4 ms·
Your definition of what is "good for them" is different than mine. Efficiency is less important to me than feeling good, though those items are often related.
by diN0bot 16y ago
Your definition of what is "good for them" is different than mine. Efficiency is less important to me than feeling good, though those items are often related.
- derefr 16y agoMy definition of what is "good for you" is whatever optimizes your utility function—what you consciously, rationally like, for whatever reasons you like it. This is a multidimensional quality: feeling good is highly weighted in your personal utility function, for example. However, the quantity users report on user-satisfaction surveys—"which is better, in your opinion"—is basically whatever your subconscious heuristics tell you is better. If you were consciously presented with the choice before your brain had become entrained to either alternative, you would perhaps respond differently. People don't "like" things that are unfamiliar, even if they have more benefits, and could normally be convinced of this—this is why people react negatively every time Facebook changes its UI, and why New Coke would only have worked if there had never been a Classic Coke to compare it to. People "like" addictive drugs, fatty foods, etc., even when they know that these will decrease their net happiness over time.