Skip to main content

Buffet Theory

Sometimes, theories based on evolutionary psychology sound a bit too forced. For example, there is a claim that babies tend to look more like their fathers. The evolutionary explanation is well summarized by the Scientific American: "Fathers, after all, do not share a mother's certainty that a baby is theirs, and are more likely to invest whatever resources they have in their own offspring. Human evolution, then, could have favored children that resemble their fathers, at least early on, as a way of confirming paternity."

 (The actual Scientific American article debunks this view.)

The reason that such theories sound "forced" is that the phenomena can have a myriad causes that sufficiently explain it. The paternal resemblance explanation is just one of the many possible explanations.

Forced theories are bad because anyone can make them while no one can satisfactorily dispute them.

To illustrate this point, I will propose a theory that seeks to explain why buffets are so popular: Buffets are popular because people are free to gather different foods any time they want. The satisfaction gained from such eating habits is akin to the happiness the hunter gatherers felt when they were allowed to choose from an array of nuts and berries. Because this satisfaction is deeply rooted in our DNA, people tend to enjoy buffets more than regular restaurants that offer unlimited refills.

Comments

  1. Hajong LeeMay 13, 2017 at 11:37 AM

    Are you looking for someone to satisfactorily dispute your theory on the popularities of buffets? Haha this post is so random.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hajong LeeMay 13, 2017 at 11:39 AM

    All I could think of during this post was the 짬 menu for lunch and how people always grab more than they can eat when it's something good and end up throwing it all away anyway.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

On Breaking Rules

Rules are great. They provide justice, order, and stability. But must they always be followed? If not (and one would think not), which  rules can be broken, and when? The Sufficient Conditions for Rule Breaking But what about rules that do make sense—ones that serve a good, clear purpose? When can they be broken? It is not possible to consider every possible scenario regarding each rule, so here is a "Rule for Breaking Rules": When the purpose of the rule is understood, and when breaking that rule does not go against its purpose, the rule can be broken . Here are some examples worth considering. Jaywalking The main purpose of traffic lights and other traffic laws is safety. Jaywalking is morally acceptable when a pedestrian, on an empty street, for instance, correctly judges that it is safe enough to cross. In undeveloped Chinese cities, traffic lights are ignored, so attention must be paid more to oncoming vehicles than to the traffic lights. Waiting ...
3 comments
Read more

Rationally Gifting

Mainstream economists have argued that because people know their own preferences, gift giving is irrational. Behavioral economists have countered by claiming that gift exchanges can strengthen social bonds as well as make both members of the exchange feel better than they would have, had they purchased items on their own. Nobel prize winner Richard Thaler added to this argument stating that because people mentally divide their budget up into categories, such as 10% for clothing, a nice shirt that exceeds that mental budget is of immense utility. Behavioral economists give quite convincing arguments. But would there be reasons for exchanging gifts even if everyone was perfectly rational? There would be if information was incomplete. Specialization makes gift giving rational. Because it is impossible to know about every market in expert detail, people often make choices that are suboptimal. When a sommelier gives a bottle of wine, the receiver is not only given a gift; he is given pr...
Post a Comment
Read more

Compulsory Organ Donations

More than a Nudge Robert Thaler, the soon to be winner of this year's Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, wrote about how organ donation rates can change significantly when the question is asked differently to potential donors . In a nutshell, he differentiates the opt-in and the opt-out method, where the opt-out method gets more people to become donors, because the default choice is to be a donor. But he goes on to mention that the presumed-content law may be upsetting to some people, and that the Illinois system, which "makes one's wishes to be a donor legally binding . . . is a winning combination." Here, Thaler, in his strict adherence to libertarian paternalism, fails to consider a morally and economically superior policy: the policy of mandatory donations. It is not hard to see that mandatory donations are economically superior. To see why mandatory donations are morally superior, one need only consider the trolley problem. Here is the thought exp...
Post a Comment
Read more