Kakonomics, or the strange preference for low-quality outcomes
August 22, 2016 1:34 AM Subscribe
‘I think that an important concept to understand why does life suck so often is Kakonomics, or the weird preference for Low-quality payoffs’—Gloria Origgi.
Some more about this new science:
- How to be mediocre and be happy with yourself by Manuela Saragosa (BBC).
- This column will change your life: Mediocrity sucks, but who cares? by Oliver Burkeman (Guardian).
- How low can you go? The golden rule of kakonomics by Catherine Armitage (Sydney Morning Herald).
I would have looked for some more links to make this a better post, but, you know…
Some more about this new science:
- How to be mediocre and be happy with yourself by Manuela Saragosa (BBC).
- This column will change your life: Mediocrity sucks, but who cares? by Oliver Burkeman (Guardian).
- How low can you go? The golden rule of kakonomics by Catherine Armitage (Sydney Morning Herald).
I would have looked for some more links to make this a better post, but, you know…
I agree with Gyan.
posted by Joe in Australia at 1:54 AM on August 22, 2016
posted by Joe in Australia at 1:54 AM on August 22, 2016
Meh
posted by PenDevil at 2:11 AM on August 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by PenDevil at 2:11 AM on August 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
This is fine.
posted by ardgedee at 2:13 AM on August 22, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by ardgedee at 2:13 AM on August 22, 2016 [6 favorites]
First!
posted by crocomancer at 2:13 AM on August 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by crocomancer at 2:13 AM on August 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
Seventh.
posted by DoctorFedora at 2:17 AM on August 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by DoctorFedora at 2:17 AM on August 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
The main article suggests that you should be promising high quality comments (whilst delivering meaningless snark) and I should claim to be expecting incisive comments whilst actually being happy for any distraction from my workday.
So to that end
Metafilter: This comment will do.
(Looks like a proper joke, but is really just a lazy meme rehash, which you will pretend is an incisive metacommentary on the website, but really are just happy with the comforting familiarity of it)
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 2:18 AM on August 22, 2016 [12 favorites]
So to that end
Metafilter: This comment will do.
(Looks like a proper joke, but is really just a lazy meme rehash, which you will pretend is an incisive metacommentary on the website, but really are just happy with the comforting familiarity of it)
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 2:18 AM on August 22, 2016 [12 favorites]
In unconscious exemplification of the theme of this post I mis-spelled kakonomics’ inventor’s name as Gloria Oggi rather than Gloria Origgi. I’ve messaged the moderators asking if it might be corrected, but will understand if they can’t be bothered.
posted by misteraitch at 2:18 AM on August 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by misteraitch at 2:18 AM on August 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
If this is universal, why is there still a market for high-quality goods then?
Probably because something.
posted by farlukar at 2:21 AM on August 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
Probably because something.
posted by farlukar at 2:21 AM on August 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
The phenomenon described in this article does kind of a spectacular job of explaining cable TV
posted by DoctorFedora at 2:26 AM on August 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by DoctorFedora at 2:26 AM on August 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
I read it as kalenomics.
Which doesn't make sense, because I kind of like kale. Cooked, I mean, as opposed to decoration around the salad bars of pizza hut twenty years ago.
Kale. Land of contrasts.
posted by sebastienbailard at 2:27 AM on August 22, 2016
Which doesn't make sense, because I kind of like kale. Cooked, I mean, as opposed to decoration around the salad bars of pizza hut twenty years ago.
Kale. Land of contrasts.
posted by sebastienbailard at 2:27 AM on August 22, 2016
This text offers some good examples of: "Kakonomics is the strange — yet widespread — preference for mediocre exchanges insofar as nobody complains about."
posted by sapagan at 3:38 AM on August 22, 2016
posted by sapagan at 3:38 AM on August 22, 2016
Kak....
posted by Mister Bijou at 3:39 AM on August 22, 2016
noun (South African, taboo)I can attest that "kak" as in "a bunch of kak" was a not uncommon expression in certain UK West Midlands school playgrounds in the early 1960s.
