What Does Sklansky Say About This One

[Timer]

Why are people fat? We know why dumb people are fat, but I'm talking about otherwise intelligent people. Let's say you can reach down with both hands and grab two big handfuls of fat just above your belt--we'll define this as fat. Why would an intelligent person allow this to happen? Do intelligent people not have discipline?

If you're fat--why? If you're fat--why not become unfat and stay that way? (Assuming of course you're intelligent.)

[tomdemaine]

Because the utility of eating burgers and fries today outweighs the utility of living a few extra years in the future. It's simple economics.

[benkahuna]

It's biological. No animal is designed to pass up on food. We're designed for a scarcity of resources, to get while the getting is good. Such a trait would clearly have a competitive advantage which is why natural selection would have favored it. As an aside, no rational person would deny natural selection which is as logical a notion as there is and does NOT require evolution. The natural selection process would not have eliminated this feature in only a few generations despite a lack of competitive edge. Remember the success of a species is the ability to reproduce fertile offspring. Most people do not die from being fat before they are able to have kids.

Additionally, we're removed from the natural roles into which we've grown. We'd normally be much more physically active. Since there's a balance between ativity and consumption, if you limit activity the same amount of consumption will make you fat (duh) even given the lowering of basal metabolic rate as a result of less phyical activity.

These deeply embedded drives supercede common notions of rational thought. We can pretend we're not animals, but oh, we are. The animal inside us drives much of our behavior.

[mackthefork]

Good post

I think if we all had to catch our own food now, armed only with pointy sticks, then 99% of this forum would be emaciated within a month.

Regards Mack

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Why are people fat? We know why dumb people are fat, but I'm talking about otherwise intelligent people. Let's say you can reach down with both hands and grab two big handfuls of fat just above your belt--we'll define this as fat. Why would an intelligent person allow this to happen? Do intelligent people not have discipline?

If you're fat--why? If you're fat--why not become unfat and stay that way? (Assuming of course you're intelligent.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm fat. What's it got to do with intelligence? Should I be thin just to please you?

I squeezed out of the closet years ago.

chez

[ QUOTE ]
Do intelligent people not have discipline?


[/ QUOTE ]

You could kinda say this

Why are people skinny? What ever benifits there are from being skinny may or may not outweigh the benefits from becoming and remaining fat (you can be lazy and eat tasty food)

[Timer]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm fat. What's it got to do with intelligence?

Intelligent people don't do stupid things. Intelligent people will be the ones to stop hurricanes. Being fat is unhealthy. Fat people don't get old. Being fat is stupid. Intelligent people shouldn't allow themselves to get fat. Why are you fat?

[ QUOTE ]
Should I be thin just to please you?


[/ QUOTE ]

You should be thin to please yourself.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
You should be thin to please yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Should you need a logical argument to convince me or should I just believe you?

chez

[Mr. Curious]

Genetics plays a fairly important role in a person's body.

[coheedandcambria]

Is this just supposed to be a harsh critisism of the average level of obesity today? If you can't think of any reasons why someone would be fat, maybe you aren't as "intelligent" as you think. Here are a few easy ones to get you started.

1. He/She is lazy and does not wish to exercise.
2. He/She likes eating fatty foods and as a direct result is fat.
3. He/She finds it much easier to be fat than to be skinny and has no problem with being fat.

I'm sure you can think of more.

Eat to live, not live to eat. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[HtotheNootch]

Because I've got two bad knees and am just getting over a recurring shoulder problem.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
Why are people fat? We know why dumb people are fat, but I'm talking about otherwise intelligent people. Let's say you can reach down with both hands and grab two big handfuls of fat just above your belt--we'll define this as fat. Why would an intelligent person allow this to happen? Do intelligent people not have discipline?

If you're fat--why? If you're fat--why not become unfat and stay that way? (Assuming of course you're intelligent.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea why you're specifically asking Sklansky to weigh in on this (no pun intended...really, it was an accident), but the answer to your question isn't particularly difficult: human beings are simply not rational agents.

I just read "Fooled by Randomness" by Nassim Taleb a week or so ago, and I recall a passage in his book telling how he was taking a cab to work and he saw a cancer hospital, outside of which (thanks to Bloomburg's law) a group of doctors and nurses were smoking. Outside a cancer hospital.

