June 02, 2007
THE SOCIAL NORM OF LEAVING THE TOILET SEAT DOWN: A GAME THEORETIC ANALYSIS
Hammad Siddiqi in The Science Creative Quarterly:
The issue of whether the toilet seat should be left up or down after use seemingly generates a lot of passion among the parties concerned, however, scientific inquiries into the matter are almost non-existent. Notable exceptions are Choi (2002) and Harter (2005). Choi (2002) argues that the rule of leaving the toilet seat down after use is inefficient in the sense that there is at least one other rule that outperform this rule. The unit of analysis in Choi (2002) is the household and the efficient rule is defined as one that minimizes the total cost of toilet seat operations per household. Choi (2002) does not model the issue as a situation of conflict, hence ignores the game theoretic aspects of the problem. Harter (2005) models the situation as a cooperative game and proposes a contract that splits the costs of toilet seat operations evenly among the parties. Both papers agree that the social norm of leaving the toilet seat down in inefficient in the sense that it does not minimize the total cost of toilet seat operations per household. However, both papers fail to address an important concern: If a female finds the toilet seat in a wrong position then she will most probably yell at the male involved. This yelling inflicts a cost on the male. Based on this omission, women may argue that the analysis in these papers is suspect.
In this paper, we internalize the cost of yelling and model the conflict as a non-cooperative game between two species, males and females.We find that the social norm of leaving the toilet seat down is inefficient. However, to our dismay, we also find that the social norm of always leaving the toilet seat down after use is not only a Nash equilibrium in pure strategies but is also trembling-hand perfect. So, we can complain all we like, but this norm is not likely to go away.
All hope is not lost though. An important issue regarding social norms is whether they are created to increase welfare. Are they society’s response to market failures?
More here.
Posted by Abbas Raza at 02:01 PM | Permalink
Comments
typo in sentence
" . . . toilet seat down in inefficient in the sense that . . ."
Posted by: Samson vanOverwater | Jun 2, 2007 3:15:14 PM
I am remided ofthe time a part-time instructor, annoyed, told me about her arguement with a professor. Seems that when he left his classroom, he would always leave the blackboard covered with his notations. When she questioned him about this, he said it was a convention. The next teacher in the room wiped the board clean.
I sent the prof a note and told him that when the next time he took a crap at his home he should tell his wife and kids that the convention is now for the next person using the toilet to flush it.
Too much is made of putting the seat down. I alway do but see no reason why so small a thing should create any sort of issue. It is the little things such as this that seem to cause marital strive. Thank the good lord that sex and money issues are so unimportant.
Posted by: fred lapides | Jun 2, 2007 7:28:12 PM
Alas, Mr Siddiqi entirely fails to note the catastrophically greater total cost of toilet seat operations per household when toilet seats are left down in households which contain little boys. Further, the doubtless important concern with respect to a female yelling at the [adult] male involved when she finds the toilet seat down must be halved (and perhaps reduced by considerably more than half) in terms of the population at large given that no female who has contended with the inefficiencies involved in leaving the toilet seat down in households where little boys live or have lived will yell at the [adult] male(s) in the house over this issue. She may well, indeed, herself much prefer the seat to be left up, considering the relative efficiencies involved in lowering versus scouring.
Posted by: Mac | Jun 2, 2007 7:55:42 PM
If you've seen the movie "Tremors", you'll probably keep the lid down as well and bolt it.
Posted by: aguy109 | Jun 3, 2007 1:36:18 AM
The last word in the arguement? Urinals.
Posted by: doug L | Jun 3, 2007 7:44:24 AM
The seat should be down. The reason is that real issue is whether the lid should be put down. When that issue is resolved, as it should be, by requiring that the lid always be down, the seat issue takes care of itself.
Why, you may ask, should the lid always be down? Well, because the toilet should not be flushed until the lid is down. If the toilet is flushed with the lid up, it will result in aerosol contamination of the bathroom. And your toothbrush.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0311/16/sm.06.html
Posted by: harmon | Jun 3, 2007 12:48:35 PM
This ignores the purpose of the lid - to keep the odors confined. Use the toilet properly and there is no debate, both the lid and seat should always be down when done.
Posted by: Jim Smith | Jun 3, 2007 1:02:47 PM
Jim and harmon got it right, which seems so rare these days concerning this issue. I'm a man living alone and my toilet seat is down unless in use. For the above reasons plus the security of knowing that objects, like toothbrushes, can't fall in if the lid is down. What I want to know is why women suffer with cleaning piss off the floor and sides of toilets because men insist on standing, just because they can? Once the cleaning the bathroom chore became mine alone, I modified my methods at home.
Posted by: hank | Jun 3, 2007 2:53:57 PM
Jim smith your are such a girl hahaha
Posted by: tim yingling | Jun 3, 2007 8:27:33 PM
Post a comment