1.
faeces
2.
rubbish
Word Origin
Afrikaans
posted by Mister Bijou at 3:39 AM on August 22, 2016
Mister Bijou - it’s been suggested that caca/kaka has Proto-Indo-European origins.
posted by misteraitch at 4:02 AM on August 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by misteraitch at 4:02 AM on August 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
The normative loading of "mediocre" isn't right. The right way to parse it is "good enough" -- it's highly rational not to pay for more quality than you need, to the point we need a whole architecture of cognitive behavior economics to explain certain kinds of luxury spending. The irrational part of "good enough" is the need to pretend it's better than that.
There's also a whole other important economic discipline around the use of quality downgrade and upgrade to segment demand and manage yield. Some intercontinental passenger planes are flying with five classes of service these days -- first, business, premium economy, extra leg room economy and economy -- all calibrated to maximize profit at each potential level of quality by offering a bonus a passenger can afford to buy or inflict some penalty a passenger can afford to avoid.
posted by MattD at 4:28 AM on August 22, 2016 [5 favorites]
There's also a whole other important economic discipline around the use of quality downgrade and upgrade to segment demand and manage yield. Some intercontinental passenger planes are flying with five classes of service these days -- first, business, premium economy, extra leg room economy and economy -- all calibrated to maximize profit at each potential level of quality by offering a bonus a passenger can afford to buy or inflict some penalty a passenger can afford to avoid.
posted by MattD at 4:28 AM on August 22, 2016 [5 favorites]
It's a bit to early in my day for me to have an opinion on whether or not it says anything about the concept as a whole, but I found Origgi's example--the mediocre best-seller--pretty bad.
If a book is written with the intention of creating a bestseller and it does become a bestseller, can you really say that it's inferior? It did after all accomplish its stated goal. Literary criticism is all well and good, but it's not an objective measure of value. A book the critics despise for its two-dimensional characters and predictable plot may well be ideal for people reading for entertainment in small chunks in a noisy, crowded place (e.g. a bus) because of those values.
I don't see how this would work with (e.g.) SD cards of a given capacity to price ratio, for example.
posted by suetanvil at 5:20 AM on August 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
If a book is written with the intention of creating a bestseller and it does become a bestseller, can you really say that it's inferior? It did after all accomplish its stated goal. Literary criticism is all well and good, but it's not an objective measure of value. A book the critics despise for its two-dimensional characters and predictable plot may well be ideal for people reading for entertainment in small chunks in a noisy, crowded place (e.g. a bus) because of those values.
I don't see how this would work with (e.g.) SD cards of a given capacity to price ratio, for example.
posted by suetanvil at 5:20 AM on August 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
The real question is the value to cost ratio. Example a Skoda (10k Euro) vs a BMW (40k Euro). Both will take you to work / shopping and so on. So its actually better for you to spend 10K and ignore the small problems (air conditioning is a joke, car is loud etc) then to fork 40K for the BMW. Of course both get advertised as "the most exciting car you ever had" complete with picture of happy family and so on.
In fact I would say that all deals are always fair - only if you deal with a monopoly (big phone companies, the state) then you can expect to be screwed and in fact you usually are.
posted by elcapitano at 5:27 AM on August 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
In fact I would say that all deals are always fair - only if you deal with a monopoly (big phone companies, the state) then you can expect to be screwed and in fact you usually are.
posted by elcapitano at 5:27 AM on August 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
If a book is written with the intention of creating a bestseller and it does become a bestseller, can you really say that it's inferior?
