive. That changes things a lot.
  - ruthmarx 2y ago
    > I mean, yes: this point is true. Usually that's how things are. Strongly disagree. > It's not a matter of knowing better, it's a matter of people not considering X. You're making the same mistake the other fellow is; you're assuming the other people haven't considered x, when they likely have.
    - Dylan16807 2y ago
      Do you think "considering" is enough to reach a correct conclusion? I'm not making the mistake of thinking they didn't consider it. I think every human is bad at considering. But it's also true that a lot of them really haven't considered it.
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  > unwarranted assumption about most people I said a lot. Not most. > It's no different from insisting someone would like a variation of something they have no interest if they would only try it. You shouldn't push people to do things, but as an objective true or false question, it's true a lot of the time. > Or to put it in simpler terms, you seem to think you know better than "a lot" of people. Are you implying that such a thought is obviously wrong? It's not. I can list a thousand topics where enough people disagree that many of them have to be wrong. People are wrong all the time. "A lot" of people being wrong about something is the default for most situations. I'm not saying which specific people are wrong, that is beyond my abilities. I'm talking statistics, and I think there's plenty of evidence for it. Edit: Also, you distracted me from the far more obvious answer, desires are complicated! Someone can want to use their phone and also want to avoid interruption. So they might have picked the same thing I would pick, zero "knowing better" involved.
  - ruthmarx 2y ago
    > I said a lot. Not most. Sigh. Do you find being pedantic like this productive, honestly? Fine, though. You're making an unwarranted assumption about a lot of people. Happy? > but as an objective true or false question, it's true a lot of the time. No, it isn't. This is purely your preference. > Are you implying that such a thought is obviously wrong? In this case dealing with subjective preferences it absolutely is, and you absolutely are. > I can list a thousand topics where enough people disagree that many of them have to be wrong. Those topics would likely be far more objective in nature, as opposed to dealing with individual preferences as is the case here. > I'm talking statistics, and I think there's plenty of evidence for it. So make your argument instead of just insisting you're right. Let's see the evidence.
    - Dylan16807 2y ago
      You seem to be objecting to the entire idea of people en masse having preferences that screw up their own enjoyment? Cool, that's super easy to prove. Ignore dinners, go look at the science of addiction. I can link the Wikipedia page if you want, it's full of links to evidence. Also "most" versus "a lot" isn't pedantic. There's a ton of statements that are true of 5% of people but it would be ridiculous to suggest it's a majority.