h a l f b a k e r yExpensive, difficult, slightly dangerous, not particularly effective... I'm on a roll.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
A series of hypotenuses are placed in public thoroughfares. However, these can also be reproduced in private environments. Usually a passage must be cut through a wall or some other barrier in order to bypass a corner in order to create this scheme.
As pedestrains* move between point A, the entrance,
and point C, the exit, they must choose between travelling along the hypotenuse (AC) or the adjacent and opposite sides or (ABC). Each point corrosponds to a side, which Pythagoras informs us once squared is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides, and that the hypotenuse is the longest side but less in length than the sum of the adjacent and opposite sides. Signs placed at each point inform the pedestrians that the destinations of each pathway are the same.
The major consideration here is that it is more efficient to travel along the hypotenuse, than the adjacent and opposite sides. That is an objective observation and not an evaluative appraisal, so unbiased sociological researchers are placed at each point with a clipboard and a stopwatch, but are instructed to stand in a manner that obstructs the passageway.
The sociological researchers make several objective observations. 1) The height of the pedestrian, discerned from demarcations on the passageway 2) The time of arrival at the point they occupy 3) the answers to any survey questions the pedestrain may answer, but particularly correlation between defering or defference to the survey and tendency towards efficiency. From coordinating these results the researchers can conclude the tendency towards efficiency and thus degreee of rationalization of each pedestrian, and from applied statistics extrapolation the degree of rationalization of society.
*'pedestrain' is a neologism for pedestrians with induced 'strain' from the violation of their rationalization value by the obstacles.
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
So what's the thing being measured here? Are survey
people blocking each passageway, or just the more
efficient one? Is the pedestrain being tested on
whether he's willing to accept barging past the survey
taker in order to travel the hypotenusal path, rather
than take the no-barge route along orthoganal
pathways? Or is the pedestrain going to have to barge
past all/any survey takers irrespective of pathway? |
|
| |
I'm not sure this is pinned down enough to provide any
useful results as it stands. |
|
| |
There are invisible benefits to not barging rudely
past someone, and reasons that don't relate to how
efficient a person wants to be or rationalization.
Furthermore this isn't a game but a research
proposal. [-] |
|
| |
You are assuming that the corners are right-angles. |
|
| |
I would rather walk the two sides, personally. It is more
likely to be the route that is rational. |
|
| |
I think of it like a game, where certain decisions have certain results. The thing being measured is 'rationalization' or the application of science to human behavior, and on the subjective level rational choice decision making in terms of an 'economic' factor. |
|
| |
Manners and things of that nature are not a consideration in this idea, and really something that are anthropological and qualitative. Whether mannerly behaviour is a rationalization for minimizing 'friction' in interactions may be another social physics consideration, but did the passerby say 'excuse me!" out of offence or courteousness? Doesn't matter, who cares. |
|
| |
I think it would be an interesting experiment. The distribution of results would be informative. Social situation, or setting, would be important factor to consider. But if subjects chose pathways randomly, not acting rationaly, there would be a close to equal distribution between AC and ABC. The sociological researches would predict in each setting what the distribution may look like. |
|
| |
Another consideration is the game side:
If AC; if AC +; if AC -; if ABC; if A+B+; if A-B-; If A+B-; if A-B+. Positive and negative means fast and slow, relative to heights of pedestrians. Moving swiftly would indicate the pedestrian would beneift from a rational choice decision. Some quick movers would make an erroneous decision, and I predict they would speed up giving an A-B+ result for instance, or whatever sides those letters pertain to. People who stop to take surveys would show the amount of time they took to travel the paths, and that would be compared to those who didn't stop. If the survey takers have efficient tendencies that would be problematic for the outlined methodology. |
|
| |
As there are infinitely many more irrational numbers
as there are rational ones and the hypotenuse is
likely an irrational measurement, traversed by
otherwise rational people, I don't hold out much
hope for democracy. Here's hoping the
transcendental numbers come down from their lofty
positions and save us all from the infinitely irrational
tyranny we're presently experiencing in the
legislature. |
|
| |