I thought about some things today during lunch. This is what I came up with. And, I'm sure this has some sort of game theory parallel, but I don't know game theory, so stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
---
For the purpose of this experiment, the nondescript person can only eat one sandwich. Also, the nondescript person's happiness level is 0 until otherwise stated.
A nondescript person is eating lunch at a nondescript place.
Said nondescript person obtains a sandwich to eat.
If, after trying the sandwich, the sandwich is Tasty, said nondescript person will eat and enjoy the sandwich, bringing his happiness level to 1.
If, after trying the sandwich, the sandwich is not Tasty, the nondescript person will go get another sandwich, presumably until finding a Tasty sandwich, bringing his happiness level to 1.
If, after trying the sandwich, the sandwich is Mediocre, the nondescript person will continue eating the sandwich, bringing his happiness level to 0.5. The sandwich is not bad enough to warrant getting another sandwich, but not good enough to get maximum happiness density-per-sandwich.
---
So, I suppose what this system shows, mediocrity is the least efficient option. Settling, is the least efficient option.
I don't know. This idea seems half-baked, but right now, with homework pending, it'll just have to remain in the oven.
I posit that with each non-tasty sandwich, the potential happiness level that the subsequent sandwich will bring decreases by an arbitrary amount of 0.1 degree of happiness.
So if a person tries five sandwiches and finds them not tasty, the maximum amount of happiness allowed is still .5 happiness.
Except that he's bought lunch 5 times in an hour, which should make him about -4 happiness, due to wallet-hemmoraging.
That's pretty much where I was going, with a smaller amount of unhappiness attached.
I think you have to take points away for the irritation factor. If I buy a sandwich and it turns out to be nasty, but I just spent my last $3 on it I have to eat it anyway. So not only am I unhappy from the nasty sandwich, but also irritated I'm out $3, didn't have money to try something else etc....
:argh!:
Dammit y'all type faster.
:argh!:
Before we pile on any further, maybe we should lay off the metaphor for a bit, and see if the general concept makes any sense.
He appears to be assigning "Happy" as +1, and "Mediocre" as +0.5, but assigns "Not Happy" ("~Happy") a null value.
It would seem that Happy and ~Happy would cancel each other out.
It does imply, however, that if you get a sandwich that you don't like (~Happy), you need TWO things of equal value to get back to a Happy state. (~Happy + 2Happy = Happy)
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 22, 2011, 07:47:50 PM
Before we pile on any further, maybe we should lay off the metaphor for a bit, and see if the general concept makes any sense.
He appears to be assigning "Happy" as +1, and "Mediocre" as +0.5, but assigns "Not Happy" ("~Happy") a null value.
It would seem that Happy and ~Happy would cancel each other out.
It does imply, however, that if you get a sandwich that you don't like (~Happy), you need TWO things of equal value to get back to a Happy state. (~Happy + 2Happy = Happy)
I think "unhappy" should be a negative value, and meh should be a zero.
Yeah, but after you've had a sandwich, good or bad, you really aren't as hungry anymore. So that is something that is going to depreciate the value of your next sandwich, whether it's good or not.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2011, 07:54:14 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 22, 2011, 07:47:50 PM
Before we pile on any further, maybe we should lay off the metaphor for a bit, and see if the general concept makes any sense.
He appears to be assigning "Happy" as +1, and "Mediocre" as +0.5, but assigns "Not Happy" ("~Happy") a null value.
It would seem that Happy and ~Happy would cancel each other out.
It does imply, however, that if you get a sandwich that you don't like (~Happy), you need TWO things of equal value to get back to a Happy state. (~Happy + 2Happy = Happy)
I think "unhappy" should be a negative value, and meh should be a zero.
I agree. If I'm looking forward to a yummy sammich, and I get served a shit sammich, I'm gonna be kinda mad.
It could very easily be the emoticon theory...
Where :argh!: + :lulz: = :|
and :lulz: + :argh!: + :lulz: = :lulz:
You forgot to carry the :?
Quote from: Icey on February 22, 2011, 07:30:58 PM
So, I suppose what this system shows, mediocrity is the least efficient option. Settling, is the least efficient option.
I think it all has to do with perceived values within the spectrum of choices... The incentive to go eat a sandwich will change depending on how full you are, how much money you have, and what other sandwich shops are on the street.
In behavioral psychology terms, this is called "maximizing utility". Choice can be described by the melioration principle.
The melioration principle says that choice is driven, in effect, by a comparison of the average returns from the alternatives.
If every sandwich shop on the block has awful sandwiches, settling is the best option.
