Thursday, 30 April 2009

Shaking Loose

I have received suggestions on ways in which to improve the Shake Experiment. Ibb points out that "Scorn Satiation" is not the most compelling of terms, and also argues that it is not clear how scorn and synergy differ as distinct properties, at least in terms of one man's opinion.

Thus a greater level of thought is needed. Plus a formula, obviously.

Therefore from this point on, "Scorn" returns, and the overall score of each shake will be calculated as follows:

Overall Score=(Taste + Texture + Synergy - Scorn + 10)/4

This will give an overall score between 0 and 10, as needed, and will allow me to pour scorn on all that I deem worthy. Also, for the sake of clarity, scorn is the a priori judgement of the flavour in question, synergy is the a posteriori assessment of how well it works in practice. Ibb is convinced that bacon and peanut butter has a high synergy rating despite a high scorn rating (she's certainly right on the latter, at least), but you can come up with your own examples if you prefer.

Note that neither Maple Syrup nor After Eight Mints change scores under this new regime.

5 comments:

Ibb said...

I would like to point out that the bacon and peanut butter combo mentioned here refers to sandwiches and not shakes. Try it it's amazing. Also surely the scores don't stay the same as you haven't given them a scorn rating yet? x x x

BigHead said...

Anyway, wasn't scorn supposed to be an objective value generated by the all-knowing J-Dog, with nothing at all to do with how nice it tastes?

SpaceSquid said...

I simply used the formula Scorn = 10 - Scorn Satiation.

J-Dog suggested the term, but I make the calls. Possibly with him consulting, I guess.

Tom said...

Isn't the whole concept of a priori scorn an appeal to the emotions rather than good, solid, evidence-based atheist reasoning? Smacks a little too much of truthiness to me. ;)

Tom

SpaceSquid said...

Certainly not. It is a vital part of the Bayesian process to which I now give fealty.