Author |
Topic: Economics of love/marriage/sex (Read 15133 times) |
|
Benny
Uberpuzzler
Gender: 
Posts: 1024
|
 |
Re: Economics: Erratic wisdom
« Reply #25 on: Jun 27th, 2009, 10:32pm » |
 Quote  Modify
|
on Jun 26th, 2009, 2:19pm, towr wrote:
In retrospect, do you consider that to have been a good investment of your time, or would making a different allocation of that scarce resource have been a more rational choice?
|
|
It was not a total waste of my time. I did learn few things. The movie "Sex and the City" portray the worst stereotypes of single career women ... it downsizes the idea of women to just sex money and work.
'impressing a woman' is a concept that must be used with care, because it sends the wrong messages, and usually it produces the opposite effect.
|
|
 IP Logged |
If we want to understand our world — or how to change it — we must first understand the rational choices that shape it.
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: Economics: Erratic wisdom
« Reply #26 on: Jun 28th, 2009, 7:13am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jun 25th, 2009, 3:46pm, BenVitale wrote:| That's a quote from the movie War Games? |
|
Well, the hidden text certainly isn't. But "the only way winning move is not to play" might well be.
Quote:Yes, I have.
You'd hope nuclear weapons would be better secured though. It's a decidedly bad idea to give a computer launch authorization in the first place.
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
rmsgrey
Uberpuzzler
    
Gender:
Posts: 2872
|
|
Re: Economics: Erratic wisdom
« Reply #27 on: Jun 28th, 2009, 9:26am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jun 28th, 2009, 7:13am, towr wrote:| Well, the hidden text certainly isn't. But "the only way winning move is not to play" might well be. |
|
Wikiquote quotes Joshua as saying "A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?"
Quote:Yes, I have.
You'd hope nuclear weapons would be better secured though. It's a decidedly bad idea to give a computer launch authorization in the first place. |
|
To what or whom would you give responsibility for executing the President's launch order? Part of the premise of the film was that local personnel in the silos were failing to launch in simulated nuclear exchanges - and in a real nuclear exchange, the computer would have been responsible for deciding which nukes get launched at which targets anyway (with high-level strategic input from the Joint Chiefs).
Giving the computer the capability to enter the authorization codes into itself through a brute-force search was seriously dodgy design, but for the rest, it seems like as reasonable a solution as any...
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: Economics: Erratic wisdom
« Reply #28 on: Jun 28th, 2009, 12:20pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jun 28th, 2009, 9:26am, rmsgrey wrote:| To what or whom would you give responsibility for executing the President's launch order? |
|
Someone/something that can share some of the responsibility. I'm not fond of the idea where any one person or thing can by him or her or itself decide to kill millions upon millions of people.
Quote:| Part of the premise of the film was that local personnel in the silos were failing to launch in simulated nuclear exchanges |
|
Seems like a good idea. There isn't any good reason to launch a counter-attack in an all-out nuclear war; it only make sense to threaten you will, so as to deter the other party from starting one. But once it's started, well, you've already lost, and you gain nothing by ensuring the other person also loses. In fact you merely diminish the chances of the human race to survive.
Quote:| Giving the computer the capability to enter the authorization codes into itself through a brute-force search was seriously dodgy design, but for the rest, it seems like as reasonable a solution as any... |
|
Removing every means to double-check, and handing over every shred of control, doesn't seem like a very good idea to me.
The problem wasn't just that Joshua was brute-forcing the launch codes, but that he wasn't responding to his human masters anymore. You would have had the same problem if there had appeared to be a real threat and the president had given him the launch codes, and then minutes later after finding out the threat wasn't real after all tried to rescind the launch orders.
You need procedures in place to keep control of the situation. Someway to shut Joshua down would have been a very good idea, for example. That would have avoided the whole situation.
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
rmsgrey
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 2872
|
|
Re: Economics: Erratic wisdom
« Reply #29 on: Jun 29th, 2009, 6:07am » |
Quote Modify
|
The problem with introducing checks on the system is that it increases the number of ways to cripple your response capability - and makes it harder to respond quickly to an enemy strike...
