I have always felt a bias of the human mind when it comes to a *product* that is *self-created*. The first such personal experience that I remember dates back to the pre-university days when I *created* a Full wave rectifier after rigging up a circuit using components that I personally bought from a shop on the famous SP Road. It was an assignment that according to Fr. Lewis (the electronics lecturer who was also the Vice-Principal of the college), would earn me 10 full marks if it read an exact 5V DC drop across the output resistor. But, for us in the class who were turning into *creators* almost for the first time, this was clearly more than just about the 10 marks.
On the eventful day when our *creations* were going to be evaluated, Pradeep - the perfectionist who was the lab in-charge of the electronics lab at St. Joseph's stood between us and our full quota of marks. He wouldn't let Fr. Lewis miss a deviation of the order of even a 10 to the -1! But what irked most people in my class(including me) was not the loss of marks, but the fact that *our creations* were being termed *inaccurate* and not of the high quality we saw them as. On one hand, it was a refreshing change because marks that so often created wide caste hierarchies in college was now reduced to a *logical outcast*, and on the other hand we have the agony of *our creations* being *disrespected*, almost treated with disdain! "Only 0.14 V off the 5V mark bro, and this guy makes a fuss about it!" we would frown! What's more, Fr.Lewis would agree! And Pradeep would continue to be our 'villain with that trademark smirk'!
The interesting thing though, would dawn on me a couple of months later when I thought of our frowns and Pradeep's (and Fr.Lewis') from a more neutral perspective.
A. A full wave rectifier using 2 diodes was far from being an ideal way of building a rectifier circuit even according to our 2nd PUC electronics text book (which most people would agree was not even "Electronics for dummies" kind of reading) - A bridge rectifier would have been a more sensible idea. (so what, Fr. Lewis said "I want a full wave rectifier", he did not ask for the best way to build it).
B. Any student of electronics who has studied a couple of varieties of diodes would point that 0.14 V was more than just a deviation by a factor of around 10 to the -1. (a 1N4007 diode's knee voltage is around 0.7V, or forget it even simple approximation math has answers!).
Clearly, *our creations* when viewed from a neutral point of view deserved nowhere near the full quota of marks or the *adulation*! Clearly, there is a 'cognitive' bias we are all probably born with towards stuff we *make*. And recently, I came across a term that defined this very bias very logically and it is called the 'Ikea effect'. Coined by social scientists Dan Ariely and his colleagues Michael Norton and Daniel Mochon, the term derives it's name from the famous furniture brand (of America) 'Ikea'. The company sells furniture, that lets people 'assemble' different parts into home furnishing products; instead of the usual ready to ship types. The brand supposedly made loads of money just on this single characteristic that made people so much more 'attached' to *their* furniture. People spent hours building parts and then assembling them into 'furniture' and the brand offered people many customization options on similar lines. So people were even more proud of their creations, now that they had some uniqueness to show too!
The immediate thought that struck my mind after reading Ikea's IKEA effect was about how the brand managed to strike that balance, for it was so easy for people to get tired and hate the whole exercise if there was 'too much to do'! And that's when I came across 'Sandra Lee's 70/30 homemade philosophy'. The origin of this philosophy is not very relevant in this context but in essence, Sandra advocates - if 30% of the work involves 'personal' creative touches to the remaining 70% of 'existing components/the usual work' to complete our *creation*, then we feel like we *own* it! Simple equation! Solve for this and you'd come out screaming that you are the *creator*! I don't have proofs yet, but sounds reasonable I thought.
The next thing that came to my mind was my workplace and I was trying to understand if I was falling prey to this effect in any way. World's a lot bigger! I quickly realized that there was a more interesting and vast area that could be falling prey instead.
Java!
I have always felt that Java left me with too little to do! The language has so many constructs, libraries and pre-defined classes and everything in the world that I would often end up frustrated after an hour's coding when I realized that all I had done was putting together a set of 'already-existing' stuff. I know I have a bunch of Java-fanatics ready to kill this Java-traitor, but frankly this very Ikea effect I guess has even had a say in my career-related decisions and I did not even know the term then! "I'd love C'ing more than Java-ing any day just because I get to do stuff I want, my way" I told people. I did not want to answer Java questions in interviews just because I thought I wouldn't enjoy coding that way for too long any ways.
But stepping back a bit, is the 70/30 equation evident here? May be may, be not. Java, with all it's world obviously enables cleaner designs and more efficient code (terms and conditions apply :-p). More importantly, Java disciples always have their point about Java helping you create *bigger* stuff in less time. So you can clearly see the 70-part growing here! But, how often do you get to grow the 70-part at a workplace where Java rules? More importantly, where should you look in order to find your 30-share? Or, if it is for *relatively-little* college assignments that are just a few 1000 lines of code, how often would you enjoy coding in Java? May be the first 5 occasions? But then again, strict deadlines for your assignments might just force you to use Java and build *bigger* stuff in a short span of time.
I am not sure if I ask for too much in the 30-portion or if Java really falls short. Atleast in my case, I guess it was definitely the Ikea effect at work, makes me more curious about the proof for the 70/30 philosophy. May be it's just the 'Mr/Ms. A's x/y philosophy' where x and y are not really proven constants, they are more personality traits.
('The Upside Of Irrationality' by Dan Ariely has a whole, intriguing chapter on the Ikea effect, a terrific read!)
