Re:The phone ban has had a big impact on school work
by ruthmarx on Tuesday October 15, 2024 @12:04PM
(#41849986)
> It will change some,
I think it can change significantly. The devil is in the details in this case.
> but if the general idea is that people are bad at knowing what they want and avoiding temptation,v
If it's a general idea though, as in you are generalizing, that would mean you are talking about 'most', and not 'some' or 'a lot'.
Re:The phone ban has had a big impact on school work
by Dylan16807 on Tuesday October 15, 2024 @03:49PM
(#41852406)
> If it's a general idea though, as in you are generalizing, that would mean you are talking about 'most', and not 'some' or 'a lot'.
Ah, I can clarify that.
The vast majority of people aren't very good at avoiding temptation.
But when we look at the choices people make, "avoid temptation" is not a universal correct answer. I'm not suggesting people be ascetic monks.
So if we look at people facing some tempting choice, I might estimate that 99% of them are generically bad at resisting, but of the people that give in only 10% of them are actually making a mistake.
Correct. I only brought up addiction after I thought we moved to the general argument, because it's so easy and objective. If we stayed with phones I probably wouldn't have mentioned addiction.
> Not so much an exemption, more that when you make an abstract argument it's going to change when you zoom in a few levels down, and it's going to change depending on what is being discussed in.
It will change some, but if the general idea is that people are bad at knowing what they want and avoiding temptation, that can only change so much. If it's not true for phones at dinner then that sounds like it has to be an exception.
> In this case, I certainly disagree that it's safe to assert that "a lot of people would enjoy their meals better if they didn't have their phones with them" - is that a fair paraphrasing of your point?
I think that's fair, but I'd replace "have their phones with them" with something like "use their phones for more than a minute or so per hour".
> What are you considering a lot, then? Even 0.1% of the population could be considered a lot, so what's the low end percentage of western phone owners you would suppose your position would apply to?
0.1% is still a million people. I think that has a good chance of qualifying?
But I would bet the number is >5%. If it's 5% that's definitely enough for me to count it as a lot of people.
> In the context of statistics, what do you think the split is between people that think they would know what you want more than you do, and those who actually do? I'd think it's something like 9:1.
If those odds work the other way around and 10% of people would be happier without phones, then I would take that as very strong validation of my position.