Preferring second best because it's more common?

Prisoner's dilemma / tragedy of the commons

>>8558765
Men are more than happy to settle down with an average women

>>8558796
Both of these things are the opposite of what is being suggested. The answer OP is no, there is no such thing in nature. When you really think about it it makes no sense of all anyways. You will always prefer "better" things but getting "less better" things is a consequence of less energy needed to get it, not preference for that thing. But also this is referring to food, and you are a NEET trying to reference group psychology in some cancer thread on the other side of the universe.

>>8558765
>Is there a name for this principle?
no, it's just common sense.

>>8558819

The reverse is not true however.

>>8558765
>more common
>easier to acquire
>less than optimal
I'm finding a hard time envisioning something like that even existing. If it's more common and easier to acquire, wouldn't that be the optimal choice?
It would have to be something like "You could get real food. Or you could eat this poisonous thing that still gives you nutrients, kind of." And in that case, if the animal doesn't have a means of acquiring "food" at all, of course they'll eat the poison because it's the optimal decision compared to starving.

>>8558765
who is pic desu?

>>8558843
like going for the suboptimal partner because getting the perfect one is hard as fuck

>>8558849
When you say suboptimal partner, you're begging the question. Once you say she's suboptimal to the perfect partner, that means that their optimal decision is to go for the perfect partner even though they're hard to acquire.
By stating that that choice of partner is suboptimal, you're saying that we should consider all costs to achieve that partner as a gain to produce a lesser net gain than the perfect partner.

Nothing will ever do this.
This is because you're failing to recognize that the difficulty in achieving either partner is factored into their optimality. The common and easy partner IS the optimal partner BECAUSE the amount of trouble it takes to get the "perfect partner" is NOT WORTH IT. Therefore, the perfect partner is NOT the perfect partner because there exists a more optimal decision.

Your entire premise bears a huge logical fallacy which makes any answer we give bogus.

>>8558765
They might choose the less nutritious food until the marginal cost of one more unit of less nutritious food is greater than that of acquiring one more unit of more nutritious food (assuming returns on less nutritious food diminish over time)

>>8558875

Yes, that is the principle. A would be better than B if they were both equally easy to acquire. Since it is easier to acquire B it is the better choice overall.

Does this principle have a name and are there examples of it?

>>8558888
There's no principle there. That's just a cost benefit analysis.

Sounds like a justification for why some guy would be attracted to anything other than white girls.

>>8558895

OK, but does the specific example of preferring A over B because B is more common have a name in evolutionary biology?

>>8558765
Is this a trap?

Looks like a trap

File: merryxmas.jpg (132KB, 2000x1333px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 2000x1333px

>>8558849
There has only ever been one perfect person, and we nailed Him to a tree 2000 years ago.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_feeding_behaviours#By_food_type

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalist_and_specialist_species

There you go op.

>>8558796
fpsbp