What Does Sklansky Say About This One

[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. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[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. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ 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' [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

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? [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]