5 ms·
This analysis misses a very important point - Marsha benefits from John lifting the seat since this avoids it getting dirty (assuming they take turns using the
by omonra 14y ago
This analysis misses a very important point - Marsha benefits from John lifting the seat since this avoids it getting dirty
(assuming they take turns using the toilet and John is not a very accurate shooter).
Moreover, John is probably going to perform #1 more frequently then #2 - by a factor of 3-4? Thus, we can further stipulate that his default state should be 'seat up' and ask whether Marsha should be made to lift the seat up after she is done.
- aidenn0 14y agoI think you need to reread the article: 1) The analysis assumes that John ensures the seat is in the up position before #1; if the seat is up he pays cost 0 and if it is down he pays cost C. Furthermore if John performes #1 with the seat down, the question of the final position of the seat is moot compared to the question of "why is John gross?" 2) The article takes the probability p of #1 for John. It notes that if p < 1/2 then Marsha's strategy is actually good, but this is clearly not the case
- omonra 14y ago"Furthermore if John performes #1 with the seat down, the question of the final position of the seat is moot compared to the question of "why is John gross?" That's precisely what I am taking issue with - an implicit assumption that lifting of the seat ONLY benefits John and HARMS Marsh. I think it's more appropriate to characterize it as bestowing equal benefit on both parties (clean seat) and equal work as well (John lifts the seat / Marsha puts it down).