Please make my decision for me

[DandyFop]

I cannot figure out what to do about this job thing. I interviewed at the ski resort and two very different positions were offered. I am looking at three options basically:

1. Central Cashier

-Have to be there AT 7 AM SHARP. No question, unless the canyon is closed, then I wait for it to open and go up (meaning I will have to leave my house at about 6:15 each morning...not easy for me at all)
-Work in a small room all day counting money (can go out and walk around, ski once in a while but have to be in the room most of the day)
-Work with dorky old dudes who have concealed weapons
-Can't carpool with other people because I'm the only one that has to be there that early
-Less flexibility for scheduling

-Pays 11.50 an hour (with 50 cent raise in 30 days)
-Full time Sun-Thur
-I get a ski pass, and am done around 3 each day

2. Lift tickets

-Work in the ticket office, be there between 7:30 and 8 each day (get out around 2)
-Really fun environment and get to work with the public (good and bad)
-More laid back, right next to lifts
-I can carpool with my friend that works there who also has to be there at that time

-Pays 8.50 an hour
-Only up to 30 hours a week about
-Get like 30 lifts a week, not a full ski pass

If I do this option I will have to get another job, serving or something probably, in Salt Lake (I don't want a serving job up there as I would have to drive down the canyon late at night). I figure I can get out of there, ski, and then go to another job. But that turns into like a 8 am - 10 pm work day.

3. Don't do either job and get something full time that's more close by and doesn't start so fucking early

Ughh I don't know. Immediately after my interview with the cashier guy I was like "no there's no way in hell I'm doing that job" because I honestly don't trust myself to get up on time every single day for that and you are allowed to be late once and once only. Halp :(

I would really like to get a job up there because my bf has his pass there and we could hang out when he comes up to ski.

[abcdefz]

Sounds like you already know.

Yeah -- keep looking.

[b i o n i c]

do the resort thing if you get it and work the connections. id think youd meet more interesting people at the resort than at the store or at home.

or if you dont, take the cashier thing for more money and look for a job that you like better.

[DandyFop]

ughhh I don't know though. I already told the ticket lady I was thinking yes but now I'm thinking maybe I should go with the other one. It would be nice to be totally done by 3 each day, you know?

[Rock]

Option 1.

Working two jobs sucks.

Working the lift ticket booths would blow. Total robot shit. I'd kill myself.

then again, a 45 minute commute by yourself everyday would eat gas, and if you car pool it might work out to the same take home. I dunno.

I still say option 1.

My fee for my advice is lift tickets.

[DandyFop]

I'm not working like the booth right next to the lift, it's just the place where people come to buy passes.

Yeah working two jobs sounds pretty lame.

fuckkkkkkk I hate this!

[Rock]

I'm not working like the booth right next to the lift, it's just the place where people come to buy passes.

Yeah working two jobs sounds pretty lame.

fuckkkkkkk I hate this!

I know exactly where you are talking about...I'd still kill myself.

Lift tickets.

Not now, but right now.

Option 1 though....for see-re-ullll.

[cookiepuss]

how funny. before I came here I was just reading this...

Less (Information) Is More

According to a new book, most people think too much before they make important decisions.
By Wray Herbert
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Updated: 4:13 PM ET Nov 20, 2007

When Benjamin Franklin's nephew Joseph Priestley found himself stumped by a complex life decision, he wrote his sage uncle for advice. In his 1772 letter of reply, Franklin described his own method for reasoning out complex problems, which he called "moral algebra." Divide a sheet of paper in half, he counseled his nephew, and make an exhaustive list of pros and cons. Then, over a couple days, weigh the pros and cons, and when a pro and a con seem of equal weight, strike them both out. What is left in the balance is the best answer.

Such "balance sheet" calculation is still taught today as the most logical and systematic method for dealing with many of life's complexities. Kids are counseled to choose colleges and careers this way, and managers similarly deliberate the pros and cons in important business decisions; some people are even methodical in matters of the heart.

But is moral algebra really the best method for decision making in today's dizzyingly complicated world? Or is there virtue in simplicity for many life choices? A growing number of psychologists are questioning the soundness of Franklin's method, and its modern iterations, including data-heavy calculations by increasingly powerful computers.

One of the leading challengers to the dogma of decision making is psychologist Gerd Gigerenzer, of the Max Planck Institute in Germany, whose new book "Gut Feelings" collects a convincing body of evidence for the power of hunches over laborious data crunching. Hunches, gut feelings, intuition—these are all colloquial English for what Gigerenzer and his colleagues call "heuristics," fast and efficient cognitive shortcuts that (according to the emerging theory) can help us negotiate life, if we let them.

Consider the "take the best" heuristic. "Take the best" means that you reason and calculate only as much as you absolutely have to; then you stop and do something else. So, for example, if there are 10 pieces of information that you might weigh in a thorough decision, but one piece of information is clearly more important than the others, then that one piece of information is often enough to make a choice. You don't need the rest; other details just complicate things and waste time.

Gigerenzer has demonstrated this in the laboratory. He asked a large number of parents to consider a scenario in which their child wakes up after midnight short of breath, wheezing and coughing. They are told that a doctor could make a home visit in 20 minutes; it's a physician they know but don't like all that much, because he never listens to their view. Alternatively, they could take their child to a clinic 60 minutes away; the doctors there are unknown, but good listeners by reputation. Which to choose?

There are actually four pieces of information in play here: 20 minutes vs. 60 minutes, home visit vs. driving to the clinic, familiar vs. unfamiliar doctor, and good vs. bad listener. Some parents in Gigerenzer's experiment did weigh all four pieces of information, but almost half did not. Instead they made this very important decision based on one factor, and for the vast majority that factor was whether or not the physician was a good listener—even if it meant waiting 40 minutes longer for treatment. Many fewer made their decision based on waiting time alone. Nobody much cared about a home visit.

Gigerenzer calls such decision making "satisficing," as in "satisfying" enough to "suffice." Satisficers don't feel the need to know everything, in contrast to "maximizers," who do want to weigh every detail imaginable in making even minor life decisions. Interestingly, studies have found that satisficers are more optimistic about life, have higher self-esteem, and are generally happier than maximizers.

Gigerenzer has had a hard time convincing other cognitive scientists of the power and accuracy of heuristics. Nobody quite believes that you can make sounder decisions with less information and less time, which is what heuristics claim to do. To prove his point, he has gone head-to-head with powerful computers, which can crunch vast amounts of information in the manner of Franklin's moral algebra. Consider another experiment involving parents: in this one parents have to choose a Chicago high school for their children, and they want the one with the lowest dropout rate. But that information is unavailable, so how does one make a decision?

Well, there is a lot of other information available, including SAT scores, attendance rates, writing scores, and more—18 pieces of information in all. Gigerenzer had a computer do what's called "multiple regression" analysis, which is just modern jargon for Franklin's moral algebra. It estimated the importance of all 18 pieces of available information and did a complex calculation to predict the dropout rate for each school. Gigerenzer also had a computer choose a school using the "take the best" strategy. In this case, it looked first at attendance, but there was no significant difference in the schools, so it moved on to a second piece of information, writing scores. Based only on these two pieces of information, the "take the best" method was more accurate than the complex and time-consuming analysis in determining the actual dropout rates of Chicago schools—and much faster.

Gigerenzer and his colleagues have run similar head-to-head tests on dozens of real-world problems, in fields as diverse as economics and biology and health care. In every case, one good reason has proven superior to data-greedy mathematical equations in making the best choices. Psychologists now believe that these cognitive shortcuts evolved over eons in the brain's neurons, probably because exhaustive and complex calculation was so often impractical for our early ancestors, who were always only one step ahead of their predators. Today we're one step ahead of an information tsunami, so it's comforting to know that the quick and dirty choices we're forced to make on the fly are grounded in some ancient intelligence.

Wray Herbert writes the "We're Only Human…"column at www.psychologicalscience.org/onlyhuman.


don't over think it.

[DandyFop]

But but but but! I already have, there's no going back now!

I think i'm going to try for the first one. I'll know pretty quickly if it's not going to work out.

[ScarySquirrel]

Do the money counting thing with the old dudes. That makes decent pay and once you get in the routine of getting up that early, it becomes really super easy. I used to sleep in a lot too, but once I got a job where I consistently had to be there at 6:30 am, it was a lot easier after the first/second week.

Plus you'll get out early, have the whole day ahead of you and have a lot of money to spend during that day. Sounds like a win-win to me, man.

[ericlee]

Im not sure of the cost of living in yewter but if you only make 8.50 per hour and get only 30 hours, you'd definitely have to get a second job. I was making only 8 per hour with 40 hours per week in Louisiana where the cost of living is pretty low and I could barely make enough to pass by.

I used to work two jobs and my life sucked. No freetime and only work work work. I was so miserable.

I'd say option 1 but keep looking in the process.

[b i o n i c]

done at 3, ski with everyone the rest of the day - not bad(y)

[DandyFop]

Thanks guys. yeah I think getting up that early would be good for me.

Sitting in the little room all day doesn't sound amazing but maybe I can listen to books on tape or something.

Now i feel bad because I already told the lift lady yes and now I have to call her back and she'll be mad cause they really need someone. But I gotta do what's best for me I guess.

[cosmo105]

cashier to make some moniez right now and look for something full-time. you're welcome. $100 fee plz

[Documad]

don't do drugs!

[marsdaddy]

The early bird goes to sleep early, too.

[DandyFop]

don't do drugs!

awww : /

[DandyFop]

hmeeehhhhhhhh i hate this!

I was pretty sure I was going to take #1 and then my parents and I started talking and they're like "don't do it it's too early and it's going to be a lot of wear on your car and it's dangerous to drive up the canyon so early if there's ice and yada yada"

so now my friend that works at the place is like "wtf are you doing, make a decision!!" but I can't :(

and now I have an interview for another job down in the valley being a runner for a TV station which is I guess more film related but I was looking forward to the skiing and shit after all.

this is lame

[AceFace]

get that boyfriend of yours to pay your way in so you can ski with him and take that TV job. you'll be happier for it! if you're worrying this much about it, maybe it's a sign that you shouldn't do it. :(

[DandyFop]

Yeah but a ski pass is like 500 bucks, I can't ask him for that.

Plus if I take the TV job I'll never even have time to ski, I mean maybe on the weekends, but not like I would if I was up there.

Sorry this is fucking annoying, I'm sure, as it is to me as well.

I think I'm going to interview for the TV job (thursday) and see how that feels. If it's a definite no then I'll go with the cashier job if they haven't found someone by then.

[Rock]

I thought you didn't ski.

If your true passion is film/tv, then go for that. you don't want to be stuck doing something you never thought you would do for 9 years with not much to show for it and want to kill yourself for being a drone to some cock sucking corporation!

[DandyFop]

I just started skiing after a very long hiatus. I figured since it's probably my last winter in Utah, I should go for it.

I won't be stuck in that job. I am only planning on doing it for 3 months or so, to save money to move to L.A.

We'll see how the interview goes. It involves working for Larry Miller who owns the Jazz, I hate that dude.

[AceFace]

I just started skiing after a very long hiatus. I figured since it's probably my last winter in Utah, I should go for it.

I won't be stuck in that job. I am only planning on doing it for 3 months or so, to save money to move to L.A.

We'll see how the interview goes. It involves working for Larry Miller who owns the Jazz, I hate that dude.

oh gosh girl i didn't know it would be that temporary! go for it then! spend all that time with your guy! work that crappy good paying job! in the end you'll probably have a super fun winter and lots of money to move with!

[Rock]

oh gosh girl i didn't know it would be that temporary!

yeah....3 months to get some chedder....do it up.

[taquitos]

sex with dogs