I am constantly amazed that I can have entertainment at the click of a button.
1000 years ago, what did people do with their boredom? I assume that hard labour took up most of their time, but there must have been instances where they could only sit and twiddle their thumbs, such as in the dead of winter. I can only think that something that everybody could play to pass the time and did not require extra equipment was masturbation and fucking. Thus, how did masturbation and fucking rates compare from then to now?
Nothing changed except the entertainment - boredom ratio.
Since all people from those days are dead I presume they died of boredom.
They worked through all the hours of daylight and slept as soon as it got dark, simple as that. People would be a lot happier now if they did more of the same.
You're pretty young still, it's possible to get weary of computer games and internet.
Quote from: Brazen on April 28, 2009, 06:00:36 AM
They worked through all the hours of daylight and slept as soon as it got dark, simple as that. People would be a lot happier now if they did more of the same.
Yes, but I always wondered what the idle plebs of the city of Rome did between gladiator bouts.
Watch other people do nothing. Sat on their asses & smoked.
Boredom was only invented when the TV came around.
A wild guess, maybe they interacted more with other people than we do today ? :blink:
You kids would have loved the 70's.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 28, 2009, 07:59:09 AM
You kids would have loved the 70's.
Especially the three-day weeks causing power outages for hours at a time in the evening. We used to sit round candles while our parents told us stories about the war. No, really.
Quote from: mongers on April 28, 2009, 07:57:05 AM
A wild guess, maybe they interacted more with other people than we do today ? :blink:
Unpossible.
they drank more. full stop.
they were drinking and interacting, what else? :huh:
Drinking and interacting :perv:
L.
When you die at 25, there's not much time to get bored.
You dont have to go back 1000 years. When I was young nobody had computers - There wasnt even Atari Pong games. Arcades were for pin ball machines and TVs had 2-3 channels.
Kids played a lot outside together. Not sure how adults passed the time (I was rarely around to see their what they did with their free time as I was too busy playing with my friends) but I do recall my parents going over to a friends house or having friends over more often then our generation.
On the whole I am not sure I like our technological age better. Things are easier now, standards of living have improved but we also seem to have lost some social connections as we spend more time in front of screens.
Of course the counter argument is that there are connections of a different sort - eg Languish, where people from all over the world can easily communicate instantly. But that is a different quality of connection. If I hadnt met a number of you in person I doubt I would be here as much or at all.
The problem with the idea that things were better before than now, and that our overall quality of life has deteriorated as a result of technology (at least in this fashion) is that it presupposes that human are incapable, as a whole, of evaluating what actually makes them happy.
It isn't like the advent of TVs forces people to watch them, or that computers make people only interface via facebook. Rather it is a choice.
I reject the notion that by and large humanity is incapable of deciding on an individual level what will make them more happy. If people choose to spend more time in front of a PC and less time interacting with their neighbors, then I will operate under the assumption that is because they are in fact happier doing more of the one and less of the other.
Quote from: Berkut on April 28, 2009, 10:29:30 AM
The problem with the idea that things were better before than now, and that our overall quality of life has deteriorated as a result of technology (at least in this fashion) is that it presupposes that human are incapable, as a whole, of evaluating what actually makes them happy.
It isn't like the advent of TVs forces people to watch them, or that computers make people only interface via facebook. Rather it is a choice.
I reject the notion that by and large humanity is incapable of deciding on an individual level what will make them more happy. If people choose to spend more time in front of a PC and less time interacting with their neighbors, then I will operate under the assumption that is because they are in fact happier doing more of the one and less of the other.
I don't really agree with this - at least, I know that I myself often end up going with passive entertainment such as TV watching or video game playing rather than active, outdoors-type entertainment or creative entertainment, simply because it is easier. The other forms of entertainment require effort to set up - and it takes a concious effort to do it; nonetheless, those times when I make the effort to (say) go out sketching or the like, I am far happier afterwards than when I vegitated for five solid hours in front of the TV.
It is similar to foods, in that a bit of effort and self-restraint are amply rewarded. It may be most immediately fun to eat chips and ice-cream all the time, but it isn't necessarily going to make you happier in the long term.
Anyway, to answer the question - what people did, more than any other single thing, was apparently to engage in lots and lots of story-telling. The art of being able to tell a good story was much cultivated.
Quote from: Berkut on April 28, 2009, 10:29:30 AM
I reject the notion that by and large humanity is incapable of deciding on an individual level what will make them more happy. If people choose to spend more time in front of a PC and less time interacting with their neighbors, then I will operate under the assumption that is because they are in fact happier doing more of the one and less of the other.
People do all kinds of things that are objectively stupid. Smoking, eating too much, getting too little exercise. I am sure we could make a very long list.
I am not sure why you suppose that people are rationale enough not to watch too much TV especially since most North Americans DO watch a too much TV for their own good. The only thing that has reduced TV viewing recently is that people spend more time infront of other screens.
Quote from: Caliga on April 28, 2009, 07:23:05 AM
Quote from: Brazen on April 28, 2009, 06:00:36 AM
They worked through all the hours of daylight and slept as soon as it got dark, simple as that. People would be a lot happier now if they did more of the same.
Yes, but I always wondered what the idle plebs of the city of Rome did between gladiator bouts.
Maybe they day dreamed of computers, tv, radio, travel and internet!
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 28, 2009, 10:57:34 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 28, 2009, 10:29:30 AM
I reject the notion that by and large humanity is incapable of deciding on an individual level what will make them more happy. If people choose to spend more time in front of a PC and less time interacting with their neighbors, then I will operate under the assumption that is because they are in fact happier doing more of the one and less of the other.
People do all kinds of things that are objectively stupid. Smoking, eating too much, getting too little exercise. I am sure we could make a very long list.
But they do not do things that overall make them less happy than some other thing.
I won't say "objective;y" since of course their own happiness is by definition completely subjective.
Stupid is another thing entirely, and even then I refrain from joining the "OMG, people are so stupid! If only they did what *I* think is best for them..." bit.
