3 ms·
Not necessarily. In this case, OP values the commute more. What if it's a tossup between a 10 minute commute with no backyard and 25 minute commute with a backy
by hoorayimhelping 11y ago
Not necessarily. In this case, OP values the commute more. What if it's a tossup between a 10 minute commute with no backyard and 25 minute commute with a backyard with two trees to put a hammock on. Maybe in that case, OP would take a longer commute to get a shady backyard.
I think that's why the logic is fallacious - it only works for a specific question phrased in a specific way.
- bweitzman 11y agoWell I suppose the issue is muddled because having a pool is a binary thing where as commute time is not. That makes them hard to rank. Suppose instead of just saying that you're choosing between a house with no pool but a short commute over a house with a pool and a long commute you try to rank your priorities: 1. Pool 2. Commute < 1.5 h (choosing an arbitrary cutoff to turn this constraint into a binary one) Now if the pool is really the most important thing to you, then you will have to forfeit the < 1.5 h commute no matter how long it is. If you decided to forgo the pool for a shorter commute, then that is sort of exposing a hidden priority, it would look something more like 1. Commute < 2 h 2. Pool 3. Commute < 1.5 h The point being that if we haven't fulfilled a certain priority, then it cannot be the most important priority. At least in this binary priority model, there are of course other ways you could lay this out. I just don't think it's fair to call the logic "frighteningly fallacious"