3 ms·

Even the best people seem to go out of their way to rationalise (their own?) alcohol consumption. As a nowadays leading cause of cancer in many regions, and ass

by nialse 1mo ago

Even the best people seem to go out of their way to rationalise (their own?) alcohol consumption. As a nowadays leading cause of cancer in many regions, and associated with dependency and other secondary negative outcomes, perhaps it is time to stop rationalising it? And maybe also let off the rhetoric of "government sponsored" science, which is actually most science in many places. Written for views/clicks obviously. So tiering. // Master of Science in Public Health

laserlight 1mo ago
The following quote is especially problematic IMHO: > For a paper claiming to overturn decades of alcohol drinking recommendations, the statistical foundation is underdocumented and, to be mild, statistically strange. Given that "decades of alcohol drinking recommendations" lacked any statistical basis to begin with, the scientific-rigor bar to clear is quite low IMHO.
- nialse 1mo ago
  It's just writing for dramatic effect it seems. The claim that the paper is 'used as “definitive” argument in the medical discussions' seems quite absurd given that the paper itself was published just two months ago.
jvican 1mo ago
I think nobody would argue drinking a lot of alcohol, or substantial alcohol, is detrimental for health. The question being argued is whether drinking a small amount of alcohol is detrimental to your health. This is a different matter altogether. We, humans, have been drinking alcohol for millenia. I'm skeptical to the idea that a small amount, say, a glass of wine for lunch every day or so, can harm us, especially for active individuals. There has been a natural selection process for us to adapt. I believe what Taleb is doing here is of great public value, and I commend him for that.
- epolanski 1mo ago
  There is no evidence either small quantities of tobacco or most drugs harm you either. People that want to drink will find excuses to do so.
  - jvican 1mo ago
    Maybe — I haven't looked at the evidence. But, alcohol is something that has been present in our ancestral environment (e.g. fermented fruits). If anyone's telling me, our bodies didn't learn to at least tolerate small amounts of it without any major side effects, I'm going to be asking a lot of follow-up questions. I think it's much easier to argue this case than, say, tobacco or "drugs", which are arguably more recent inventions, depending on your exact definition of drug.
    - Ekaros 1mo ago
      Same logic applies to heavy metal like lead and others. Also cyanide and arsenic. And so on. We still actively avoid them. Just because we can tolerate them via various process does not mean it wouldn't be better to avoid them altogether and minimise exposure.
      - jvican 1mo ago
        One could argue that small exposure to these metals is what caused us our body to develop defenses against them. If you remove the "small" exposure, you remove the cure, so to speak. Similar to how small quantities of cyanide create an adaptation in your body, but a slightly bigger one would kill you. Minimizing exposure can be net negative for us, as humans, and four our future children.
    - epolanski 1mo ago
      Smoked meat has been a staple of human diet for millenia. It's cancerous.
  - graemep 1mo ago
    Which "drugs"? The problem with highly addictive things is people do not stop at small quantities.
free652 1mo ago
