I think we should understand Guzey’s argument as a gesture in the direction of saying “we should try to establish the base rate for these sorts of stressors [i.e. purposeful behaviors with a normal range of variation in frequency and intensity]” He’s pointing out a few salient behaviors in this reference class (diet and exercise), pointing out that what we might call “sensible variation” is believed to be good for you, and then noting that sleep also belongs in this reference class. You’ve also noted that breathing belongs in this reference class, and we can also find extensive traditions of breath work that are at least meant to promote health.
I agree with others here that toe-stubbing and other injury does not belong in this reference class, because they aren’t purposeful behaviors.
A stronger counterargument is that we may be suffering from availability bias in identifying members of this reference class. We receive lots of messages to breath deep, get exercise, and eat less. What about sensory stimulation vs. lack of stimulation, emotional variation vs. calm, social contact vs. solitude, focus vs. distraction? Do we expect that there’s a “normal range” here that gives you health benefits with “sensible variation?” For example, do we think that people receive health benefits from periodic meditation retreats due to the unusual level of social isolation, calm, and lack of stimulation? Or that they receive health benefits from attending a music festival (sober), due to the unusual level of social contact, excitement, and sensory stimulation?
My uncertainty here is that I don’t know whether we’re restricting this to physical health, and also that I don’t feel confident on what health impacts these additional sorts of reference class members tend to have. intuitively, it seems good for you to get some variety in your life, but on the other hand, will going to the occasional rock concert really improve my heart health (any dancing I might do aside)?
I think that getting some evidence here would be beneficial. However, I also suspect that most of the research is on extremes (i.e. attending too many loud concerts is bad for your hearing), rather than on moving from “moderate” to “sensibly going a little above or below moderate for a while.”
But a few examples of “clearly good for you” in the reference class along with a bunch of examples of “not sure” still puts the valence of “sensible variation” for a member of this reference class as on average positive, though with not much more than 50% confidence.
On the other other hand, the evidence we do have about the impact of sleep on cognitive function is not encouraging. Anyway, the more I think about it, the less clarity I have on how to even think about this question. It doesn’t seem likely to result in a knock-down argument either way, no matter how much we might research it. Too fuzzy.
I think we should understand Guzey’s argument as a gesture in the direction of saying “we should try to establish the base rate for these sorts of stressors [i.e. purposeful behaviors with a normal range of variation in frequency and intensity]” He’s pointing out a few salient behaviors in this reference class (diet and exercise), pointing out that what we might call “sensible variation” is believed to be good for you, and then noting that sleep also belongs in this reference class. You’ve also noted that breathing belongs in this reference class, and we can also find extensive traditions of breath work that are at least meant to promote health.
I agree with others here that toe-stubbing and other injury does not belong in this reference class, because they aren’t purposeful behaviors.
A stronger counterargument is that we may be suffering from availability bias in identifying members of this reference class. We receive lots of messages to breath deep, get exercise, and eat less. What about sensory stimulation vs. lack of stimulation, emotional variation vs. calm, social contact vs. solitude, focus vs. distraction? Do we expect that there’s a “normal range” here that gives you health benefits with “sensible variation?” For example, do we think that people receive health benefits from periodic meditation retreats due to the unusual level of social isolation, calm, and lack of stimulation? Or that they receive health benefits from attending a music festival (sober), due to the unusual level of social contact, excitement, and sensory stimulation?
My uncertainty here is that I don’t know whether we’re restricting this to physical health, and also that I don’t feel confident on what health impacts these additional sorts of reference class members tend to have. intuitively, it seems good for you to get some variety in your life, but on the other hand, will going to the occasional rock concert really improve my heart health (any dancing I might do aside)?
I think that getting some evidence here would be beneficial. However, I also suspect that most of the research is on extremes (i.e. attending too many loud concerts is bad for your hearing), rather than on moving from “moderate” to “sensibly going a little above or below moderate for a while.”
But a few examples of “clearly good for you” in the reference class along with a bunch of examples of “not sure” still puts the valence of “sensible variation” for a member of this reference class as on average positive, though with not much more than 50% confidence.
On the other other hand, the evidence we do have about the impact of sleep on cognitive function is not encouraging. Anyway, the more I think about it, the less clarity I have on how to even think about this question. It doesn’t seem likely to result in a knock-down argument either way, no matter how much we might research it. Too fuzzy.