Also, by introducing abort/final confirmation/whatever, you're not eliminating the point of no return - you're postponing it, making it psychologically easier to pass the old point of no return - depending on the nature of the new point of no return, it may also be easier to allow that to pass...
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: Economics: Erratic wisdom
« Reply #30 on: Jun 29th, 2009, 7:30am » |
Quote Modify
|
The point of no return should be when the nukes go off. At any time before you should be able to prevent them from detonating, and if they haven't launched yet prevent them from launching.
And I don't see a problem with crippling your response capability because, as I said, there's no point to it anyway. The only problem is your enemy thinking it is crippled, but that's just as true if it isn't.
The less checks there are, the more likely something will go wrong when you don't want it (which is most of the time), and the more likely that unauthorized people can breach security measures (since they're mostly absent).
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
Benny
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 1024
|
|
Re: Economics: Erratic wisdom
« Reply #31 on: Jun 29th, 2009, 9:16am » |
Quote Modify
|
Do you, guys, play video games?
Me?
I do. I'm on Second Life.
I'm not surprised to find out that despite economic downturn video game sales hit record ... the industry is doing well.
I wanted to find out why women in general don't like video games.
I read this document: Why Do Men Like Video Games So Much?
it’s all about their urge to conquer and vanquish.
I was surprised to find out : 72% prefer gaming to girlfriends
|
|
IP Logged |
If we want to understand our world — or how to change it — we must first understand the rational choices that shape it.
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: Economics: Erratic wisdom
« Reply #32 on: Jun 29th, 2009, 12:39pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jun 29th, 2009, 9:16am, BenVitale wrote:| I wanted to find out why women in general don't like video games. |
|
Try playing the sims and say that.
Quote:And yet, that's not what all games are about. What are you conquering and vanquishing in second life?
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
Benny
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 1024
|
|
Re: Economics: Erratic wisdom
« Reply #33 on: Jun 29th, 2009, 12:54pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Second Life is different, though ... it's not like the traditional computer game. It's more about socializing ... I build objects, partecipate in events, I belong to groups ... and I go there to communicate in French and Italian, too.
Are u there in Second Life?
The name of my avatar is "Archimedes Tigerfish"
|
|
IP Logged |
If we want to understand our world — or how to change it — we must first understand the rational choices that shape it.
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: Economics: Erratic wisdom
« Reply #34 on: Jun 29th, 2009, 1:05pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jun 29th, 2009, 12:54pm, BenVitale wrote:| Second Life is different, though ... it's not like the traditional computer game. |
|
Many computer games aren't; or weren't. Once upon a time first-person shooters weren't like traditional computer games; not until everyone started copying wolfenstein. What is "the traditional computer game"? Pong? Pacman? Asteroids?
Quote:| It's more about socializing ... I build objects, partecipate in events, I belong to groups ... and I go there to communicate in French and Italian, too. |
|
How's the male to female ratio?
Quote:| Are u there in Second Life? |
|
No. I don't play any multi-player games at the moment. The last one I played was Ragnarok Online.
|
| « Last Edit: Jun 29th, 2009, 1:06pm by towr » |
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
Benny
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 1024
|
|
Re: Economics: Erratic wisdom
« Reply #35 on: Jun 29th, 2009, 1:20pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I think it's hard to tell, because a gamer could have more than one avatar of the two sexes ... a good friend of mine who is also a classmate has 3 avatars (1 female avatar, 2 male avatars) ... for the time being I have only one avatar, and I also partecipate in economics social experiments ...