Quote
I am not sure why you suppose that people are rationale enough not to watch too much TV especially since most North Americans DO watch a too much TV for their own good. The only thing that has reduced TV viewing recently is that people spend more time infront of other screens.
They do? Who says they watch too much "for their own good"? You? Are you the authority on what is "for their own good" much less on what makes them happy?
I can only imagine that if I'd lived in earlier times I would have read a shitload of books.
Quote from: Berkut on April 28, 2009, 11:13:25 AM
They do? Who says they watch too much "for their own good"? You? Are you the authority on what is "for their own good" much less on what makes them happy?
Rising obesity rates do.
You can try to rationalize all you want about how getting fatter through less exercise is making people subjectively happy. But you will never convince me that it is actually good for them.
Quote from: Malthus on April 28, 2009, 10:42:09 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 28, 2009, 10:29:30 AM
The problem with the idea that things were better before than now, and that our overall quality of life has deteriorated as a result of technology (at least in this fashion) is that it presupposes that human are incapable, as a whole, of evaluating what actually makes them happy.
It isn't like the advent of TVs forces people to watch them, or that computers make people only interface via facebook. Rather it is a choice.
I reject the notion that by and large humanity is incapable of deciding on an individual level what will make them more happy. If people choose to spend more time in front of a PC and less time interacting with their neighbors, then I will operate under the assumption that is because they are in fact happier doing more of the one and less of the other.
I don't really agree with this - at least, I know that I myself often end up going with passive entertainment such as TV watching or video game playing rather than active, outdoors-type entertainment or creative entertainment, simply because it is easier. The other forms of entertainment require effort to set up - and it takes a concious effort to do it; nonetheless, those times when I make the effort to (say) go out sketching or the like, I am far happier afterwards than when I vegitated for five solid hours in front of the TV.
It is similar to foods, in that a bit of effort and self-restraint are amply rewarded. It may be most immediately fun to eat chips and ice-cream all the time, but it isn't necessarily going to make you happier in the long term.
I submit that you in fact veg about as much as makes you happy, and go out and do other things about as much as makes you happy. I think this is true for most people, overall.
Notice that in fact you do NOT veg out in front of the TV for five hours
all the time but instead choose to go do other things because you know in fact that vegging out for 5 horus
all the time will not actually maximize your happiness.
You have the ability to make that choice for yourself, and you strike some balance between activities that you find to be optimal.
Why should we presume that that is not
generally true for everyone else?
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 28, 2009, 11:16:27 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 28, 2009, 11:13:25 AM
They do? Who says they watch too much "for their own good"? You? Are you the authority on what is "for their own good" much less on what makes them happy?
Rising obesity rates do.
You can try to rationalize all you want about how getting fatter through less exercise is making people subjectively happy. But you will never convince me that it is actually good for them.
I am not rationalizing anything - I am just not going to operate under the assumption that people are incapable of determining what makes them happy better than I can.
Whether it is healthy for them is another issue entirely - but then, people have varying ideas about how important their health is to their happiness. I know people who do not give a shit, and I know people who spend what seems to me to be ridiculous amounts of time worrying about their health to the extent that I cannot see how it could make them happy.
But hey, differenet drummers and all that. If micro-managing every morsel you eat and spending 30 hours a week running and working out makes them happy, I am not going to second guess them. It probably does in fact make them happy.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 28, 2009, 11:15:12 AM
I can only imagine that if I'd lived in earlier times I would have read a shitload of books.
Indeed.
And you would probably also spend some of your time wondering what people did before there were books to read.
And other people would talk about how much things were better before those new-fangled books made everyone sit around and get fat reading all the time, when they could be doing worthwhile activities like stir dirt with a stick - like they did when THEY were kids!
We are all working on the assumption that previously it was okay to have a lot of different recreational time & activities. Was it the case?
In a rural society, atleast around here, previous to the introduction of TV, it doesn't look like it was.
I thought about this a little to myself. I actually concluded that a little boredom is not a bad thing at all. In my life I've come up with some fairly creative stuff while being bored, and done some interesting things. These days I have more than enough things to do to occupy my free time, and it seems like time just flies, and I have nothing to show for it.
Quote from: Berkut on April 28, 2009, 11:16:57 AM
I submit that you in fact veg about as much as makes you happy, and go out and do other things about as much as makes you happy. I think this is true for most people, overall.
Notice that in fact you do NOT veg out in front of the TV for five hours all the time but instead choose to go do other things because you know in fact that vegging out for 5 horus all the time will not actually maximize your happiness.
You have the ability to make that choice for yourself, and you strike some balance between activities that you find to be optimal.
Why should we presume that that is not generally true for everyone else?
I don't understand why you're being so agressive about this.
I find that in my own life I often do not take steps to maximize my own happiness. As just one example every time I take the canoe out I find that I have a tremendous time and I wonder why I don't do it more often. And there's no really good answer other than the fact that just sitting and watching tv (or in my case sitting and playing on the computer) is often the easier path, but not the one that maximizes my happiness.
You're showing a kind of ipso facto reasoning that people do the thing that makes them the happiest because that is what people are doing. I really don't think it's that simple.
In earlier times people had other things to do for entertainment, or depending on where/when they lived they may have had less entertainment or free time anyway. We may be tending to project our lifestyles a bit on how we envision others may have lived, or what they needed/wanted. But they would have had their ways, just as we differed before computers, tv and the electronic age. And some of us were kids back before computers and such came into being, and we had other things that we liked and did.
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 28, 2009, 11:22:20 AM
We are all working on the assumption that previously it was okay to have a lot of different recreational time & activities. Was it the case?
In a rural society, atleast around here, previous to the introduction of TV, it doesn't look like it was.
They did though. Especially if you go out to small towns you'll find a ton of curling rinks that are never used, ball diamonds that never get used, community halls that rarely get used.
