(I need to defend the sad and the annoying in two separate parts)
Yes, and but sometimes that is already annoying on its own (Bob is not perfectly rational and sometimes he just really want the quality headphone, but now math tells Bob that Tim gifting him that headphone means he would have to wait e.g. ~2 years before it is worth buying a new one). Of course Bob can improve his life in other ways with his saved money, but still, would be nice if you can just ask Tim to buy something else if you had known.
Sometimes increasing sum(projects) does not translate directly to increasing utility. This is more obvious in real life scenarios where actors are less rational and time is a real concept. The sad thing happens when someone with good intention but with poor skill (and you don’t know they are that bad) signing up to a time-critical project and failing/doing sub-par
Seems like the problem is that in real life people are not perfectly rational, and also they have an instinct to reciprocate when they receive a gift (at least by saying “thank you” and not throwing the gift away).
In a world where Bob is perfectly rational and Tim has zero expectations about his gift, the situation is simple. Previously, Bob’s choices were “spend $300 on good headphone”, “spend $100 on bad headphone and $200 on something else”, and “spend $300 on something else”. Tim’s action replaced the last two options with a superior alternative “use Tim’s headphone and spend $300 on something else”. Bob’s options were not made worse.
But real people are not utility maximizers. We instinctively try to choose a locally better option, and how we feel about it depends on what we perceive as the baseline. Given the choice between 10 utilons and 3 utilons, we choose 10 and feel like we just “gained 7 utilons”. Given the choice between 10 utilons and 9 utilons, we choose 10 again, but this time we feel like we just “gained 1 utilon”. Given the choice between 10 utilons and 10 utilons of a different flavor, we might feel annoyed about having to choose.
Also, if Tim expects Bob to reciprocate in a certain way, the new options are not strictly better, because “spend $300 on good headphone” got replaced by “spend $300 on good headphone, but owe Tim a favor for giving me the $100 headphone I didn’t use”.
There are infinite things to be sad and annoyed by, should you choose to focus on those. :) I’d rather focus on the world as a whole being made better in your examples.
In both cases one particular project was harmed but the sum total of projects was helped.
(I need to defend the sad and the annoying in two separate parts)
Yes, and but sometimes that is already annoying on its own (Bob is not perfectly rational and sometimes he just really want the quality headphone, but now math tells Bob that Tim gifting him that headphone means he would have to wait e.g. ~2 years before it is worth buying a new one). Of course Bob can improve his life in other ways with his saved money, but still, would be nice if you can just ask Tim to buy something else if you had known.
Sometimes increasing sum(projects) does not translate directly to increasing utility. This is more obvious in real life scenarios where actors are less rational and time is a real concept. The sad thing happens when someone with good intention but with poor skill (and you don’t know they are that bad) signing up to a time-critical project and failing/doing sub-par
Seems like the problem is that in real life people are not perfectly rational, and also they have an instinct to reciprocate when they receive a gift (at least by saying “thank you” and not throwing the gift away).
In a world where Bob is perfectly rational and Tim has zero expectations about his gift, the situation is simple. Previously, Bob’s choices were “spend $300 on good headphone”, “spend $100 on bad headphone and $200 on something else”, and “spend $300 on something else”. Tim’s action replaced the last two options with a superior alternative “use Tim’s headphone and spend $300 on something else”. Bob’s options were not made worse.
But real people are not utility maximizers. We instinctively try to choose a locally better option, and how we feel about it depends on what we perceive as the baseline. Given the choice between 10 utilons and 3 utilons, we choose 10 and feel like we just “gained 7 utilons”. Given the choice between 10 utilons and 9 utilons, we choose 10 again, but this time we feel like we just “gained 1 utilon”. Given the choice between 10 utilons and 10 utilons of a different flavor, we might feel annoyed about having to choose.
Also, if Tim expects Bob to reciprocate in a certain way, the new options are not strictly better, because “spend $300 on good headphone” got replaced by “spend $300 on good headphone, but owe Tim a favor for giving me the $100 headphone I didn’t use”.
Yes!
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/dRTj2q4n8nmv46Xok/cost-not-sacrifice?commentId=zQPw7tnLzDysRcdQv
There are infinite things to be sad and annoyed by, should you choose to focus on those. :) I’d rather focus on the world as a whole being made better in your examples.