What I am arguing—and I believe this was Unknowns’ argument—is that the effect of increasing rate of intake is not indicative of whether a substance is enjoyable at the lower rate of intake. I wouldn’t eat a tray of lemon squares, but I’d eat one piece.
Okay, give me a little credit here. I “get” that much—I mean, even a milkshake will give you a brainfreeze.
The point is (and I admit I’ve had a hard time expressing it with examples because of the confounding factors), people strangely start to use a definition of “enjoy drinking X” that expands to cover aspects that they admit are very displeasurable. Hard liquors will induce the coughing reflex (the beginning of it), for example, even at very low rates of consumption.
This would seem to dominate the experience, but then, even in the midst of what is quite clearly painful, they enjoy it—and are somehow able to discern “good” hard liquor from “bad” hard liquor.
Taking the whole experience into account, I can accept that there’s a lot to like—just not the act of drinking.
Might dill pickles be a useful example? I had to be coerced into trying them several times before I came to find them edible, but I enjoy them now, and there’s not much if any status involved there.
I’m not sure that those factors can be fully, or even partly, separated from status signaling. For example, I expect that I could tell the difference between different kinds of pickles, and develop a favorite among the brands that exist. I have no particular reason to do so, and if I did, I wouldn’t talk about it, but if pickles became trendy, and the pickle companies started making subtly-different types to satisfy the demand for signaling tools, I probably would at least try the varieties and pick a favorite. (I have a favorite brand of mayonnaise, after all, and am that picky about which brand of Macadamia nuts I’ll eat.)
You assume that the bad effects will dominate, but I’m not sure that would be the case. If you like the taste itself enough, that might balance the bad effect. And “good” hard liquor might (and does, in my limited experience) reduce the bad effects.
Further, comparatively few people like (neat) hard liquor, and the direct unpleasant effects are significantly reduced in beer, wine, and mixed drinks.
I agree with you that status considerations will often make people inclined to get an Irish Cream when they’d prefer a milkshake or fool themselves into thinking that expensive wine tastes better. But you’re apparently making a strong claim (nobody really likes the taste of alcoholic beverages), on weak evidence.
The point is (and I admit I’ve had a hard time expressing it with examples because of the confounding factors), people strangely start to use a definition of “enjoy drinking X” that expands to cover aspects that they admit are very displeasurable. Hard liquors will induce the coughing reflex (the beginning of it), for example, even at very low rates of consumption.
And hot sauce will induce a burning sensation at even very low concentrations of capsaicin. Like BDSM, sometimes people actually do like that.
Right—sometimes. Not “the overwhelming majority of the adult population, which also happens to get high while doing so.” It’s the ubiquity, not just the strangeness, that confuses me.
You’re sure of that ubiquity part? I just think you should put off endorsing complicated beliefs until you are sure they are based on good data. In this case, I believe that means a proper sociological study.
Edit: Such a study may also make it easier to confirm the extent of various proposed motivations.
I don’t think we’re going to need a sociological study to verify that the vast majority of adults drink, and claim to like it when they do. That’s all I meant by ubiquity. I should have said “commonness” or something equally awkwardish.
No, you seem to be claiming that they’re doing it for the taste. They do it in spite of the taste, or indifferently to the taste, and add sweet flavors to mask it. However, people can grow to like the taste over time, and some of the flavors in the taste are good by themselves, though not as good as, say, a chocolate milkshake.
You also seem to be assuming that a taste has to be repulsive or delicious, instead of just neutral, or all right in certain contexts, or occasionally desirable.
No, you seem to be claiming that they’re doing it for the taste.
Er, no, that’s pretty much the opposite of what I’m claiming. I’m claiming that they say they do it for the taste, but mainly (or solely) want the psychoactive effects.
I’m claiming that they say they do it for the taste
Sorry for getting it wrong. Anyway, I don’t think they say that they primarily do it for the taste, which is an empirical question.
I think they say they “like” it, and they mean they like the overall experience, and you’re interpreting that to mean that they like the taste. Or they say they like the taste because they grew to like it over time, or because they mix it with other flavors, and you’re interpreting that to mean they primarily drink it for the taste.
