1016: "Valentine Dilemma"

[Harry Voyager]

I'm getting my sweetie a 32GB USB flash drive filled with "I love you". I'm also hiding all the staplers.

I take it for the day after valentines, you are cleaning her computer?

[dp2]

I don't do Xtian holidays

That's a shame, you really should try some green beer.

[Fire Brns]

The only winning move is not to play.

How? Kill yourself?

Huh? It's a reference to another xkcd comic.

Well I say its a War Games reference. One of the greatest movies of all time.

Yes, greatest movie ever; 2000's sequel is unwatchable though, beware.

I propose a secret santa or "secret valentine" where 5 couples all by presents and draw numbers from a hat.

And a homemade gift need a lot of effort to be awesome. I made a large scarf out of yarn once from hand. Not from knitting, from hand.

[Red Hal]

I propose a secret santa or "secret valentine" where 5 couples all by (sic) presents and draw numbers from a hat.

Huh, in my day it was car keys.

[Jamaican Castle]

Remember this comic is pandering to a "class" of people who consider social ineptitude as a sort of virtue, and take pride in deliberately making social affairs more confusing and problematic than they need to be. Because that's quirky and cute.

No, we just think it's funny when fictional characters act in socially inept ways. A bit like Seinfeld, except less bad.

[gamer9678]

Possibly? But he was referring to http://xkcd.com/601/
(I didn't mean Randall... I meant Quicksilver's ref)

Which is itself a reference to the movie WarGames. As well as the alt-text "How about a nice game of chess?"

[ManaUser]

If this scenario perfectly satisfies the conditions of the prisoners dilemma something is wrong with the relationship. I can agree (not in all cases) that viewed as a whole neither partner getting any sort of gift may be the best total net result but the other condition of the prisoners dilemma requires that given a specific choice by the partner you would prefer to have given a gift
i.e. if your partner didn't give a gift you would prefer to have given them a gift which presumably means you enjoy their discomfort

I think it does like this:
Best case: No gifts exchanged. Both partners get to feel superior to the consumerist masses.
Next best: You exchange gifts. No hurt feelings, but you both feel a little like corporate slaves.
Second worst: You give a gift, but your parter doesn't. Awkward, but not as bad as:
Worst case: You don't give a gift, but your partner does. You jerk!

Of course the part where you can't communicate with your partner does probably make for an unhealthy relationship in itself.

[Felstaff]

or you could just talk to your significant other so you understand what their expectations are and come to some kind of mutual agreement on how the "event" is to be celebrated... you know, like human beings

Did you get your diploma in Grouchiness from Killjoy University?

The barman could have just said "fucking hell, there's a goddamn horse in the bar. Stay calm and don't frighten it. We'll need to calmly escort it outside. Someone call a vet."... you know, like a human being.

[CharlieBing]

Dang! I finally registered just to say that I read his gift as a jar of "hamsters" - which seems terrific and right in character - and Randomizer read the very same thing and posted first. Ha! Still, a jar of hammers is food for thought. A jar of hamsters is just plain funny.

[SirMustapha]

The barman could have just said "fucking hell, there's a goddamn horse in the bar. Stay calm and don't frighten it. We'll need to calmly escort it outside. Someone call a vet."... you know, like a human being.

A good artist could make something interesting and imaginative -- and, hey, even funny! -- out of that. Nothing is too mundane for a good artist.

And a bad artist can take even the wackiest and most out-there premise and make it utterly boring. Nothing is imaginative enough for a bad artist.

No, we just think it's funny when fictional characters act in socially inept ways. A bit like Seinfeld, except less bad.

I can see that working with established characters, or in an ongoing story line, you know, when there is a sense of purpose or direction. "Social ineptitude" is a character trait that can be worked in an unmeasurably large amount of ways. But when someone goes "here are some completely inept characters! AIN'T IT FUNNY??" at me, I consider it bad and/or lazy writing.

[manpace]

Sir:

You are very funny. Thought you should know.

Thanks for the laugh.

[eran_rathan]

No, we just think it's funny when fictional characters act in socially inept ways. A bit like Seinfeld, except less bad.

