if one persons scaling function is 2000 and the other is .01, it adds to more than 1… But wouldn’t the intuitive result be that the person with the smaller scaling function gets their way all the time, rather than indecision?
The series U1 + aV1 + abU1 + abaV1 + ababU1 + … diverges. The multiple orders of vicarious utility add up to an infinite amount.
If you have scaling functions of 50 and 0.01, then it converges, and indeed the person with the smaller scaling function gets their way, because whatever they want is what the other person vicariously wants for them, almost to the exclusion of their personal wants. Outside of the fictional world of Gor, I do not think this is a sustainable relationship.
But… Choice x and choice y. X gives me 1 util, y gives me 0 utils. My partner has reverse preferences. I get a=.01, she gets b = 1000. Ab=10
My partner gets 0 straight utils from x, 1000 vicarious utils + 10000 second order util + …
She gets 1 straight util from y, 0 vicarious utils, 10 second order utils, 100 third order …
So even if it diverges, both divergences point to the same choice past n=1. It’s not like ab>1 causes indecision paralysis.
Also, when I play with these later I’m going to find a way to dampen this, because the runaway utils aren’t realistic...
Someonewrong already said that in real life we don’t recurse it, so there is no series, so it doesn’t explode—and I think this incorrect person is correct.
The series U1 + aV1 + abU1 + abaV1 + ababU1 + … diverges. The multiple orders of vicarious utility add up to an infinite amount.
If you have scaling functions of 50 and 0.01, then it converges, and indeed the person with the smaller scaling function gets their way, because whatever they want is what the other person vicariously wants for them, almost to the exclusion of their personal wants. Outside of the fictional world of Gor, I do not think this is a sustainable relationship.
But… Choice x and choice y. X gives me 1 util, y gives me 0 utils. My partner has reverse preferences. I get a=.01, she gets b = 1000. Ab=10
My partner gets 0 straight utils from x, 1000 vicarious utils + 10000 second order util + … She gets 1 straight util from y, 0 vicarious utils, 10 second order utils, 100 third order …
So even if it diverges, both divergences point to the same choice past n=1. It’s not like ab>1 causes indecision paralysis.
Also, when I play with these later I’m going to find a way to dampen this, because the runaway utils aren’t realistic...
Someonewrong already said that in real life we don’t recurse it, so there is no series, so it doesn’t explode—and I think this incorrect person is correct.
And sustainable or not, I’ve seen it.
I’ve heard of it. Probably don’t want to see it.