Okay, give me a little credit here. I “get” that much—I mean, even a milkshake will give you a brainfreeze.
The point is (and I admit I’ve had a hard time expressing it with examples because of the confounding factors), people strangely start to use a definition of “enjoy drinking X” that expands to cover aspects that they admit are very displeasurable. Hard liquors will induce the coughing reflex (the beginning of it), for example, even at very low rates of consumption.
This would seem to dominate the experience, but then, even in the midst of what is quite clearly painful, they enjoy it—and are somehow able to discern “good” hard liquor from “bad” hard liquor.
Taking the whole experience into account, I can accept that there’s a lot to like—just not the act of drinking.
Might dill pickles be a useful example? I had to be coerced into trying them several times before I came to find them edible, but I enjoy them now, and there’s not much if any status involved there.
Dill pickles don’t have nearly the same perplexity factors that alcohol does, so I don’t think they’re a useful example.
People aren’t ultra-particular about which dill pickles they like, beyond them not looking gross.
People don’t claim to be able to discern all the differences.
The taste of dill pickles doesn’t serve as a convenient excuse for getting high.
Dill picklers aren’t regularly used to get high, and aren’t in danger of being banned or overregulated.
You get the point.
I’m not sure that those factors can be fully, or even partly, separated from status signaling. For example, I expect that I could tell the difference between different kinds of pickles, and develop a favorite among the brands that exist. I have no particular reason to do so, and if I did, I wouldn’t talk about it, but if pickles became trendy, and the pickle companies started making subtly-different types to satisfy the demand for signaling tools, I probably would at least try the varieties and pick a favorite. (I have a favorite brand of mayonnaise, after all, and am that picky about which brand of Macadamia nuts I’ll eat.)
You assume that the bad effects will dominate, but I’m not sure that would be the case. If you like the taste itself enough, that might balance the bad effect. And “good” hard liquor might (and does, in my limited experience) reduce the bad effects.
Further, comparatively few people like (neat) hard liquor, and the direct unpleasant effects are significantly reduced in beer, wine, and mixed drinks.
I agree with you that status considerations will often make people inclined to get an Irish Cream when they’d prefer a milkshake or fool themselves into thinking that expensive wine tastes better. But you’re apparently making a strong claim (nobody really likes the taste of alcoholic beverages), on weak evidence.
And hot sauce will induce a burning sensation at even very low concentrations of capsaicin. Like BDSM, sometimes people actually do like that.
Right—sometimes. Not “the overwhelming majority of the adult population, which also happens to get high while doing so.” It’s the ubiquity, not just the strangeness, that confuses me.
You’re sure of that ubiquity part? I just think you should put off endorsing complicated beliefs until you are sure they are based on good data. In this case, I believe that means a proper sociological study.
Edit: Such a study may also make it easier to confirm the extent of various proposed motivations.
I don’t think we’re going to need a sociological study to verify that the vast majority of adults drink, and claim to like it when they do. That’s all I meant by ubiquity. I should have said “commonness” or something equally awkwardish.
No, you seem to be claiming that they’re doing it for the taste. They do it in spite of the taste, or indifferently to the taste, and add sweet flavors to mask it. However, people can grow to like the taste over time, and some of the flavors in the taste are good by themselves, though not as good as, say, a chocolate milkshake.
You also seem to be assuming that a taste has to be repulsive or delicious, instead of just neutral, or all right in certain contexts, or occasionally desirable.
Er, no, that’s pretty much the opposite of what I’m claiming. I’m claiming that they say they do it for the taste, but mainly (or solely) want the psychoactive effects.
Sorry for getting it wrong. Anyway, I don’t think they say that they primarily do it for the taste, which is an empirical question.
I think they say they “like” it, and they mean they like the overall experience, and you’re interpreting that to mean that they like the taste. Or they say they like the taste because they grew to like it over time, or because they mix it with other flavors, and you’re interpreting that to mean they primarily drink it for the taste.