It's actually much more apparent in small Yukon towns since there is no broadcast tv, and cable tv only exists in Whitehorse. So all the other communities only ever got TV with the introduction of satellite 20 years ago or so.
And yes, I've heard all the stories about the tons of activities that used to go on. You know I'm a curler. I've heard that all those little towns used to have vibrant little curling leagues, and some people would spend the entire winter driving up and down the highway to the different bonspiels that were put on. All of that now is gone, or is only a pale shadow of its former self.
LOL, how is my arguing one perspective while you argue another ME being "so aggressive"?
Why are YOU being so darn aggressive, putting forth your opinion and all?
Re-stating the exact same example as Malthus doesn't help much - my response to you is the same as my response to him. In fact you do not sit around watching TV - you do in fact go out on your canoe, because you know that if you did not, you would be less happy.
Would you be MORE happy if you spent more time in the canoe, and less in front of the computer? Perhaps - give it a shot and find out. But to presume that you would be MORE happy overall if you did not even have the computer is a rather huge stretch, IMO, and not supportable. I suspect that in fact you reach a pretty decent medium between the two, for you.
I am sure that my suggestion that you do that which makes you happy will be met with an over-abundance of aggressiveness. Probably because that makes you happy.
Quote from: Barrister on April 28, 2009, 11:32:31 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 28, 2009, 11:22:20 AM
We are all working on the assumption that previously it was okay to have a lot of different recreational time & activities. Was it the case?
In a rural society, atleast around here, previous to the introduction of TV, it doesn't look like it was.
They did though. Especially if you go out to small towns you'll find a ton of curling rinks that are never used, ball diamonds that never get used, community halls that rarely get used.
It's actually much more apparent in small Yukon towns since there is no broadcast tv, and cable tv only exists in Whitehorse. So all the other communities only ever got TV with the introduction of satellite 20 years ago or so.
And yes, I've heard all the stories about the tons of activities that used to go on. You know I'm a curler. I've heard that all those little towns used to have vibrant little curling leagues, and some people would spend the entire winter driving up and down the highway to the different bonspiels that were put on. All of that now is gone, or is only a pale shadow of its former self.
I will take your anecdote and raise you one.
In my "little town" this Saturday I will be taking my son to the little league parade in the morning. Then we will go home, and he will likely spend 1 hour or so playing his DS, either by himself or with his best friend. Then he will spend several hours playing outside with his friends, after which we will all go to his first little league game.
interest in lame patroal activities like little league is so low that the town has recently spent a pile of cash expanding the fields because there are not enough of them, and there is a huge demand for more teams to handle all the kids playing.
This is in addition to soccer, football, basketball, la crosse, hockey, and probably even curling that is common.
The fact that curling is not all that popular anymore doesn't really say anything about anything other than curling. I think it is rather presumptive to assume that it isn't popular anymore because everyone is sitting home miserable because they are too unaware of their own misery to do something about it.
I find it amusing that the opinion that people are basically capable of doing that which makes them happy overall is considered so "aggressive" and worth of such scorn.
Quote from: Berkut on April 28, 2009, 11:32:46 AM
LOL, how is my arguing one perspective while you argue another ME being "so aggressive"?
Well you are a Berkut.
Stop capitalizing random words, Banana.
Quote from: Berkut on April 28, 2009, 11:41:31 AM
I find it amusing that the opinion that people are basically capable of doing that which makes them happy overall is considered so "aggressive" and worth of such scorn.
It would be the tone of your argument that makes it agressive, not the position itself Berkut.
Nobody is talking about masturbation. :mad:
Quote from: Barrister on April 28, 2009, 11:45:15 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 28, 2009, 11:41:31 AM
I find it amusing that the opinion that people are basically capable of doing that which makes them happy overall is considered so "aggressive" and worth of such scorn.
It would be the tone of your argument that makes it agressive, not the position itself Berkut.
I find your tone to be overly aggressive, barrister.
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 28, 2009, 11:42:31 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 28, 2009, 11:32:46 AM
LOL, how is my arguing one perspective while you argue another ME being "so aggressive"?
Well you are a Berkut.
Stop capitalizing random words, Banana.
It is easiest to show EMPHASIS, yogurt.
Quote from: Berkut on April 28, 2009, 11:46:17 AM
Quote from: Barrister on April 28, 2009, 11:45:15 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 28, 2009, 11:41:31 AM
I find it amusing that the opinion that people are basically capable of doing that which makes them happy overall is considered so "aggressive" and worth of such scorn.
It would be the tone of your argument that makes it agressive, not the position itself Berkut.
I find your tone to be overly aggressive, barrister.
So now you're using "I know you are, but what am I"? :D
Quote from: Berkut on April 28, 2009, 11:47:04 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 28, 2009, 11:42:31 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 28, 2009, 11:32:46 AM
LOL, how is my arguing one perspective while you argue another ME being "so aggressive"?
Well you are a Berkut.
Stop capitalizing random words, Banana.
It is easiest to show EMPHASIS, yogurt.
Yogurt? I'm not slave.
Emphasis & aggression on an internet board are the same thing.
Quote from: Barrister on April 28, 2009, 11:47:43 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 28, 2009, 11:46:17 AM
Quote from: Barrister on April 28, 2009, 11:45:15 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 28, 2009, 11:41:31 AM
I find it amusing that the opinion that people are basically capable of doing that which makes them happy overall is considered so "aggressive" and worth of such scorn.
It would be the tone of your argument that makes it agressive, not the position itself Berkut.
I find your tone to be overly aggressive, barrister.
So now you're using "I know you are, but what am I"? :D
Indeed - it seemed an appropriately infantile response to your infantile ad hom.
How is that for aggressive?
But seriously - if you can simply say "Oh, you are so aggressive!" then why can't I? I am stating my views, you are stating yours - I am no more aggressive than you - in fact, I think I can make an actually objective argument that making ad homs relating to my supposed tone rather than the content of my argument is considerably more "aggressive" than me stating my views without making any such personal attacks.
