If you still get thrill out of slot machines, it just means that you don’t get it at a deeper level.
Almost everyone understands that they will get old and die (and that dying is bad), but relatively few see aging as the most important disease to fight.
Unless one of your terminal goals is to watch your money supply fluctuate in a downward sloping direction, this thrill isn’t helping you.
If the algorithm that determines when to be ‘thrilled’ was any good then “playing slot machines” would not trigger it. The thrill is due to a cheap heuristic going wrong.
I mean this in the same way that I mean it when I say “If getting a big piece of meat makes you happier than a $10k check, then your happiness system doesn’t get it”
I know many people that can do the basic math, but still get enjoyment out of gambling (where the expected return is negative). The ‘thrill’ thing works at a subconscious level so it’s not easy to “just fix it”.
I personally don’t get that sort of thrill from gambling, but don’t think I can actually take credit for communicating with my subconscious and fixing it. I think it’s just a case of higher loss aversion.
Unless one of your terminal goals is to watch your money supply fluctuate in a downward sloping direction, this thrill isn’t helping you.
Correct. However, if “experiencing thrills” is one of my terminal goals, then that thrill is helping me.
I mean this in the same way that I mean it when I say “If getting a big piece of meat makes you happier than a $10k check, then your happiness system doesn’t get it”
No, it just means my happiness system isn’t mediated by expected utility calculations. If your implication is that it “should” be, then you’re committing a grievous is/ought error.
You’re assuming that “thrills” and “happiness” serve specific, narrow purposes (presumably the ones evolution “intended” them for). I don’t share your assumption.
Correct. However, if “experiencing thrills” is one of my terminal goals, then that thrill is >helping me.
Yes, that’s trivially true.
No, it just means my happiness system isn’t mediated by expected utility calculations. >If your implication is that it “should” be, then you’re committing a grievous is/ought >error.
Just because I’m using a “should” doesn’t make it an error. I mean it in the same way that your car “should” transport you from one place to another. Yes, I can describe it as it “is”, but that don’t mean it ain’t broke.
Do you really have a problem with that? If so, when do you think it’s acceptable to use the word “should”?
You’re assuming that “thrills” and “happiness” serve specific, narrow purposes >(presumably the ones evolution “intended” them for). I don’t share your assumption.
It sounds like you’re saying that they didn’t “serve a purpose” that caused them to be selected for, but I think you mean to say that you just don’t care.
There are abstract things that I want (which aligns fairly closely with what would have helped me reproduce as a caveman), and there are lower level feedback mechanisms that were selected because they helped people achieve (almost) these goals. To the extent that they don’t enforce the ‘right’ behavior, I’d prefer to change that instead of having to choose between cheap thrills and abstract goals.
Correct. However, if “experiencing thrills” is one of my terminal goals, then that thrill is helping me.
Yes, that’s trivially true.
Then how is a thrill-seeker not “getting it”? Or are you claiming thrill-seekers don’t exist?
To the extent that they don’t enforce the ‘right’ behavior, I’d prefer to change that instead of having to choose between cheap thrills and abstract goals.
That’s you. Your original comment wasn’t phrased in the first person, however:
If you still get thrill out of slot machines, it just means that you don’t get it at a deeper level.
That statement is false. Plenty of people don’t care whether or not their sources of happiness “correctly” contribute to their reproductive success.
People have circuits built in that causes them to feel ‘thrilled’ in certain circumstances. These circuits still fire in some situations that don’t help serve the “purpose” that natural selection “designed them for”.
I was calling the circuits “a deeper level of ‘you’”, and you seem to want to call it “not me, just part of my body”. This sure sounds like an issue with semantics to me.
You don’t have any problems with paying money to run in circles, but I do. You want to use different words to describe this than I used. Is there really anything of substance here?
I was calling the circuits “a deeper level of ‘you’”, and you seem to want to call it “not me, just part of my body”. This sure sounds like an issue with semantics to me.
No, that’s not my point of contention. Your use of the phrase “you just don’t get it” implies missing knowledge, a lack of understanding. If you really just meant “your sense of happiness isn’t serving its evolutionary purpose”, why use such roundabout terminology? Would you also claim that people who use birth control and still enjoy sex “just don’t get it at a deeper level”?
