💾 Archived View for gmi.noulin.net › mobileNews › 2.gmi captured on 2023-06-14 at 18:26:39. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2023-01-29)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
2007-06-06 10:52:40
Re:Why upgrade? (windows)
The need to compel people to adopt a solution is not, in itself, an argument
that the solution is unnecessary. Applying game theory, even given a dominant
strategy consumers may actually choose the weaker strategy because they lack
the cognitive level required to understand which strategy is better.
Many consumers will choose what is familiar over what is better, even given a
clear-cut advantage. For example, many dial-up users will refuse to switch to a
broadband connection, even if the offer has all of the following properties:
This type of decision making can also be observed in solar panel sales. A
consumer who can afford a $25,000 solar panel setup and has the government
offer a $25,000 subsidy (effectively paying $0 for a lifetime reduction of 80%
of their energy bill), will still not have it installed. This behavior is a
result of 3 related fallacies. The "Burden of Proof", "Appeal to Tradition",
and "Fallacy of Pride".
Burden of Proof - It is much harder for Microsoft to prove Office 97 is
inferior to Office 2007 than it is for a user of Office 97 to prove Office 2007
doesn't meet their needs as effectively as Office 97 does. This is because
Microsoft does not know the needs of the user in question, only the user does,
and therefore the burden of proof is on the person making the assessment.
Appeal to Tradition fallacy - This is what I've always had and it has always
worked for me, therefore it must be the dominant strategy.
Fallacy of Pride - People want to believe the initial choice they made was
intelligent. Changing strategies would imply that their previous choice was not
intelligent. Therefore, the intelligent choice is to not change strategies.