The network effect WAS there.

Post #244,995

by admin

2/16/06 2:28:14 PM

Because those places wouldn't be non-smoking without the choice being forced on them.

Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."

Post #244,999

by imric

2/16/06 2:57:48 PM

So -

The effect that a non-smoking bar would be untenable (and would require a ban of smoking to exist) because the nonsmokers would want to go to the bars with the smokers in them (the smokers would not go into the bars that had a non-smoking policy even though THEIR friends were there for some reason) was negated because bars were forced to be smoking or non-smoking. Huh? A ban of smoking was NOT necessary for non-smoking bars to exist, the government didn't have to force them to choose the nonsmoking option over the smoking option (they just chose WHICH customer base they wanted to serve); and smokers DO go to non-smoking bars (even though they don't smoke inside) to hang out with their friends.

Network what?

I'll say it again - the 'network effect' in this case is a rationalisation for people that want to force their own choices on others.

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #245,000

by admin

2/16/06 3:09:56 PM

Refuse to see it all you want.

The bars wouldn't have gone non-smoking without the law. YOU admitted this.

That's the network effect in action. Call it what you want, but that's what it is.

Ben has already pointed out why this works in this counter-intuitive way, regardless of demand, several times in a much clearer fashion than my initial attempts.

Rationalize all you want, that's how it works.

Sheesh.

Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."

Post #245,014

by imric

2/16/06 4:16:13 PM

Of course that's the ONLY explanation, right?

Flat out conservatism could NEVER be the reason. And restaurant/bars are such high-margin money machines that change isn't really a risk, right?

I point out that the so-called 'network effect', when actually tested, doesn't happen. You say that because the change had to forced proves its real.

I point out that when choice exists, the network effect doesn't.

You say the 'network effect' prevents 'choice'. The 'lack of choice' proves the 'network effect'.

IOW:
if A, ~B
if ~B, A
so -
If A, A

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #245,019

by admin

2/16/06 4:54:37 PM

Conservatism and risk are part of it.

And I'm done trying to get you to see this.

Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."

Post #245,026

by imric

2/16/06 5:12:35 PM

*shrug*

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Welcome to IWETHEY!