5 ms·

'Pay it forward' pays off

34 points by ojbyrne 17y ago

nazgulnarsil 17y ago
what exactly does this study tell us that we didn't know before? edit: I'm going to assume down votes without a response don't have anything more solid than the article's nebulous bullshit.
- ryanelkins 17y ago
  Are you really going to say you "knew" this rather than perhaps assumed it? The test may not be perfect but it is some sort of proof beyond anecdotal evidence. Also I'd say down votes are because you made a accusatory statement without any sort of thought behind it.
  - nazgulnarsil 17y ago
    I read the article, saw no conclusion that was novel or applicable, saw the 18 upvotes...
    - idm 17y ago
      You're doing your science wrong. The upvotes are because the conclusion is novel.
      - nazgulnarsil 17y ago
        let me rephrase: what quantitative predictions can I make using the results of this study?
        idm 17y ago
        A relevant quantitative prediction would be of this form: When participants are randomly divided into two experimental conditions, "donation" and "no-donation", participants in the donation condition donate significantly more than no-donation participants. The amount of donation is the dependent variable - it's the way you measure, quantitatively, that the experimental manipulation caused the participants to behave differently. EDIT: I forgot the prediction part. So, I predict that this "donation effect" generalizes. If I ran a charity and I wanted to increase donations, then I might predict that if I gave something to potential donors, they would donate more when they were given the chance. I'd measure the outcome in terms of dollars donated.
        nazgulnarsil 17y ago
        this study explicitly controls for reciprocity effects though.
carterac 17y ago
It's interesting how truth can be revealed through empirical research and also art. As someone who started out as purely a math, physics, hyper-rationalist type of person, I used to think truth could only be found in empirical studies like this one. However, the results of this study became apparent to me several years ago, largely due to watching the film Princess Mononoke. Since then, I've lived a happier more fulfilling life. @nazgulnarsil: I think both (the study and the film) have extremely applicable conclusions that make them worthwhile to pay attention to: Since there is a multiplier effect on all of your actions, don't do bad things and do do good things. Or more simply, Karma exists. Just because the conclusion is simple, doesn't mean it can't have powerful effects.
- huherto 17y ago
  "Karma exists" That is definitely true. I don't think there anything magical about it though. When you damage somebody, that person may kick you back. Even if they don't, if you keep acting that way eventually somebody will. Doing wrong also has a bad effect on your self esteem. That's got to affect you. There is also the issue of your reputation. Acting wrongly will definitely damage it. The same applies for doing good.

34 points by ojbyrne 17y ago

what exactly does this study tell us that we didn't know before? edit: I'm going to assume down votes without a response don't have anything more solid than the article's nebulous bullshit.

ryanelkins 17y ago
Are you really going to say you "knew" this rather than perhaps assumed it? The test may not be perfect but it is some sort of proof beyond anecdotal evidence. Also I'd say down votes are because you made a accusatory statement without any sort of thought behind it.
- nazgulnarsil 17y ago
  I read the article, saw no conclusion that was novel or applicable, saw the 18 upvotes...
  - idm 17y ago
    You're doing your science wrong. The upvotes are because the conclusion is novel.
    - nazgulnarsil 17y ago
      let me rephrase: what quantitative predictions can I make using the results of this study?
      - idm 17y ago
        A relevant quantitative prediction would be of this form: When participants are randomly divided into two experimental conditions, "donation" and "no-donation", participants in the donation condition donate significantly more than no-donation participants. The amount of donation is the dependent variable - it's the way you measure, quantitatively, that the experimental manipulation caused the participants to behave differently. EDIT: I forgot the prediction part. So, I predict that this "donation effect" generalizes. If I ran a charity and I wanted to increase donations, then I might predict that if I gave something to potential donors, they would donate more when they were given the chance. I'd measure the outcome in terms of dollars donated.
        nazgulnarsil 17y ago
        this study explicitly controls for reciprocity effects though.

carterac 17y ago

It's interesting how truth can be revealed through empirical research and also art. As someone who started out as purely a math, physics, hyper-rationalist type of person, I used to think truth could only be found in empirical studies like this one. However, the results of this study became apparent to me several years ago, largely due to watching the film Princess Mononoke. Since then, I've lived a happier more fulfilling life. @nazgulnarsil: I think both (the study and the film) have extremely applicable conclusions that make them worthwhile to pay attention to: Since there is a multiplier effect on all of your actions, don't do bad things and do do good things. Or more simply, Karma exists. Just because the conclusion is simple, doesn't mean it can't have powerful effects.

huherto 17y ago
"Karma exists" That is definitely true. I don't think there anything magical about it though. When you damage somebody, that person may kick you back. Even if they don't, if you keep acting that way eventually somebody will. Doing wrong also has a bad effect on your self esteem. That's got to affect you. There is also the issue of your reputation. Acting wrongly will definitely damage it. The same applies for doing good.