I can see that working with established characters, or in an ongoing story line, you know, when there is a sense of purpose or direction. "Social ineptitude" is a character trait that can be worked in an unmeasurably large amount of ways. But when someone goes "here are some completely inept characters! AIN'T IT FUNNY??" at me, I consider it bad and/or lazy writing.

See Also: Big Bang Theory,and/or Scrubs

[chrth]

I can see that working with established characters, or in an ongoing story line, you know, when there is a sense of purpose or direction. "Social ineptitude" is a character trait that can be worked in an unmeasurably large amount of ways. But when someone goes "here are some completely inept characters! AIN'T IT FUNNY??" at me, I consider it bad and/or lazy writing.

But aren't the generic stick-figure man and woman in XKCD essentially established? "Social Ineptitude" (or its sister, Unconvential Behavior) is one of the underlying characteristics of many of the XKCD characters.

To put it a different way, wouldn't the comic seem less "XKCD-ish" if the characters weren't socially inept?

[Pfhorrest]

The analysis of the PD turns on what is meant by "human". The traditional analysis in terms of strict economic rationality turns on a contradiction: it pretends to ask "What would a strictly 'rational' being do in this situation" and then behaves as if BOTH players are not strictly rational beings. As if one player was completely different in every respect from the other. This is weird, because it is then no longer an human game. The other player could be a random number generator for all you care.

This is important because if all you know is that the other player is economically rational (ie that "human" == "homo economicus") you know that they will behave identically to you. The off-diagonal elements of the pay-off matrix simple vanish in a cloud of contradiction, and the while "dilemma" becomes a trivial choice.

It is only when you treat one player are a rational being and the other player as a magic unicorn or equivalent that there is any dilemma to be found. On this view the PD highlights the randomness and irrationality of human behaviour rather than demonstrating any particular issue for economically rational individuals living in an economically rational population: in such a population everyone would make the same choices faced with the same PD-type situation, because beings of the same kind behave the same way (that is, causality holds.)

The prisoner's dilemma (or any game-theoretic game) does not assume that all players are game-theoretically "rational"; it asks what would be the game-theoretically "rational" response of any given player. Neither player knows whether the other player is "rational" or not. The dilemma occurs when we observe that if both players are "rational", the worst of all possible outcomes occurs from their "rational" choices.

It's similar to "chicken". The only way you can win chicken is by not swerving; it's not sufficient for victory (the other guy has to make the opposite decision too), but it is necessary. So obviously a "rational" player will never swerve, because that would guarantee failure, right? But then, if both players are "rational", neither will swerve and both will suffer the worst of possible losses. This and the prisoner's dilemma serve to highlight weaknesses in the game-theoretic concept of "rationality", and is why it's called a dilemma; the "rational" thing to do seems, on another level, the most irrational thing to do.

An alternate decision-making strategy from game-theoretic "rationality" which does assume all other players would settle on that same strategy is called superrationality and like you say does solve the Prisoner's Dilemma nicely: neither player will defect, and from their collaboration the most optimal outcome will occur. Likewise chicken: both players will swerve, and though neither thereby wins, by their compromise their losses will be minimized.

[cellocgw]

Once (really!) written from a pulmonologist to her cardiologist sweetie:

Roses are red;
violets are blue;
if your lungs didn't work;
your blood would be too!

yeah, yeah, OT, but so what.

[ShortChelsea]

I initially misread it as a jar of hamsters.

But hammers work, too.

I would like a jar of hamsters for Valentine's Day. Or maybe not. I'm not sure how social hamsters are or if they would eat each other.

[eran_rathan]

I initially misread it as a jar of hamsters.

But hammers work, too.

I would like a jar of hamsters for Valentine's Day. Or maybe not. I'm not sure how social hamsters are or if they would eat each other.

They are vicious little rodents.

They are also quite tasty, unless I am confusing them with guinea pigs - in which case, carry on.

[slakr]

I wrote a poem in response. Hope you enjoy it.

"Valentine's Day"

Roses are red
And violets are blue
For Valentine's day
Flowers don't suit you

Cause flowers shall die
And cards thrown away
They cost quite a lot
Just for one single day

Potatoes are better
To give unto you
For just as they grow
They grow like love true

And planted with love
They root and take hold
And keep you alive
Till you've grayed and grown old

So cast away roses--
You need not a thorn
And cast away cards--
Our love can't be torn

Just take this potato
A gift unto thee
And let us make love
'till a quarter past three.