According to this site: Key Second Life Statistics
The male/female split is close to even -57 to 43%
And if you're interested to read : Virtual world experimentation: An exploratory study
Click link:
http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/~lizecon/RePEc/pdf/21.pdf
|
|
IP Logged |
If we want to understand our world — or how to change it — we must first understand the rational choices that shape it.
|
|
|
Benny
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 1024
|
|
Re: Economics: Erratic wisdom
« Reply #36 on: Jun 29th, 2009, 2:28pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I've just read an interesting article that I wish to share with this community:
some male animals economize on courting when the chance of success seems low
Even the birds are economists
Quote:
"Economic decisions of this sort are likely adaptive because males would not incur large costs on investments yielding low returns," he said. "Now the question is how, exactly, a male bird determines the fertility status of potential partners."
|
|
Yes, I would like to know : how does a male bird determine the fertility status of a female bird?
|
| « Last Edit: Jun 30th, 2009, 3:55pm by Benny » |
IP Logged |
If we want to understand our world — or how to change it — we must first understand the rational choices that shape it.
|
|
|
Benny
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 1024
|
|
Re: Economics: Erratic wisdom
« Reply #37 on: Jun 30th, 2009, 4:05pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I'm back in Tim Harford's book. I'm still in chapter 3 ... there are 3 concepts that I want to share with you:
(1) The law of one price (applied to relationships), and
(2) bargaining power in relationships
(3) The Alchian-Allen theorem.
I'll start with the Alchian-Allen theorem.
Alchian-Allen theorem applies to any long-distance relationship, aka “shipping the good apples out” theorem
Quote:
Suppose, for example, that high-grade coffee beans are $3/pound and low-grade beans $1.50/pound. Then high-grade beans cost twice as much as low-grade. But now add on a per-pound international shipping cost of $1. Now the effective prices are $4 and $2.50, so that high-grade beans cost only 1.6 times as much as low-grade. This difference will induce distant coffee-buyers to choose a higher ratio of high-to-low grade beans than local coffee-buyers.
|
|
It states that when the prices of two substitute goods, such as high and low grades of the same product, are both increased by a fixed per-unit amount such as a transportation cost or a lump-sum tax, consumption will shift toward the higher-grade product.
In the FT.com
The theorem, briefly, implies that Australians drink higher-quality Californian wine than Californians, because it is only worth the transportation costs for the most expensive wine.
Similarly, there is no point in travelling to see your boyfriend (or girlfriend) for a take-away Chinese meal and an evening in front of the TV. To justify the trip’s fixed costs, you will require a nice (expensive) wine, homecooked meal, sparkling conversation and energetic sex. Insist on it.
Meanwhile, optimal-experimentation theory suggests that at this tender stage of life you are highly likely to meet someone even better. Socialize a lot while your boyfriend (or girlfriend) is not around.
|
| « Last Edit: Jun 30th, 2009, 4:07pm by Benny » |
IP Logged |
If we want to understand our world — or how to change it — we must first understand the rational choices that shape it.
|
|
|
pex
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 880
|
|
Re: Economics: Erratic wisdom
« Reply #38 on: Jun 30th, 2009, 4:19pm » |
Quote Modify
|
If you feel that "there is no point in travelling to see your boyfriend (or girlfriend) for a take-away Chinese meal and an evening in front of the TV", IMHO, you're not much of a girlfriend (or boyfriend).
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Benny
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 1024
|
|
Re: Economics: Erratic wisdom
« Reply #39 on: Jun 30th, 2009, 4:37pm » |
Quote Modify
|
This is how economists speculate. By applying the Alchian-Allen theorem, they claim that long-distance relationships tend to fail because of excess pressure on the relationships (overblown expectations).
There will trade-offs and people involved in this type of situation are more likely to make financial decisions based on emotional benefits, even if they can't necessarily afford it.
|
|
IP Logged |
If we want to understand our world — or how to change it — we must first understand the rational choices that shape it.
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: Economics: Erratic wisdom
« Reply #40 on: Jun 30th, 2009, 11:43pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jun 30th, 2009, 4:19pm, pex wrote:| If you feel that "there is no point in travelling to see your boyfriend (or girlfriend) for a take-away Chinese meal and an evening in front of the TV", IMHO, you're not much of a girlfriend (or boyfriend). |
|
I'd have to agree.
on Jun 30th, 2009, 4:37pm, BenVitale wrote:| This is how economists speculate. |
|
Maybe they should stop that nonsense and do actual research.
