Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.
- 180
- 1
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I have the general impression that the "enhanced social bonding" of alcohol is just the same sort of euphemism that people use to justify the use of cannabis.
Alcohol makes the deliberate thinky bits stop working as well, so the behaviors exhibited by drunk people are less likely to be part of complex and deliberate social maneuvering. Behaving desirably while drunk is a costly signal of actually being desirable and not faking it.
Saying this in so many words is discouraged unless you dress it up in euphemisms like "lowered inhibitions".
I think that half of the effect of alcohol is entirely placebo. Legally and socially, we give a lot of slack to any behavior displayed while inebriated. So being drunk gives you plausible deniability to act on your desires (within reason) without being judged by society or yourself.
For example, consider sexual promiscuity1 in women. Some women are not interested in causal sex, and some are openly promiscuous -- which is typically seen as defection by some other women and invites some social censure. But another strategy for women who are into causal sex is to only display promiscuous behavior when drunk2. Something like "sure, I made out with a stranger in that club, but I was drunk, so it does not count". I might be talking out of my backside here3 but I think it is likely that for a given sex act with a stranger, the fraction of women who would be willing to engage in it while inebriated is 2--3 times the fraction which would engage in it while totally sober.
1 Not that I find anything wrong with that, if there was an endless supply of strangers who mutually wanted to have sex with me, I would probably be rather promiscuous.
2 Of course, this is complicated by the fact that inebriation is also frequently desired for non-instrumental reasons. Which is what makes the plausible deniability work in the first place.
3 The only thing which would qualify me less would be an ordination into the RCC.
Somewhat i agree.
But also "Alcohol makes the deliberate thinky bits stop working as well" is way more true.
For a man: 4-6 beers in has a very obvious experience of wanting to talk to people and blurt out things at a party context is very obvious experience. Alcohol has a continuous curve of effects, and one can lean into or resist the influence, but at certain dosages this placebo theory is clearly not true.
Consider a series of internal thoughts at a party:
My experience is that thoughts like 1 are (sometimes unconscious when shy inward focused) on a dose of alcohol simply blurted out on instinct before even getting to step 2. If low-alcohol or sufficiently neurotic part 2 might come up, which you imply would be half-placebo'd by thought 3. However if someone is sufficiently scared by 2 that they need the reassurance of 3, then they'll likely be paralyzed by part 4: "oh gosh they can tell i'm faking this i'm blowing it".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link