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 28, 2009, 11:50:26 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 28, 2009, 11:47:04 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 28, 2009, 11:42:31 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 28, 2009, 11:32:46 AM
LOL, how is my arguing one perspective while you argue another ME being "so aggressive"?
Well you are a Berkut.
Stop capitalizing random words, Banana.
It is easiest to show EMPHASIS, yogurt.
Yogurt? I'm not slave.
Emphasis & aggression on an internet board are the same thing.
I say they aren't.
Sorry, sir.
I was rarely bored as a kid 20-30 years ago.
There were several options and sources for entertainment:
1) Playing some game outdoors with the neighbourhood kids
2) Reading, drawing, writing, building stuff with Lego, wood or assorted stuff found at homes, such as tampons
3) Pestering my parents into doing something with me, preferably me getting ice cream
4) Prank phone calls. This was our equivalent to Internet trolling.
5) Spying on the neighbours, stealing apples or similar
6) Sleep
The vast number of choices were mind-boggling and low-cost.
I'm bored as fuck WITH computers.
If you think I'm aggressive you can suck my cock.
Quote from: Berkut on April 28, 2009, 11:16:57 AM
I submit that you in fact veg about as much as makes you happy, and go out and do other things about as much as makes you happy. I think this is true for most people, overall.
Notice that in fact you do NOT veg out in front of the TV for five hours all the time but instead choose to go do other things because you know in fact that vegging out for 5 horus all the time will not actually maximize your happiness.
You have the ability to make that choice for yourself, and you strike some balance between activities that you find to be optimal.
Why should we presume that that is not generally true for everyone else?
Actually, I am presuming that my case *is* generally true for everyone else - that not all of my choices do, in fact, maximize my happiness. Some choices are made out of laziness, because I fail to make the small investment in energy needed to do something *better* - even though I know full well that it will. Just like sometimes I eat junk food, and only later remember that it makes me feel like crap.
Now, I'm not arguing that it would be better if the choice were removed and all of us were *forced* to do one thing or another. To my mind, developing self-discipline and the ability to make good choices is the key - not removing the possibility for bad choices. That is why I'm not in favour of criminalization of drugs, which exposes this situation in spades - there are people I know who do nothing but smoke pot all day - can anyone really argue that this is a good idea because subjectively they must be happier doing that, having
chosen to do it? Most people recognize that, while they may have chosen to be waistoids, both objectively and subjectively speaking they would be much happier if they weren't.
Moreover, most people recognize at least the possibility of similar compulsive-type behaviours in themselves - be it the harmful variety (like doing drugs or drinking) through to the relatively harmless (watching too much TV, Internet surfing, computer games). Obviously it is better to engage in any of these things to moderation, but some people (I think everyone to an extent at one time or another) can engage in things to an excess - leading to unhappiness
in spite of concious choices.
Now that being said, anything may be taken to an excess, even stuff like exercise - but there are certain things that people are much more likely to take to an excess. Naturally, such things are bound to be very popular.
Meh, I am still not buying into the idea that people are somehow less happy overall because they have choices to do more things. I think overall people generally make those choices that maximize their happiness. It isn't perfect of course, since there are often external factors involved.
Who is to say what is "to excess" though, when it comes to deciding for someone else what it is that makes someone else happy? Maybe doing things to excess is in fact what makes them happy. How do you tell?
When it comes to drugs, we are talking about addictions, which include some measure of artificially making the choice to forgo painful (less happy), so that is not really comparable to whether BB should play some more WoW or go canoing. To the extent that activities become addictive, tehn certainly choosing to engage in them could be counter to greater happiness - but isn't that the definition of addictive? Or "compulsive"?
I don't think anyone would describe the kinds of activities we are talking about as addictive or compulsive though - at least not necessarily so.
I agree with Malthus.
I'm much happier when playing football (soccer for you) or volleyball than sitting in front of my screen playing games, but I spend much more time doing the latter. :Embarrass:
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 28, 2009, 11:22:20 AM
We are all working on the assumption that previously it was okay to have a lot of different recreational time & activities. Was it the case?
In a rural society, atleast around here, previous to the introduction of TV, it doesn't look like it was.
You didnt have a road, a net, a puck and a few friends with hockey sticks.....
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 28, 2009, 01:39:11 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 28, 2009, 11:22:20 AM
We are all working on the assumption that previously it was okay to have a lot of different recreational time & activities. Was it the case?
In a rural society, atleast around here, previous to the introduction of TV, it doesn't look like it was.
You didnt have a road, a net, a puck and a few friends with hockey sticks.....
Of course I did, I was born in the 80s. I meant more in the 40s & before with Adult recreation time.
Quote from: Berkut on April 28, 2009, 11:41:31 AM
I find it amusing that the opinion that people are basically capable of doing that which makes them happy overall is considered so "aggressive" and worth of such scorn.
Its not your idea but your aggressive manner of posting generally. :P
You have also misunderstood my main point which is that before computers and TV sucked up most leisure time, people were more social, got out more and generally had more contact with other people.
You counter by making the claim that people act in order to maximize their happiness. When we point out that people do all kinds of things that dont actually maximize their happiness but instead are more likely to increase the chances of unhappiness through unhealthy life styles you simply fall back on the logical fallacy that if they are doing it, it must be because that is what makes them most happy.
Your argument is a tad weak.
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 28, 2009, 01:48:08 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 28, 2009, 01:39:11 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 28, 2009, 11:22:20 AM
We are all working on the assumption that previously it was okay to have a lot of different recreational time & activities. Was it the case?
In a rural society, atleast around here, previous to the introduction of TV, it doesn't look like it was.
You didnt have a road, a net, a puck and a few friends with hockey sticks.....
Of course I did, I was born in the 80s. I meant more in the 40s & before with Adult recreation time.
