Obviously these papers are all written by men, because they only consider the cost to men of having to flip up the toilet seat (pee more accurately/wipe up after themselves/go sitting down). Even the most recent one only considers the cost to the male of the woman yelling at him
( ... )
I think that there is a further detail we haven't taken into account. We have assumed that lifting and lowering the seat have an equal cost. When you move the seat down this is easily accomplished with a simple flick of the lid. But lifting the seat up requires that you bend down and lift it. Thus the cost of lifting the seat is greater than the cost of lowering. This could be an issue if someone has a bad back.
The paper also ignores another strategy. The lid can be left down along with the seat. We can call this strategy Z for Zanovar (sorry). Strategy Z is perfectly egalitarian because whoever uses the toilet will be forced to move the lid. The probability of error is low but an error ends in disaster for both sexes with the penalty of course being a soiled toilet lid. There is an equal cost to both sexes assuming that both sexes use the toilet with equal frequency. Strategy Z also has the advantage of reducing odour and preventing the aerolisation of toilet water during flushing.
With further investigation of the probability of falling in, soiling the lid and the relative costs of the various hazards involved in going to the toilet we can deduce the best and most efficient form of toilet use.
I should say I don't actually care whether the toilet seat is up or down since for me the cost of moving it is negligible either way. I just thought it was an interesting and slightly humourous application for game theory and I really can't resist in depth mathematical analysis of everyday problems.
Also for people in our position where the child's bedroom is next to the toilet there is a high cost for having to lower the seat & lid carefully in case he is sleeping lightly.
Here's one: How about the fact that men have to sit down some of the time too, so therefore, given that the standing position is the outlier in 1 out of 4 cases, the seat should always be down... the good of the many outway the good of the few, or some star trek jive...
I bet you in Star Trek all the men sit down to pee *snigger snigger*
Actually I don't think that's a valid reason to leave the seat down. It would be if men sat down 50% of the time but the fact is they don't. People urinate more frequently than they defecate. And it's not the good of the many vs the few. It's the good of 50% vs the good of the other 50%
That's why I continue to propose Strategy Z. Leave the seat and lid down every time. It ends the debate because both men and women will be inconvenienced every time they go to the toilet. Problem solved, equality for all.
Fine then on the urination defecation, but it still means that the seat is down more frequently than it is up, even if its only a two percent difference, therefore, good of the many (I'm not talking people, I'm talking useages of the toilet).
I.e. let us take in a male + female household there are 10 trips to the bathroom a day, evenly split. 2 hold defecation (1 male, 1 female), the rest are urination. That still leaves 6-4, therefore good of the many.
Of course, this gets thrown out by a household such as yours, were the men outweigh the women =p
Ah but then assuming that men and women use the toilet with equal frequency guys will sometimes leave the seat down. So the women will sometimes come across an up seat and sometimes a down seat. The same will go for the men. So both men and women will come across the wrong kind of seat with approximately equal frequency. This is discussed in detail in the link. Leaving it down all the time results in an increase in the total amount of times the seat has to be moved again this is discussed in the link. Of course if you are an accurate/lazy guy then seat down is no problem
( ... )
Comments 11
Reply
The paper also ignores another strategy. The lid can be left down along with the seat. We can call this strategy Z for Zanovar (sorry). Strategy Z is perfectly egalitarian because whoever uses the toilet will be forced to move the lid. The probability of error is low but an error ends in disaster for both sexes with the penalty of course being a soiled toilet lid. There is an equal cost to both sexes assuming that both sexes use the toilet with equal frequency. Strategy Z also has the advantage of reducing odour and preventing the aerolisation of toilet water during flushing.
Reply
With further investigation of the probability of falling in, soiling the lid and the relative costs of the various hazards involved in going to the toilet we can deduce the best and most efficient form of toilet use.
I should say I don't actually care whether the toilet seat is up or down since for me the cost of moving it is negligible either way. I just thought it was an interesting and slightly humourous application for game theory and I really can't resist in depth mathematical analysis of everyday problems.
Reply
Reply
I bet you in Star Trek all the men sit down to pee *snigger snigger*
Reply
That's why I continue to propose Strategy Z. Leave the seat and lid down every time. It ends the debate because both men and women will be inconvenienced every time they go to the toilet. Problem solved, equality for all.
Reply
I.e. let us take in a male + female household there are 10 trips to the bathroom a day, evenly split. 2 hold defecation (1 male, 1 female), the rest are urination. That still leaves 6-4, therefore good of the many.
Of course, this gets thrown out by a household such as yours, were the men outweigh the women =p
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment