Exactly. A lot of people vote definitely against their own interests—but I don't think they do it for any higher good.

Your answer shows me that there are many ways to interpret what I've said. Instead of trying to explain here what I really meant, I'll just stop posting non-chess topics once more—I knew it better when I started a few days ago...

Behavioral economics looks at real human thought processes as opposed to those of the idealized "rational actor." It is very hard for humans to appreciate what is genuinely in our self-interest (or the interest of our society).

Saw a good example in the newspaper this morning--a report was out that eating healthy could add hundreds in cost to a family's food budget. But at no point was there any mention of possible cost savings from living a healthier lifestyle or higher income from better learning or missing fewer days of work.

Maybe the future cost savings are not enough to off-set the near term costs, but it certainly reduces them and should be considered.

Better health = longer life. Who wants that?

I do!

Not sure I do....be the last one alive, watching all of your siblings die off one by one, all of your old friends, your spouse/partner gone, your savings getting depleted as you live longer than expected, getting stuck into a gov't run nursing home where they pay the people chickenfeed and they take it out on the elderly, and no-one to help you because you've outlived everyone. Which is why I have made friends with people 10 and 20 years younger than me, just in case I manage to get beyond my genetically loaded early expiry date and I need someone to beat up mean nursing staff.

No, no. Say it like Sally Struthers. "Want better health and longer life? Sure, we all do!"

Why do people want to live forever when they don't know what to do with themselves on a rainy Saturday afternoon?

In Tucson, rainy afternoons are public holidays, weekend or not.

Sandra Fluke



This is one of those rare occasions where I have to defend someone and attack them at the same time.

Sandra Fluke is the woman in the news now because of an invective Limbaugh used in reference to her. I've absolutely got to defend her on this. I don't think most guys get how deeply offended women are by the double standard that smiles at and encourages men to "sow their wild oats", and then shuns women who do the same thing. In some Sharia countries, it's worse than a double standard. There are plaes where a married woman who gets raped can be exucted for having sex (even unwillingly) with someone who isn't her husband,while the rapist gets away scot free (beause nobody really cares about what he did). This is something that gets women very very upset about, and with very very good reason. So, what Limbaugh called her is totally out of line.

On the other hand, what I'm calling her is not. She is absolutely a Face of Greed. Here's someone already going to law school for free, and looking at making an easy six figure salary one she gets out. And here she is testifying before Congress about how she wants them to subsidize her recreational sex life. It's not a question of access to contraception, it's available in any drugstore. She just doesn't feel like paying for it herself, and wants a little Welfare for the Future Rich.

How exactly does it help students to be "the Future Rich" if they're not rich now and can't afford contraception (which is Fluke's point)? Subsidies for people who may become rich in the future don't seem like a good example of greed to me. (That's leaving aside the social issues around easy access to contraception, which is a different subject).