LESSWRONG
LW

by Mati_Roy
1 min read4th Dec 20197 answers8 comments

10

Frontpage
undefined
If giving unsolicited feedback was a social norm, what feedback would you often give?
4th Dec 2019
New Answer
New Comment

7 Answers sorted by
top scoring

Dave Lindbergh

Dec 04, 2019

110

"You are spending more money than you can afford.

This will result in unnecessary stress and misery in your life.

You will be happier in the long run if you reduce your standard of living to a level that's easily sustainable for you and put the remainder of your money into a substantial financial buffer for yourself."

[-]Robert Miles4y110

"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery."
-- Charles Dickens, from David Copperfield

Reply
[-]MoritzG4y10

"This will result in unnecessary stress and misery in your life."

LOL, that is very close to what I told a girl once. You would think it is the most sensitive and reasonable thing to tell a person and a good way to put it. She did not call me names, but was not thankful either.

Reply

remizidae

Dec 07, 2019

40

Stop talking. Talk quietly. Stop interrupting people.

Alexei

Dec 05, 2019

40

Your decision / advice is rooted in anxiety / fear. This is much more about you than about the thing you’re talking about.

Dagon

Dec 04, 2019

40

I think I would be giving a lot of feedback on others' feedback: "your choice of feedback topic and presentation style is unhelpful". But probably with fewer and more impactful words.

Sabiola

Dec 04, 2019

40

OK, I'll go first. I'd correct people's grammar and spelling a lot, and I'd tell overweight people how to lose weight.

leggi

Feb 20, 2020

20

My full confidence as being correct/right/true:

  • Chew every mouthful of food until it's liquid (edited to add: a pulp, paste)before swallowing.
  • Stop eating as soon as you have the thought "that's enough" - satiety has been reached.

This I believe:

  • It's better to eat food that's been "grown" rather than "manufactured".
[-]Raemon4y20

What good thing happens to me if I do the first thing?

Reply
1leggi4y
Chewing is the first step in the digestive process, prepping food before it enters the stomach but it is a step that is easily skipped. Thorough chewing means your food is physically broken down - decreasing size of bits and increasing surface area so maximising exposure to its contents/nutrients. Chewing also means the food is mixed with a lot of saliva which contains digestive enzymes to start the processing of food pre-stomach. Catch yourself when you go to swallow a mouthful of food - how liquefied is it? Better chewing = better digestion = better. Satiety ~ the stomach telling the brain it's full - 20 min is the touted time for that process. Chewing properly slows eating speed so satiety is reached with less food consumed. Stopping eating when your body signals 'that's enough' will prevent excess consumption.
8Raemon4y
I'm with you on the satiety thing. The chewing bit is the one I'm skeptical of. I don't currently chew this way. If I did, what life outcomes would be better for me? (you say "better digestion = better", but why? and why do you believe it?)
2leggi4y
We are one unit of many parts - complex and  interconnected. Simply put, improvements in digestion  = better absorption of nutrients =  benefit of the whole. I believe it because of: * observation that I feel better after eating when I've fully chewed my foods. * my knowledge of basic human physiology.   I don't know what your knowledge base is but if you don't believe that the thorough chewing of food is a good idea, it'll be more productive for you to do a search for "benefits of chewing" and work from there rather than me trying to explain the digestive (and related) processes from mouth to rectum. Why?  What is this belief based on?   If you are happy with the concept of stopping eating when the body says "full"  then more chewing = longer time with each mouthful of food = increased chance of sufficient time for satiety messages to be sent  = less food consumed which, for many people, would be a good thing. While scepticism is a trait I encourage the fact you don't chew this way is irrelevant to whether chewing food to a liquid before swallowing  is beneficial or not.  You could try it and see.  Do rationalists like to find things out for themselves?  I don't know what effect on your life outcome chewing your food will have. It should improve your digestion and that seems a positive. It is harder to do than it sounds. It takes attention to change eating habits.  Remembering to fully chew every mouthful.    The basis of "mindful eating" sort of stuff.
3Raemon4y
note: I didn’t mean to be coming across as adversarial. I’m asking because you expressed very strong confidence in a claim that was surprising to me.  I tried chewing that way once and it felt gross so I stopped and I’d need a compelling reason to do it again. “people reliably feel better / get more energy / something” is a plausible reason. I’m not asking for you to fully justify the idea here, I just wanted a sense of whether your belief came more from “I tried it and it had a small effect, or a large effect, or I read some studies“ or whatnot. There’s a huge number of things to try. I have a background model on why satiety matters, which I’m assuming we‘re on the same page about. I agree that eating slower is good for ‘detect satiety’ reasons, but I can do that by just pausing more. I also do try to eat mindfully, which I find intrinsically enjoyable, but not when I’m chewing things until they’re liquid  
1leggi4y
:) liquid/paste/pulp ... mechanically processing your food with your teeth to increase its surface area is a good thing. Chewing increases the production of saliva so more enzymes available and more time for them to mix with the food. Although I dislike the expression, it's a "no-brainer" to me hence the confidence. I was expecting more of a push-back on food that's grown not manufactured. A visceral belief but I'd struggle to form a rational argument - there's a lack of scientific proof for something so hard to test. Nature's hard to beat.
Moderation Log