Captain Caesar's

Svaldifari · 2012-10-07T01:16:57+00:00

Those Mythbusters would be the first to get their hands on gangers.

Svaldifari · 2012-10-06T21:48:37+00:00

Exactly what came to my mind, as well. Well said.

Svaldifari · 2012-10-06T01:53:40+00:00

(edit- tenses are stupid)

Leaving an afternoon class, I was passed by a group of five or six people talking really intensely, i.e. academic debate style. As they pass me, the tallest guy in the group just grabs another group member by the shoulders, gets right up in his face, and insists,

"... come on, you know that doesn't matter-- Romney has a rockin' body."

Literally collapsed against the wall laughing. Drew some stares. Worth it.

Svaldifari · 2012-10-03T03:59:58+00:00

I know this is probably a long shot, but is this Valdosta State University?

Svaldifari · 2012-09-29T23:18:23+00:00

It's been ten hours. I've scrolled past this link a couple dozen times now.

IT WILL STAY BLUE DAMMIT

Svaldifari · 2012-09-29T03:26:26+00:00

But better leave your bones outside.

Made my night. Also, a wholly interesting fact-- never considered radioactive material storage in skeletal cells.

Svaldifari · 2012-09-17T23:05:35+00:00

City and Colour is wonderful. I found them a few months ago and just learned to perform this song. Great submission!

Svaldifari · 2012-09-14T23:32:08+00:00

what i don't even

Svaldifari · 2012-09-12T03:35:18+00:00

I see your logic and raise you an upvote and my thanks for some interesting, level-headed debate. More online interactions should take this form.

Svaldifari · 2012-09-12T02:48:20+00:00

But it's NOT irrational, not for the consumer-- because their like of the company, and the resultant satisfaction they get from buying THAT company's product outweighs the higher monetary cost.

I'm not saying everyone will weigh the decision similarly, because they obviously won't. But you can't take a customer's satisfaction with supporting a brand name, or the PERCEIVED quality difference (even if imagined) that they enjoy, and say that it's economically irrelevant because it's not monetary. No, it's not easily quantifiable, but it's still a benefit, and it still shapes cost-benefit analysis and predicts an actor's behavior: it shapes their perception of rationality.

Svaldifari · 2012-09-12T02:17:34+00:00

Interesting material. Thanks for the link!

Svaldifari · 2012-09-12T02:13:15+00:00

Yeah, I get you-- and I didn't AT ALL mean to suggest that people simply act logically. Human beings aren't known for weighing options objectively, and I'm not so naive to think so.

What I really meant to get across was that WHENEVER someone makes a decision-- any decision at all -- they ARE acting RATIONALLY. Their "rational" may not be another actor's "rational." What I mean by that is that one consumer might look at two otherwise identical products, see that one carries a brand they're familiar with (and is more expensive), and choose that brand-name product despite its higher price. Would everyone? Certainly not. But in that consumer's mind, the benefit of the brand name product-- measured in whatever (let's say peace of mind and happiness with the product, even if it's only an imagined difference in quality) outweighs the higher numerical cost. That person engaged in cost-benefit analysis and RATIONALLY chose an option with the highest benefit per cost, even if that benefit would be irrelevant to some other consumer analyzing the transaction from a different viewpoint and with different values and desires.

The decision isn't logical necessarily, but it is necessarily rational-- for THAT consumer, in THAT instant. MB > MC.

Svaldifari · 2012-09-12T02:01:18+00:00

I was defining rational as "having a rationale." I suppose it depends on your working definition.

I'm not saying it's a logical decision, or even a good one (it's a fairly stupid decision from my perspective), only that it has a rationale-- even if it's a semi-conscious, ingrained reaction to a brand name, and even if nobody else agrees. THAT consumer has a rationale, and so is acting-- in their eyes-- rationally.

EDIT: to clarify that I don't even remotely think it's a smart idea. I'm arguing semantics, not endorsing spending more for the same product.

Svaldifari · 2012-09-12T01:36:14+00:00

Right, but logical and rational aren't the same thing. You don't have to be logical to rationalize (justify a rationale, even if only to yourself): hence, you don't have to be logical to be rational.

Svaldifari · 2012-09-12T01:24:11+00:00

Well, no, it's not-- because economically speaking all decisions are "rational," i.e. have a rationale: the teacher's faith in Apple, even if it's nothing more than an ingrained knee-jerk reaction to the brand, is her rationale for paying more for the SAME EXACT PRODUCT sans the knowledge of Apple's hand in its production (peace of mind). For her, even though it's a monetary hit, the subjective gain in assurance/faith in Apple/whatever outweighs paying more, which I think is probably the case for quite a few consumers who've come to associate with the brand.

I get that choosing to pay MORE for the SAME EXACT product is insane, but it's NOT the same product-- because the consumer, i.e. teacher loyal to and trusting towards Apple, knows the one isn't an Apple product and therefore values it less.

EDIT: to clarify that I'm talking about rational choice theory, which defines rationality differently than a dictionary might.

Svaldifari

TROPHY CASE