From: Daniel Reeves dreeves@umich.edu
Date: Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 04:12
Subject: Re: the magical shrinking road
I think I’m opposed to intermediate penalties like this (though it’s
certainly worth experimenting with!).
To restate the problem you’ve identified: By self-binding you’ve
sacrificed flexibility and that’s sometimes costly. Of course that’s
kind of the point: you were abusing the flexibility and so you needed
to cut yourself off. But it wasn’t all abuse. So can we have the
best of both worlds: flexibility only when it’s really warranted? A
freebie day when you win a free meal at a five-star restaurant but not
when pie in the fridge is calling to you.
One way is to stipulate exemption clauses in the commitment contract.
Of course you won’t anticipate everything.
Another way is to specify a generic budget of freebie days, but in our
experience this doesn’t work well. If you’re so akratic (as many of
us are!) that you can’t keep a reasonable safety buffer then you end
up just using up the freebie days early. (I could say a lot more
about why attempts to make contracts kinder/gentler tend to backfire.)
So what about your proposal that you risk a big chunk of money but you
lose it in pieces each time you deviate? That’s stickK’s approach and
it’s not crazy (and, again, I agree we should try it, later). My
objection to it is that as an akratic it’s all too easy to shrug off
paying the small penalty “just this once” and end up coughing up an
unreasonable amount in total (Ayres gives examples of that happening
in his book!). If the small penalty of $100 is big enough to prevent
that problem then you might as well just use $100 as the total
penalty, Beeminder style. (The one thing missing there is that you
want to automatically restart on a new road – I think Beeminder
should support that.)
Final note: the free meal at the five-star restaurant example I
believe is not a problem in practice with the auto-widening road.
When the stakes are high people seem to be incentivized to mostly stay
in the right lane and that means you’re usually ready for that
five-star restaurant opportunity.
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 10:10, David Reiley david@davidreiley.com wrote:
Yes, that sounds pretty understandable.
I’m wondering about more complicated bets that would help one keep more of a safety margin.
Suppose I had a $1000 bet to lose 5 pounds in 10 weeks. Suppose I have trouble keeping my safety buffer, for the reasons you’ve described.
After two weeks, I should be down 1 pound. What if, for example, I lose $100 for failing to be in the correct lane at that point? It doesn’t kill me to be in the wrong lane - I can still recover - but it sure would be nice if I had strong incentives to stay well within my goal. I don’t want to lose the whole thing, because maybe some big dining opportunity came up that I think is worth losing $100 for. More importantly, it would be nice to have an incentive to behave in a way that gives me a safety buffer, without having to constantly live on the edge of the line, in danger of losing the big bet unless I am really draconian with myself today.
This might be too complicated for Beeminder, but I wanted to propose this for you to noodle on. It’s always bothered me that, by bringing future incentives to the present, we still can end up in a state of perpetual short-term misery, while trying to meet the goal, because we didn’t leave enough of a safety buffer to be able to react to unpredicted opportunities or challenges that come up.
David
On Jan 19, 2011, at 9:19 AM, Bethany M. Soule wrote:
Sounds good to me.
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 05:17, Daniel Reeves dreeves@umich.edu wrote:
How about this as the official rules for a weight loss road:
The road is always wide enough to guarantee that you won’t go off the
road tomorrow if you were in the right lane today. It will
automatically widen to maintain that guarantee. Additionally the road
will not shrink while you are in the wrong lane. If you’re in the
wrong lane then the edge of the road is just a fixed line: you cross
it, you lose. Otherwise, the road’s width is a magic formula based on
how much your weight fluctuates, reflecting a reasonable margin of
error around the centerline. Thanks to the “can’t lose tomorrow”
guarantee, you don’t need to know that formula. If you cross the
centerline then you’ll at worst be on the top edge of the road. You’ll
then have to lose weight at a rate equal to or faster than the
prescribed daily rate of the road until you’re back below the
centerline. In short, being in the wrong lane means a danger of a
random fluctuation tomorrow throwing you off the road. In the right
lane that is not possible.
(The beauty of this rule is that as long as you stay in the right lane
there’s no risk at all, and if you do cross into the wrong lane the
danger is sudden and significant, forcing you to buckle down
immediately.)
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 23:29, Daniel Reeves dreeves@umich.edu wrote:
Good thinking, but I would say that’s out of the question because the
centerline is the straight-line path from your starting point to your
goal. It’s the idealized YBR. It would be very weird for that to
fluctuate.
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 23:25, Bethany M. Soule bsoule@gmail.com wrote:
can we accomplish the best of both worlds by keeping the you-lose-line
fixed but change the ‘centerline’-s distance from it based on recent
fluctuations?
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 23:16, Daniel Reeves dreeves@umich.edu wrote:
This argument is much too complicated. What’s the argument, again,
against changing the road width?
It’s that a magically changing road width is complicated (and if
you’re signing a commitment contract it should be extremely clear what
you’re agreeing to).
Patrick’s proposal is nice and simple: cross this line, you lose.
So in that sense the burden of proof is on us to justify the added
complexity of the variable road width. That’s what I tried to do
here. Not sure if anyone’s convinced though.
I think Bethany’s argument is that with just a bit of faith in
Beeminder, the status quo is just as simple: Go off this road, you
lose. (More specifically, go above the centerline and your risk of
losing goes from zero to significant, unless you immediately buckle
down and get back below the centerline. So what the road actually does
is a bit complicated, but what you actually have to do is simple.)
–
http://dreev.es – search://“Daniel Reeves”
–
What are you kibotzing on?
http://kibotzer.com
–
http://dreev.es – search://“Daniel Reeves”
–
http://dreev.es – search://“Daniel Reeves”
–
What are you kibotzing on?
http://kibotzer.com
–
My home page: http://www.davidreiley.com
–
http://dreev.es – search://“Daniel Reeves”
–
http://dreev.es – search://“Daniel Reeves”
Follow the Yellow Brick Road – http://beeminder.com