That chapstick article was worthless. People are really curious about whether, in some form are another, it is addictive. What does Cecil do? Calls Carmex and Chapstick to see what they think. Why not ask a biochemist or someone who would have a solid objective opinion? On another note, Cecil now only seems to answer incredibly easily researched questions. Stuff I can type right into my Google bar and find on the first hit. His column used to be wryly funny and fascinating, now its just well…sucks. On another, friendlier note, most of my anger is because he never answered my question as to whether the congenitally blind understand the concept of sight. Ill like him again if he answers that one.
Well, that’s one person with that opinion.
If Unca Cecil wait another 20 or 30 years, we may get a second…
Little Kid,
Cecil answered the question through sarcasm. Basically, he felt the question was so entirely silly that sarcasm would convey his thought that chapstick is not addictive.
I find it hard to believe anyone missed the point he was making.
A link to Cecil’s column: Is it possible to be addicted to Chap Stick?
That’s just it, he thought the question so silly he didnt bother to think about it. I’m not talking about your traditional dopamine-based addiction or even the “psychological” addiction that people use as a catch-all for anything that even briefly changes the level of potassium in the brain cells for a pico-second. It’s because of Cecil’s and the previous two poster’s thinking that the best inventions are accidents. If the ph or salt content of the balm was different/high enough from that of the human body then the balm could easily leech water from the lips causing more dryness which would in turn cause more lip licking that would in turn have people put more on there lips that they thought was a humectant but was actually a dessicant. Don’t be so facile with your answers or so brown with your nose.
Welcome to the SDMB, and thank you for posting your comment.
Please include a link to Cecil’s column if it’s on the straight dope web site. To include a link, it can be as simple as including the web page location in your post (make sure there is a space before and after the text of the URL).
Cecil’s column can be found on-line at the link provided by WindFish.
moderator, «Comments on Cecil’s Columns»
Not really an answer to your question, but in this column:
What are the dreams of the blind like?
Cecil Adams says
<<While there may be exceptions, in general the dreams of the congenitally blind contain no visual elements and consist predominantly of sound plus smell, touch and the sense of movement.>>
An unbeliever! Persecute! Kill the heretic!
Thanks for the link to the blind dream. I have read that actually. For the record, I tried to edit the topic title because I decided it was “less than constructive,” but I guess I gotta be a mod.
<< Cecil now only seems to answer incredibly easily researched questions. Stuff I can type right into my Google bar and find on the first hit. >>
Cecil gets over two hundred emails a week, and he only answers one (OK, sometimes two) in his column. Staff Reports can cover a few others. But no way to cover all of them, and so your question about the blind was one of the 199 or so others that didn’t get addressed from that week’s mail.
THE STRAIGHT DOPE does not run an “Information Please” type of site, we don’t have the staff or the funding to answer everyone’s question.
Cecil still does some pretty remarkable investigative questions. He tends to get a little lazy in the summer, and to tackle stuff that amuses him.
However, please note, the chapstick column that is the center of your complaint is a Classic Column, over two years old. So why would you use this as a complaint about Cecil’s current columns being “lame”?
Sarcasm? I thought it was irony that Cecil was using. ya know… droll… :rolleyes: <— like this!
Fair enough Dexter. Didnt know it was a classic column and like I said i regret the lame reference. My frustration is more of a reflection of my total appreciation and amazement of his past work. His first book, “The Straight Dope” is my vade mecum of bathroom books. Maybe it’s because the questions that EVERYONE really wanted to know that can be answered have been answered already but it just seems to me that the quality of questions that have been selected for investigation have been degrading over time. Of course “quality” is completely subjective but it’s just my feeling. I’m speaking from off the top of my head here, but I think two recent questions (maybe they were classics) have been about lyrics to songs. Something easily found on the internet. I have been more of a fan of his stuff that deals with widely contested things that I can finally have closure on because I trust the guy. I also use it to bludgeon people into intellectual submission at parties and “get chicks.” It’s unfortunate that there isnt a timed editing feature and perhaps more unfortunate that i dont “think before I submit.” And I can appreciate the summer hiatus thing.