Or ordering a Pizza.
Quote from: Cramulus on February 22, 2011, 08:22:32 PM
Quote from: Icey on February 22, 2011, 07:30:58 PM
So, I suppose what this system shows, mediocrity is the least efficient option. Settling, is the least efficient option.
I think it all has to do with perceived values within the spectrum of choices... The incentive to go eat a sandwich will change depending on how full you are, how much money you have, and what other sandwich shops are on the street.
In behavioral psychology terms, this is called "maximizing utility". Choice can be described by the melioration principle.
The melioration principle says that choice is driven, in effect, by a comparison of the average returns from the alternatives.
If every sandwich shop on the block has awful sandwiches, settling is the best option.
Bullshit. The best option is to go over a block. Never settle for awful. Hell, forget that, never settle!
Quote from: Khara on February 22, 2011, 08:24:41 PM
Never settle for awful. Hell, forget that, never settle!
This. This is something I'm working on, these days.
Order a pizza. Go for Chinese. If the sandwich sucks, try something different.
Quote from: Khara on February 22, 2011, 08:24:41 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on February 22, 2011, 08:22:32 PM
Quote from: Icey on February 22, 2011, 07:30:58 PM
So, I suppose what this system shows, mediocrity is the least efficient option. Settling, is the least efficient option.
I think it all has to do with perceived values within the spectrum of choices... The incentive to go eat a sandwich will change depending on how full you are, how much money you have, and what other sandwich shops are on the street.
In behavioral psychology terms, this is called "maximizing utility". Choice can be described by the melioration principle.
The melioration principle says that choice is driven, in effect, by a comparison of the average returns from the alternatives.
If every sandwich shop on the block has awful sandwiches, settling is the best option.
Bullshit. The best option is to go over a block. Never settle for awful. Hell, forget that, never settle!
This, I believe, explains my point. To not settle. I believe my "theorem" was filled with too much fluff, and it was my folly to put such a defenseless lamb to your peoples slaughter. Thanks for the input though!
Quote from: Icey on February 22, 2011, 08:45:09 PM
Quote from: Khara on February 22, 2011, 08:24:41 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on February 22, 2011, 08:22:32 PM
Quote from: Icey on February 22, 2011, 07:30:58 PM
So, I suppose what this system shows, mediocrity is the least efficient option. Settling, is the least efficient option.
I think it all has to do with perceived values within the spectrum of choices... The incentive to go eat a sandwich will change depending on how full you are, how much money you have, and what other sandwich shops are on the street.
In behavioral psychology terms, this is called "maximizing utility". Choice can be described by the melioration principle.
The melioration principle says that choice is driven, in effect, by a comparison of the average returns from the alternatives.
If every sandwich shop on the block has awful sandwiches, settling is the best option.
Bullshit. The best option is to go over a block. Never settle for awful. Hell, forget that, never settle!
This, I believe, explains my point. To not settle. I believe my "theorem" was filled with too much fluff, and it was my folly to put such a defenseless lamb to your peoples slaughter. Thanks for the input though!
Don't think of it as slaughter, Icey, think of it as a loving dissection.
On the other hand... It's not such a bad word. Slaughtering a lamb can be downright tasty, and if we took something away from it, even if it wasn't what you intended, was it a bad thing?
related: http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_choice.html
Psychologist Barry Schwartz takes aim at a central tenet of western societies: freedom of choice. In Schwartz's estimation, choice has made us not freer but more paralyzed, not happier but more dissatisfied.
Schwart's prime example is that in the old days, if you were buying, say, salad dressings, you had like three options. But you go to the supermarket now, you have 20+ options. Do the additional options allow us to make a more satisfying decision? Barry says maybe, but more likely it makes you less satisfied because you're constantly second guessing yourself. His conclusion is that it's okay to settle.
if you are unahppy with your sammich bring your own lunch, or ask me to make it.
pixie- queen of awesome sammich.
i thought this thread was going to be about limits (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squeeze_theorem)
The wise spag doesn't figure the total value of happiness in a sandwich, as there are too many sandwiches, and not enough time to evaluate them all. Therefore, happiness cannot be found in the evaluation of sandwiches, only in the eating of sandwiches. So long as the sandwich is the appropriate sandwich for your particular situation, then it is the right sandwich, and should bring you happiness.
Better yet, ask yourself: What is happiness, and do I need a sandwich to attain it?
Yes, so gimme one!