You don’t have any problems with paying money to run in circles, but I do.
No, actually I do have problems with this, and find no thrill in gambling. The difference is that I’m not applying my preferences to others as a way to see them as defective versions of myself, and I’m not selectively employing an evolutionary justification for the subset of my preferences that have clear genetic benefits.
The difference is that I’m not applying my preferences to others as a way to see them as defective versions of myself
Even if we understand thrill-seeking to be legitimate, the lottery players could still be said to be making a mistake if there are better ways to fulfill their thrill-seeking desires. Cf. “New Improved Lottery”
If you still get thrill out of slot machines, it just means that you don’t get it at a deeper level.
Almost everyone understands that they will get old and die (and that dying is bad), but relatively few see aging as the most important disease to fight.
I don’t think that follows. Do you have a general theory of the causes of thrills in human brains?
Unless one of your terminal goals is to watch your money supply fluctuate in a downward sloping direction, this thrill isn’t helping you.
If the algorithm that determines when to be ‘thrilled’ was any good then “playing slot machines” would not trigger it. The thrill is due to a cheap heuristic going wrong.
I mean this in the same way that I mean it when I say “If getting a big piece of meat makes you happier than a $10k check, then your happiness system doesn’t get it”
I know many people that can do the basic math, but still get enjoyment out of gambling (where the expected return is negative). The ‘thrill’ thing works at a subconscious level so it’s not easy to “just fix it”.
I personally don’t get that sort of thrill from gambling, but don’t think I can actually take credit for communicating with my subconscious and fixing it. I think it’s just a case of higher loss aversion.
Correct. However, if “experiencing thrills” is one of my terminal goals, then that thrill is helping me.
No, it just means my happiness system isn’t mediated by expected utility calculations. If your implication is that it “should” be, then you’re committing a grievous is/ought error.
You’re assuming that “thrills” and “happiness” serve specific, narrow purposes (presumably the ones evolution “intended” them for). I don’t share your assumption.
Yes, that’s trivially true.
Just because I’m using a “should” doesn’t make it an error. I mean it in the same way that your car “should” transport you from one place to another. Yes, I can describe it as it “is”, but that don’t mean it ain’t broke.
Do you really have a problem with that? If so, when do you think it’s acceptable to use the word “should”?
It sounds like you’re saying that they didn’t “serve a purpose” that caused them to be selected for, but I think you mean to say that you just don’t care.
There are abstract things that I want (which aligns fairly closely with what would have helped me reproduce as a caveman), and there are lower level feedback mechanisms that were selected because they helped people achieve (almost) these goals. To the extent that they don’t enforce the ‘right’ behavior, I’d prefer to change that instead of having to choose between cheap thrills and abstract goals.
Then how is a thrill-seeker not “getting it”? Or are you claiming thrill-seekers don’t exist?
That’s you. Your original comment wasn’t phrased in the first person, however:
That statement is false. Plenty of people don’t care whether or not their sources of happiness “correctly” contribute to their reproductive success.
People have circuits built in that causes them to feel ‘thrilled’ in certain circumstances. These circuits still fire in some situations that don’t help serve the “purpose” that natural selection “designed them for”.
I was calling the circuits “a deeper level of ‘you’”, and you seem to want to call it “not me, just part of my body”. This sure sounds like an issue with semantics to me.
You don’t have any problems with paying money to run in circles, but I do. You want to use different words to describe this than I used. Is there really anything of substance here?
No, that’s not my point of contention. Your use of the phrase “you just don’t get it” implies missing knowledge, a lack of understanding. If you really just meant “your sense of happiness isn’t serving its evolutionary purpose”, why use such roundabout terminology? Would you also claim that people who use birth control and still enjoy sex “just don’t get it at a deeper level”?
No, actually I do have problems with this, and find no thrill in gambling. The difference is that I’m not applying my preferences to others as a way to see them as defective versions of myself, and I’m not selectively employing an evolutionary justification for the subset of my preferences that have clear genetic benefits.
Even if we understand thrill-seeking to be legitimate, the lottery players could still be said to be making a mistake if there are better ways to fulfill their thrill-seeking desires. Cf. “New Improved Lottery”