If anyone thinks that human beings are super-rational agents, I have a bridge which I'd like to make an emotional appeal upon him to purchase.

Here's one reason why some guys are fat:

Because they can eat all the pizza and ice-cream they want, yet still have sex with beautiful women. The only catch is that they have to make a lot of money. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

In fact, that is also the reason why many guys on this website aspire to be WSOP champs.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I just read "Fooled by Randomness" by Nassim Taleb a week or so ago, and I recall a passage in his book telling how he was taking a cab to work and he saw a cancer hospital, outside of which (thanks to Bloomburg's law) a group of doctors and nurses were smoking. Outside a cancer hospital.

If anyone thinks that human beings are super-rational agents, I have a bridge which I'd like to make an emotional appeal upon him to purchase.


[/ QUOTE ]

Its not irrational to smoke just because smoking causes cancer.

If you want to maximise your life expectancy then smoking is irrational, but is it rational to want to maximise your life expectancy?

chez

I think the OP is saying that intelligent people know that being fat is bad for your health,so why don't they try to prevent it?

To which I answer: Easier said than done.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]

Its not irrational to smoke just because smoking causes cancer.

If you want to maximise your life expectancy then smoking is irrational, but is it rational to want to maximise your life expectancy?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it's not really all that rational, aside from the fact that it's pretty much the main driving force behind the perpetuation of our species. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Human beings generally don't want cancer. Therefore smoking is irrational from their standpoint precisely because it causes cancer. It's not irrational if you take it in the big-picture, cosmic, "everything happens for a reason and everything is rational if you look at it at the right angle" sense, but what I (and the OP) are referring to is rationality local to the particular human being in question and his decisions.

The people outside the cancer center see day in and day out with their patients exactly what harm they are doing to themselves and the pain that will in all probability ensue from their habit, even more so than someone who has lost a loved one to cancer. Unless you are willing to accept that we've somehow got the statistical oddity of a cancer center staffed by masochists, it's safe to say that they do not want that pain. Yet they ignore the overwhelming odds against their escaping a long-standing nicotine habit unscathed and smoke anyway. That is irrational, the same way that someone who walks up to a roulette table intending to make money is doing something irrational.

[mythrilfox]

People are fat because God does not exist.

And vice versa.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Human beings generally don't want cancer. Therefore smoking is irrational from their standpoint precisely because it causes cancer. It's not irrational if you take it in the big-picture, cosmic, "everything happens for a reason and everything is rational if you look at it at the right angle" sense, but what I (and the OP) are referring to is rationality local to the particular human being in question and his decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if you don't want cancer and believe smoking causes cancer that doesn't mean that smoking is irrational.

Smoking may make you feel good or feel more confident. If you want to be truly rational about it then you need a metric to determine the value of your whole life and then maximise it with respect to smoking.

If you believe such a metric makes sense then you have to accept that for some people it may be more rational to smoke.

If you don't believe in such a metric then what does it mean to say that smoking is rational or irrational?

chez

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]

If you don't believe in such a metric then what does it mean to say that smoking is rational or irrational?


[/ QUOTE ]

Most people will tell you (truthfully) that they value a long healthy life much more than they value feeling confident or cool for five minutes or however long it takes them to smoke a cigarette. Then they do the exact opposite of what they value. That's irrational. By your argument, a human being can never do anything that is irrational. As I stated before, that's true in the "big picture" sense, since the universe can be described by laws of physics and human beings' decisions, whatever they may be, just don't come out of nowhere. However, I think it's safe to say that I, the OP, and most of the people interested in discussing this topic seriously think it's pretty absurd to have a practical discussion whilst assuming right off the bat that nothing that ever happens anywhere is irrational. Nobody is saying that people smoke or eat unhealthy food for no reason whatsoever.

There is no such thing as "Absolute Irrationality", in the same sense that there is no such thing as Absolute Morality. However, both the concept of morality and irrationality are frequently useful when dealing with human beings and their decisions. You bring up important points that are worth discussion elsewhere, but within this context it's akin to crashing a thread titled "Should I have a bachelor party?" with "but how do you even define 'bachelor' in the first place?"

