It seems like this whole argument is motivated out of a wish to make it socially acceptable to say “I don’t like the taste of beer” by trying to paint everyone who disagrees as liars.
You need to read my history again, for the first time. I initially did believe that I was just weird in not liking alcohol, or that it would come with time. It’s the obvious, favored, simple hypothesis.
But I can only hold belief in it for so long until the shower of disconfirmatory evidence hits. When I look behind the veil and find out what it means for other people to like alcohol, and find that it matches up with what I consider not liking alcohol, well … if anything, I held on to the belief too long.
Did you notice that I said that I don’t match up with your criterion? Besides the fact that even that total list didn’t seem to show that a person necessarily didn’t like the taste of something.
You could at least modify your belief to “some people don’t like the taste of alcohol but claim that they do for such and such reasons...” and then it would become more accurate, since surely this is likely true of at least some people, while it is surely not true of all who claim to like it.
For example, an area where your position has some truth is that there are guys who basically dislike any type of alcohol except sweet drinks, and these they like only because of the sweetness, but they are unwilling to admit it because this is thought to be “girlish”. But at the same time, this is definitely untrue of many others.
I ask that you take serious note of the sympathy with which I’ve characterized these liars. I completely understand why they have to put on a show: anything that does to your mind what alcoholic drinks do, but doesn’t have wide-scale social support from respectable people, is going to get banned or otherwise given severe restrictions. Such a pretense doesn’t strike me as so wrong here.
What bothers me is the widespread refusal to acknowledge this, even in private.
Many people don’t drink alcohol primarily for the mental effects. Rather, there is a strong status penalty to drinking non-alcoholic beverages. Most non-alcoholic beverages are strongly associated with children, at least in the afternoon (juice and milk are OK at breakfast, not at dinner). Adults can’t order them without sending an undesirable signal about their maturity.
Among the acceptable drinks, you’re left with other “acquired tastes” (coffee and tea) or drinks that often give other low status signals (water alone is cheap, soft drinks are lower-class).
Once you’ve established that it’s a status issue, the refusal to admit it is understandable, since open concern for status is generally a low-status trait. I don’t agree with all of Robin Hanson’s status explanations, but it makes sense here.
The mind-altering effects play into it as well. Even then, there are important signaling effects in play (Robin put up a post on that a bit ago). And ignoring taste totally is a mistake. Even if I might prefer a milkshake to an Irish creme, I definitely prefer an Irish creme to Everclear.
Btw, I think your milkshake comparison needs to be between equal caloric portions.
I’d prefer 600 calories of milkshake to 600 calories of beer. But I would rather have one beer than one milkshake. For certain values of beer, beer is more delicious than milkshake per calorie.
anything that does to your mind what alcoholic drinks do, but doesn’t have wide-scale social support from respectable people
I’m confused. Are you saying that alcohol doesn’t have wide-scale social support from respectable people? What society are we talking about?
I would guess that of the adult population in the US who drinks, at least 75% drink primarily for the mental effects and would have no problem saying so.
anything that does to your mind what alcoholic drinks do, but doesn’t have wide-scale social support from respectable people, is going to get banned or otherwise given severe restrictions.
Understand now? If alcohol didn’t have the social support it does, it would be Just Another Mind Altering Substance that would be banned, or that you’d need a prescription for.
Please, finish sentences before responding to them
a) you’re not really curious,
b) expect any answer to come back negative, and
c) aren’t interested in arguing whether he can read a full clause anyway.
If alcohol didn’t have the social support it does, it would be Just Another Mind Altering Substance that would be banned, or that you’d need a prescription for.
I find this difficult to swallow. Alcohol prohibition was a widely acknowledged disaster (or does this collective memory also count as “social support”?). The “Joe Sixpacks” of the nation aren’t crooning over Miller’s exquisite blend of hops, but they’d be up in arms if you tried to take it away.
And drug policy (at least in the US) isn’t particularly consistent—if you don’t believe me, feel free to conduct your own experiment with some high-potency salvia extract.
I doubt most people are worried even subconsciously about the reintroduction of prohibition. Why postulate a coordinated social response to such a non-threat?
I find this difficult to swallow. Alcohol prohibition was a widely acknowledged disaster (or does this collective memory also count as “social support”?).
Yes it was a disaster—because of alcohol’s widespread social support, that led to the black market, inability to enforce, etc.
Hence my statement
If alcohol didn’t have the social support it does, it would … be banned, or … need a prescription.
You also said:
I doubt most people are worried even subconsciously about the reintroduction of prohibition. Why postulate a coordinated social response to such a non-threat?
There are many measures short of prohibition that restrict alcohol. In trying to impose them, as society imposes restrictions on mind-altering substances, legislatures butt up against the social support for alcohol. Retaining this support is necessary for preventing these (otherwise reasonable) restrictions on alcohol.
This is getting perilously close to politics, but the difference with alcohol is the great history of human use. Alcohol was one of the first drugs regularly consumed by humans. A lot of culture has developed around that. Prohibition failed because it tried to outlaw the culture. Cannabis and psychedelics were also used by pre-modern humans, but the government could outlaw the other drugs without a people’s revolt because the average person didn’t use cannabis and psychedelics. The average person did and does use alcohol.
It seems like this whole argument is motivated out of a wish to make it socially acceptable to say “I don’t like the taste of beer” by trying to paint everyone who disagrees as liars.
No, I think he simply hates the taste of alcohol so much that he can’t conceive that someone could honestly like it.
You need to read my history again, for the first time. I initially did believe that I was just weird in not liking alcohol, or that it would come with time. It’s the obvious, favored, simple hypothesis.
But I can only hold belief in it for so long until the shower of disconfirmatory evidence hits. When I look behind the veil and find out what it means for other people to like alcohol, and find that it matches up with what I consider not liking alcohol, well … if anything, I held on to the belief too long.
Did you notice that I said that I don’t match up with your criterion? Besides the fact that even that total list didn’t seem to show that a person necessarily didn’t like the taste of something.
You could at least modify your belief to “some people don’t like the taste of alcohol but claim that they do for such and such reasons...” and then it would become more accurate, since surely this is likely true of at least some people, while it is surely not true of all who claim to like it.
For example, an area where your position has some truth is that there are guys who basically dislike any type of alcohol except sweet drinks, and these they like only because of the sweetness, but they are unwilling to admit it because this is thought to be “girlish”. But at the same time, this is definitely untrue of many others.
I ask that you take serious note of the sympathy with which I’ve characterized these liars. I completely understand why they have to put on a show: anything that does to your mind what alcoholic drinks do, but doesn’t have wide-scale social support from respectable people, is going to get banned or otherwise given severe restrictions. Such a pretense doesn’t strike me as so wrong here.
What bothers me is the widespread refusal to acknowledge this, even in private.
I think you’re missing a significant factor.
Many people don’t drink alcohol primarily for the mental effects. Rather, there is a strong status penalty to drinking non-alcoholic beverages. Most non-alcoholic beverages are strongly associated with children, at least in the afternoon (juice and milk are OK at breakfast, not at dinner). Adults can’t order them without sending an undesirable signal about their maturity.
Among the acceptable drinks, you’re left with other “acquired tastes” (coffee and tea) or drinks that often give other low status signals (water alone is cheap, soft drinks are lower-class).
Once you’ve established that it’s a status issue, the refusal to admit it is understandable, since open concern for status is generally a low-status trait. I don’t agree with all of Robin Hanson’s status explanations, but it makes sense here.
The mind-altering effects play into it as well. Even then, there are important signaling effects in play (Robin put up a post on that a bit ago). And ignoring taste totally is a mistake. Even if I might prefer a milkshake to an Irish creme, I definitely prefer an Irish creme to Everclear.
Btw, I think your milkshake comparison needs to be between equal caloric portions.
I’d prefer 600 calories of milkshake to 600 calories of beer. But I would rather have one beer than one milkshake. For certain values of beer, beer is more delicious than milkshake per calorie.
Why could per-calorie be the relevant metric? And why would a metric requiring you to consume the full five beers be helpful?
I’m confused. Are you saying that alcohol doesn’t have wide-scale social support from respectable people? What society are we talking about?
I would guess that of the adult population in the US who drinks, at least 75% drink primarily for the mental effects and would have no problem saying so.
Do you have trouble reading a full clause?
Understand now? If alcohol didn’t have the social support it does, it would be Just Another Mind Altering Substance that would be banned, or that you’d need a prescription for.
Please, finish sentences before responding to them
SilasBarta, I too am puzzled at why Blueberry misunderstood you, but your response was needlessly rude.
Would you say it was more or less rude than clipping a sentence in two and responding to one that misrepresented what I said?
Do any of you intend to criticize/mod down Blueberry for his/her rudeness, or do you just reserve your rebukes for the diligent?
I submit that
a) you’re not really curious, b) expect any answer to come back negative, and c) aren’t interested in arguing whether he can read a full clause anyway.
I find this difficult to swallow. Alcohol prohibition was a widely acknowledged disaster (or does this collective memory also count as “social support”?). The “Joe Sixpacks” of the nation aren’t crooning over Miller’s exquisite blend of hops, but they’d be up in arms if you tried to take it away.
And drug policy (at least in the US) isn’t particularly consistent—if you don’t believe me, feel free to conduct your own experiment with some high-potency salvia extract.
I doubt most people are worried even subconsciously about the reintroduction of prohibition. Why postulate a coordinated social response to such a non-threat?
Yes it was a disaster—because of alcohol’s widespread social support, that led to the black market, inability to enforce, etc.
Hence my statement
You also said:
There are many measures short of prohibition that restrict alcohol. In trying to impose them, as society imposes restrictions on mind-altering substances, legislatures butt up against the social support for alcohol. Retaining this support is necessary for preventing these (otherwise reasonable) restrictions on alcohol.
Salvia is both new and little known in comparison to marijuana, LSD, cocaine, heroin, meth, etc.
This is getting perilously close to politics, but the difference with alcohol is the great history of human use. Alcohol was one of the first drugs regularly consumed by humans. A lot of culture has developed around that. Prohibition failed because it tried to outlaw the culture. Cannabis and psychedelics were also used by pre-modern humans, but the government could outlaw the other drugs without a people’s revolt because the average person didn’t use cannabis and psychedelics. The average person did and does use alcohol.