4 ms·
Tongue in cheek, but this a good analogy for transaction costs and signaling theory. I drive my wife nuts by keeping my order secret, but eight times out of te
by aristus 10y ago
Tongue in cheek, but this a good analogy for transaction costs and signaling theory.
I drive my wife nuts by keeping my order secret, but eight times out of ten we end up sharing everything. Unless she's eating a whole fried fish in which case I just stare politely like Tom Hanks in Splash.
But damn, people, why let FOMO drive so much angst and gamesmanship at a meal? You're hungry and probably not thinking straight. There's no dishonor in two people ordering the same dish. Just pick something and stick to your guns.
- swimfar 10y agoFOMO=fear of missing out, for anyone else who is wondering.
- ourmandave 10y agoI thought it was F*-Other-Menu-Options.
- hossbeast 10y agoI thought it was For Our Meal Only
- tome 10y agoThanks. I would have needed that explanation last week, but I'm currently experiencing the Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon regarding "FOMO".
- zeristor 10y agoIs this becoming the Inception of explanations? I had to look up Baader_Meinhof Phenomenon. "The illusion in which a word, a name, or other thing that has recently come to one's attention suddenly seems to appear with improbable frequency shortly afterwards (not to be confused with the recency illusion or selection bias). Colloquially, this illusion is known as the Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases#Frequency_illusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases#Frequ...
- triplesec 10y agoIronically, YOLO can also cause this, for somewhat analogous reasons
- jdavis703 10y agoFood isn't just about filling up (especially if you're dining out), but about the taste and experience. Otherwise I'd only eat Soylent [0]. [0] https://www.soylent.com/ https://www.soylent.com/
- YokoZar 10y agoImagine you were ordering for yourself and the restaurant served half portions. Would you really order two copies of the same thing? Diminishing returns in food enjoyment are real, we also enjoy variety for it's own sake. You get less of both when your order contains duplicates. And that's when you know what you're getting -- if you share food, both people ordering the same new dish increases the downside risks dramatically for little upside benefit.
- aristus 10y agoSure. If you crave variety as a standalone good, by all means mix it up. I would probably still ask for two orders of yuca frita as my sides. Hell, I did that last week. :) There's an interesting experiment mentioned in Predictably Irrational that suggests you should simply order your first choice and not worry about other people at the table. There's an odd tendency to favor variety in a restaurant setting, which means the people who order last opt for their second or third choices. That is by definition suboptimial.
- YokoZar 10y agoIt's only suboptimal if "ordering last" is a thing. The article notes a better strategy of reaching consensus before ordering, and then ordering all the items together. That way by placing an order first you don't implicitly force someone who is ordering later (and sharing with you) to mitigate risks by picking a second favorite.
- shostack 10y agoThis. I wish every restaurant served small plates/samplers. I consider myself somewhat of a foodie and can be a bit ADD with wanting to try all the things. So wherever we go to dinner I'm always trying to get things we can fully share.
- drjesusphd 10y agoTip: most restaurants in the US will serve a half portion at 75% price.