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. The thing is that while moving the toilet seat (either up or down) is not a significant cost, attempting to sit on a toilet with the seat up (because it's dark, or you haven't had your morning coffee yet) carries a significant cost, ie that of almost falling into the loo. The maths is pretty simple. For strategy M (always down): expected probability of moving seat (high) x cost of moving seat (negligible) = expected cost (low). For strategy J (leave it where it was) : expected probability of moving seat (medium) x cost of moving seat (negligible) + expected probability of attempting to sit on toilet with seat up (low) x cost of attempting to sit on toilet with seat up (extremely high) = expected cost (high). The issue is confused by the fact that the cost of attempting to sit with seat up is mostly inflicted on only one gender. However a utalitarian perspective should include this cost. It should be noted that there is a point in which the expected probability of moving the seat becomes so high that strategy M costs more that strategy J; however this would require a high male-to-female ratio with a high pee-to-poop ratio. Yay for maths!
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.
The thing is that while moving the toilet seat (either up or down) is not a significant cost, attempting to sit on a toilet with the seat up (because it's dark, or you haven't had your morning coffee yet) carries a significant cost, ie that of almost falling into the loo. The maths is pretty simple.
For strategy M (always down): expected probability of moving seat (high) x cost of moving seat (negligible) = expected cost (low).
For strategy J (leave it where it was) : expected probability of moving seat (medium) x cost of moving seat (negligible) + expected probability of attempting to sit on toilet with seat up (low) x cost of attempting to sit on toilet with seat up (extremely high) = expected cost (high).
The issue is confused by the fact that the cost of attempting to sit with seat up is mostly inflicted on only one gender. However a utalitarian perspective should include this cost.
It should be noted that there is a point in which the expected probability of moving the seat becomes so high that strategy M costs more that strategy J; however this would require a high male-to-female ratio with a high pee-to-poop ratio.
Yay for maths!
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
Leave a comment