The Sandwich Theorem

[Icey]

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.

[LMNO]

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.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Except that he's bought lunch 5 times in an hour, which should make him about -4 happiness, due to wallet-hemmoraging.

[LMNO]

That's pretty much where I was going, with a smaller amount of unhappiness attached.

[Dysfunctional Cunt]

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....

[Dysfunctional Cunt]

 

Dammit y'all type faster.

[LMNO]

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)

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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. 

[AFK]

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.  

[AFK]

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.

[LMNO]

It could very easily be the emoticon theory...



Where   +   =  
and   +   +   =  

[AFK]

You forgot to carry the 

[Cramulus]

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.

[AFK]

Or ordering a Pizza. 

[Dysfunctional Cunt]

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!