... the act of changing lanes, and thereby briefly overtaking the car which up until a moment ago was in front of you, makes you significantly happier than just sitting there like a passive schmuck. Which is why we all do it.
In other words, if you want to understand utility functions, don’t talk to an economist.
It seems like talking to an economist works pretty well here.
If I am executing a poor strategy that doesn't actually help me get my job done any better, I shouldn't be happy about it. Especially if I know what I am doing is ineffective.
If you know that the stay the lane strategy that you are executing is optimal and that the lane switching doesn't help, then you should just stop being so frustrated. The high intensity switching won't get you there faster. Accept it, move on.
I liked my nexus 7 tablet a lot. One day I dropped it, the screen was smashed, and it was useless. I was a tiny bit sad (essentially, I lost $200), but then I just went an ordered another and moved on. Because I knew about the sunk cost fallacy, I could just unemotionally do what was optimal.
You don't get it. The whole point is that the average person is willing to switch the time he might gain from not switching lanes with the happiness he gains from the appearance of progression. The "goal" of saving time on the way to work/home/other has value because people choose to give it value, and when they don't - it becomes meaningless.
I do get it. The people are irrationally pleased by the illusion of progress. Upon learning that their strategy is ineffective, executing the broken strategy should bring them no utility.
No, you obviously don't. The notion of "effectiveness" exists only when there is an agreement on the goal. If my goal is to have fun while driving - then I don't care about the type of "effectiveness" you have in mind, nor should I. And there isn't a single thing you can say to convince me that saving 5 minutes during commute is objectively more important than having fun while driving. This is also why we usually walk from place to place instead of running: walking is slower, but running and getting tired is not very fun: and most people choose fun over speed. People are not computer software, and what's important to us is not defined by god.
This is also why utilitarianism in ethics is ridiculous.
Comments
It seems like talking to an economist works pretty well here.
If I am executing a poor strategy that doesn't actually help me get my job done any better, I shouldn't be happy about it. Especially if I know what I am doing is ineffective.
If you know that the stay the lane strategy that you are executing is optimal and that the lane switching doesn't help, then you should just stop being so frustrated. The high intensity switching won't get you there faster. Accept it, move on.
I liked my nexus 7 tablet a lot. One day I dropped it, the screen was smashed, and it was useless. I was a tiny bit sad (essentially, I lost $200), but then I just went an ordered another and moved on. Because I knew about the sunk cost fallacy, I could just unemotionally do what was optimal.
You don't get it. The whole point is that the average person is willing to switch the time he might gain from not switching lanes with the happiness he gains from the appearance of progression. The "goal" of saving time on the way to work/home/other has value because people choose to give it value, and when they don't - it becomes meaningless.
I do get it. The people are irrationally pleased by the illusion of progress. Upon learning that their strategy is ineffective, executing the broken strategy should bring them no utility.
No, you obviously don't. The notion of "effectiveness" exists only when there is an agreement on the goal. If my goal is to have fun while driving - then I don't care about the type of "effectiveness" you have in mind, nor should I. And there isn't a single thing you can say to convince me that saving 5 minutes during commute is objectively more important than having fun while driving. This is also why we usually walk from place to place instead of running: walking is slower, but running and getting tired is not very fun: and most people choose fun over speed. People are not computer software, and what's important to us is not defined by god.
This is also why utilitarianism in ethics is ridiculous.