Hacker News Reader

Comment by casca | Hacker News Reader

TL;DR: guy gets a comment downvoted on HN and responds by accusing the downvoters of having an unhealthy lifestyle.

Is there any evidence that the average geek is less healthy than the average person?

Here's a link to the comment in question: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7763106

Thanks for linking to the comment in question. It starts with "I've been helping my family and friends with this recipe [... and I'm going to help you too.]" This kind of behaviour is not dissimilar from religious groups that try to force their unproven believes upon other people. Even anecdotal evidence is provided. I'm pretty sure if he'd have written "I enjoy this kind of smoothie, and it makes me feel better." he would not have been downvoted.

Of course geeks have unhealthy lifestyles, a lot of us don't go outside and eat a lot of junk food. Sitting in the dark in front of a computer is not an activity that promotes health. This article is worthless anyway though because the guy got downvoted for posting a video of himself, not for being unhealthy, and also the guy's solution is an "antioxidant smoothie" which is pure unadulterated nonsense.

Logic says that someone who spends more time in front of a computer is less healthy than someone who spends less time in front of a computer. I think it's solid enough logic that the onus is on you to provide evidence to the contrary. But hell, geeks should be able to find actual evidence; that's what geeks do.

person A uses a computer for 6 hours a day, person B uses a computer for 30 minutes a day, ergo person B is healthier.

This logic doesn't seem to be very "logical"

everything else being more or less equal , the person with the lifestyle of 6 hours a day will probably be less healthy than the person on 30 minutes a day

Instead of seeking that "evidence," consider this: is the average geek not supposed to be smarter than the average person? (Is this generality more acceptable because it's flattering? For that matter, is there any evidence of this, either? But for now, let's assume it's true.)

So on that assumption, which we grant temporarily, why then should we not expect these smarter people to make smarter lifestyle choices? Should we not expect geeks, in other words, to do better, not just the same as?

Or at the very least, to be armed with the correct information so that, when the time comes to make those choices, he at least recognizes when he is choosing poorly? Of course the real question is: how do we get people (smart people included) to choose wisely? This is the sixty-four thousand dollar questions.

Claiming some kind of magic smoothie will improve your health is the type of health-nonsense we need less of, not more, it doesn't serve any purpose improving anyone's lifestyle. That's probably why you got downvoted into oblivion, not because 'average geeks' don't care about their health.

Mind you: I'm not saying your smoothie is not healthy, or that it doesn't matter what you eat or how you live. Just that blanket statements such as 'my smoothie has improved the life of everyone I introduced it to' is about as scientific as astrology or tarot cards, and IMO has no place on a site like this.

My point was that your premise is based on something that we don't know. Perhaps the average geek is smarter than the average person (for some definition of smarter), but perhaps they're also healthier. We just don't know.

While I believe that you were genuinely trying to be helpful to the community by offering an easy way to be healthier, we are generally a suspicious bunch and when there are a number of claims made based on unsupported hypotheses, there's going to be complaints.

It's one thing to say: "I do this and it seemed to do good things for me". It's another to say "I do this and so should you".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com