>And maybe also let off the rhetoric of "government sponsored" science, which is actually most science in many places. Is it? Government science is usually very closely tied to politics, and that's so far from "science". I didn't see any real science in your post as well btw.
- nialse 1mo ago
  It depends on setting, especially country but also institution of course. 25-30% of all research world wide is government financed. In the EU 76% of university research is financed by the government and 57% in the US. I'm happy to discuss definitions of science any day of the week! =) https://data-explorer.oecd.org/vis?df[ds]=DisseminateFinalDMZ&df[id]=DSD_RDS_GERD%40DF_GERD_SOF&df[ag]=OECD.STI.STP&df[vs]=1.0&lc=en&dq=.A.._T._T.....XDC.&pd=2015,&to[TIME_PERIOD]=false https://data-explorer.oecd.org/vis?df[ds]=DisseminateFinalDM...
graemep 1mo ago
People from puritanical cultures rationalise their opposition to other people consuming alcohol. Ad hominem arguments cut both ways.
- nialse 1mo ago
  Your argument is misguided and tries to make the issue about the cultural background of the people making the argument rather than the merits of the argument itself. Most of the researchers I've worked with consume alcohol, they are taking an informed risk and are okay with that. There is not so much opposition as it is a reaction to having seen what alcohol does to the body, people and their relationships.
  - graemep 1mo ago
    whoosh.
- scoofy 1mo ago
  I would say it is a non sequitur rather than an ad hominem. The article is about the rigor of a paper on the harms of relatively small amounts of alcohol consumption. The comment is about the obvious harms from large amounts of alcohol consumption. The two things are barely related beyond, perhaps, the title of the article. We can at the same time recognize the harms of alcohol, while also caring about whether there is a relatively safe dose with which to consume it. As a parallel, we can look at substances as banal as finasteride or aspartame as examples of where we are actually quite concerned about the safety of the small dose, while recognizing the obvious dangers of consistent, large doses. In all three cases (ethanol, finasteride, and aspartame), the "benefits" of each drug are unrelated to health, but meaningful to most people. The main difference is that ethanol is much easier to consume at dangerous levels, likely because regulation is quite difficult, especially when you can make it at home relatively easily.
swed420 1mo ago
> Even the best people seem to go out of their way to rationalise (their own?) alcohol consumption. Gotta love the phrase "drugs and alcohol," as if to imply alcohol isn't a drug or is some special exception.
preg_match 1mo ago
I stopped drinking probably a year ago due to me having cancer. I figure I'm done forever now, I have more than enough carcinogens for a lifetime. The biggest thing I've noticed is just how much alcohol has stunted me. It's a tool for socializing, having fun, but along the way I never learned to deal with discomfort. Now I go out often, alone, and sober, and I realize I never built up the skills. And they are skills really - how to be comfortable and confident in public, how to approach strangers, how to let loose and have fun. I'm anxious, I'm weird, I'm lost. Part of that is the chemo, sure, but the other part is me throwing away years of skill building in exchange for more fun right now. But now, I'm slowly building up the skills. I realize maybe some people never build these skills. Maybe that's why people become recluses, or why they continue to drink. I also realize some people do have the skills. I've met many magic people; charismatic, kind, confident. They have the skills. Do they even need alcohol then?

