Unconstrained Hot Tubs
Nick, Fraser, Chris and Peter discuss what the removal of constraints means for behaviour.
For more information on Aleph Insights visit our website https://alephinsights.com or to get in touch about our podcast email podcast@alephinsights.com
Transcript
Hello and welcome to the Cognitive Engineering Podcast, produced by Tell Me Studios for Aleph Insights. In this series of podcasts, we take a look at interesting topics and discuss what we think they tell us about analysis and decision making. I'm Fraser McGruer and I'm here with Nick Hare, Peter Coghill and Chris Wragg of Aleph Insights. And this week we're discussing outdoor hot tubs. Nick, lead us in.
Speaker B:Yeah, well, I went to Iceland recently and one of the more enjoyable elements of being in Iceland was that they had these hot tubs outdoors at the hotel where you could just sit in a hot tub and look at the scenery, big, barren, wide, open landscape of Iceland. And it was amazingly good fun. I thought to myself being outside in a hot tub, regardless of how hot the hot tub is, you know, the fact that it's snowing or whatever is going to make the experience a bit miserable. But I was completely wrong. It's really nice being in a hot, hot water outside, regardless of what the weather's like is great. And my next thought was, why don't we have that in the UK? Why don't we have hot tubs? And the answer is that actually in Iceland they have, you know, they've got more or less free heating, free hot water because of all the volcanoes. So most most places just get just get free, free hot water out of the ground and use that. You know, we don't have that. So Iceland basically has these has this fantastic outdoor bathing, which is effectively not, it's completely cost ineffective for us, you know, to keep a hot tub permanently going at the height of winter, which is a real shame. But it did get me thinking, you know, how much actually of that you could put, you might go there and think, oh, that's interesting that Icelanders have this sort of cultural thing, which is sitting in a hot tub in the snow. That's very nice. You know, we should have that cultural thing too. But actually, it's only something which is available because because of the fact that they don't have this resource constraint that we do have. And it got me wondering about what other things we would do if you took away constraints and the extent to which, you know, the culture we have and what we consider normal is actually instead is just driven by, you know, by the need to get over resource constraints.
Speaker A:Yeah, what was what constraints did you think about? Or what sort of free freedom from what constraints?
Speaker B: ood culture, you know, in the: Speaker A:Well, it makes you think. Well, so so summarize the behavior when we look at it can be surprisingly driven by constraints. And actually, it's interesting sometimes that a constraint is removed. And you can immediately see some changes in behavior. But I can think of one constraint, which is removed that I think probably hasn't resulted in that or not as quickly as people might have thought. So going back to your example of wartime rationing, I'm thinking of the of licensing hours in the UK at the times that pubs shut, which so many people visiting these shores find very odd that when a bell goes at 10 to 11 in a pub, and then again at 11. And then suddenly that everyone What's that about? You know, well, that's time to stop drinking.
Speaker B:And go go back to your munitions plant and start working on the munitions you need for the Western
Speaker A:Front. So famously, licensing laws were changed. I think it was under the government, I think. And sort of one of the behaviors that people have said, Oh, look, the reason why British binge drink is because they have to they've got to fit in their drinking before 11 o'clock. And so I think maybe policymakers envision some sort of, you know, transformation into a cafe society where we all sit around sipping a little bit of wine until the early hours of the morning. But all that happened is that pubs were open longer, and people still continue their binge drinking, because the theory is either that's what they're used to, or maybe just genetically, that's what British do. But and I think that still hasn't really changed much this sort of, you know, drinking fast. So anyway, who wants to come in on something? Let's have Peter.
Speaker C:The uptake of extended licenses hasn't been that great as well. There's still lots of pubs that choose to close at 11. Because it suits them and their staff and and their clientele because they're used to this, this culture of have been drinking before 11 o'clock, and then getting up and still being able to function in the morning because they've got a more or less full night.
Speaker A: to be drinking to one. But so: Speaker D:Yeah, well, I was just gonna say that actually, I think we we've obviously adapted to scarcity in all kinds of resources. And we seem particularly poorly equipped to, to cope constructively with the removal of that scarcity. So food is a great example, you know, obesity epidemic, you know, is is sort of spread across the Western world and now the developing world. If you look at societies where, like gambling restrictions, again, another great initiative of the of the Blair government to remove the restrictions on gambling and what happens, more people gamble and you get more people addicted to gambling. This notion that, oh, if only we didn't have the restraints, people would would self manage much more sensibly doesn't seem to be borne out by the evidence of the removal of restrictions. And so I suppose it's almost as if we're just not mentally equipped to deal with a surfeit of a given resource. And, you know, looking forward, to me, what will be interesting is effectively, we're getting towards a stage where there's unlimited processing power for computers. What on earth will we put, you know, so far, what have we put it towards? Have we put it towards constructive, you know, well-meaning things? In some cases, yes, but mostly it's spent on computer games and and taking pictures of cats, which people do enjoy. I mean,
Speaker B:that does produce utility. I think there's a there's a good hold on. So I want Peter to come
Speaker C:in. I think he's right. Yeah, I think a lot of these problems caused by the rule constraints are probably generational. So it took a while. It took a generation or two to get over the removal of rationing in the UK. So my parents were always on me, not waste about wasting food. And because it was precious when they were growing up, because they were still they still had rationing imposed. But my generation and my children's generation probably will have developed a responsible attitude towards food where we don't waste food for not wasting food's sake, not because of some external constraint. But we are getting fatter, you know, so we are, but I think we will learn with society will adapt to getting fat and maybe getting fatter won't be such a bad thing. We'll develop cures for obesity related related diseases, or society will sort of begin to self police and being being fat will be will be undesirable. So people take more responsibility for themselves and they learn to do that. Okay, I want to bring in Nick in a second,
Speaker A:but a couple of things to size there. So Chris saying no, we need some sort of benevolent dictatorship in place, that telling us all what's good for us, and we need to follow that. And, and, and Peter saying no, we're gonna be self policing eventually. Slight surprise there hearing about your children, by the way. So I don't know if there's something going on in the
Speaker B:Coghill household. Hypothetical children. Okay. So Nick, wade in. Well, I was just gonna mention it might be a good time to mention Chesterton's fence, which, you know, is a popular kind of, well, it's popular thought experiment, I suppose, certainly in the in the sort of rationalist community, but it basically is the the idea that you you know, you walking through the countryside, you come across this fence in the in the middle of the lane where you're walking, you think this fence is a bit inconvenient, doesn't seem to be doing anything. Why don't we get rid of the fence? And that's and you know, Chesterton said no, if you've come across a fence, you should assume it's doing something. And don't remove it until you know what it's meant to be doing. And I think often we don't actually necessarily know what the operative constraints are. And, you know, removing, you might have said that, you know, it turns the constraint of licensing hours is making people binge drink, but actually, you know, it turns out it's something else making people binge drink, if that's the case, I don't know. You know, or, and, you know, it might be that actually, it's may not just be a generational thing. I mean, you can think of, you know, culture. So what it is that how it is that people behave, the kinds of things people consider normal, will eventually adapt, but it takes a long time. You know, it takes several years for people to adapt around constraints. Another example that I sort of think about is the NHS, which, you know, when people, the first generation to get free healthcare, were extremely sparing with it, because it was seen as such a privilege, you know, and people were, you know, very reluctant to get the doctor. Now, now people have grown up with free healthcare, they treat it like it's free. And, you know, it's over subscribed people, you go to the doctor for things that they probably oughtn't to. Likewise, with education, you know, we have free education, and the first generation to get that were, you know, in awe, and their parents were in awe of the privilege, you know, that people had fought to have free education for years. And now, you know, now it's seen as a kind of, kind of right and, you know, people, people perhaps don't, don't, you know, treat it as the, as as valuable as it actually is. Constraints helping inform value, I guess. Well, I mean,
Speaker C:I think it's an interesting thought experiment to explore, you know, the extreme. So assuming 100 years from now, we're living in a world where everything is provided, you can go to a sort of a wall, a hole in the wall and ask it for anything, and you will get it. There's no free energy, there's free food, everything, no one's starving. If they are starving, they're choosing to be starving. What was the human psychology like in such a world, where we don't have to worry about anything, everyone's perfectly safe, everyone's perfectly fed? Well, the answer is
Speaker A:Star Trek, right? Because that's exactly what happens in Star Trek, the next generation, where the, what are they called? The Federation, which governs the whole of the world. And all the things you've just described have come about, there are no material wants anymore. And so, and the answer for them is they go off and explore space, pretty much. And then all you've got to worry about is Klingons and so on. But anyway, I digress. Chris? Yeah, well, I think even,
Speaker D:even in the absence of want, I think, I think we're still driven. It's the extent to which we're driven by our evolutionary psychology. And I think we're still driven by an acquisitiveness, you know, that we would still stockpile even in an, even in a, or we'd still seek to get more and more of something, even when we have enough of it. And we're also driven by sort of short termism of, let's, let's consume it now, because it might not, it might not be there in the future. And I think that's, that's a dangerous combination to have surplus and acquisitiveness and short termism usually doesn't lead to a good, a good resolution. And that's... Yeah, we will end up,
Speaker C:we will end up drunk and fat or something. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I'm optimistic that, I think, you know, even when during rationing, there were fat people who, who, who were able to get hold of enough food and became fat, and they were all going to be fatties without the constraint. So I think there will always be those people who probably need more of a sort of mummy state to look after them of some kind. But I think I have faith that the human, the human animal will, and it's not necessarily a good thing, but I have faith that they, that we will be, we are extremely inventive in finding new kinds of constraints, new things to find exciting. So example would be, you know, extreme sports exist because we have spare time, and we have a relatively safe life. And we still feel a need for a bit of thrill, a bit of threat to life and a bit of fun. In the perfect technical utopia, we'll find new things which are precious and new things to sort of get excited and fight over. And the next generation, their, their one thing is exploration and development of the self and learning and leisure and leisure. So that, because those are their scarcities driven by the lifespan that you have the time that you've got.
Speaker B:Yeah, I think the sort of other things that are inherently limited, apart from time, could be a technological constraint, we don't know, we might invent something like in the HG Wells story, the new accelerator, you know, which sort of allows you to experience things at vastly higher rates. So you could perhaps, you know, have a have a have a week off in, in, in, you know, a couple of seconds or something. But you know, that so time is a pretty irreducible constraint, but also status, certainly for humans, very important, and not and that's inherently limited. Not everyone could be high status, you know, there's, so I mean, we will, there's always going to be something which is limited. You know, they cannot, I mean, I think, you know, unless someone can come up with a more inventive sci fi scenario, we'll always find something to
Speaker A:compete over. Oh, we're close to finishing off here. But I want to bring this full circle. And actually, it does tie in, I want to talk about constraints and status, as you talked about there, but also perception. Because when you were talking to me about being out in Iceland, sitting in your nice hot tub thinking all sorts of interesting thoughts, I couldn't help but imagine you with sort of much more longer hair, and bit skinnier and with a slightly redder face. Well, no, actually, I'm going in a different way. You reminded me of a Japanese snow monkey, of a Japanese macaque, right, which are famous for sitting around in their hot pools, their natural hot pools for the same reasons that occurs in Iceland, right. And that made me think about certain things. But do we know about you? How much do you know about those monkeys? And why they do this? I've seen pictures of them. Do they do they not just do it? Because it's because it's nice? No. So here's the thing that's quite interesting, is world famous, right? Lots of people, they're taking pictures of cute monkeys. But did you know that only certain monkeys are allowed into their natural hot tub?
Speaker B:The top monkeys, presumably.
Speaker A:Yeah, the top monkeys. And I'm guessing that there's probably enough room for all of them in there. But let's suppose for a moment that there's not. And you only get to go in the hot tub on the basis of your hierarchy within the troop. And there's lots of photos or film of monkeys trying to sneak in and other monkeys chucking them out. Okay. And so I guess it's even I guess even what looks like paradise and a lovely sort of life for these macaques is not and is still driven by constraints and the connection with status here as well.