In the 40s people were busy fighting a war and had no time to be bored. :P
Quote from: Berkut on April 28, 2009, 01:26:27 PM
Meh, I am still not buying into the idea that people are somehow less happy overall because they have choices to do more things. I think overall people generally make those choices that maximize their happiness. It isn't perfect of course, since there are often external factors involved.
Who is to say what is "to excess" though, when it comes to deciding for someone else what it is that makes someone else happy? Maybe doing things to excess is in fact what makes them happy. How do you tell?
When it comes to drugs, we are talking about addictions, which include some measure of artificially making the choice to forgo painful (less happy), so that is not really comparable to whether BB should play some more WoW or go canoing. To the extent that activities become addictive, tehn certainly choosing to engage in them could be counter to greater happiness - but isn't that the definition of addictive? Or "compulsive"?
I don't think anyone would describe the kinds of activities we are talking about as addictive or compulsive though - at least not necessarily so.
I'm not so sure that there is a huge difference between the effect of doing drugs, and the effect of engaging in any other sort of highly attractive behaviour, like watching TV or playing video games.
In both cases, on a neurological level what causes an activity to be "pleasurable" is the effect on brain chemistry - the release of substances such as endorphins.
Naturally, this is true of *any* activity - the difference is usually expressed as being that the one set of activities has a worth that sets it aside from the other (doing drugs). Taking chemicals
directly rather than (say) 'earning' them through activities such as exercise or exposure to great works of art is I suppose a sort of cheating; all of the pleasure with none of the effort.
Of course that leads into the sort of value-judgments aside from "happiness" which you do not wish to make. The difficulty is that, taken to its extreme, isn't sticking a needle into the pleasure centres of our brains or taking heroin the ultimate in pure "happiness" - assuming one did not develop a physical dependency? What, if anything, makes that a bad choice in terms of the pursuit of happiness? What would be wrong with Huxley's "Soma"?
To my mind there is a continuum - some activities cause happiness to be sure, but there are other factors which ought to influence one's choices - because indulging in no-effort happiness can lead to addictive or compulsive behaviour which is not condusive to happiness in the long run. That is one reason why smoking pot all day is "bad" (quite aside from the health effects - pot does not cause physical dependency) and it is also why watching TV too much is also "bad".
As for how much is "too much" - that is a balancing act; the question here is, is a person activly missing out on other important and pleasurable activities on a regular basis because of it, to the extent that they and those around them regret the fact? That's one guide. Usually after a certain point, the person (or their spouse, parents or children) can tell it's a problem.
Quote from: CanucklesIts not your idea but your aggressive manner of posting generally. (https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsmileys%2Flangsmiley%2Ftongue.gif&hash=cdee49b9dfcb6c8eebed901da39d83102a838def)
You have also misunderstood my main point which is that before computers and TV sucked up most leisure time, people were more social, got out more and generally had more contact with other people.
You counter by making the claim that people act in order to maximize their happiness. When we point out that people do all kinds of things that dont actually maximize their happiness but instead are more likely to increase the chances of unhappiness through unhealthy life styles you simply fall back on the logical fallacy that if they are doing it, it must be because that is what makes them most happy.
Your argument is a tad weak.
The fact that you like to go after the form of my argument rather than its content suggests that the content is a tad strong.
And no, I did not mis-understand your argument, I simply disputed the idea that before computers and TV people were more happy because they got out more and had more contact with people.
Lastly, it is no fallacy, logical or otherwise, to claim that absent evidence to the contrary, people are better judges of what will make themselves happy than others, and in fact do those things that make them happy.
I suppose this disagreement could come down to what we define as "happy". You seem to think it must be tied to some outside measure of what is "best for them" as defined by you. I think people are quite happy doing things that in fact are not that good for them as defined by you (or me).
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 28, 2009, 01:50:16 PM
In the 40s people were busy fighting a war and had no time to be bored. :P
Sort of like a giant 3-D MMORPG. :D
Berkut, you need mysticism to be happy. Or "really" happy, whatever the fuck that is.
Quote from: The Brain on April 28, 2009, 01:59:22 PM
Berkut, you need mysticism to be happy. Or "really" happy, whatever the fuck that is.
Whereas all you need is a trip to a blind farmer's barn. :P
Quote from: Berkut on April 28, 2009, 01:53:59 PM
And no, I did not mis-understand your argument, I simply disputed the idea that before computers and TV people were more happy because they got out more and had more contact with people.
Lastly, it is no fallacy, logical or otherwise, to claim that absent evidence to the contrary, people are better judges of what will make themselves happy than others, and in fact do those things that make them happy.
I suppose this disagreement could come down to what we define as "happy". You seem to think it must be tied to some outside measure of what is "best for them" as defined by you. I think people are quite happy doing things that in fact are not that good for them as defined by you (or me).
How's this for some evidence:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3157570.stm
QuoteNigeria has the highest percentage of happy people followed by Mexico, Venezuela, El Salvador and Puerto Rico, while Russia, Armenia and Romania have the fewest.
But factors that make people happy may vary from one country to the next with personal success and self-expression being seen as the most important in the US, while in Japan, fulfilling the expectations of family and society is valued more highly.
The survey appears to confirm the old adage that money cannot buy happiness.
While not directly touching on access to computers and TV, we can take the income levels of some countries as some indication of the various levels of access to such technologies. In particular Nigeria would appear to have lower rates of ownership of personal computers than does western europe.
So this one survey would seem to show that happiness is rather independent and not associated with income and technology.
Quote from: MalthusI'm not so sure that there is a huge difference between the effect of doing drugs, and the effect of engaging in any other sort of highly attractive behaviour, like watching TV or playing video games.
While I see your point, I do think there is a difference.
At least, the difference as I see it is this - is the happiness gained a result of the activity, or is mainly an attempt to avoid the unpleasant effects of stopping?
For example, I don't think most people smoke cigarettes because smoking makes them happy (although there is a pleasurable component to it) as much as because NOT smoking makes them miserable. That, to me, is the difference between something that is fun and can be taken to an excess (although "excess" is obviously very subjective) and something that is an addiction.