[CharlieBing]

I initially misread it as a jar of hamsters.

But hammers work, too.

I would like a jar of hamsters for Valentine's Day. Or maybe not. I'm not sure how social hamsters are or if they would eat each other.

They are vicious little rodents.

They are also quite tasty, unless I am confusing them with guinea pigs - in which case, carry on.

You're right, hamsters are vicious little beasts... and they're none too smart either, which of course explains the spectacularly descriptive phrase "dumber than a jar of hamsters."

[Hughes]

I died laughing at "I panicked and stapled my hand to my face."

[1032]

The only present that makes sense to give on Valentines day is do donate blood, the only true present from your heart For me it's tradition and I don't have to worry about all the commerce and what to do if I'm single or not.

[drakvl]

But then they wouldn't be SPESHUL. Remember this comic is pandering to a "class" of people who consider social ineptitude as a sort of virtue, and take pride in deliberately making social affairs more confusing and problematic than they need to be. Because that's quirky and cute.

And now you're becoming pompous and insulting. Careful, Mustapha, you're starting to show signs of becoming One Of Us.

I can see that working with established characters, or in an ongoing story line, you know, when there is a sense of purpose or direction. "Social ineptitude" is a character trait that can be worked in an unmeasurably large amount of ways. But when someone goes "here are some completely inept characters! AIN'T IT FUNNY??" at me, I consider it bad and/or lazy writing.

Lazy? Maybe; I'll come back to that. Bad? I'm curious how you define quality of writing. The comic seems well-paced, and clearly conveys the writer's idea without distracting the reader. But that doesn't really address your complaint, which is about characterization, which is one of many choices a writer makes. Here's some homework: look up the phrase "comedy of errors" and write a short essay on its relevance to today's comic.

Now, lazy? That's a statement about intent rather than talent, and I'm having a harder time finding a way of evaluating this than with the claim about *bad* writing. So, time to explain the joke: this is a Valentine's Day joke, making reference to "Gift of the Magi" (technically a Christmas story, it covers the relevant topics of love, sacrifice, and gift-giving). This is a cliche, which, granted, is a possible warning sign of lazy writing. Does Randall go about this in an original way? Possibly; I'm too lazy to look up the TV Tropes page for "Gift of the Magi" references.

Oh. And one more thing. There actually is a basic rule of good writing -- maybe you've heard it -- that goes, 'Know your audience.'

[Paulmichael]

Just did some research on Game Theory, since I've heard a lot about it recently. Oh my god. How incredibly boring.

[whateveries]

...And a bad artist can take even the wackiest and most out-there premise and make it utterly boring. Nothing is imaginative enough for a bad artist.

Oh musty, having once been intrigued enough to follow the links in your sig, to what is, presumably "your music" of which you are also presumably "the artist", I do have to say this oft repeated line of 'bad artist' is reaching ironic levels.

I have resisted for a long time the urge to mention it, but I guess I could consider it a Valentines self gift, which no doubt, makes me a wanker. (in fine company no doubt)

[denn1]

The Japanesse have this Valentine Dilemma pretty much solved.

1. Only women gift on Valentine's day
2. The gift must be exclusively chocolate
3. Men must gift back something on white day (march 14)
ONLY to those who gave them chocolate on Valentines

[arnoblalam]

Isn't this more like battle of the sexes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_sexes_(game_theory)

[drakvl]

Just did some research on Game Theory, since I've heard a lot about it recently. Oh my god. How incredibly boring.

My experience is that learning makes most sense when it's attached to context. But yeah, game theory can be boring. However, there's a book -- a Dover reprint of a work from the '50s, I think -- called Games and Decisions (http://www.amazon.com/Games-Decisions-I ... 0486659437). It's thick, but it's pretty good, so far.Granted, I'm not even through the first third of the book.

[Newt]

Isn't this more like battle of the sexes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_ ... ame_theory)

Yes, but the alt text is still funny.

[SirMustapha]

And now you're becoming pompous and insulting. Careful, Mustapha, you're starting to show signs of becoming One Of Us.

