What's behind the grass is greener

If you actually read Pomerantz’ paper on this (which is really just a letter, not a full-fledged article, and is available at
http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~pomeran/GrassGreener1983.pdf) it’s clear what he is trying to do is to bring together empirical psychologists and believers in “folk wisdom” by proving the validity of an aphorism. As such it is not a joke, but more of an existence proof. Pomerantz is a respected professor of vision science and his work should not just dismissed out of hand.

The other complaint of Cecil, that “Ecological Optics” has nothing to do with ecology, shows that he is unaware of the field of ecological psychology which has been around for fifty years and studies the information available in the environment for various sense modalities, one of which involves optics.

Though I suspect Pomerantz is missing the point of the aphorism. If you’ve ever watched cattle in a fenced field, after they’ve grazed the field for a while you may well see some of them stretching as far under the fence as they possibly can to grab some specially tempting bit of grass. Optics is hardly the point: cows or sheep or goats reach for what they can’t quite get.

As do people.

The article in question is the first half of:
Is the grass always greener on the other side? Should victims of overdose be kept awake?

and welcome to the boards!