Take playing WoW, for example. I knew people in our guild who bitched about playing WoW, how is really wasn't that much fun anymore, but they were still on 10 hours a day. That, to me, is addiction - not just doing something fun, but actually doing something that *isn't* fun, because you are compelled to do so.
Quote
In both cases, on a neurological level what causes an activity to be "pleasurable" is the effect on brain chemistry - the release of substances such as endorphins.
Naturally, this is true of *any* activity - the difference is usually expressed as being that the one set of activities has a worth that sets it aside from the other (doing drugs). Taking chemicals directly rather than (say) 'earning' them through activities such as exercise or exposure to great works of art is I suppose a sort of cheating; all of the pleasure with none of the effort.
Yeah, this is is the kind of value judgment I am suspicious about - "earning" enjoyment? not sure I buy the idea that "earned" enjoyment is somehow superior in an objective sense. It might be (and is, at least in my case) more valuable for the individual - but that is kind of circular. I place greater value on earning some achievement *because* it brings me greater happiness. If some people find that they enjoy something just as much even if they did not earn it, I would not dispute their happiness.
Quote
Of course that leads into the sort of value-judgments aside from "happiness" which you do not wish to make. The difficulty is that, taken to its extreme, isn't sticking a needle into the pleasure centres of our brains or taking heroin the ultimate in pure "happiness" - assuming one did not develop a physical dependency? What, if anything, makes that a bad choice in terms of the pursuit of happiness? What would be wrong with Huxley's "Soma"?
From the perspective of whether or not people are more or less happy, nothing. I would not argue that someone on some "perfect" happiness drug is not actually happy. Although again, we are in the realm of addictions - absent the addiction, I would not presume to place any value judgement on someone elses choices about what makes them happy, at least to the extent of claiming whethere they really are happy.
Quote
To my mind there is a continuum - some activities cause happiness to be sure, but there are other factors which ought to influence one's choices - because indulging in no-effort happiness can lead to addictive or compulsive behaviour which is not condusive to happiness in the long run.
What about engaging in activities that cause happiness (even 'no effort' happiness) that are not addictive or compulsive?
And more importantly, why do we presume that "modern" means of engaging in activities that create happiness are per force somehow inferior to others? Why does BB assume that being happy playing WoW is somehow less valuable than being happy curling? What if he loved curling so much he neglected his WoW playing? Would we all sit back and say "Oh no, BB has become addicted to curling, this isn't good!" Would BB say "Gosh, I really love WoW, but curling is so much easier, I know I would have more fun in the long run if only I played more WoW!"
Quote
That is one reason why smoking pot all day is "bad" (quite aside from the health effects - pot does not cause physical dependency) and it is also why watching TV too much is also "bad".
I agree that those things are "bad", but do not really agree that people who do them too much are certainly less happy. They certainly *could be* (is using an asterisk 'aggressive'?) but, that doesn't mean that it is reasonable to assume so in general.
Quote
As for how much is "too much" - that is a balancing act; the question here is, is a person activly missing out on other important and pleasurable activities on a regular basis because of it, to the extent that they and those around them regret the fact? That's one guide. Usually after a certain point, the person (or their spouse, parents or children) can tell it's a problem.
Agreed. But even then I think the problem is that their pursuit of happiness to the exclusion of other needs is the problem, moreso than that they aren't really happy.
Quote from: Malthus on April 28, 2009, 01:53:38 PM
I'm not so sure that there is a huge difference between the effect of doing drugs, and the effect of engaging in any other sort of highly attractive behaviour, like watching TV or playing video games.
In both cases, on a neurological level what causes an activity to be "pleasurable" is the effect on brain chemistry - the release of substances such as endorphins.
Naturally, this is true of *any* activity - the difference is usually expressed as being that the one set of activities has a worth that sets it aside from the other (doing drugs). Taking chemicals directly rather than (say) 'earning' them through activities such as exercise or exposure to great works of art is I suppose a sort of cheating; all of the pleasure with none of the effort.
Of course that leads into the sort of value-judgments aside from "happiness" which you do not wish to make. The difficulty is that, taken to its extreme, isn't sticking a needle into the pleasure centres of our brains or taking heroin the ultimate in pure "happiness" - assuming one did not develop a physical dependency? What, if anything, makes that a bad choice in terms of the pursuit of happiness? What would be wrong with Huxley's "Soma"?
To my mind there is a continuum - some activities cause happiness to be sure, but there are other factors which ought to influence one's choices - because indulging in no-effort happiness can lead to addictive or compulsive behaviour which is not condusive to happiness in the long run. That is one reason why smoking pot all day is "bad" (quite aside from the health effects - pot does not cause physical dependency) and it is also why watching TV too much is also "bad".
As for how much is "too much" - that is a balancing act; the question here is, is a person activly missing out on other important and pleasurable activities on a regular basis because of it, to the extent that they and those around them regret the fact? That's one guide. Usually after a certain point, the person (or their spouse, parents or children) can tell it's a problem.
I think the point here is that there are several levels of happiness. There is the contentment, which is what we get when we waste away in front of TV or computers, or do anything else that keeps boredom at bay. Then there is a higher level sense of accomplishment, which requires a lot more from you. Being too content may actually prevent you from being happy on a higher level, as it can take the drive to seek higher level of happiness away from you.
Quote from: Barrister on April 28, 2009, 02:01:53 PM
While not directly touching on access to computers and TV, we can take the income levels of some countries as some indication of the various levels of access to such technologies. In particular Nigeria would appear to have lower rates of ownership of personal computers than does western europe.
So this one survey would seem to show that happiness is rather independent and not associated with income and technology.
That is great - but I don't think I have argued that happiness is dependent on income or technology.
Quote from: DGuller on April 28, 2009, 02:11:54 PM
I think the point here is that there are several levels of happiness. There is the contentment, which is what we get when we waste away in front of TV or computers, or do anything else that keeps boredom at bay. Then there is a higher level sense of accomplishment, which requires a lot more from you. Being too content may actually prevent you from being happy on a higher level, as it can take the drive to seek higher level of happiness away from you.
