The Sandwich Theorem

[Luna]

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.

[Icey]

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!

[Luna]

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?

[Cramulus]

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.

[Pope Pixie Pickle]

if you are unahppy with your sammich bring your own lunch, or ask me to make it.


pixie- queen of awesome sammich.

[rong]

i thought this thread was going to be about limits

[Cuddlefish]

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?

[AFK]

Yes, so gimme one!

[Cain]

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.

[Cramulus]

Yeah, he does. It touches on a Malcom Gladwell TED talk 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.

[Luna]

Eventually, though, those divisions become entrenched.

Try slipping Pepsi to a Coke drinker.

[LMNO]

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. 

[Dysfunctional Cunt]

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   

[Adios]

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.

[Pope Pixie Pickle]

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