Why don't "The Bachelorette" relationships last?

Utils are units of happiness. (More utils = good)

This is a hypothetical evening. Pablo wants to go to the Yankees game while Bertha wants to see Cats: The Musical (she likes spandex unitards). So both Pablo and Bertha get 200 utils if they get to do their preferred activity and -200 if they do the other activity.

Spending the evening together also provides positive utils. But, Bertha is way more attractive and funny than Pablo, so she doesn’t care that much if she gets to spend the evening with him. It doesn’t matter that much to her if Pablo is unhappy because she can easily break up with him and date someone else. Or she could even be the next bachelorette on “The Bachelorette” and thus if she doesn’t get to go on a date with Pablo she has 24 other men to choose from (they all want her). So, Bertha gets only 100 utils from being with Pablo (-100 if they spend the evening apart), while Pablo gets a whopping 600 if he gets to go on a date with Bertha (-600 if they spend the evening apart).

The pay-offs are shown in the matrix and are as follows:

If they go to the Yankees game together:
Pablo gets: 200 utils (because it is his activity of choice) + 600 utils (because he really likes being with Bertha) = 800 total utils
Bertha gets: -200 (she doesn’t really want to go to the Yankees game) + 100 (she does kinda like being with Pablo) = -100 total utils

If they go see Cats together:
Pablo gets -200 + 600 = 400 total utils
Bertha gets 200 + 100 = 300 total utils

If Pablo sees Cats alone and Bertha goes to the Yankees game alone (…why this would ever happen ever I don’t know)
Pablo gets -200 -600 = -800
Bertha gets -200-100=-300

If Pablo goes to the Yankees game alone and Bertha sees Cats:
Pablo gets 200 - 600 = -400
Bertha gets 200 – 100 = 100



So the Nash equilibrium in this game is that they see Cats together. Basically Bertha does what she wants to do (her dominant strategy because she like spandex unitards in Cats way more than she likes Pablo), and Pablo always goes with her (his dominant strategy because he will always get more utils from being with her than doing what he wants. cough cough, whipped, cough cough).

However, over time, Pablo will get annoyed because he could be getting even more utils if they went to a Yankees game together or did another activity of his choice (Although he will probably say something more like, “Cats is poopy. How come we never get to do what I want to do?”) So one way the relationship could end is by Pablo’s last straw being pulled, and thus he’ll explode and dump Bertha.

Or, Bertha might realize how she doesn’t like him that much and dump Pablo.

Or, Pablo might try to change the pay-off matrix by proving that he actually is desirable and cheating on Bertha, Bertha gets mad and breaks up with him because she never liked him that much in the first place.

Or, a random viewer that watched "The Bachelorette" and wants Bertha will scheme to break them up by calling to Pablo's attention that Pablo is whipped (Pablo will punch the viewer, Bertha will see that Pablo is not a nice guy like she thought, Bertha then punches Pablo).

With all of these probable break-up scenarios, it's no wonder a break-up is what usually happens!

Why did you select such a random combination of majors?

Imagine an economist. Ben Bernanke wearing a suit, sitting in an office, crunching numbers and stressing out about the dozens of spreadsheets containing less-than-promising data that reflects the current economic state.

Imagine a communication scholar. A pleasant human resources representative (with a personality resembling Professor Harrigan), smiling and listening intently as she either talks to prospective employees or manages conflict between co-workers.

At first glance, communication and economics do not seem related at all. And in fact, when I selected them I didn't pick them because they were similar; I just liked them both.

It is not surprising then that my favorite aspects of each major intertwine. Since I like economics, my favorite aspects of communication are closely related to economics and vice versa. Trying to find connections between communication and economics, one realizes that they are actually quite similar! In fact, both economics and communication theories attempt to explain why people do what they do. Economics predicts trends in how groups of people altar their economic choices in response to changes in factors like prices, wages, or a PR campaign that lets the world know the health consequences of excess dairy consumption. Communication theories attempt to explain patterns of behavior and interaction between people. Putting them together, aha! Behavioral Economics is born.

My favorite example of this connection between economics and communication uses game theory to explain power within interpersonal relationships. See the next post for more information!

Is marijuana a gateway drug?

Today I was reflecting upon a time when a friend and I were having an argument about whether or not marijuana is a gateway drug. She had recently read a book about effective arguing and was testing strategies from it, which was obviously very frustrating for me to combat. My frustration is probably the reason I remember this event so well even though it was around two years ago.

She argued that a higher percentage of hard-core drug users had probably done pot before when compared to non-hard-core drug users and I argued that a higher percentage of hard-core drug users had probably done pot before when compared to non-hard-core drug users. You can read that sentence again if you think I made a typo, but it's supposed to repeat itself because yes, we were both actually arguing the same thing!