Yeah, that's certainly a part of it.
Quote from: DGuller on April 28, 2009, 02:11:54 PM
I think the point here is that there are several levels of happiness. There is the contentment, which is what we get when we waste away in front of TV or computers, or do anything else that keeps boredom at bay. Then there is a higher level sense of accomplishment, which requires a lot more from you. Being too content may actually prevent you from being happy on a higher level, as it can take the drive to seek higher level of happiness away from you.
Hmmm, that is an interesting perspective on it. I guess that relates, to some degree, to what I said earlier about whether we were all using the same definition of happiness.
Quote from: Berkut on April 28, 2009, 02:10:01 PM
While I see your point, I do think there is a difference.
At least, the difference as I see it is this - is the happiness gained a result of the activity, or is mainly an attempt to avoid the unpleasant effects of stopping?
For example, I don't think most people smoke cigarettes because smoking makes them happy (although there is a pleasurable component to it) as much as because NOT smoking makes them miserable. That, to me, is the difference between something that is fun and can be taken to an excess (although "excess" is obviously very subjective) and something that is an addiction.
Take playing WoW, for example. I knew people in our guild who bitched about playing WoW, how is really wasn't that much fun anymore, but they were still on 10 hours a day. That, to me, is addiction - not just doing something fun, but actually doing something that *isn't* fun, because you are compelled to do so.
To my mind, while physical dependency does complicate the issue, it isn't an explaination of the difference - some drugs cause no physical dependency at all, such as pot. Yet over-indulgence in pot has *far* worse effects on one's lifestyle than over-indilgence in tobacco, which is quite physically addicting (at least until the latter kills you). You can have a normal life, hold down a job etc. and smoke; that is rather more difficult if you smoke pot all day.
Quote
Yeah, this is is the kind of value judgment I am suspicious about - "earning" enjoyment? not sure I buy the idea that "earned" enjoyment is somehow superior in an objective sense. It might be (and is, at least in my case) more valuable for the individual - but that is kind of circular. I place greater value on earning some achievement *because* it brings me greater happiness. If some people find that they enjoy something just as much even if they did not earn it, I would not dispute their happiness.
As Dguller noted, happiness comes in different forms - playing 10 hours of WOW may give the same "rush" of endorphins as making a great achievement in the arts.
Quote
From the perspective of whether or not people are more or less happy, nothing. I would not argue that someone on some "perfect" happiness drug is not actually happy. Although again, we are in the realm of addictions - absent the addiction, I would not presume to place any value judgement on someone elses choices about what makes them happy, at least to the extent of claiming whethere they really are happy.
But a "soma" like drug would not be addictive. No-one is claiming that they are not really happy, only that the happiness that comes from a drug or a passive form of entertainment has a different quality to it - it contains no aspect of real-world achievement, for one; and for another, it may become compulsive, preventing in effect the person from *having* real-world achievements.
QuoteWhat about engaging in activities that cause happiness (even 'no effort' happiness) that are not addictive or compulsive?
And more importantly, why do we presume that "modern" means of engaging in activities that create happiness are per force somehow inferior to others? Why does BB assume that being happy playing WoW is somehow less valuable than being happy curling? What if he loved curling so much he neglected his WoW playing? Would we all sit back and say "Oh no, BB has become addicted to curling, this isn't good!" Would BB say "Gosh, I really love WoW, but curling is so much easier, I know I would have more fun in the long run if only I played more WoW!"
Quote
Because modermn technology enables more forms of essentially passive entertainment which effectively mimic "achievement" without necessarily providing the substance. Malory's brain may get as big a "kick" out of a mountain-climbing game as actually climbing mount Everest - but in the long run, actually achieving stuff is more valuable that the simalcrum of doing so; really playing a sport is better in many ways than playing a computer version - it develops real skills and muscles, for one.
QuoteI agree that those things are "bad", but do not really agree that people who do them too much are certainly less happy. They certainly *could be* (is using an asterisk 'aggressive'?) but, that doesn't mean that it is reasonable to assume so in general.
The question is "less happy than what?". To my mind, "less happy than if they lived a more balanced life".
I have substantially less computer time than I did, say, 8 months ago. I am also substantially less bored now than I was then. I don't think the two are of necessity correlated, though - sometimes I played computer games because I really wanted to play them; sometimes I'd just play because I was bored. At the present moment I don't have much down time at all, and so nowadays when I *do* get to play a computer game it's a real treat.
I've grown bored with PC games. I may finally be totally burned out on using a PC as a gaming platform.
And the console games don't float my boat anymore either.
lots of employed pot heads out there Malthus. I don't buy what you are smoking. it's just time management.
Quote from: saskganesh on April 28, 2009, 03:02:16 PM
lots of employed pot heads out there Malthus. I don't buy what you are smoking. it's just time management.
Depends on exactly what you mean by a "pot head". Certainly it is perfectly possible to smoke pot recreationally and work - I've done that myself, don't forget.
OTOH there are people who smoke so much they are basically unemployable except in the most menial of occupations - I know some.
There are very few people who smoke so much tobacco that they cannot hold down a good job.
Yet tobacco is far more addictive than pot - pot is not physically addictive at all: there is no dependency, no withdrawal symptoms. In contrast, tobacco is physically addictive, with excrutiating withdrawal symptoms.
Therefore I conclude that it is not physical addiction which is the problem, but as you would say the time management - it's the
choice to smoke all the time rather than do anything else. This is not (I would contend) any different from people who play WOW all day and all night and thus cannot work.
Quote from: Berkut on April 28, 2009, 02:13:24 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 28, 2009, 02:01:53 PM
While not directly touching on access to computers and TV, we can take the income levels of some countries as some indication of the various levels of access to such technologies. In particular Nigeria would appear to have lower rates of ownership of personal computers than does western europe.
