3 ms·

Like everything in this piece, this example seems to overlook major aspects of human experience and preference in its rush to draw smug “one little trick” concl

by alwa 2y ago

Like everything in this piece, this example seems to overlook major aspects of human experience and preference in its rush to draw smug “one little trick” conclusions. Independently of cost and space considerations, why would you want such a ”system” as this dual-dishwasher setup? I take aesthetic pleasure in unloading the machine in the morning and restoring my cabinets to a condition of full, orderly, clean stock. My relationship with the machine is as a tool that transitions items from dirty to clean, and it’s aesthetically displeasing to mix those purposes with the ordered, dry, clean cabinets. Those are places where you know you’ll always grab a clean item without having to check a post-it note first. I take pleasure in owning the right cutlery and servingware for a wide variety of food and situations, and in using the correct subset for the correct occasion. The idea that I would use everything from the Clean Washer every time I fill the Dirty Washer utterly confuses and repulses me. This, like essentially all of this person’s examples, reminds me of this Chesterton’s Fence kind of thing the rationalist types get on about: if a bunch of people are doing a thing, take the time to ask why before you assume your One Bright Trick is something new under the sun.

FredPret 2y ago
Eating from a plate straight out of the dishwasher is something 19 y.o. me would have done, if I had a dishwasher. That plate needs a resting period first.
authorfly 2y ago
I totally agree. Generally if there is some inefficiency or imbalance on paper because of human perception according to Rory, the actual reality is that there are other costs that humans from other perspectives consider which cause the imbalance in aggregate (e.g. the dual dishwasher space usage or the "south london is cheaper because it is not on the tube map despite their being overground trains into central london"). I tried to apply some of Rory's advice to a real product - basically, some combination of "give a longer wait time than the actual time for better experience / improve the experience of the euro tunnel by putting Wifi on it for $1m rather than spending $100m making it faster" (I know the real sums were much bigger).. and the idea of "live in the South of London because it's not on the Tube map so the prices are much cheaper yet the travel distance is the same!" The result? Sales dropped when we gave a longer wait time, which was not compensated by repeat business. I lived in a place in South London. Without night transport options, I couldn't stay out on a night out without forking over crazy money for Taxis. And the other major thing I noticed? Not a single woman I met in that time had any interest in coming back to my place, in the part of London she didn't know, without many options to Uber back to her place if she wanted etc. The only person I met in this time when I was single yet on paper successful took me back to their place. I couldn't figure it out but I felt dissatisfied. I moved then to a much more central place (yet the same cost) and started a casual relationship within a couple of months of being there. Trust me when I say, everybody generally preferred parties and hanging out at a place on the Tube. I suppose I love Rorys ideas and they captivate me, the comparisons with nature are great. But the content is as much advertising as it is about the psychology of advertising and human tricks. The problem is Rory doesn't consider that for a young man you might want to be able to get night transport or that a young woman you meet might prioritize safety and familiarity, wanting to know the area better, be closer to their home and have transport options. A place away from Tube Stations also by virtue of it's costs is more of an honest signal that you don't have the money to live in central/"tube" London if you wanted to. As a young man, if I had realized that, I obviously should have lived like my peers a few tube stops away or in a nice house several towns away. So basically deviating from the social peer norm generally has costs. It's easy to point out one trick benefits but you miss out on what you don't observe.

by alwa 2y ago

FredPret 2y ago

Eating from a plate straight out of the dishwasher is something 19 y.o. me would have done, if I had a dishwasher. That plate needs a resting period first.

authorfly 2y ago

I totally agree. Generally if there is some inefficiency or imbalance on paper because of human perception according to Rory, the actual reality is that there are other costs that humans from other perspectives consider which cause the imbalance in aggregate (e.g. the dual dishwasher space usage or the "south london is cheaper because it is not on the tube map despite their being overground trains into central london"). I tried to apply some of Rory's advice to a real product - basically, some combination of "give a longer wait time than the actual time for better experience / improve the experience of the euro tunnel by putting Wifi on it for $1m rather than spending $100m making it faster" (I know the real sums were much bigger).. and the idea of "live in the South of London because it's not on the Tube map so the prices are much cheaper yet the travel distance is the same!" The result? Sales dropped when we gave a longer wait time, which was not compensated by repeat business. I lived in a place in South London. Without night transport options, I couldn't stay out on a night out without forking over crazy money for Taxis. And the other major thing I noticed? Not a single woman I met in that time had any interest in coming back to my place, in the part of London she didn't know, without many options to Uber back to her place if she wanted etc. The only person I met in this time when I was single yet on paper successful took me back to their place. I couldn't figure it out but I felt dissatisfied. I moved then to a much more central place (yet the same cost) and started a casual relationship within a couple of months of being there. Trust me when I say, everybody generally preferred parties and hanging out at a place on the Tube. I suppose I love Rorys ideas and they captivate me, the comparisons with nature are great. But the content is as much advertising as it is about the psychology of advertising and human tricks. The problem is Rory doesn't consider that for a young man you might want to be able to get night transport or that a young woman you meet might prioritize safety and familiarity, wanting to know the area better, be closer to their home and have transport options. A place away from Tube Stations also by virtue of it's costs is more of an honest signal that you don't have the money to live in central/"tube" London if you wanted to. As a young man, if I had realized that, I obviously should have lived like my peers a few tube stops away or in a nice house several towns away. So basically deviating from the social peer norm generally has costs. It's easy to point out one trick benefits but you miss out on what you don't observe.