3 ms·

> Because you keep phrasing things as if wrong and condescending are the same, No, that's purely an issue with your interpretation. Drop your assumptions and l

> Because you keep phrasing things as if wrong and condescending are the same, No, that's purely an issue with your interpretation. Drop your assumptions and look at it more objectively, if you can. > Right now, the best way to support it is to counter your claim. My claim is that your claim is wrong, lol. Don't try this slippery snakeoil salesman crap, please. You're making the claim that "a lot" of people would enjoy their food better if they didn't have their phones with them, or were not allowed to use them. I'm sure you'll be pedantic and correct this, but regardless of your reply that's the general point you've made. The basis for this claim is your belief that most of these people have an addiction. That's an unsubstantiated assumption. For your claim to hold water, you can't just assume addiction, you need to prove addiction, since that's the foundation of your claim. > I made extra sure you were doubling down I'm not doubling down on anything. I'm simply telling you your assumptions are unfounded and that you are wrong AND condescending to assume so. I really hope emphasizing that 'and' helped assuage your confusion on that point. > If you do want to agree with me that yes lots of people have immediate preferences that make them unhappy after a few hours That wasn't your claim, and it's disingenuous to make it more abstract to try and defend it. It was your specific claim that I took objection to, not this abstracted significantly less specific version. > It's an instance of a more general problem: people are not always good at planning and impulses. There's also the issue of people like yourselves insisting they know peoples preferences better then they do. You don't seem to understand that your own preferences don't necessarily map to other people in the way you assume. Have you considered you're an outlier in a way that has nothing to do with addiction? > By the way, do you have a reason you kept misquoting my argument? I feel like you should have to defend that instead just attacking me for correcting you. It wasn't deliberate or malicious, it was just because I was typing instead of copying and pasting. As far as my argument is concerned, the quantity difference between 'most' and 'a lot' is irrelevant - the issue is you're insisting you know better than a group of strangers, regardless of if that group is "a lot" of people or most people.

Dylan16807 2y ago
> You're making the claim that "a lot" of people would enjoy their food better if they didn't have their phones with them, or were not allowed to use them. I'm sure you'll be pedantic and correct this, but regardless of your reply that's the general point you've made. Correct. > The basis for this claim is your belief that most of these people have an addiction. That's an unsubstantiated assumption. Incorrect. The basis of my claim is that people are often wrong about what will make them happy. Addiction is not the basis of my claim, it was just a single example of people choosing wrong. > It was your specific claim that I took objection to, not this abstracted significantly less specific version. 1. Your argument was not phone specific, so I asked if you were making the general claim, and you confirmed it as far as I could tell. 2. Fine, let's start over. Do you think phones are an exception to the general argument? > There's also the issue of people like yourselves insisting they know peoples preferences better then they do. You don't seem to understand that your own preferences don't necessarily map to other people in the way you assume. See, I don't know which people are wrong. I'm making a statistical argument. I'm also wrong a lot! There are people that know what I want better than I do, sometimes! The trouble is we don't know which ones > you're insisting you know better than a group of strangers If the group is everyone keeping phones out, then no I'm not. If the group is a subset of those people that I can't identify, then is that direct enough to be an issue? I don't think it's realistic to think 100% are correct.
- ruthmarx 2y ago
  > Incorrect. The basis of my claim is that people are often wrong about what will make them happy. > Addiction is not the basis of my claim, it was just a single example of people choosing wrong. In this specific instance, of using phones at restaurants, you seemed to think people could not go without them due to addiction. Are you saying that was not your position? > Do you think phones are an exception to the general argument? Not so much an exemption, more that when you make an abstract argument it's going to change when you zoom in a few levels down, and it's going to change depending on what is being discussed in. In this case, I certainly disagree that it's safe to assert that "a lot of people would enjoy their meals better if they didn't have their phones with them" - is that a fair paraphrasing of your point? > See, I don't know which people are wrong. I'm making a statistical argument. What are you considering a lot, then? Even 0.1% of the population could be considered a lot, so what's the low end percentage of western phone owners you would suppose your position would apply to? > I'm also wrong a lot! There are people that know what I want better than I do, sometimes! The trouble is we don't know which ones In the context of statistics, what do you think the split is between people that think they would know what you want more than you do, and those who actually do? I'd think it's something like 9:1. > If the group is a subset of those people that I can't identify, then is that direct enough to be an issue? I don't think it's realistic to think 100% are correct. I guess it depends on how much you consider a lot. I'll grant it is correct for 'some' just on the basis of variations that exist, but I'm not sure I agree with it being true for a lot. --- Unrelated, what are you using if anything to get reply notifications so fast? Are you just manually refreshing?
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    > In this specific instance, of using phones at restaurants, you seemed to think people could not go without them due to addiction. Are you saying that was not your position? Correct. I only brought up addiction after I thought we moved to the general argument, because it's so easy and objective. If we stayed with phones I probably wouldn't have mentioned addiction. > Not so much an exemption, more that when you make an abstract argument it's going to change when you zoom in a few levels down, and it's going to change depending on what is being discussed in. It will change some, but if the general idea is that people are bad at knowing what they want and avoiding temptation, that can only change so much. If it's not true for phones at dinner then that sounds like it has to be an exception. > In this case, I certainly disagree that it's safe to assert that "a lot of people would enjoy their meals better if they didn't have their phones with them" - is that a fair paraphrasing of your point? I think that's fair, but I'd replace "have their phones with them" with something like "use their phones for more than a minute or so per hour". > What are you considering a lot, then? Even 0.1% of the population could be considered a lot, so what's the low end percentage of western phone owners you would suppose your position would apply to? 0.1% is still a million people. I think that has a good chance of qualifying? But I would bet the number is >5%. If it's 5% that's definitely enough for me to count it as a lot of people. > In the context of statistics, what do you think the split is between people that think they would know what you want more than you do, and those who actually do? I'd think it's something like 9:1. If those odds work the other way around and 10% of people would be happier without phones, then I would take that as very strong validation of my position.