So this one survey would seem to show that happiness is rather independent and not associated with income and technology.
That is great - but I don't think I have argued that happiness is dependent on income or technology.
You haven't stated that, but it seems to be the logical conclusion of your argument.
You have argued that people will take whatever steps to maximize their own happiness, and that if they are pursuing one option over another it is because that one option makes them happier.
It's clear though that o your typical north american has a huge number more options of entertainment than your average Nigerian. Or, that your typical north American today has many more options of entertainment now that in the past (the article also states that general levels of happiness have remained static in north america). But surely if there are more options now than then, people have the option to pursue entertainment that makes them more happy?
Not necessarily - more options just means that they have choices about how to get their happiness, that doesn't mean that they will actually be happier overall.
Playing WoW makes me happier than curling.
But if I didn't have the option to play WoW, maybe curling would make me happier than playing hockey.
But we are talking about how much we enjoy particular activity - not some generalized state of overall happiness, which is going to depend on much more than what leisure activities we have available.
Quote from: Berkut on April 28, 2009, 03:51:57 PM
But we are talking about how much we enjoy particular activity - not some generalized state of overall happiness, which is going to depend on much more than what leisure activities we have available.
I would go so far as to say that a "generalized state of overall happiness" is entirely divorced from "what leisure activities we have available" given the data about Nigeria.
Quote from: Barrister on April 28, 2009, 03:59:53 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 28, 2009, 03:51:57 PM
But we are talking about how much we enjoy particular activity - not some generalized state of overall happiness, which is going to depend on much more than what leisure activities we have available.
No argument from me, even without hearing about Nigeria.
I would go so far as to say that a "generalized state of overall happiness" is entirely divorced from "what leisure activities we have available" given the data about Nigeria.
Quote from: Berkut on April 28, 2009, 04:00:40 PM
Berkut, while I frequently find that pictures are blocked when viewing at work, even quoting your reply doesn't show any kind of link or other reply.
Quote from: Barrister on April 28, 2009, 04:09:55 PM
Berkut, while I frequently find that pictures are blocked when viewing at work, even quoting your reply doesn't show any kind of link or other reply.
I bet there is a civil servant whos only job function is to look at all the blocked sites government employees tried to visit.
Quote from: Barrister on April 28, 2009, 11:28:25 AMI don't understand why you're being so agressive about this.
Now you're being unfair to Berkut. You know that is how he argues.
Quote from: Malthus on April 28, 2009, 03:29:55 PM
Quote from: saskganesh on April 28, 2009, 03:02:16 PM
lots of employed pot heads out there Malthus. I don't buy what you are smoking. it's just time management.
Therefore I conclude that it is not physical addiction which is the problem, but as you would say the time management - it's the choice to smoke all the time rather than do anything else. This is not (I would contend) any different from people who play WOW all day and all night and thus cannot work.
sure. I'll buy that. :cool:
Quote from: Jacob on April 28, 2009, 05:21:00 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 28, 2009, 11:28:25 AMI don't understand why you're being so agressive about this.
Now you're being unfair to Berkut. You know that is how he argues.
This is true.
Quote from: Barrister on April 28, 2009, 11:28:25 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 28, 2009, 11:16:57 AM
I submit that you in fact veg about as much as makes you happy, and go out and do other things about as much as makes you happy. I think this is true for most people, overall.
Notice that in fact you do NOT veg out in front of the TV for five hours all the time but instead choose to go do other things because you know in fact that vegging out for 5 horus all the time will not actually maximize your happiness.
You have the ability to make that choice for yourself, and you strike some balance between activities that you find to be optimal.
Why should we presume that that is not generally true for everyone else?
I don't understand why you're being so agressive about this.
It's berkut. :P
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 28, 2009, 07:21:07 AM
You're pretty young still, it's possible to get weary of computer games and internet.
True.
Again, Who The Fuck Are You?
At least have the decency of having your previous name in your signature as Captain Carrot does.
Quote from: Siege on April 28, 2009, 09:03:16 PM
Again, Who The Fuck Are You?
At least have the decency of having your previous name in your signature as Captain Carrot does.
It's berkut. :P
They started a war. As a whole we kill a lot less people now then we did in the past (percentage wise)
Quote from: garbon on April 28, 2009, 09:15:38 PM
Quote from: Siege on April 28, 2009, 09:03:16 PM
Again, Who The Fuck Are You?
At least have the decency of having your previous name in your signature as Captain Carrot does.
It's berkut. :P
What?
I don't believe you.
Quote from: HVC on April 28, 2009, 09:30:06 PM
They started a war. As a whole we kill a lot less people now then we did in the past (percentage wise)
Total number wise, you mean.
Ok, I didn't read the thread and I don;t know which war you are talking about.
Quote from: Siege on April 28, 2009, 09:39:16 PMWhat?
I don't believe you.
It's Eddie Teach... and I agree with you on this. :hug:
Is garbon accusing the wiggin guy of being my sock?
When have I ever needed a sock? It's not exactly like there is something that I just cannot say as Berkut...
Quote from: Berkut on April 29, 2009, 08:17:55 AM
Is garbon accusing the wiggin guy of being my sock?
When have I ever needed a sock? It's not exactly like there is something that I just cannot say as Berkut...
Express your undying man-love for Obama? :shifty:
Quote from: Malthus on April 29, 2009, 08:22:43 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 29, 2009, 08:17:55 AM
Is garbon accusing the wiggin guy of being my sock?
When have I ever needed a sock? It's not exactly like there is something that I just cannot say as Berkut...
Express your undying man-love for Obama? :shifty:
Shush you!
Quote from: Berkut on April 29, 2009, 08:17:55 AM
Is garbon accusing the wiggin guy of being my sock?
When have I ever needed a sock? It's not exactly like there is something that I just cannot say as Berkut...
I like to confuse Siege. I copied the text that Katmai had made in an earlier post.
Indeed, for he is the Mycroft Holmes of the American army :cool: