I agree that “stupid” is a bad label for the clustering which includes those kinds of behaviors, but I don’t agree if you’re saying that smoking and meat-eating are usually instrumentally rational choices for common human desires.
Stupid implies either incorrect logic or lack of consideration of an action. For many humans, these behaviors are neither one. They’re some combination of weakness (knowing the better choice, but failing to override the monkey brain) and value differences (preferring current/near experienced pleasures over later/distant pain).
note: I eat lots of meat. I also play lots of video games and read lots of fiction, none of which is purely rationally motivated. I don’t smoke or vape, but that’s also not rationally motivated—I just find it disgusting.
It doesn’t really matter what either of us think. If someone eats too much meat, and wishes they could stop, but can’t, then for a certain function we can claim it’s irrational in their achievement of that goal. If I eat a fair amount of meat because I work out, because it helps me get my weight-lifting goals, it’s rational for my objective.
What’s your objective? Well, my main point is really just that we can’t abstract these sorts of things, they are empirical. “Is X irrational (implied: for all people under all conditions)?” is about as meaningful as “Does this chair really exist?”
It doesn’t really matter what either of us think. If someone eats too much meat, and wishes they could stop, but can’t, then for a certain function we can claim it’s irrational in their achievement of that goal.
Exactly, it’s better to look at the evidence, objective reality and see what’s more likely to be efficient. You presume with the latter statement that your achievement of a goal is accurate.
If I eat a fair amount of meat because I work out, because it helps me get my weight-lifting goals, it’s rational for my objective.
I hope that this example is simply that, eating meat is not necessary for a positive nitrogen balance and muscle hypertrophy OR strength. It might have a slight advantage, but at that point, you’d assume you’re already doing everything efficiently and your genetics are on par. Very unlikely.
What’s your objective? Well, my main point is really just that we can’t abstract these sorts of things, they are empirical. “Is X irrational (implied: for all people under all conditions)?” is about as meaningful as “Does this chair really exist?”
You realize you are biased and not in line with the objective reality of things where your desires can be replaced and come from a certain place for a reason.
If you define stupidity as a set of rules that we use to ensure a problem is solved longer than chance or never and is nevertheless pursued with alacrity and enthusiasm. Then it’s stupid.
I don’t know what the problem to be solved can be boiled down to in the context of this definition, maybe evolving as a super organism although that is not an end. General solving seems more applicable.
You can’t just classify things as stupid because you think they are stupid, and what you think is stupid is true because you think you’re rational.
The idea that ‘not being vegan’ or ‘smoking’ are stupid is silly.
I agree that “stupid” is a bad label for the clustering which includes those kinds of behaviors, but I don’t agree if you’re saying that smoking and meat-eating are usually instrumentally rational choices for common human desires.
Stupid implies either incorrect logic or lack of consideration of an action. For many humans, these behaviors are neither one. They’re some combination of weakness (knowing the better choice, but failing to override the monkey brain) and value differences (preferring current/near experienced pleasures over later/distant pain).
note: I eat lots of meat. I also play lots of video games and read lots of fiction, none of which is purely rationally motivated. I don’t smoke or vape, but that’s also not rationally motivated—I just find it disgusting.
It doesn’t really matter what either of us think. If someone eats too much meat, and wishes they could stop, but can’t, then for a certain function we can claim it’s irrational in their achievement of that goal. If I eat a fair amount of meat because I work out, because it helps me get my weight-lifting goals, it’s rational for my objective.
What’s your objective? Well, my main point is really just that we can’t abstract these sorts of things, they are empirical. “Is X irrational (implied: for all people under all conditions)?” is about as meaningful as “Does this chair really exist?”
Exactly, it’s better to look at the evidence, objective reality and see what’s more likely to be efficient. You presume with the latter statement that your achievement of a goal is accurate.
I hope that this example is simply that, eating meat is not necessary for a positive nitrogen balance and muscle hypertrophy OR strength. It might have a slight advantage, but at that point, you’d assume you’re already doing everything efficiently and your genetics are on par. Very unlikely.
You realize you are biased and not in line with the objective reality of things where your desires can be replaced and come from a certain place for a reason.
If you define stupidity as a set of rules that we use to ensure a problem is solved longer than chance or never and is nevertheless pursued with alacrity and enthusiasm. Then it’s stupid.
I don’t know what the problem to be solved can be boiled down to in the context of this definition, maybe evolving as a super organism although that is not an end. General solving seems more applicable.