This is a nice counterpoint to Zvi’s equally insightful OP. Your spouse might enjoy both the mutually-enjoyed restaurant and the one only she likes. Yet the fact that only she likes it means that she may rarely get to go. If your preferences were irrelevant, she might go to each of them half the time.
Variety is the spice of life: she’s lost something by only going to the one you both like.
Making a “sacrifice” to go to the restaurant only she likes isn’t just about loyalty. Not only does it give her the extra pleasure of variety, it also displays flexibility and willingness to compromise, which might be helpful in a future decision where you want your preferences to be prioritized.
Okay, this seems true to me (i.e., it seems true to me that some real value is being created by displaying flexibility, willingness to compromise, etc.). (And thanks; I missed it when reading Luke’s post above, but it clicked better when reading your reply.)
The thing is, there’s somehow a confusing set of games that get played sometimes in cases like the restaurant example that are not about these esteem benefits, but are instead some sort of pica of “look how much I’m sacrificing; now clearly I love you hugely, and I am the victim here unless you give me something similar really a lot, and you owe me” or “look how hard we are working on the start-up; clearly it won’t be our fault when the deadline is missed” or various other weird games that seem bad. I guess Luke is referring to this with his phrase about “but if the esteem is the main goal the sacrificer is exhibiting unhealthy codependent behavior.” But what is that, exactly?
Pica seems like it’s Goodhart’s Law, with the added failure that the metric being maximized isn’t even clearly related to the problem you’re trying to solve.
Evaluate your startup by the sheer effort you’re putting in? That’s Goodhart’s Law. Evaluate it by how cool the office looks? That’s pica.
Evaluate your relationship by the sheer amount of physical affection? That’s Goodhart’s Law. Evaluate it by how much misery you put each other through “for love?” That’s pica.
I think our culture is starting to produce a suite of relationship metrics that more directly resemble relationship success and failure, such as “the five love languages” or “the four horsemen of the relationship apocalypse.” This lets people upgrade from pica to Goodhart’s Law.
“More touch, gifts, quality time...” and “less stonewalling, defensiveness, criticism, contempt” makes problems too if done mindlessly. When can I take time for myself? What if my partner’s annoying me? People have to think about when those metrics stop being helpful. But it’s a better place to start than pica metrics.
This is a nice counterpoint to Zvi’s equally insightful OP. Your spouse might enjoy both the mutually-enjoyed restaurant and the one only she likes. Yet the fact that only she likes it means that she may rarely get to go. If your preferences were irrelevant, she might go to each of them half the time.
Variety is the spice of life: she’s lost something by only going to the one you both like.
Making a “sacrifice” to go to the restaurant only she likes isn’t just about loyalty. Not only does it give her the extra pleasure of variety, it also displays flexibility and willingness to compromise, which might be helpful in a future decision where you want your preferences to be prioritized.
Okay, this seems true to me (i.e., it seems true to me that some real value is being created by displaying flexibility, willingness to compromise, etc.). (And thanks; I missed it when reading Luke’s post above, but it clicked better when reading your reply.)
The thing is, there’s somehow a confusing set of games that get played sometimes in cases like the restaurant example that are not about these esteem benefits, but are instead some sort of pica of “look how much I’m sacrificing; now clearly I love you hugely, and I am the victim here unless you give me something similar really a lot, and you owe me” or “look how hard we are working on the start-up; clearly it won’t be our fault when the deadline is missed” or various other weird games that seem bad. I guess Luke is referring to this with his phrase about “but if the esteem is the main goal the sacrificer is exhibiting unhealthy codependent behavior.” But what is that, exactly?
Pica seems like it’s Goodhart’s Law, with the added failure that the metric being maximized isn’t even clearly related to the problem you’re trying to solve.
Evaluate your startup by the sheer effort you’re putting in? That’s Goodhart’s Law. Evaluate it by how cool the office looks? That’s pica.
Evaluate your relationship by the sheer amount of physical affection? That’s Goodhart’s Law. Evaluate it by how much misery you put each other through “for love?” That’s pica.
I think our culture is starting to produce a suite of relationship metrics that more directly resemble relationship success and failure, such as “the five love languages” or “the four horsemen of the relationship apocalypse.” This lets people upgrade from pica to Goodhart’s Law.
“More touch, gifts, quality time...” and “less stonewalling, defensiveness, criticism, contempt” makes problems too if done mindlessly. When can I take time for myself? What if my partner’s annoying me? People have to think about when those metrics stop being helpful. But it’s a better place to start than pica metrics.
Really liked this connection, i added it to the pica tag