A book or movie can sell well because it's exploiting a built-in audience while still being an obviously flawed work in comparison to earlier works--the Star Wars prequel movies, later Harry Potter novels, etc. The universality of hatred for Jar Jar Binks or the wooden acting of all three prequels is more than just the contempt of critics. We're pretty jaded these days about the degrading quality of sequels, actually, which seems like a perfect example of kakonomics. Just pointing to box office totals seems to miss an important part of our collective reaction to a lot of product that's shovelled at us.
posted by fatbird at 6:16 AM on August 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
A book or movie can sell well because it's exploiting a built-in audience while still being an obviously flawed work in comparison to earlier works--the Star Wars prequel movies, later Harry Potter novels, etc. The universality of hatred for Jar Jar Binks or the wooden acting of all three prequels is more than just the contempt of critics. We're pretty jaded these days about the degrading quality of sequels, actually, which seems like a perfect example of kakonomics. Just pointing to box office totals seems to miss an important part of our collective reaction to a lot of product that's shovelled at us.
posted by fatbird at 6:16 AM on August 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
Is this basically "they pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work"?
posted by Segundus at 6:44 AM on August 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Segundus at 6:44 AM on August 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
Are you bored? Lonely? Tired of doing work?
Have a Meeting
Look at charts! Talk about paradigm shifts! Enhance your personal brand! Make a personal connection with a coworker! Be comfortable in knowing that not only are you not getting anything done, but so are all these other people! Try one today!
posted by Nanukthedog at 6:54 AM on August 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
Have a Meeting
Look at charts! Talk about paradigm shifts! Enhance your personal brand! Make a personal connection with a coworker! Be comfortable in knowing that not only are you not getting anything done, but so are all these other people! Try one today!
posted by Nanukthedog at 6:54 AM on August 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
The page is still loading, please wait to add favorites.
Forever.
posted by hank at 7:11 AM on August 22, 2016
Forever.
posted by hank at 7:11 AM on August 22, 2016
I wonder whether part or all of that could be because, with a few exceptions (or at select times), we are not rational goal-seeking optimisers but equilibrium-seeking social creatures, and mediocrity is a pleasingly cosy equilibrium (until some rational, goal-seeking asshole disrupts it from under you, of course).
posted by acb at 7:34 AM on August 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by acb at 7:34 AM on August 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
Great article. High quality exchanges aren't just more expensive in terms of cash, they require more commitment from you. Nobody tells you to wear a jacket at McDonalds, and you don't have to make a reservation and show up on time. Yeah the food is crap, but they ask so little in return.
posted by w0mbat at 8:04 AM on August 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by w0mbat at 8:04 AM on August 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
I do not understand this impulse at all but it totally explains a lot of my former workplaces - those that I really didn't get on in.
posted by Dysk at 8:05 AM on August 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Dysk at 8:05 AM on August 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
One of economics's strangest failures (as seen by a non-expert Internet Yahoo, i.e., me) is its failure to account for hassle. A person has only but so much energy and goal maximization consumes a great deal of it. "We'll both pretend we're holding to high standards to save face and actually half-assing it to save ourselves hassle" is profoundly human and yet strange to economists.
This is why libertarians fascinate me. "We can choose everything! We can maximize everything!" For about five percent of the human race, that sounds fabulous. For the rest of us, that sounds like a ridiculous hassle and not worth the effort.
One of my key goals is "minimizing hassle." Thus I accept sub-optimal outcomes in other areas to achieve that. This is not complex, strange, or unusual. It's just outside of the usual discourse.
(If economics does discuss this or account for it at length, well, enjoy poking at my ignorance.)
posted by Harvey Jerkwater at 8:11 AM on August 22, 2016 [17 favorites]
This is why libertarians fascinate me. "We can choose everything! We can maximize everything!" For about five percent of the human race, that sounds fabulous. For the rest of us, that sounds like a ridiculous hassle and not worth the effort.
One of my key goals is "minimizing hassle." Thus I accept sub-optimal outcomes in other areas to achieve that. This is not complex, strange, or unusual. It's just outside of the usual discourse.
