Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Kaj_Sotala comments on Doing your good deed for the day - Less Wrong

115 Post author: Yvain 27 October 2009 12:45AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (54)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 29 October 2009 03:27:38PM *  5 points [-]

They'd stop working earlier on bad days instead, so the leisure time total would not decrease (well, assuming roughly equal numbers of good and bad days, with median days being the most common.)

This assumes that the effect of leisure time on well-being is merely a function of the amount of leisure time you have. That seems unwarranted: you can't simply take a long break and then spend the next year working with no leisure time at all, even if that gave you an equal amount of leisure time as a scenario where you distributed it more evenly. Likewise, it seems intuitively plausible to me that if you

a) take the day off early as a result of having made a lot of money

b) take the day off late after you've worked through a bad day and gotten a feeling of deserving that time off instead of quitting early and not accomplishing anything

your subjectively experienced leisure time quality ends up being higher than if you'd distribute the leisure time otherwise. (At least for some people - admittedly, I think I'd myself feel better if I did things the way you propose.)

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 30 October 2009 02:13:46AM 2 points [-]

I don't have any examples, but I think your hypothetical is a common problem and that a lot of leisure is degraded by guilt, and a lot of fake work is done out of guilt. But I think another effect is working with the cab drivers, possibly in addition.

Comment author: RobinZ 29 October 2009 03:45:24PM 1 point [-]

Subjectively, that's likely, but there's a different way to look at it: if you think of driving the cab as providing a service, then a few people knocking off early on slow days isn't hurting the customers (after all, the remaining cabbies can handle the traffic), and working extra on busy days helps (more cabbies, less wait).

Comment author: wedrifid 29 October 2009 04:00:46PM 1 point [-]

Less cab driving doesn't hurt but more cab driving helps? Either that's a weird margin we're sitting on or your rationalisations are inconsistent.

Comment author: RobinZ 29 October 2009 04:10:44PM *  4 points [-]

Ignoring logistical complications:

  • When there are more cabs than people who want to ride, changing the number of cabs will not change the number of cab trips, as all people will immediately take their trip in whatever cab comes up. These are the slow days.

  • When there are fewer cabs than people who want to ride, changing the number of cabs will change the number of cab trips, as all new cabs will immediately find passengers. These are the busy days.

The cab drivers can't change the number of passengers available on any given day, but they can influence the number of cabs.

Comment author: wedrifid 29 October 2009 04:18:54PM 0 points [-]

That does make sense. If the 'on slow days' and 'on busy days' qualifiers were in that post when I read it then I clearly missed them.