Blobcat? ([info]cartesiandemon) wrote,
@ 2007-11-29 02:19:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Current mood: crazy

I need to do something interesting but my life is going to be on lockdown for the next few weeks. I'm actually quite excited about this - I have a lot of interesting things to think about.

I want your intuitions!

Suppose you and 5 friends are involved in a reading group - every week you meet to discuss an article for an hour. The first week, one of your friends decides to bring cookies to the discussion, which you all eat and enjoy. The second week, another friend brings cookies, and again, everyone eats and enjoys them. This continues in the same manner, with each person in the group bringing cookies once per meeting, until finally you are the only person who has not yet brought cookies (week 6). Are you obligated to bring cookies to the sixth meeting?

If you respond, feel free to offer an explanation for your intuition, but you don't have to.


(28 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]crispygecko
2007-11-29 07:40 am UTC (link)
you're not TECHNICALLY obligated to bring cookies to the sixth meeting, as you have joined in no explicit agreement to do so. however, since you've been enjoying these cookies and have previously made no move against continuing this trend, you too are obligated to bring cookies! it's the honorable and tasty thing to do.

(also everyone will be hungry and annoyed if you don't)

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]cartesiandemon
2007-11-29 03:43 pm UTC (link)
I think it's interesting that some people have the intuition that you can only be obligated (in some sense) to do things that you explicitly agree to do. But it seems there are many cases in which you generate obligations without any explicit agreement - like when I lend you a DVD (there's an obligation to return it undamaged in a timely manner). I agree with you that this is a case in which you have generated an obligation without making any explicit agreement.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]easwaran
2007-11-29 07:45 am UTC (link)
I think one has the following disjunctive obligation: either anticipate this by the time 3 or 4 people have done it and explicitly bring up the matter to explicitly defuse the apparent obligation before it gets too extreme; or bring cookies (or a relevant substitute) on week 6. Maybe this isn't exactly an obligation. But it certainly looks like a fairly strong social expectation.

Consider also how this would look for n other than 6, whether the last remaining person is obligated to bring cookies on week n. When n=2, obviously there is no obligation. When n=100, it looks pretty strong. I suspect that 3 and 4 will be the borderline cases, whereas if n is at least 5, then something like the story I told above should be correct.

One might also consider the situation of person n-2 on week n-2 - if n=100, then even this person has an extremely strong obligation to bring cookies (or replacement). Even at n=10, this looks good. But at n=6, I would think this obligation doesn't obtain.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]cartesiandemon
2007-11-29 03:46 pm UTC (link)
I'm glad you mention this point because I think it is relevant. I personally thought 6 people was enough to generate the obligation (the original case that was being tossed around was 4 people, which led to wavering intuitions). However, I think you're definitely right that there is some point at which it's pretty darn clear an obligation is generated. Despite this, there are some holdouts over here. :-)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]jaxtumor
2007-11-29 07:46 am UTC (link)
you could make really bad tasting cookies so that no one wants you to make them again and then poof! no more obligation!

or you could do the nice thing and bring some christmas tasting cookies.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]cartesiandemon
2007-11-29 03:47 pm UTC (link)
I take it you think there is an obligation then? What the heck are Christmas tasting cookies? Ones that taste like eggnog?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]jaxtumor
2007-11-29 05:22 pm UTC (link)
or pine.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]princesofswords
2007-11-29 07:54 am UTC (link)
I'd bring chips.

