Editing 1016: Valentine Dilemma
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
Both [[Megan]] and [[Cueball]] are agonizing over what to get each other for Valentine's Day. Both of them seem to have a similar mindset towards the holiday: that it's arbitrary, imposes a set of demands and expectations, and is used by corporations to mandate consumerism. At the same time, both are aware that rituals and social expectations are important to other people, and so are torn between their distaste at following contrived rules and their concerns about being inconsiderate. | Both [[Megan]] and [[Cueball]] are agonizing over what to get each other for Valentine's Day. Both of them seem to have a similar mindset towards the holiday: that it's arbitrary, imposes a set of demands and expectations, and is used by corporations to mandate consumerism. At the same time, both are aware that rituals and social expectations are important to other people, and so are torn between their distaste at following contrived rules and their concerns about being inconsiderate. | ||
| − | In the 6th frame, Megan worries that Cueball might get her something and be hurt if she didn't reciprocate, explictly referencing the {{w|prisoner's dilemma}}. This dilemma is a classic thought experiment in game theory, in which two accused criminals are given the opportunity to testify against one another, but not allowed to communicate. The offer is set up so that the best | + | In the 6th frame, Megan worries that Cueball might get her something and be hurt if she didn't reciprocate, explictly referencing the {{w|prisoner's dilemma}}. This dilemma is a classic thought experiment in game theory, in which two accused criminals are given the opportunity to testify against one another, but not allowed to communicate. The offer is set up so that the best outcome for everyone is if neither testifies, each individual prisoner, not knowing what the other will choose, will benefit from turning on the other. In a similar way, Megan and Cueball might both be most satisfied if neither buys a gift, but neither wants to take the risk of looking inconsiderate (and apparently aren't open to communicating about it). |
The ultimate resolution is that neither gets the other a conventional gift. Cueball buys Easter candy (candy is a common Valentine's day gift, but the Easter theme makes it less cliche) and a jar of hammers, which clearly isn't an expected romantic gift. Megan panicked and, even more inexplicably, staples her hand to her face. There's something sweet in the fact that they're both equally befuddled by this social ritual, but they recognize that they've been badly overthinking what should be a fairly simple interaction. | The ultimate resolution is that neither gets the other a conventional gift. Cueball buys Easter candy (candy is a common Valentine's day gift, but the Easter theme makes it less cliche) and a jar of hammers, which clearly isn't an expected romantic gift. Megan panicked and, even more inexplicably, staples her hand to her face. There's something sweet in the fact that they're both equally befuddled by this social ritual, but they recognize that they've been badly overthinking what should be a fairly simple interaction. | ||