Dylan16807 2y ago

> You're making the claim that "a lot" of people would enjoy their food better if they didn't have their phones with them, or were not allowed to use them. I'm sure you'll be pedantic and correct this, but regardless of your reply that's the general point you've made. Correct. > The basis for this claim is your belief that most of these people have an addiction. That's an unsubstantiated assumption. Incorrect. The basis of my claim is that people are often wrong about what will make them happy. Addiction is not the basis of my claim, it was just a single example of people choosing wrong. > It was your specific claim that I took objection to, not this abstracted significantly less specific version. 1. Your argument was not phone specific, so I asked if you were making the general claim, and you confirmed it as far as I could tell. 2. Fine, let's start over. Do you think phones are an exception to the general argument? > There's also the issue of people like yourselves insisting they know peoples preferences better then they do. You don't seem to understand that your own preferences don't necessarily map to other people in the way you assume. See, I don't know which people are wrong. I'm making a statistical argument. I'm also wrong a lot! There are people that know what I want better than I do, sometimes! The trouble is we don't know which ones > you're insisting you know better than a group of strangers If the group is everyone keeping phones out, then no I'm not. If the group is a subset of those people that I can't identify, then is that direct enough to be an issue? I don't think it's realistic to think 100% are correct.

ruthmarx 2y ago
> Incorrect. The basis of my claim is that people are often wrong about what will make them happy. > Addiction is not the basis of my claim, it was just a single example of people choosing wrong. In this specific instance, of using phones at restaurants, you seemed to think people could not go without them due to addiction. Are you saying that was not your position? > Do you think phones are an exception to the general argument? Not so much an exemption, more that when you make an abstract argument it's going to change when you zoom in a few levels down, and it's going to change depending on what is being discussed in. In this case, I certainly disagree that it's safe to assert that "a lot of people would enjoy their meals better if they didn't have their phones with them" - is that a fair paraphrasing of your point? > See, I don't know which people are wrong. I'm making a statistical argument. What are you considering a lot, then? Even 0.1% of the population could be considered a lot, so what's the low end percentage of western phone owners you would suppose your position would apply to? > I'm also wrong a lot! There are people that know what I want better than I do, sometimes! The trouble is we don't know which ones In the context of statistics, what do you think the split is between people that think they would know what you want more than you do, and those who actually do? I'd think it's something like 9:1. > If the group is a subset of those people that I can't identify, then is that direct enough to be an issue? I don't think it's realistic to think 100% are correct. I guess it depends on how much you consider a lot. I'll grant it is correct for 'some' just on the basis of variations that exist, but I'm not sure I agree with it being true for a lot. --- Unrelated, what are you using if anything to get reply notifications so fast? Are you just manually refreshing?
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  > In this specific instance, of using phones at restaurants, you seemed to think people could not go without them due to addiction. Are you saying that was not your position? Correct. I only brought up addiction after I thought we moved to the general argument, because it's so easy and objective. If we stayed with phones I probably wouldn't have mentioned addiction. > Not so much an exemption, more that when you make an abstract argument it's going to change when you zoom in a few levels down, and it's going to change depending on what is being discussed in. It will change some, but if the general idea is that people are bad at knowing what they want and avoiding temptation, that can only change so much. If it's not true for phones at dinner then that sounds like it has to be an exception. > In this case, I certainly disagree that it's safe to assert that "a lot of people would enjoy their meals better if they didn't have their phones with them" - is that a fair paraphrasing of your point? I think that's fair, but I'd replace "have their phones with them" with something like "use their phones for more than a minute or so per hour". > What are you considering a lot, then? Even 0.1% of the population could be considered a lot, so what's the low end percentage of western phone owners you would suppose your position would apply to? 0.1% is still a million people. I think that has a good chance of qualifying? But I would bet the number is >5%. If it's 5% that's definitely enough for me to count it as a lot of people. > In the context of statistics, what do you think the split is between people that think they would know what you want more than you do, and those who actually do? I'd think it's something like 9:1. If those odds work the other way around and 10% of people would be happier without phones, then I would take that as very strong validation of my position.