4 ms·
> Introducing drugs into this method will shifts the balance to the less optimal side of the reward-effort continuum. There is absolutely no basis of support
by Amadou 13y ago
> Introducing drugs into this method will shifts the balance to the less optimal side of the reward-effort continuum.
There is absolutely no basis of support for that in your argument.
I think you can reasonably make the argument that using drugs shifts the balance in one direction, but to say that it ends up over-the-line rather than to a potentially more optimal location on that continuum is begging the question.
- chrischen 13y agoGo ahead and try the experiment. Lock two people in two rooms and give one a choice of food or cocaine every day and the other just food. What do you think will happen? It's pretty clear the one with cocaine will be slightly less nourished than the one without cocaine. The cocaine doesn't offer any benefit except a surge of dopamine. Maybe you could argue the guy has ADHD, and the cocaine helps him function normally, but given two normal people my hypothesis is probably correct.
- Amadou 13y agoI'm sorry but locking two people in a room really has nothing to do with the way the vast majority of people live their lives. You are again assuming the initial point and working backwards from that belief. It seems pretty clear this is a matter of faith for you, so not much point in continuing to debate it.
- chrischen 13y agoMy initial point was reasoned. You've yet to counter any of the reasoning I've made. You have, however, resorted to what is basically name calling ("matter of faith for me"). Please leave my motivations off the table and focus on my reasoning. If you want to stop debating, go ahead, but that doesn't mean that no conversation is possible. If it stops, it's because you don't want to continue discussing it.
- Amadou 13y agoYou keep assuming the initial point as a given, that is pretty much the definition of faith - belief that can't be or isn't proven.