But I am. I post here, don't I? Thing is: are "You" willing to admit that? Because most of "You" dismiss me as a troll. Wrap your head around that one.

Bad? I'm curious how you define quality of writing. The comic seems well-paced, and clearly conveys the writer's idea without distracting the reader.

Personally, I'm distracted by the dialogue and the wording, which are very typical of Randall. "Maybe rituals are necessary social glue"? Ick. But I guess that is just me.

But that doesn't really address your complaint, which is about characterization, which is one of many choices a writer makes.

I am aware that Randal chose to have this gag-a-day formula with very little recurring characters; but many of the jokes he makes are inappropriate for that context, because they need the reader to somehow relate, connect to the character. And how can one connect with a completely generic, faceless (metaphorically and literally) and insubstantial character, which is defined solely on the basis of one personality trait? Character-driven humour just doesn't work with caricatures: if the idea that Randall wants to convey is that Valentine's day forces people into difficult choices, there are better ways to do that; but I'm not even sure if that is what Randall is all about -- I don't know if the focus is on the "dilemma" itself or on the "quirkiness" of the "characters".

Here's some homework: look up the phrase "comedy of errors" and write a short essay on its relevance to today's comic.

I don't see the relevance. A comedy of errors does not require the characters to be completely featureless and generic. I am a massive fan of Chespirito and El Chavo del Ocho, which does that thing very often, but when well established and extremely charismatic characters. It works wonders, exactly because you can follow the characters' actions and relate to them.

If a reader really needs to relate to a character that is only socially inept and nothing more, then he's looking for porn, plain and simple.

Now, lazy? That's a statement about intent rather than talent, and I'm having a harder time finding a way of evaluating this than with the claim about *bad* writing.

Well, I'll make it clearer: Randall does not put effort on his work. Okay, sometimes he does -- but he's been doing exactly the same comic for years now, and he has shown no signs of improvement, no signs of evolution, no signs of direction or purpose at all. Randall has always had severe problems with getting the pacing right, writing good dialogue, delivering jokes without telegraphing them, and so on. And he repeats those errors with a startling frequency. This comic is neatly confined within Randall's comfort zone, it's doing nothing to get out. It feels like Randall knows he doesn't need to flesh out his characters, to give any context to his jokes, or to create relatable situations, simply because the majority of the fans will fill in those blanks in order to obtain quick, certain retribution.

Oh. And one more thing. There actually is a basic rule of good writing -- maybe you've heard it -- that goes, 'Know your audience.'

That depends. By knowing your audience, you can either do exactly and precisely what they want and avoid everything they're afraid of, or you can subvert their expectations and challenge what they think they know.

I think the most proper rule is: "Don't treat your audience like idiots".

[SirMustapha]

...And a bad artist can take even the wackiest and most out-there premise and make it utterly boring. Nothing is imaginative enough for a bad artist.

Oh musty, having once been intrigued enough to follow the links in your sig, to what is, presumably "your music" of which you are also presumably "the artist", I do have to say this oft repeated line of 'bad artist' is reaching ironic levels.

I have absolutely no problems and no qualms with people who don't like my music. You don't need to try to make me upset. It won't work; especially not here, where it would be extremely impolite and inadequate for me to go off-topic to discuss the merits of my music. The way you're trying to trap be with a cheap, lowly ad hominem attack like that in a place like this shows you're a petty coward -- or that you get too upset with trivial matters. Don't do that. You're on the Internet. I take about 10 minutes of my day to write these posts, and then I forget everything I said 5 seconds later and move on to something else. You won't get me.

But if you're really adamant on your views and you want to do something nice, PM me and say everything you think is wrong about my music. I will gladly consider it.

[whateveries]

...And a bad artist can take even the wackiest and most out-there premise and make it utterly boring. Nothing is imaginative enough for a bad artist.

Oh musty, having once been intrigued enough to follow the links in your sig, to what is, presumably "your music" of which you are also presumably "the artist", I do have to say this oft repeated line of 'bad artist' is reaching ironic levels.