Quote:| By applying the Alchian-Allen theorem, they claim that long-distance relationships tend to fail because of excess pressure on the relationships (overblown expectations). |
|
Yeah, I'm sure the lack of regular face to face contact has nothing to do with it 
I think research has shown that quantity of time beats quality in terms of importance.
|
| « Last Edit: Jun 30th, 2009, 11:43pm by towr » |
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
Benny
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 1024
|
|
Re: Economics: Erratic wisdom
« Reply #41 on: Jul 1st, 2009, 10:47am » |
Quote Modify
|
Could I still continue posting on this topic?
Sure. Frequent visits can strengthen a long distance relationship. But, not always.
There are ways people involved in a long-distance relationships can stay in touch ... and they don't have to be expensive: thru email, webcams, Skype
It takes dedication to the detriment of other things.
Then, how long is the distance are we talking?
How frequent are the visits?
What if it is ...
... NYC - Boston.?
... NYC - LA or SF?
Frequent visits may be prompted by irrational fears of infidelity or bouts of separation anxiety. That would put lots of pressure and friction on the relationship.
|
| « Last Edit: Jul 4th, 2009, 10:17am by Benny » |
IP Logged |
If we want to understand our world — or how to change it — we must first understand the rational choices that shape it.
|
|
|
Benny
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 1024
|
|
Re: Economics: Erratic wisdom
« Reply #42 on: Jul 4th, 2009, 10:31am » |
Quote Modify
|
An example of bargaining power in a relationship
The author states that a relationship is just a social situation that involves two players.
Translating into econo-talk:
Relationships have heaps of co-operative advantages and can be used to build specific goods and services.
However, sometimes the surplus in a relationship has to be split between the partners –
creating a situation of conflict. Such a situation is complicated, with things like reputational capital, altrusim, and outside options playing a huge role in determining how the surplus is split.
Consider the couple (A, B), where A is the male and B is the female.
A goes to the gym everyday, he pushes himself to the limit. He's in top shape. He's got an incredibly muscular physique. He had to overhaul his diet ... which embarrassed his wife.
She was happy in the beginning, but was appalled by the way his body changed ... because he made her look bad. She got very annoyed. She thought that a husband's job is to be fat and flabby and make her look fabulous ... and he wasn't living up to her end of the bargain.
She felt threatened by her husband's "outside options."
The better shape a given player in the relationship is – the greater their outside option is. As a result, all other things equal they improve their bargaining position and can receive a greater share of the surplus.
The wife is complaining because of her husband's current buff and sexy figure ... he has increased his bargaining power and thereby hurt her bargaining position!
Question:
- Do you think that most women do consiously think of it this way at all?
The woman does not know she is improving her bargaining position by doing it – she just has to feel that it is the way of things. However, just because the intention isn’t there doesn’t invalidate the end result.
Do you agree?
Could you propose ways/schemes in determining how the surplus could be split?
|
| « Last Edit: Jul 4th, 2009, 10:35am by Benny » |
IP Logged |
If we want to understand our world — or how to change it — we must first understand the rational choices that shape it.
|
|
|
pex
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 880
|
|
Re: Economics: Erratic wisdom
« Reply #43 on: Jul 4th, 2009, 11:11am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jul 4th, 2009, 10:31am, BenVitale wrote:| - Do you think that most women do consiously think of it this way at all? |
|
No. Quite honestly, I don't believe that anyone consciously thinks of it this way at all.
on Jul 4th, 2009, 10:31am, BenVitale wrote:| Could you propose ways/schemes in determining how the surplus could be split? |
|
Could you define what exactly the surplus is here, and why it should be split instead of enjoyed together (if possible)?
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Benny
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 1024
|
|
Re: Economics: Erratic wisdom
« Reply #44 on: Jul 4th, 2009, 11:35am » |
Quote Modify
|
In our story, the husband did undergo an image makeover, thus improving his "outside options" ... the wife felt threatened by that.
Think of the cakecutting problem.