Ah, you’re comparing his current (or currently posted) columns to the books… That explains it. All of Cecil’s questions are considered good enough for him to bother answering. Some, however, are better than others. Thus has it always been. Note, by the way, that Cecil has no control over the quality of the questions, only of the Answers.
So, the column’s been out a while, and the Powers that Be decide to put together a book. They don’t just re-publish all of the columns in order, starting from Day 1, since that wouldn’t sell too well. Instead, they go through the copious supply of past columns, and pick out the cream of the crop. Hence, it’s to be expected that the books would be better, on average, than the posted columns. By the same token, though, there’s occasionally a column, even now, that easily lives up to the book standards, and will eventually make it into the next book (just as soon as everyone buys the last of the surplus of the other books).
Alright apologies made and apparently accepted. Now, does anyone agree that Cecil’s explanation of lip balm addiction was a bit facile in taking the term addiction to literally?
I suppose that lip balms could have addictive properties other than psychological. Certain nasal sprays have been found to cause an increased dryness of the mucous membranes when applied. The dryness can only be relieved with more frequent use of the product. If it can happen with the shnozz, it can happen with the flappers, too!
the purpose of most over-the-counter nasal sprays is to stop a runny nose, or to unclog a mucous-filled one. how would this be achieved without a mucous-drying ingredient? getting off of the nasal spray can be a problem, but it just takes persistance, like any other drug you stop using.
jonfromdenver,
Can’t tell from your statement whether you believe, that by some acceptable defintion, chapstick is addictive or not. You seemed to be arguing with someone making a case for it being addictive and then saying that like any other drug, it takes persistance to get off. That is certainly an aspect of an addiction. Camphor, phenol, and menthol work in the same way as hammering your head so yor foot stops hurting. They irritate the mucuous membranes, flooding the pain receptors to dull a more acute sense of pain. When the short term affect wears off, the lips are more irritated than they were previously, begging the user to apply more. Chapstick, or preferably lip balm, should solely act as a humectant, preventing water from evaporating from the membranes. Anything else is bunk. Vitamin E cannot pass through the skin, its only positive affect is that it is an oil based fluid that acts as a humectant. You could get the same affect with corn oil. The stuff they put in most lipbalms other than humectants are intended to make the user “feel good,” and most of these, at least the ones mentioned, end up with a rebound effect.
i believe that from that post, my belief in addiction was not even addressed. i was just saying that nasal spray was a bad product to compare chapstick to, because of the nature of it’s purpose: to dry mucous from the upper nostril area. most nasal sprays even read on the label not to take them for more than 3 days because of their addictive properties. as for chapstick, i don’t think that i know enough about their properties to have an opinion on their chemically addictive nature, but as a long-time chapstick user, i would have to say that some sort of addiction is in effect. i remember a time when i was out of chapstick for a few days and didn’t have the time to go get some more, and i was definately miserable for several days. from what you’ve said on the other chapstick thread about a physiological addiction, i believe you may have hit the nail on the head. but from the nature of this physiological condition, i would say that it is, to an extent, inherently psychological, because humans have a greater amount of control over their physiological conditions than do any other beings in the animal kingdom.
The column is growing more lame. All you have to do is look at the first two books and compare.
The old replies were biting, funny and sarcastic. Now it seems the SD is appealing to the masses so it has to be tamed down. Thus not like it used to be.
Take for example comedies that are on cable can afford to offend some people. Free TV comedies cannot.
The more PC you get the less biting your responses can be thus they aren’t really lame but only lame when compared to the first columns.
And anything grows old after awhile.
My objection is there are a LOT of questions that get asked on this board and NO ONE can answer so they die. But the SD will often cover a question asked here and the answer was given already.
Why not take on the tough questions no one answers on this board?
Such as…?