by nialse 1mo ago

laserlight 1mo ago

The following quote is especially problematic IMHO: > For a paper claiming to overturn decades of alcohol drinking recommendations, the statistical foundation is underdocumented and, to be mild, statistically strange. Given that "decades of alcohol drinking recommendations" lacked any statistical basis to begin with, the scientific-rigor bar to clear is quite low IMHO.

nialse 1mo ago
It's just writing for dramatic effect it seems. The claim that the paper is 'used as “definitive” argument in the medical discussions' seems quite absurd given that the paper itself was published just two months ago.

jvican 1mo ago

I think nobody would argue drinking a lot of alcohol, or substantial alcohol, is detrimental for health. The question being argued is whether drinking a small amount of alcohol is detrimental to your health. This is a different matter altogether. We, humans, have been drinking alcohol for millenia. I'm skeptical to the idea that a small amount, say, a glass of wine for lunch every day or so, can harm us, especially for active individuals. There has been a natural selection process for us to adapt. I believe what Taleb is doing here is of great public value, and I commend him for that.

epolanski 1mo ago
There is no evidence either small quantities of tobacco or most drugs harm you either. People that want to drink will find excuses to do so.
- jvican 1mo ago
  Maybe — I haven't looked at the evidence. But, alcohol is something that has been present in our ancestral environment (e.g. fermented fruits). If anyone's telling me, our bodies didn't learn to at least tolerate small amounts of it without any major side effects, I'm going to be asking a lot of follow-up questions. I think it's much easier to argue this case than, say, tobacco or "drugs", which are arguably more recent inventions, depending on your exact definition of drug.
  - Ekaros 1mo ago
    Same logic applies to heavy metal like lead and others. Also cyanide and arsenic. And so on. We still actively avoid them. Just because we can tolerate them via various process does not mean it wouldn't be better to avoid them altogether and minimise exposure.
    - jvican 1mo ago
      One could argue that small exposure to these metals is what caused us our body to develop defenses against them. If you remove the "small" exposure, you remove the cure, so to speak. Similar to how small quantities of cyanide create an adaptation in your body, but a slightly bigger one would kill you. Minimizing exposure can be net negative for us, as humans, and four our future children.
  - epolanski 1mo ago
    Smoked meat has been a staple of human diet for millenia. It's cancerous.
- graemep 1mo ago
  Which "drugs"? The problem with highly addictive things is people do not stop at small quantities.

free652 1mo ago

>And maybe also let off the rhetoric of "government sponsored" science, which is actually most science in many places. Is it? Government science is usually very closely tied to politics, and that's so far from "science". I didn't see any real science in your post as well btw.

nialse 1mo ago
It depends on setting, especially country but also institution of course. 25-30% of all research world wide is government financed. In the EU 76% of university research is financed by the government and 57% in the US. I'm happy to discuss definitions of science any day of the week! =) https://data-explorer.oecd.org/vis?df[ds]=DisseminateFinalDMZ&df[id]=DSD_RDS_GERD%40DF_GERD_SOF&df[ag]=OECD.STI.STP&df[vs]=1.0&lc=en&dq=.A.._T._T.....XDC.&pd=2015,&to[TIME_PERIOD]=false https://data-explorer.oecd.org/vis?df[ds]=DisseminateFinalDM...

graemep 1mo ago

People from puritanical cultures rationalise their opposition to other people consuming alcohol. Ad hominem arguments cut both ways.

nialse 1mo ago
Your argument is misguided and tries to make the issue about the cultural background of the people making the argument rather than the merits of the argument itself. Most of the researchers I've worked with consume alcohol, they are taking an informed risk and are okay with that. There is not so much opposition as it is a reaction to having seen what alcohol does to the body, people and their relationships.
- graemep 1mo ago
  whoosh.
scoofy 1mo ago
I would say it is a non sequitur rather than an ad hominem. The article is about the rigor of a paper on the harms of relatively small amounts of alcohol consumption. The comment is about the obvious harms from large amounts of alcohol consumption. The two things are barely related beyond, perhaps, the title of the article. We can at the same time recognize the harms of alcohol, while also caring about whether there is a relatively safe dose with which to consume it. As a parallel, we can look at substances as banal as finasteride or aspartame as examples of where we are actually quite concerned about the safety of the small dose, while recognizing the obvious dangers of consistent, large doses. In all three cases (ethanol, finasteride, and aspartame), the "benefits" of each drug are unrelated to health, but meaningful to most people. The main difference is that ethanol is much easier to consume at dangerous levels, likely because regulation is quite difficult, especially when you can make it at home relatively easily.

swed420 1mo ago

> Even the best people seem to go out of their way to rationalise (their own?) alcohol consumption. Gotta love the phrase "drugs and alcohol," as if to imply alcohol isn't a drug or is some special exception.

preg_match 1mo ago

I stopped drinking probably a year ago due to me having cancer. I figure I'm done forever now, I have more than enough carcinogens for a lifetime. The biggest thing I've noticed is just how much alcohol has stunted me. It's a tool for socializing, having fun, but along the way I never learned to deal with discomfort. Now I go out often, alone, and sober, and I realize I never built up the skills. And they are skills really - how to be comfortable and confident in public, how to approach strangers, how to let loose and have fun. I'm anxious, I'm weird, I'm lost. Part of that is the chemo, sure, but the other part is me throwing away years of skill building in exchange for more fun right now. But now, I'm slowly building up the skills. I realize maybe some people never build these skills. Maybe that's why people become recluses, or why they continue to drink. I also realize some people do have the skills. I've met many magic people; charismatic, kind, confident. They have the skills. Do they even need alcohol then?