Quote from: Cramulus on February 22, 2011, 08:54:23 PM
related: http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_choice.html
Psychologist Barry Schwartz takes aim at a central tenet of western societies: freedom of choice. In Schwartz's estimation, choice has made us not freer but more paralyzed, not happier but more dissatisfied.
Schwart's prime example is that in the old days, if you were buying, say, salad dressings, you had like three options. But you go to the supermarket now, you have 20+ options. Do the additional options allow us to make a more satisfying decision? Barry says maybe, but more likely it makes you less satisfied because you're constantly second guessing yourself. His conclusion is that it's okay to settle.
Does Schwartz account for most of those choices being essentially the same choice with minor cosmetic changes? Because, honestly, most of everything tastes pretty much the same, within a certain price range. And being confronted with 20+ "choices" of similarly priced, similarly tasting goods, I would also be paralyzed and dissatisfied, because apparently the food industry thinks everyone is an idiot and it is working.
Yeah, he does. It touches on a Malcom Gladwell TED talk (http://www.ted.com/.../malcolm_gladwell_on_spaghetti_sauce.html) in which he discusses spaghetti sauce.
Gladwell talks about how there used to be basically one brand of tomato sauce, ragu. In the 80s, all sorts of tomato sauce companies were competing to replace Ragu. What the companies eventually discovered was that they didn't need to search for the perfect sauce. They had to search for the perfect sauces. --- Market audiences aren't homogenous.. it turns out there are several "bests" which represent ways to divide up the consumer population. Some people like chunky sauce, some people like meaty sauce, some people like that puree liquid sauce. The trick to dominating the market is not to perfect one type of sauce, it's to hit all three of those points.
So fast forward to 2011, we've basically got a lot of redundant products. Schwartz points out that the real difference (in terms of satisfaction) between these products is often negligible. There are certain decisions on which you should never "settle" -- ie choosing a mate -- but the vast majority of our consumer related choices are nearly indistinguishable in terms of satisfaction. So don't sweat whether you should have bought the "boot cut" or "slim fit" jeans.
I think that the whole reason that those different subdivisions of jeans exist is due to the nature of focus groups and market research. When you run a focus group, you keep asking people detailed information about the perceived differences between two products --- until you've reified that those products are in fact different. Every time I go to a focus group I find myself sipping two nearly indistinguishable cups of orange juice, and then am asked to talk for a minute or two about the differences. After your 8th or 9th comparison, you really start stretching, pushing your orange juice vocabulary to its limit.
Eventually, though, those divisions become entrenched.
Try slipping Pepsi to a Coke drinker.
There's also a sort of resigned fatigue when you're faced with 20 versions of "not quite". To use the spaghetti sauce example, I know what I want in a sauce -- A fresh Pomodoro with plenty of garlic and basil, maybe a bit of toasted fennel (to upset the purists), some melted anchovy at the beginning to deepen the flavor -- But I know that's not what I'm going to get when I walk down the aisle at the FoodMart. So, I have to downgrade my expectations from the get go... I'm settling before I even walk into the store.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 23, 2011, 02:55:18 PM
There's also a sort of resigned fatigue when you're faced with 20 versions of "not quite". To use the spaghetti sauce example, I know what I want in a sauce -- A fresh Pomodoro with plenty of garlic and basil, maybe a bit of toasted fennel (to upset the purists), some melted anchovy at the beginning to deepen the flavor -- But I know that's not what I'm going to get when I walk down the aisle at the FoodMart. So, I have to downgrade my expectations from the get go... I'm settling before I even walk into the storewalk out the door.
Fixed that for you :wink:
Reverse the unhappy of a bad sandwich by taking it apart and smearing the offending material all over the place, causing the bad sandwich maker to catch hell from whoever has to clean the table.
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 23, 2011, 04:49:19 PM
Reverse the unhappy of a bad sandwich by taking it apart and smearing the offending material all over the place, causing the bad sandwich maker to catch hell from whoever has to clean the table.
TITCM
that's a totally douche move
Quote from: Cramulus on February 22, 2011, 08:22:32 PM
If every sandwich shop on the block has awful sandwiches, settling is the best option.
The difference with this and the Schwartz examples is that in the examples Schwartz gives you are settling for something that is good (or at least mediocre) where as in your example you are settling for something bad.
Also, I seem to remember an article I read a couple of years ago that said when you have to make a decision between two or three things that you like (eg you've looked at the menu and now can't decide between the pasta and the steak), the best thing to do is just pick one, because if you agonise about it you will become unhappy and regret your decision. This was from a psychology experiment, but I cannot remember the name of the psychologist, or where I read it.