When we generalize this problem, then it is really about how we divide resources fairly between multiple parties. Be aware that the resource may be continuous or discrete. A continuous resource can be cut in any fashion, so that the ratio between portions can have any positive value. A discrete resource comes in indivisible portions, so that the ratio between portions is always a rational number.
The couple (A,B).
A may improve his looks, dress better, have a better job, get a promotion, enlarge his network of friends, or whatever else ... whereas B doesn't do as well. So, in this model, A has a surplus, B feels threatened
|
| « Last Edit: Jul 4th, 2009, 11:45am by Benny » |
IP Logged |
If we want to understand our world — or how to change it — we must first understand the rational choices that shape it.
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: Economics: Erratic wisdom
« Reply #45 on: Jul 4th, 2009, 11:37am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jul 4th, 2009, 11:11am, pex wrote:| No. Quite honestly, I don't believe that anyone consciously thinks of it this way at all. |
|
And at most a few do so unconsciously.
Besides, if the man has increased his market position, shouldn't the woman be happy she has a better catch? Clearly, if she's an economically minded person, she would want to get the best catch on the market she could get; and because of his self-improvement streak she managed to get a catch above her own market position. Clearly, as an economic rational agent, this can't possibly make her unhappy.
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
pex
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 880
|
|
Re: Economics: Erratic wisdom
« Reply #46 on: Jul 4th, 2009, 11:41am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jul 4th, 2009, 11:37am, towr wrote:| And at most a few do so unconsciously. |
|
I agree.
on Jul 4th, 2009, 11:35am, BenVitale wrote:| In our story, the husband did undergo an image makeover, thus improving his "outside options" ... the wife felt threatened by that. |
|
I still don't see what sort of "surplus" you're trying to split. Is it a negative surplus in the form of the wife's feelings? If yes, how would you recommend splitting it?
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Benny
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 1024
|
|
Re: Economics: Erratic wisdom
« Reply #47 on: Jul 4th, 2009, 11:54am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jul 4th, 2009, 11:41am, pex wrote:
I still don't see what sort of "surplus" you're trying to split. Is it a negative surplus in the form of the wife's feelings? |
|
Surplus can be tangible goods or intangible goods.
A higher salary, promotions, ...
a wider network of people, thus making him more desirable by other women ... other women will think he's hot ... he might get tempted to fall for other women, or have an intimate relationships with other women.
Quote:
If yes, how would you recommend splitting it? |
|
It should be easier to explain this to couples if they read and study game theory.
|
| « Last Edit: Jul 4th, 2009, 11:54am by Benny » |
IP Logged |
If we want to understand our world — or how to change it — we must first understand the rational choices that shape it.
|
|
|
Benny
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 1024
|
|
Re: Economics: Erratic wisdom
« Reply #48 on: Jul 4th, 2009, 12:33pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Quote:
It should be easier to explain this to couples if they read and study game theory |
|
I take it back ... this is not realistic enough ... it may look okay on paper.
I've tried to explain this to my girlfriend ... she is not impressed with this stuff.
|
|
IP Logged |
If we want to understand our world — or how to change it — we must first understand the rational choices that shape it.
|
|
|
pex
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 880
|
|
Re: Economics: Erratic wisdom
« Reply #49 on: Jul 4th, 2009, 12:34pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jul 4th, 2009, 11:54am, BenVitale wrote:A higher salary, promotions, ...
a wider network of people, thus making him more desirable by other women ... other women will think he's hot ... he might get tempted to fall for other women, or have an intimate relationships with other women. |
|
Aha. I thought you were referring to a surplus that arises from the mere fact that they are a couple (call it synergy, if you like). But I see now that you are talking about a surplus that one of them (or both) enjoys, and that should somehow be split because they are a couple.
In that case, I don't think most couples need (or should need) game theory here - they'll just figure out whatever irrational split they like best. It would be extremely complicated to adequately model such a situation in game-theoretic terms, because so many different factors are of influence, and we would need to assign a "value"/"utility"/whatever number to each of them to reach sensible conclusions.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
RIDDLES SITE
WRITE MATH!
Home 
Help 
Search 
Members 
Login 
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print