(If economics does discuss this or account for it at length, well, enjoy poking at my ignorance.)
posted by Harvey Jerkwater at 8:11 AM on August 22, 2016 [17 favorites]
As a society we can decide that (admittedly privileged) individuals can spend a lot of time managing their retirement portfolio, poring over reports, agonizing over decisions, optimizing their outcomes or they can, you know, receive a pension.
The latter option is a lot less hassle and leaves evenings free.
Constant rational optimization is a big pain in the ass.
posted by kaymac at 8:19 AM on August 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
The latter option is a lot less hassle and leaves evenings free.
Constant rational optimization is a big pain in the ass.
posted by kaymac at 8:19 AM on August 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
Please don't confuse economists with libertarians.
posted by bq at 8:24 AM on August 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by bq at 8:24 AM on August 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
Just about satisfied with kakonomics? Then why not wearily tolerate a kakistocracy, and vote #63 quidnunc kid! Or lower ... I don't care, really. Just do whatever you can be bothered doing. Or not, I guess.
posted by the quidnunc kid at 11:12 AM on August 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by the quidnunc kid at 11:12 AM on August 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
That makes so much sense.
posted by Made of Star Stuff at 1:14 PM on August 22, 2016
posted by Made of Star Stuff at 1:14 PM on August 22, 2016
Seems the inevitable outcome of industries in which salaries, budgets, and time resources have all been slashed well below the point where actual quality work is even remotely physically achievable. If we did not have an unspoken agreement in which the workers pretend to work very very hard and produce very good things, and the managers pretend that the produced items are indeed very very good, it would all fall absolutely apart.
In fact this is exactly what happens, micro-scale, when a bright-eyed and bushy-tailed newbie joins a company/team/project and Has Not Yet Been Informed of the Arrangement. All hell breaks loose for a short time, but soon enough the newbie is Informed of the Arrangement, and things settle down.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 2:39 PM on August 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
In fact this is exactly what happens, micro-scale, when a bright-eyed and bushy-tailed newbie joins a company/team/project and Has Not Yet Been Informed of the Arrangement. All hell breaks loose for a short time, but soon enough the newbie is Informed of the Arrangement, and things settle down.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 2:39 PM on August 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
Harvey Jerkwater, until an actual economist gets here let me point you to Coase' theory of the firm as -- here I begin to summarize, badly -- a way to reduce or ignore the "transaction costs" of making decisions.
Or you could read Red Plenty.
posted by clew at 6:19 PM on August 22, 2016
Or you could read Red Plenty.
posted by clew at 6:19 PM on August 22, 2016
One of economics's strangest failures (as seen by a non-expert Internet Yahoo, i.e., me) is its failure to account for hassle...One of my key goals is "minimizing hassle." Thus I accept sub-optimal outcomes in other areas to achieve that. This is not complex, strange, or unusual. It's just outside of the usual discourse.
The term you want to Google (if it's not too much hassle) is 'bounded rationality'.
posted by obiwanwasabi at 9:41 PM on August 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
The term you want to Google (if it's not too much hassle) is 'bounded rationality'.
Bounded rationality is the idea that when individuals make decisions, their rationality is limited by the available information, the tractability of the decision problem, the cognitive limitations of their minds, and the time available to make the decision. Decision-makers in this view act as satisficers, seeking a satisfactory solution rather than an optimal one.Oliver E. Williamson (winner of the 2009 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences) observed that transaction cost economics assumes bounded rationality.
posted by obiwanwasabi at 9:41 PM on August 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
-Good government takes effort and dedication. Good enough for government work.
-The most important way of building a nation's potential for growth and prosperity is education. Those who can do. Those who can't teach.
-America is a land of opportunity. I got mine so f*** off.
Kakonomics - the recognition that the incentives to prosperity are weaker than the immediate feel good of low-quality beer, easy monthly payments, and believing that one day you too shall be rich so why ask them to pay more taxes you will have to pay when your ship comes in.