But that's just because I'm a non-cookie-eating freak.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]cartesiandemon
2007-11-29 03:47 pm UTC (link)
Hehe, you don't like any cookies?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]princesofswords
2007-11-29 03:49 pm UTC (link)
They make me sleepy :(

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]armadaryu
2007-11-29 08:16 am UTC (link)
Rebel. Bring brownies.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]cartesiandemon
2007-11-29 03:48 pm UTC (link)
Nice - so you still think there's an obligation to do something?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]armadaryu
2007-11-29 06:36 pm UTC (link)
I think I'm overly nice so I'd probably do it out of politeness or straight up wanting to do it. You're not necessarily obligated but you should do something in return. You could even bring something and then crack a joke about how you had to ask your whole lot of LJ friends about it :D

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]shortcircuit
2007-11-29 08:48 am UTC (link)
you need to bring cookies only to the degree to which you are interested in continuing your participation in the reading group. the norm for the group has been defined to bring cookies once every 6 weeks and is now a tacit requirement for continued participation. you can, of course, elect to no longer attend -- in which case you are not obligated to bring cookies. :)

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]cartesiandemon
2007-11-29 03:54 pm UTC (link)
This is interesting. So, presumably, if you elect to show up on the sixth meeting, you are obligated to show up with cookies, but if you choose not to attend, you're not obligated to bring cookies? Do you think it might ever be plausible that you are obligated to show up with cookies even if you don't want to show up for other reasons? It seems pretty bad to me if for the first five weeks you show up, participate, and eat cookies, and then on the sixth week you don't show up at all (even if you didn't show up for other reasons). It still seems you had an obligation to show up with cookies though, even if certain excuses (saying you didn't want to continue attending the group for other reasons) defuse such an obligation... what do you think?

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]thunders_voice
2007-11-29 09:03 am UTC (link)
Yes, if you want to maintain social cohesion. It is a classic case of social relationships built up with reciprocal gift-giving, a la Mauss.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]cartesiandemon
2007-11-29 03:54 pm UTC (link)
What of one time gifts? do I generate an obligation to reciprocate to you when you give me a present "just because"?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]thunders_voice
2007-11-29 06:41 pm UTC (link)
I would say yes, you generate that obligation with one-time gifts, even "just because" gifts. That reciprocation wouldn't necessarily have to come as a similar "just because" gift. Actually, in my mind reciprocating in that way with a one-time gift seems like it would be wrong - part of the reciprocal gift-giving that Mauss theorized, and that I feel intuitively, involves reciprocating without having it be an immediate/forced/identical exchange. By giving a "just because" gift back, at least doing so soon after you receive the gift, makes the reciprocation too obvious. Mauss would also say that not reciprocating in some way generates a power differential, so that by not returning the one-time gift you are acknowledging that the gift-giver has some kind of higher status (like when parents give their children something, "just because"). Mauss' theory is pretty well spelled out in The Gift, if you're interested in reading about it in detail.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]andreags
2007-11-29 04:14 pm UTC (link)
If there was an explicit agreement, I would definitely bring cookies. Without it, I would lean toward bringing cookies since I like sharing tasties with other people and I enjoy baking when I have the time. If I was particularly busy, I'd just forget about it and plead ignorance.

They say that when you really want to do something you MAKE time. Without an explicit agreement, I wouldn't.

But if I were faced with this situation in "real life" I would do the sensible thing and just ask someone else in the group if I was expected to bring cookies since everyone else had.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]cartesiandemon
2007-11-29 04:21 pm UTC (link)
What do you think they'd say?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]andreags
2007-11-29 06:09 pm UTC (link)
Either yes, no, or I don't know.

If yes, I'd bring cookies or not show up at all.

If no or I don't know, I'd try to bring cookies but wouldn't make it a priority. There's definitely social pressure at that point to bring cookies, especially if you've been enjoying everyone else's cookies. You know most of the people in that group are going to be thinking "freeloader!" if you don't, and most people like to avoid being labeled as such.

If the answer is "I don't know", I DON'T bring cookies, and everyone shows up expecting them, then it's easy enough to say "Oh, I'm sorry, was it my turn to bring cookies? No one told me. I'll bring them next time then. Sorry." There may be disgruntled feelings and ruffled feathers for a few minutes, but I'm sure no one would hold a grudge if I did indeed bring cookies the following week.

And if someone tells me that I'm not obligated to bring cookies, well, I'd take them at their word. I'd feel inclined to reciprocate the kindness shown by the other members of the group, especially since it led to enjoyment for everyone, but if I was just too busy...well, cookies don't seem all that important to me.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]jewedlaw
2007-11-29 04:30 pm UTC (link)
Vish, implied-in-fact contract?

Yeah I know it doesn't fit exactly, but everything is an issue spotter at the moment.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]strawberry_anke
2007-12-02 12:27 am UTC (link)
Its a little weak for implied in fact but moral obligation? An outside shot at Unjust enrichment perhaps!

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]jlross818
2007-11-30 04:02 am UTC (link)
clearly there has developed a tacit agreement to bring cookies. It is my intuition that even if you don't want to show up to the 6th meeting, you still should (with cookies) because you are engaged in this tacit agreement. From a utilitarian perspective, minimally all the people in the group (and presumably some others) will think you're either a douche bag or a user if you don't show up, and will probably think this even more if you do and don't bring cookies.

otherwise, how are you? we need to catch up man!

(Reply to this)


[info]_onthecover
2007-11-30 10:33 pm UTC (link)
don't disappoint the whole group, man; just bring some damn cookies. they're a good way to ease everyone into a discussion, anyway. everyone's in a good mood. plus, if i were in the group, i'd want some cookies. if you just run by a gas station beforehand and pick up some really cheap cookies, you could even make a show of it, like "hey, look guys, this whole cookie thing has been pretty hard on me, though maybe i should've realized that that's how things are run here here, people bringing cookies to events like this, but being as unaccustomed to it as i am, i did the best i could, so here. i hope you like them." then you grin, sheepishly, and the whole group, though [probably] a little disappointed, will feel compassion for you, realize their folly in their mindless actions, and be happy, because they have cookies. and who knows, maybe you're not the only one who suffered. you may be disclosing a case for persons 4 and 5, too.

(Reply to this)


[info]1tophi
2007-11-30 11:58 pm UTC (link)
I guess you just gotta ask yourself if not bringing cookies is worth risking pissing these people off and maybe getting pushed out of the club.

Of course, you could always just ask them how they feel. Granted, they might not be honest.

(Reply to this)


[info]iamlying
2007-12-01 12:37 am UTC (link)
Well, the "natural" reaction is "yes, you have an obligation". But I wonder why...

To make an obvious point explicit, the cookies are clearly symbolic of something. It's not as if it would do to pay each person a monetary sum equivalent to what you consumed. They may rightfully protest that this wasn't a commercial exchange, but a social one. So let's remove the physical object, the cookies, and just make the subtext explicit. It's a sharing of sentiment or feeling, not cookies.

One thing to consider is that when one member of a group expresses a feeling, the silence of the other members need not necessarily indicate tacit agreement or disagreement. But when each person in the group, in turn, expresses the same feeling, one member's silence can seem conspicuous. I believe that is what is happening here.

In terms of the cookies, they express that this group is worth at least x amount of time, effort, money and consideration to the cookie-maker. You need not volunteer this sentiment, but when everyone else does, your "silence" can be seen as tacit disagreement. (In this case, by "silence" I mean your not expressing the same sentiment by bringing cookies.)

Therefore, in so far as you want to show that you have those same feelings, you have some obligation. At this point, you couldn't express those sentiments doing nothing. And though expressing those sentiments are not always your obligation, in this case you're the other shoe waiting to drop. They would be rational in assuming that your sentiments differ from the rest of the group.

(Reply to this)


[info]strawberry_anke
2007-12-02 12:30 am UTC (link)
I think to the extent that you have retained a benefit that would be unjust to keep the law provides a remedy under which you have breached. The caveat is that you can't have the benefit thrust upon you. I am thinking we have plenty of defenses against formation of contract here. You should be in the clear.



Send the 200 bucks to me in cash!

(Reply to this)

(28 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…