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Most people will tell you (truthfully) that they value a long healthy life much more than they value feeling confident or cool for five minutes or however long it takes them to smoke a cigarette. Then they do the exact opposite of what they value. That's irrational.

[/ QUOTE ]

It sounds unlikely that anyone would trade a long healthy life for a few minutes smoking pleasure/benefit but that's not the equation here, is it?

[ QUOTE ]
By your argument, a human being can never do anything that is irrational.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not right. For example, if someone wants to maximise their chances of a long healthy life then smoking would be irrational.


chez

[xxJEDIxx]

Given the enormous complexities of the human phsychological condition I doubt that simply applying "intellegence" as the key element in the entire equation of obesity in society would be logical. Considering that there are many forms and levels of intellegence and their effect on human behavior is not fully understood. Addtionally, there are many factors within the realm of obesity itself that do not lend themselves fully to human control such as health, genetic tendancies etc..
Hypothetical: An intellegent, well educated 35 year old male is overweight by medical and society standards. He is perfectly comfortable with his weight which is not an issue to him.
Should others be concerned with his weight? Should you? Are we overly concerned about that which is not our business? Perhaps we indulge ourselves on the whole more than we should and exploring these questions may lead to a better quality of life. I beleive however that there is no clear link between obesity and intellgence or the lack there of, the link may be more of a spiritual and discipline issue rather than intellect.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]

That's not right. For example, if someone wants to maximise their chances of a long healthy life then smoking would be irrational.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, then we're right back where we started - smoking, for 99% of the people who do it, is irrational. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

That's not right. For example, if someone wants to maximise their chances of a long healthy life then smoking would be irrational.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, then we're right back where we started - smoking, for 99% of the people who do it, is irrational. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

We've made some progress if we have moved from 'smoking is irrational' to 'smoking is irrational if ...' the former is not true and the second may be true (depending on the ...).

Don't know if your 99% figure is right, sounds very high to me but at least it acknowledges that an individual cannot be correctly judged as irrational just because they smoke (or do anything else).

chez

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]

We've made some progress if we have moved from 'smoking is irrational' to 'smoking is irrational if ...' the former is not true and the second may be true (depending on the ...).

Don't know if your 99% figure is right, sounds very high to me but at least it acknowledges that an individual cannot be correctly judged as irrational just because they smoke (or do anything else).


[/ QUOTE ]

In 99% of cases (and I would argue that number is rather low, since pretty much the only exceptions are masochists, actors on screen, and people who have someone holding a gun to their head saying "smoke this or I'll kill you"), people are not calculating and analyzing scenarios and then coming up with the conclusion, "yes, I should smoke." If that were the case, then you wouldnt have such extremes - people are usually either continuous nonsmokers or smokers for the vast majority of their lives; its rare to find someone who fluctuates between a nicotine-free life and a pack a day habit with equal measure. Nobody reasons their way to "Therefore, I should smoke this cigarette." Not to mention the rather obvious fact that if the act of smoking were rationally based, as soon as smokers found out that smoking caused cancer they would have quit in droves. Not all of them, of course, but a substantial number, most likely a majority, would have. That did not occur. The vast majority of then-smokers saw the warning and continued anyway - it was only subsequent generations in which a majority did not smoke. Compare this to the introduction of new information in a rational setting, eg. the Black-Scholes formula for option pricing. Once that was introduced and found to be correct, it was adopted instantly; almost everybody used inefficient methods before Black-Scholes, and almost nobody used the inefficient methods of pricing after.

In truth, I almost hope that you are a smoker and are going on like this to provide some kind of justification for your habit, because otherwise I can't believe that I'm actually debating something this simple.

"Marked by lack of accord with reason or sound judgment" - the very definition of irrational. I don't know how many other ways I can explain it.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
In truth, I almost hope that you are a smoker and are going on like this to provide some kind of justification for your habit, because otherwise I can't believe that I'm actually debating something this simple.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the 'almost' /images/graemlins/wink.gif

We're not debating anything. I don't know if 99% is high or low and don't care much. I was just making the point that it's not logically valid to claim that smoking is irrational which I take it you agree with or you wouldn't be talking percentages.

chez

BTW I don't smoke

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
BTW I don't smoke

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, do you mind?

*inhales deeply*
ahhh, that's the stuff...

was it good for you? /images/graemlins/tongue.gif