Re: the bold - of course the piece would fall short with someone who thinks they can quit at any time, because it isn't about those people. It's about, as the title says: "Understanding the evidence about the comparative success of smoking cessation methods.
One couldn't do better in offering an example of a straw man argument with regard to that particular comment. And I don't think the piece is about 'how THR actually works' but one aspect that is discussed about cessation and THR - preferences - that could be better understood, when discussing those things.
That said, Carl's statement above could have easily been written by you: "Smoking itself might tend somewhat in the former direction due to the health cost, but frankly the health cost is not all that great compared to quite a few other lifestyle choices. Once that is eliminated, it is hard to see how it is much different from countless other experiences." ... at least I thought about your earlier comments when I read it. Something where we do agree.
Regarding the bold part: Are you saying I am putting forth a straw man argument?
If yes, I would say that my comment comes from the Analysis portion of the piece and what that is saying with regards to smoking behavior and then poignantly points out:
When smoking is recognized as a behavioral preference, and thus cessation is recognized as an alternative choice, it becomes apparent that questions like which cessation method is best? and statements like method X works 60% better than method Y are misguided.
My comment also was speaking in lieu of this assertion from the piece:
If one starts with the premise that tobacco use confers no benefits and thus tobacco use behavior cannot be driven by preferences and volition, the claim might as well be modeled as if peoples actions were being controlled by some other entity whose behavior cannot be modeled. With such an implicit assumption, rational analysis is precluded because it is assumed that the demon has arbitrary and unfathomable motives. Perhaps it can be forced to behave better, but it cannot be rationally analyzed or persuaded.
And as I noted I had only thoroughly read half the piece. In my history of quitting, prior to eCigs, I feel I encountered this in my own way. I could easily elaborate on this to show that I went through my quitting in a rational way and came up with benefits of smoking that were then outweighed by my preference for abstinence.
Yet, when eCigs came along and to this moment, I felt something had changed and to this moment, I consider it very dramatic. That change didn't arise the moment I tried eCigs, but only after I realized how eCigs/vaping could truly work for me. At first, I saw eCigs as way to achieve abstinence because I was at the time again engaged in heavy use of smoking, just like every other time I had self identified as smoker. Yet, I had already rationally concluded that the demonic possession theory was an irrational game I was playing with myself/mind, and knew from previous experience that for me, best method for abstinence was cold turkey.
What was missing was my lack of experience with being able to be a moderate smoker, and is something that even while I've now experienced that for a couple years currently, I see it as so significantly misunderstood and underplayed as possible, that pieces like this ought to be mentioning that (IMHO), or are falling short on what is really the decision(s) at work around cessation. And then, as I mentioned in my previous post, I feel well equipped with experience and facts for anyone that cares to dispute this.
So, where the piece says:
Comparing what people say they want to do and what they actually do tends to reveal their first- and second-order preferences. The aforementioned combination of first- and second-order preferences appears to describe a large portion of the smoking population. It is difficult to reconcile claims like surveys show that the vast majority of smokers want to quit with the reality that the vast majority of smokers continue to smoke. But the apparent contradiction can be easily explained by interpreting the survey responses as the voicing of second-order preferences. That is, a large portion of smokers would prefer to not prefer to smoke, even though the reality is that they prefer to smoke, which is why they continue to do it.
I was speaking to this earlier, but now that you chose to highlight what I was bringing to the table, I am compelled to elaborate. I believe (and acknowledge that I could be mistaken) that what a large portion of smokers actually prefer is to not prefer being an abusive smoker, who feels they cannot control their habit, cravings, and/or addiction. And thus demonstrate this lack of control by exerting their preference for smoking due to enjoyment / benefits one does get from smoking, in the real world.
What caused me previously to only read half the piece and make the comment I did was the portion of the piece that is titled with: Categorizing smoking cessation desires and behaviors.
As mentioned earlier, when I first picked up eCigs (say in my first month), I had desire to quit smoking, and had previous experience with abstinence. But this piece, and this particular section with its categorization that attempts to cover all smokers (with desire to quit).
Employing the concepts of first- and second-order preferences, smokers who have an inclination to quit can be divided into decision-relevant categories
I had inclination to quit with eCigs. I've had inclination to quit many times before that, succeeding in quitting (for a substantial length of time on 3 distinct occasions). But in my latest attempt (started about 3 years ago) and rationalizing of what is my first order of preference actually is vs. second order preferences, I realized that I as a previously abusive type smoker never experienced moderate smoking and what that offers, which in the real world, where mind doesn't take a backset driving position toward responsibility and choices, that all my previous first and second order preferences were being heavily influenced by societal factors around smoking as an inherent problem (medically, politically, behaviorally, so on and so forth).
The way this piece categorizes 'smokers who have an inclination to quit' is interesting and prior to my use of eCigs, I would say it is spot on. But I now feel it is sorely lacking the viable and real world experience of moderate smoking. I consider this very understandable as it seems like the normative behavior for most smokers is that of abusive smoking, or lacking control over preference to continue to smoking without noticeable issues arising. Had this piece mentioned moderation somewhere, I would likely not have offered up what I am saying, but as it does not, I feel it is warranted.
In the final words of this piece (last paragraph of Conclusion), it says:
Unbiased and thoughtful interpretation of smoking cessation study results could provide much useful information about how to advise smokers who want to quit. But very little of that seems to be occurring. If helping people who want to quit, or want to want to quit rather than just generating revenue or rhetoric is the goal of the research, then some more serious attention to the nature of the phenomena being studied is in order, with smokers seen as consumers with first- and second-order preferences that drive their behavior, rather than as patients with an illness for whom assigning a cure would be appropriate.
I see this as a very large step toward understanding smoking behavior, without really saying much more than "more serious attention ... is in order." I believe my comments are providing that more serious attention and am not shy about what I wish to discuss and how I see it pertinent to what is occurring now in society around smoking cessation along with what has historically occurred.