If you are one of the few who takes pride in doing an excellent job and seemingly everyone you deal with is half-assed about it, how much more do you have to be rewarded to keep doing your work at the higher level. If noöne else seems to care or even gets annoyed with having to deal with your high quality, won't settle for good enough ass, how long until everything turns topsy-turvy and you either become a Trump voter or a Ayn Randian Libertarian. Alternately, hipsters welcome your attention to detail so moving to Portland is an option.
Kakonomics asks, "Quality, is it really worth it?"
posted by Ignorantsavage at 11:35 PM on August 22, 2016
-The most important way of building a nation's potential for growth and prosperity is education. Those who can do. Those who can't teach.
-America is a land of opportunity. I got mine so f*** off.
Kakonomics - the recognition that the incentives to prosperity are weaker than the immediate feel good of low-quality beer, easy monthly payments, and believing that one day you too shall be rich so why ask them to pay more taxes you will have to pay when your ship comes in.
If you are one of the few who takes pride in doing an excellent job and seemingly everyone you deal with is half-assed about it, how much more do you have to be rewarded to keep doing your work at the higher level. If noöne else seems to care or even gets annoyed with having to deal with your high quality, won't settle for good enough ass, how long until everything turns topsy-turvy and you either become a Trump voter or a Ayn Randian Libertarian. Alternately, hipsters welcome your attention to detail so moving to Portland is an option.
Kakonomics asks, "Quality, is it really worth it?"
posted by Ignorantsavage at 11:35 PM on August 22, 2016
I really liked the example given in the comments about field hockey refereeing, and there is a great parallel with the strike zone in baseball: The home plate umpire can call strikes on pitches that arrive well outside of the defined strike zone, and he will be above reproach as long as he calls them consistently and for both teams.
posted by clorox at 12:54 AM on August 23, 2016
posted by clorox at 12:54 AM on August 23, 2016
obiwanwasabi: bounded rationality seems to refer to the imperfection in the tools of decision-making i.e. lack of info, not enough time or smarts..etc, but hassle here refers to lack of will to want the optimum solution even if you know what it is, a type of bounded ambition.
posted by Gyan at 9:28 AM on August 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Gyan at 9:28 AM on August 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
Then you're talking about various theories of value, which again are things economics is pretty comfortable with. "This might be the best but I am willing to settle for this other thing because [other things I value more, like my time, or freedom from the emotional burden of owning expensive things, spiritual reasons, whatever reasons]" is an entirely economic concept.
(My objection is principally to the 'herp derp economists are such morons why don't they understand this common sense stuff ps i'm tots not an economist ha ha' claims that seem to be popular around here. Economists do know a lot about this stuff. It's not their fault most people are woefully ignorant about what economists know, with most people confusing the field with finance.)
posted by obiwanwasabi at 9:46 PM on August 25, 2016
(My objection is principally to the 'herp derp economists are such morons why don't they understand this common sense stuff ps i'm tots not an economist ha ha' claims that seem to be popular around here. Economists do know a lot about this stuff. It's not their fault most people are woefully ignorant about what economists know, with most people confusing the field with finance.)
posted by obiwanwasabi at 9:46 PM on August 25, 2016
herp derp economists are such morons why don't they understand this common sense stuff
I think this has roots in some legitimate complaints about the philosophical premises of classical economics (Eg a theory of value that implies that all goods are fungible, expressible in money terms; rational self-interest as a representation of human decision-making; etc). These criticisms don't apply to behavioural economics, obviously.
posted by Aravis76 at 11:47 PM on August 25, 2016
I think this has roots in some legitimate complaints about the philosophical premises of classical economics (Eg a theory of value that implies that all goods are fungible, expressible in money terms; rational self-interest as a representation of human decision-making; etc). These criticisms don't apply to behavioural economics, obviously.
posted by Aravis76 at 11:47 PM on August 25, 2016
« Older The Millennial Whoop | Choose Your Poison... I mean, Sugary Cereal Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Gyan at 1:42 AM on August 22, 2016 [13 favorites]