Quote: Original post by trzy

Quote: Original post by Talroth

Quote: Original post by trzy
video games, which are an unproductive waste of time that stunts the intellectual development of children.

What the HELL are you smoking? If anything, interactive media has been shown to Increase intellectual development in children. They're not perfect, and have other issues, but don't say games make people stupid or something, because it has been shown that playing games can greatly build problem solving ability.

The studies I've seen that claim video games improve problem solving ability, spatial reasoning ability, or whatever else they're trying to promote, are suspect at best. The long-term effects of exposure to video games on intellectual and economic achievement have not been studied. Being raised with video games is now the norm, as are declining standards of education and, in Britain at least, IQ levels of upper and middle class children who have access to more mind-rotting "interactive" entertainment.

British teenagers have lower IQs than their counterparts did 30 years ago.

You can't blame cigarettes for that. The difference between video games and say, piano, are that an hour of focused musical training will contribute to improving your IQ, whereas an hour of Counterstrike will leave you no more capable of grappling with difficult, complex problems than when you started playing.

And this study is in no way suspect? First off that isn't a study, that is a news report on the study. Have you looked at the data? Have you considered other factors? What percentage of students in the 1980s were given full and complete IQ tests? What percentage today are given the tests? IQ tests are highly subjective to begin with, and are known to have potential bias issues (In the past 30 years, hasn't the UK has undergone a rather large immigration influx?)

And honestly, the differences described there don't sound horribly amazing and outside the bounds of statistical possibility, especially given the above points.

Quote: Original post by Yann L
I have a hard time understanding how anyone can voluntarily smoke nowadays. I understand that fighting the addiction can probably be very hard, but still, a lot of people succeed.

I did quit for two years and it took me around a month (yes I had to insist) to catch the habit again. Of course my physical performance decreased accordingly, but I don't really miss it that much. Besides I know I can quit it again if I really wanted to. It just happen that I don't.

Having been me in both sides, and being me a vicious person, I can say there are valid reasons to do so.

Dying at 65 of lung cancer is still cheaper than 5-10 years of dementia in an old folks home. The whole health costs argument is a bit weak.

Quote: Original post by denver
Dying at 65 of lung cancer is still cheaper than 5-10 years of dementia in an old folks home. The whole health costs argument is a bit weak.

Not smoking and having a good sportive dicipline improves almost every aspect of one's life, being the more important: SEX.

But if life was only about being healty everything would be a LOT more easier.

[Edited by - owl on February 27, 2009 5:20:38 PM]

Quote: Original post by Talroth
What percentage of students in the 1980s were given full and complete IQ tests?

Enough to conduct this study, obviously.

Quote: What percentage today are given the tests?

Percentage? Are you familiar with sampling?

Quote: IQ tests are highly subjective to begin with, and are known to have potential bias issues (In the past 30 years, hasn't the UK has undergone a rather large immigration influx?)

I think the article mentions that the upper and middle class have seen the sharpest mental degradation, which I would think rules out the influence of uneducated taxi cab drivers on the results. I did notice some responses to this study blaming immigrants.

Quote:
And honestly, the differences described there don't sound horribly amazing and outside the bounds of statistical possibility, especially given the above points.

The news here is that it counteracts a previously observed phenomenon, regardless of how accurate of a measure of intelligence IQ tests actually are: the Flynn effect. I'm not sure why this is all so controversial to you. Have you not noticed the upswing of incidents involving wealthy British party-goers all over Europe? I think drinking yourself stupid, getting in fights, falling out of windows, and accidentally reproducing with females with similar proclivities -- over and over and over again -- would be reliable indicators of IQ deficiency. Don't you?

Maybe what's really controversial here is that I'm blaming mind-rotting video games.

Quote: Original post by Eelco

Quote: Original post by trzy

Quote: Original post by Eelco
Bars less so, but if you really cared, you could find a place to have your drink without smoke as well. The thing is: most people that bitch about smoking are the people that wouldnt go to a bar under any circumstances. And most non-smokers prove by their actions that they do not nearly care as much as they say they do. Smokers however are the ones willing to put their money where their mouth is: since the recent smoking ban here in the netherlands, bars have been closing down in droves.