The difference was that she thought this higher percentage labels marijuana a gateway drug, while I thought that what would label marijuana a gateway drug is if doing marijuana caused people to become hard-core drug users. The discrepancy wasn't in whether or not pot is a gateway drug because we both agreed that weed smokers are more likely to use hard-core drugs. The difference was in our definition of gateway drug. She thought this higher concentration of marijuana usage among hard-core drug users means that marijuana is a gateway drug, while I thought that being labeled as a gateway drug requires direct causation.

I didn't really answer the question the title of this post implied. So if you read this post hoping to get some insight about marijuana, ask me for my favorite scholarly article on the subject. (I would post it here but the Economist banned me from viewing it online since my subscription is up, but of course I saved the hard copy.) The answer to "Is marijuana a gateway drug?" is still debatable, but the question you really should think about is what the other person is arguing the next time you have a disagreement. You'd be surprised how often he or she actually thinks the same thing as you but just conceptualizes it differently.

What do you want to do now?

Have you ever thought to yourself, “I’ve already put up with (insert agonizing class that you wish you never signed up for here) for so long, I might as well finish,” or “I know this person makes me unhappy, but I’ve been with him/her so long that I can’t stop seeing them now,” or maybe you didn’t actually even think about it, but you ate food that you already paid for even though it wasn’t that delicious once you got it. Have you ever really thought about why you do these things?

An economist would argue that what you’ve already done is a sunk cost, and thus shouldn’t affect your future decisions. So it shouldn’t matter that you suffered in the past through that boring economics class, an unhappy relationship, or buying bad food. You’ve already paid for it in the form of wasting your life. Instead, you should think about what you want to do now. If you want to change your major, end a torturous relationship, or order a different meal, you can do it! No matter what, you can’t get back those hours you spent on painful econ homework, you can’t get back the unhappy years you spent with someone, and you can’t get back the money you spent on the meal you don’t want. The only things to do now are to cut your losses and make new decisions. Next time, instead of saying, “I’ve already paid for it, I might as well finish it,” maybe you should say, “I’ve already paid for it and enough is enough!”

This can also be applied to other traditions. This doesn’t mean you should stop following traditions altogether. But think about why you follow them. “I’ve always shaved my legs,” “I’ve always drank (drunken?) milk,” or “I’ve never done yoga.” Are you following traditions just because you always have, or because it’s what you actually want to do now? Decide which ones you really want to follow. For the record, I do shave my legs, but I don’t drink milk and I do yoga.

Why blog?

This blog is not going to change the world. There are already pages and pages of information that attempt to explain complex concepts such as justice (written by philosophers that know way more than I do), how to cook popcorn without burning it (maybe I should look at some of those), and blumpkins (if you don't already know what it is, don't look it up). When I write about things, someone else has probably already commented on the topic in the history of the world and the world wide web. So the purpose of this blog isn't really to be original, I'm just going to answer Frequently Alyssa Questions in a unique way.

Most Frequently Alyssa Questions fall into one of two categories (I won't say all because generalizations can be ineffective…but more on that later): 1. Questions that people have asked me and so am responding to for the world (or a few select blog followers) to see, and 2. Questions that I just think about a lot. A question I'm frequently asked to explain is, "How does your thought process happen?", so by answering questions in the second category I am providing some insight to this frequently asked question and in this way the second category is really part of the first.

I am also writing this blog for practical reasons that I will just list:

1. To develop my writing skills. I worked on my resume today and I want to be able to list that I'm a bangin' writer. Maybe practicing on this blog will improve my writing (maybe not though because I also believe that only perfect practice makes perfect…the wise advice of Sensei Matt…remind me to address this topic later too)

2. To inspire my friends to write blogs. Sometimes when I'm bored because I can't focus long enough to watch an entire twenty-two minute show, I like to lightly browse the web. And there's only so many new facebook pictures that I care about viewing or funny texts from last night to chuckle at. So if you write a blog too it will give me something else exciting to read!

3. I want to make you think and question your everyday behavior and conventional wisdom. I hope after reading insight on a topic, it will get you thinking, even if your thoughts are a lot different than mine (which is likely). Maybe you'll even say "hmuh" after reading a post one day.

However, I don't plan on posting every day. You can't force or rush creativity and thoughts. I learned this lesson in tenth grade English class when Mr. Zeitvogel asked us to argue the most influential invention of the twentieth century. I couldn't think on the spot, so I said Doppler Radar. This is a dumb invention compared to video conferencing, Dance Dance Revolution, and the internet. If I had more time to think, I would have thought this task through and said something way better than Doppler Radar! (although in hindsight it didn't really matter). Unique thoughts take time. This is the same reason that I like to play Scattergories using the three minute timer instead of one or two, it gives you more time to think of something that nobody else wrote. In conclusion, I'm going to write when the spirit moves me (now is an appropriate time to hum Every Time I Feel the Spirit) instead of forcing myself to think. So, my first post (or rather, the second) will be about something I have been thinking for a couple months now and been itching to write about.