Speaker B:Yeah, I mean, we were able to fit me and my partner and our two children in comfortably into a hot tub. But if three other families turned up, I think I'd, I think there'd be, it would have been a different story. Yeah, we would have been certainly fighting over the hot tub space. You know.
Speaker D:But in the, had there been three, three hot tubs?
Speaker B:There were actually three hot tubs.
Speaker D:Okay, let's, had there been nine hot tubs? Nine, yeah. Yeah, then you would have been, you wouldn't have needed to. And I suppose, I suppose, does status have a purpose in the in the absence of resource scarcity? Because after all, status exists within communal, you know, communal species, in order to give access either to mates or to food or whatever it might be, so that it can be decided when there's only so much who gets first, who gets first dibs.
Speaker B:I think that's a really interesting question we ought to have another separate podcast about, actually, you know, is how, how inherent is status as a thing? I mean, is status actually just a cultural thing that we use to solve problems of resource scarcity? Or is it something which is, you know, which we inherently want, and would seek, you know, and would emerge in some way, even in a world where, you know, actually, those things were free?
Speaker D:Well, yeah, I mean, in response to that, I think it, it relates to this, this question that we've been talking about throughout this podcast, which is that we probably would feel the need to invent status in some way in the absence of resource scarcity. But we wouldn't need it anymore. And I think we're, we're driven, a lot of our behaviour is driven by what we what we feel comfortable imposing, not by actually the constraints to which we're, we're subject.
Speaker A:But I mean, sorry, It's an organising principle as well, right? But Nick,
Speaker B:Well, it's just, we don't need to go hunting anymore, or kill things. But we play computer games where we do do that, because we just like the activity. I wonder if people actually like status seeking, you know, if actually people find that inherently enjoyable. And I mean, you know, so competing to be the best at a computer game, for example, is an example of something completely, you know, with no actual real world consequences, if you like, but which where we just simply enjoy the competition.
Speaker C:I don't know the, I can't remember the reference, but there has been some good cognitive psychological work into how humans perceive rewards. And particularly with monetary and acquisitional rewards, that we are pretty poor at understanding the actual value in terms of, say it's a monetary reward, in terms of what that reward will buy you in the future. So the things you could, the experiences and things you could have in the future, we concentrate rather on the face value of things, and seek external cues as to how much that's worth. So there might be something quite hard coded in our brains about how they, if you if you're given a reward of, if you're paid 20 pounds an hour, and I'm only paid 15 pounds an hour, and we do the same job, I feel affronted, even though 15 pounds might be sufficient for everything I need. So we look for, we look for these external cues as to how much a thing is worth, even though it's...
Speaker B:Yeah, we're much, much better off than your average medieval king. But who wouldn't want to change places with a medieval king? I mean, you know, that would clearly be brilliant.
Speaker A:Quite right. Talking of kings, I mean, you sort of threw me off kilter there slightly, Peter. So Nick Hare sitting in a hot tub in Iceland, Viking or monkey? Which is he? What do you think, Peter?
Speaker C:I think he's a bit too Norman to be a Viking. The Normans were Vikings originally.
Speaker A:They were, that's well interjected.
Speaker B:I'm actually really more of an Anglo-Saxon. But I mean, so that puts me in a, you know, we're still talking about basically the Norse family, one way or the other.
Speaker A:I'm just trying to imagine...
Speaker B:I'm not Mediterranean. That's definitely, I'm definitely in the North, Northern Europe camp here. Yeah.
Speaker A:Chris, monkey or Viking?
Speaker D:I think he's got to be a cheeky monkey, hasn't he?
Speaker A:On that note, we'll wrap up. Thank you as always for listening to the Cognitive Engineering podcast. I'm Fraser McGruer. We've been here with Peter Coghill, Nick Hare and Chris Wragg. Thank you very much indeed for listening. Until next time. Bye-bye.
