My daughter Eliza, who is four-and-a-bit, is starting to help around the house. I’m proud that she, without being asked, removes the depleted toilet paper roll from the holder and fits on a fresh replacement before either throwing the old cardboard tube in the bin or, more likely, using it as a didgeridoo or decorating it with stickers.
I’m particularly proud because someone in the building where I work isn’t capable of doing this, and they’re all growed up.
Almost Empty. Photo by Eastwood/Getty.
Rather than going through the simple, obvious steps (unhook toilet roll holder, slide off used cardboard tube, pick up fresh roll from the convenient stack within arms reach, thread it on the holder, rehook the holder, take the empty cardboard tube out when you’re done to throw in the bin), they’ve chosen some not-so-obvious ones (start rationing the last remaining scraps of paper in the hope that you’ll avoid the hassle of being the person to replace the toilet roll by leaving one tiny dangling ripped piece of paper on the roll, thereby signalling that it’s Not Quite Finished Yet, or, in the worst-case scenario, retrieve a fresh roll only to balance it precariously on top of the fucking empty cardboard tube, resulting in a completely non-functional toilet paper dispenser).
This obviously annoys me, as small things often do. It’s annoying mostly because it’s not obvious why this strategy benefits the individual whom practices it. You see, it doesn’t require any less effort than the strategy which has a beneficial outcome for every (man) in the building, so why do it at all? When presented with two actions of comparable cost, why not choose the one with greater utility? Isn’t there an Occam’s Razor for responsible human behaviour?
Equally annoying are drivers who choose to signal that they’re changing lanes, turning the corner or moving into the freeway exit ramp while they’re in the act of doing it. I can understand why people choose not to signal at all – they’re actually saving themselves a modicum of effort. But why go to the same effort (of moving your hand to the signal lever and pushing it up or down) while, at the same time, completely removing any beneficial effect to other drivers on the road (that is, actually giving us fair warning of your intentions)? I know that when you were seventeen you were taught how to move the signal lever by moving it while turning the steering wheel (up for anti-clockwise, down for clockwise), but that doesn’t mean you should still be doing that. It’s not a rule, you know.
I try to give these people the benefit of the doubt, I really do, but it’s of no use. I think they’re just passively evil.
5 Comments
These kind of things annoy the crap out of me too (pun intended).
“When presented with two actions of comparable cost, why not choose the one with greater utility? ” By “utility”, do you mean welfare? This person does derive greater “utility”, but just has a really whacky utility function. Perhaps passively evil, as you say.
Indicating is not hard. The order of operations is indicate -> brake -> turn. Any other order and you might as well not bother. One of my pet hates is the swing to the left before turning right. Unless you are driving a road-train, it is simply more effort. Also, if you have already indicated right, you shouldn’t be veering left.
It also bugs me when people don’t walk to the left. Where I shop every week there is a blind corner at the entrance. About one in three times I am almost run over by a fool with a trolley. Why not just stay left instead of having to weave in and out all the time? At work there are painted footprints in the stairwells which seem to do the trick. What bugs me is that they are needed at all.
In some cases I think people are just not very good at cost benefit analysis. In other cases they are contemplating another cost, which makes the present cost seem insignificant. In yet others they are bitter and want to impose a cost on others, perversely giving them some benefit. An example of this is morons who speed up if they sense you might want to pull in front of them, usually meaning more effort and no or very little difference in travel time.
People choose the more costly of two courses a lot of the time. There is a good deal of theory in behavioural economics and finance and psychology on how this plays out in different scenarios. You might want to check out Prospect Theory, for example. People are strange.
I see I’ve touched a nerve :)
Yes, I used “utility” in a circular way, as it’s really just the thing being maximised. Welfare is what I meant.
And I agree with pedestrians. Zig Zaggers, Backwards Walkers and Sudden Stoppers all annoy me tremendously. As do Out-Swingers when driving. Sure, Mister 4×4, I understand you need to outswing when parking. That doesn’t mean you need to do it when turning right at the lights, cutting into my lane while I’m whizzing past, you jabroni.
Mang I hate Out-Swingers!
Yep, I knew what you meant by “utility” from the cotext. Utility has a more narrow definition in Econ speak. You’d have to start with the assumption that the Last-Square-Dangler was in fact maximising their “utility”. Maximising welfare would mean simultaneously maximising the sum of utility of all agents. That would mean knowing something in advance about everyone else’s utility function. And that’s where it gets tricky. Who’s to say they don’t enjoy last-square-dangling more than you dislike it? In that case, if he replaced it as you’d prefer, total utility might actually decrease. It all sounds a bit silly, but perhaps they simply don’t understand your dislike for it in the same way that you find their behaviour bizzare. And that’s where it gets trickier, and frankly, silly.
Have a good weekend.
I’m guilty of not replacing the toilet roll myself, and vindictively too.
It all started when I caught myself having to awkwardly reach behind me to grab a new toilet roll while my pants were around my ankles and I was freezing my buttocks off. It was annoying and uncomfortable. On top of that, when I’m done and that button is flushed, I have places to be and things that need doing. I get out of there as quick as I can.
But as I’m the one that changes it 90% of the time in my toilet, I don’t mind sitting down to an empty roll because I am literally sitting down. I can replace it with ease and relaxation. I reach up, grab it, replace it, and it’s done.
I’ve since learnt that when I get annoyed at others for not doing things, like not replacing toilet rolls or not doing dishes, it’s simply because I don’t want to do it myself. I used to turn that laziness into justified anger at the other person, but it’s really only about me after all.
As for people who don’t indicate, they should all have their licenses taken off them and whipped with windscreen wipers. ;)
One for the ladies…
http://economiclogic.blogspot.com/2008/07/economics-of-toilet-seats.html
Post a Comment