毛頭小咩

今天很懶，所以一整個直接借用吾友鄭筌X寫的內容
但是以下建議給稍微有點經濟學概念的讀者看，但是不懂經濟學應該不會影響這整篇的結論就是囉
假如不想看英文的，就直接看鄭筌X很貼心的翻譯(我相信所有人一定馬上跳去看中文)

這篇文章是Financial Times中裡面的專欄「 Dear Economist」由Tim Hartford所執筆。
大概就是讀者寫信，然後Tim Hartford用經濟學家(?)的角度來解析讀者的問題或煩惱，算是輕鬆的專欄。

Tim Hartford是位專欄作家，也出過幾本書，牛津大學的經濟碩士，總之他回信給一位有點煩惱的小姐...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suppose we plot my preference curve for a man as units of ''good boy'' traits
(thoughtfulness, caring, emotional support) versus ''bad boy'' traits
(adventurousness, sexual attractiveness). My boyfriend, whom I've been dating
for a year, would come up very high on the former and low on the latter.
This situation was fine for me before, but now I'm having a hard time being attracted to him and I wonder if I want to continue the relationship.

假設我將我對男人的偏好曲線繪製成以「好男孩」特質(體貼、關懷、情感支持)為單位，對上所謂「壞
男孩」特質(冒險犯難、有性吸引力)。已經交往一年的男友，在前者有非常高的分數但後者偏低，這個
情況在以前來說還OK，但我現在覺得他很難吸引我，然後我懷疑我是否想繼續這段關係。

Has my preference curve simply shifted more in fovour of the ''bad boy'' traits?
I know a year is a sunk cost, but I'm reluctant to give up so easily on such a
nice man.

是我的偏好曲線移動到比較偏好「壞男孩」特質的那邊嗎？我知道一年(的交往)是沉沒成本
(sunk cost 指做決策時 過去已發生且不可能回收的成本)，但我又不想輕易放棄這個好人。
Beatrice

Dear Beatrice

It is a pleasure to receive a letter that picks so much consumer choice theory
into so little space - although I sense a creeping confusion in your question.
You speak of a preference curve expressing a trade-off between good boy and bad
boy traits.(By the way, I recommend the term ''indifference curve'', both because
it is technically more precise, and because it makes you sound sexy and unavailable.)
Yet you do not specify your budget constraint. You act as if you can have a thoughtful
boyfriend or a sexy boyfriend, but not both. I wonder why you think this is true.
Perhaps you should hang around with economists more.

很高興收到一封，在如此有限的空間內提到這麼多消費者選擇理論的信 - 雖然說我從妳的問題中感受到一些
蔓延的疑惑。妳提到偏好曲線，表達了你對好男孩及壞男孩特質的trade-off*(順道一提 我建議妳使用
「無異曲線 indifference curve」因為技術上來說它也較確切，然後它又可以讓妳聽起來既性感又高不可攀)。
但妳沒有提到妳的預算限制(budget constraint)。妳講的好像妳只能擁有體貼或是性感的男友，而非
兩者兼具的男友，我不太懂妳怎麼會這樣想，也許妳應該跟多跟經濟學家出去繞繞。

Let us take your problem at face value, though, and assume that you cannot simply
find a man who has it all. If so, the problem you describe is familiar enough: that
of diminishing returns. Only little children want to eat their favourite food for
every meal, or listen to the same story again and again. For most of us, variety
is the spice of life.

不過還是讓我們按面值來看妳的問題，且假設妳無法容易地找到一個同時擁有這些特值的男。 如果真是這
樣，問題再熟悉不過了，就是報酬遞減(diminishing returns)法則。 只有小朋友才會想每餐都吃他們
最喜歡的食物，或是聽同樣的睡前故事，對大多數的人來說，多樣性是生活的調味劑。

So dump your boyfriend and find a rogue. Date him for a year.

所以把妳男友甩了，然後去找個流氓，跟他約會個一年。

It is bound to end in tears, and then you can find yourself another ugly, tedious
- yet thoughtful - man.

當然這會以眼淚作終，然後妳可以為妳自己找到另一個其貌不揚、無趣 - 但很體貼的男人。

They are not in short supply

那些人的供給不會短缺。
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
我承認我看完的時候大笑了三聲
但是基於本網誌的教育意義要提醒各為女性讀者這種心態不可取
愛字意唷~(搖手指)

附帶說明:鄭筌X與阿咩都是倫敦政經校友
所謂倫敦政經,就是在倫敦,研究政治經濟
只是我們分工比較精密
我負責"在倫敦",他負責"研究政治經濟"(誰跟你倫敦政經學生必讀Financial times呀~)