I don't know... bars aren't a very elastic commodity. It takes the right amount of pleasant ambience and attractive people to make a place worth hanging out in. People will put up with smoke because there's no equivalent alternative. I haven't been paying attention to the economic impact of the smoking ban but even the smokers I know prefer it because they don't smell as bad when they get home (even smokers don't like stinking up their bed -- Americans have a nasty habit of climbing into bed without showering.) I also spoke to some Parisians in Tokyo (smokers, of course), who said although at first they didn't like having to go outside the bar to smoke, they've grown to rather like it, firstly because it smells nicer and secondly because of the comraderie it fosters between filthy smokers ;)

It doesn't take many smokers to stink up a bar, either.

Actions speak louder than words.

Is voting not an action? ;)

Quote: Original post by trzy
Is voting not an action? ;)

Yes, it is: one of a really awesome kind, where you get to wield tyrannical power, if you are lucky enough to amass a majority.

Why would i not vote to ban smoking? The benefits are for me, the costs for someone else.

The sad thing is: i really cant argue with that.

Quote: Original post by Eelco

Quote: Original post by trzy
Is voting not an action? ;)

Yes, it is: one of a really awesome kind, where you get to wield tyrannical power, if you are lucky enough to amass a majority.

Why would i not vote to ban smoking? The benefits are for me, the costs for someone else.

The sad thing is: i really cant argue with that.

Exactly! That's just it: any analysis of what is right or wrong has to take into account the system in its entirety, not just the market place. Market fundamentalists believe the government should not tread where the marketplace can adequately regulate itself by consumer choice. However, unless these fundamentalists argue against democracy as well, they have to factor in democratic legislation as another avenue for shaping society.

The fact that governments are naturally formed by human societies says something about which ideologies are feasible and which are less.

It's a tough pickle.

Quote: Original post by Anon Mike
Does your company ding people for using the toilet also?

I really dislike that sort of petty bean-counting.

Eh?
Going to the toilet; maybe a few mins every few hours. (depending on the person) Also a biological requirement.

Going out for a quick smoke; maybe 10 or 15mins in every hour, maybe 2.

And it's hardly 'bean counting' if you have well paid members of staff vanishing for say 1/4 of their working day (yes, the time can add up pretty quickly).

Quote: Original post by trzy

Quote: Original post by Eelco

Quote: Original post by trzy
Is voting not an action? ;)

Yes, it is: one of a really awesome kind, where you get to wield tyrannical power, if you are lucky enough to amass a majority.

Why would i not vote to ban smoking? The benefits are for me, the costs for someone else.

The sad thing is: i really cant argue with that.

Exactly! That's just it: any analysis of what is right or wrong has to take into account the system in its entirety, not just the market place. Market fundamentalists believe the government should not tread where the marketplace can adequately regulate itself by consumer choice. However, unless these fundamentalists argue against democracy as well, they have to factor in democratic legislation as another avenue for shaping society.

I was arguing against democracy, actually.

Quote:
The fact that governments are naturally formed by human societies says something about which ideologies are feasible and which are less.

It's a tough pickle.

Thats an awefully conservative argument, that could just as easily be used to 'support' positions that id doubt you intended.

There are some matters that i would willingly hand over to the tyranny of the majority: its not an altogether useless concept. Like, what game to play when in a group of people.

No way id ever willingly surrender sovereignity to any tyrant, wether it considers itself justified by god or 'the majority' or whatever, on matters such as whom i associate with, what consentual agreements we make, what i do with my own body, or what i think. But your mileage may vary.

In general, i reject the validity of the implicit social contract. Not that there is much i can do about it, or that i have any hope of reform, but that doesnt mean i have to pretend i like it.

If i ever get to join a new society in the making*, it would be one where explicity of social contracts would be at the core of social-political thinking.

*and who knows?
http://seasteading.org/