This reminds me of the following critique on what would be called by The New Republic "Cute-o-Nomics" -- the idea of using economics to answer trivial, but amusing questions (although, in this situation, only the subject and cheekyness of the writing really qualifies).
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=v6SQ0ZfMvgDefMZaRQ0gQS%3D%3D They didn't really factor in a few things that under the "seat-up" position, add to costs against Marsha that John will be less likely to face -- e.g., sitting down on a 'wet' raised seat, especially after you stumble into the bathroom in the dark. Nothing says 'HELLO!' quite like a cold seatless toilet on a bare rear end. Though, I'm firmly in agreement with others -- why is it that guys can't just make the freakin bowl when they urinate? Is it that hard? Carey On 6/4/07, Deepa Mohan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/4/07, Rishab Aiyer Ghosh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > summary: it is inefficient as a social norm, but perfect equilibrium, > once the cost of women yelling at men who leave the seat up is modelled. > > http://www.scq.ubc.ca/the-social-norm-of-leaving-the-toilet-seat-down-a-game-theoretic-analysis/ > oh, my goodness, how do these scientific types write all that with a straight face?...probably their faces WERE a little flushed... I am sorry but I just could NOT read through that! Deepa. On 6/4/07, Rishab Aiyer Ghosh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > summary: it is inefficient as a social norm, but perfect equilibrium, > once the cost of women yelling at men who leave the seat up is modelled. > > http://www.scq.ubc.ca/the-social-norm-of-leaving-the-toilet-seat-down-a-game-theoretic-analysis/ > > > >