I have absolutely no problems and no qualms with people who don't like my music. You don't need to try to make me upset. It won't work; especially not here, where it would be extremely impolite and inadequate for me to go off-topic to discuss the merits of my music. The way you're trying to trap be with a cheap, lowly ad hominem attack like that in a place like this shows you're a petty coward -- or that you get too upset with trivial matters. Don't do that. You're on the Internet. I take about 10 minutes of my day to write these posts, and then I forget everything I said 5 seconds later and move on to something else. You won't get me.

But if you're really adamant on your views and you want to do something nice, PM me and say everything you think is wrong about my music. I will gladly consider it.

ahem.
"LOL! I TROL U."
perhaps not.
Ok, it was a cheap shot, but I figured you might enjoy a little ride on a high horse (Happy Valentines! I got you a pony ride!)

It just tickles me that you utilise this forum to plug links to your own stuff, so in essence, you are inviting all the forum participants to inspect for criticism* your own art,otherwise what is the point of placing those links? So, dont be too miffed if someone does take a shot, at least they listened, and what is the point of having an ego if you don't give it a rub every now an then...

and whilst I always try to wait until at least the third page of comments before slipping off the topic, today...whatever, for me, musicly you are too noodly.

[chapel]

If this scenario perfectly satisfies the conditions of the prisoners dilemma something is wrong with the relationship.

No kidding: the PD requires that the two parties know nothing about each other except that they are "human". The Iterated PD, which is not the PD, allows knowledge of past behaviour.

"Human" is usually a quality I look for in a woman.

[Jave D]

I lol'd at "a jar of hammers."

I really wish I got presents like that.

[Eternal Density]

Why is PARTNER is caps?
Also, Roses are #FF0000...

The only winning move is not to play.

I don't play.
/ForeverAlone

[Yablo]

I initially misread it as a jar of hamsters.

But hammers work, too.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who read hamsters. Actually, that's not a nice thing to say. I wish you were the only one to read hamsters.

[eviloatmeal]

Awwww, you got me your hand stapled to your face? That's so sweet!

[ahammel]

"Human" is usually a quality I look for in a woman.

I will also accept "sentient AI" and "extra-terrestrial, assuming Star Trek turns out to be a documentary".

[Red Hal]

And how can one connect with a completely generic, faceless (metaphorically and literally) and insubstantial character, which is defined solely on the basis of one personality trait?

Well, it seems to have worked pretty well for the Twilight series ... not that I am comparing.

[bobsammers]

The worst case, alt-text scenario is being played out in the UK at the moment. Chris Huhne, a Government Minister has had to step down after allegations that he persuaded his wife to take a speeding fine on his behalf a few years ago.

How did it come to light? Well, he had an affair and he and his wife separated somewhat acrimoniously, after which she spilled the beans in an interview. As it happens, they're both going to end up in court (for perverting the course of justice, or similar and jail is a possiblity) which suggests she wasn't on top of her game theory when deciding to go public.

I'd love to say it all kicked off on Valentine's day (purely to strengthen the link to the comic, not for reasons of cynicism or schadenfreude), but as fas as I know, it didn't.

[SirMustapha]

Ok, it was a cheap shot, but I figured you might enjoy a little ride on a high horse (Happy Valentines! I got you a pony ride!)

Oh, but you weren't the first to do that cheap shot. I really wasn't impressed.

It just tickles me that you utilise this forum to plug links to your own stuff, so in essence, you are inviting all the forum participants to inspect for criticism* your own art,otherwise what is the point of placing those links?

When I joined the forum, I was a fan, you know. And in fact, for a long while, I didn't bother to update the signature -- but then I just did. Anyway, I am just being honest. If I am here pointing out all the things I think Randall does wrong, then I should not complain if people do that with me. That's why I leave those links here: I am not a coward, nor an incoherent prick. I can deal with criticism, and I always try to improve through them.

So, dont be too miffed if someone does take a shot, at least they listened, and what is the point of having an ego if you don't give it a rub every now an then...

Well, that's exactly it. I don't get miffed. I am mature, I can deal with people's opinions. Some people here can't.

and whilst I always try to wait until at least the third page of comments before slipping off the topic, today...whatever, for me, musicly you are too noodly.

Yeah, I might be, sometimes. That's a risk I can afford taking.