4 ms·

The small payments ranged between 17 cents and $1. But how the payment calculations were described, based on weirdly complicated raffle entry odds for gift cert

by qwrusz 10y ago

The small payments ranged between 17 cents and $1. But how the payment calculations were described, based on weirdly complicated raffle entry odds for gift certificates or with different questions randomly worth 25 cents or 50 cents or whatever with various probabilities. Frankly, I doubt most participants understood the payments guidance about what amount correct answers would earn them. This could imply just putting a paragraph of confusing words with dollar signs mixed in before asking questions might also diminish political partisan bias in responses.

gist 10y ago
Could also be a version of the Hawthorne effect. [1] In this particular case the money was a proxy which was more powerful than words meant to say 'your answer is important' or 'your vote counts'. It's actually hard for me to put in words this concept but intuitively it is what seems is happening. Ok so let's take as an example upvote/downvotes on HN. Many of us give little thought to the impact and do it impulsively at least in some cases. Now let's pretend we know there is an impact, even minor, financially. We will pay more attention and I feel at least be more likely to carefully consider voting in either direction. Remember with money also people tend to not want to be wasteful it doesn't feel good. Nobody takes even pennies and throws them in the trashcan. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect
- Swizec 10y ago
  > Nobody takes even pennies and throws them in the trashcan. And yet they should. https://what-if.xkcd.com/22/ https://what-if.xkcd.com/22/ If you spend more than 3.6 seconds actively thinking about a penny, you value your time at less than $10/h. This comment is unfortunately self-referrential. Oops
  - gist 10y ago
    Well not to dispute some of your points but let me introduce another concept here. That is the act of 'forced savings'. And example of this is when you build equity in something that doesn't appear to be a good idea in the long run financially when compared to another alternative. Ok here is an example. Let's say that your home that you are paying a mortgage on offers a 5% increase in value per year (totally made that up) vs. putting the money in a money market that pays 6% per year (definitely totally made that up). On the surface the money market is a much better return let's stipulate and observe. After all you have liquidity and I will even further assume that the 6% is guaranteed. But wait a second. If the money is tied up in a house you can't spend it. In the money market you can. So the house is forced savings and in the end you might very well end up with more, all else equal. I say this as someone who just took cash that I had and bought a sort of expensive car by the way. Realizing that if I had the money in more real estate (which I also own) I most likely wouldn't have bought the car (since I don't like to finance or lease even though in theory it can make more sense financially).
    - Swizec 10y ago
      I completely agree. And I don't think it works with pennies. Pennies are heavy and not worth much. You need a 100 of them to get $1. That's a lot of coins. For $100 you'd need 10,000 coins and that's going to start taking significant space.[1] There's a reason people don't use pennies a lot. [1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9sJcyRMVufM https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9sJcyRMVufM
usefulcat 10y ago
Probably not. The reason they payments appear to work to increase accuracy is because the possibility of a payment motivates critical thinking abilities--what Daniel Kahneman, author of _Thinking Fast and Slow_ would refer to as "system 2". As described in the book, system 1 is effortless and automatic; it produces the first thought to come to mind when attempting to answer a question. It is good at pattern matching and associative memory. However, when faced with a difficult question, often times the best it is capable of is to answer a different, easier question instead. System 2, on the other hand, is the source of effortful, logical thought. It requires deliberate effort to engage and because of this is often described as "lazy". In everyday experience, we rely on system 1 most of the time, and most of the time that works well and is sufficient. An example is reading: an experienced reader rarely needs to sound out the individual letters of each word, instead perceiving entire words and phrases at once; that's system 1 at work. Now, if you ask someone to answer an objective question that has a partisan aspect to it, system 1 will immediately provide an answer (without you even asking it to, and regardless of whether system 1 is actually capable of providing an accurate answer). In this case, it's likely that system 1 is actually answering a question which is superficially similar to but not the same as the one that was asked (e.g., "is this my tribe" instead of "did deficits increase or decrease during the Clinton administration"). At this point, unless a person chooses to engage system 2, they are likely to accept the only answer at hand, the one suggested by system 1. The possibility of receiving a payment for an objectively accurate answer provides motivation for engaging system 2.
- davidw 10y ago
  This is kind of tangential, but is Michael Lewis' new book about Kahneman worth reading if you've already read "Thinking Fast And Slow"? I'd certainly recommend the latter - it's a very interesting book.
  - usefulcat 10y ago
    I actually hadn't heard about the Lewis book. Having read most of TFAS myself, I now have the same question :) Though I suspect that for me the answer will be "no".
  - 10y ago

by qwrusz 10y ago

gist 10y ago

Could also be a version of the Hawthorne effect. [1] In this particular case the money was a proxy which was more powerful than words meant to say 'your answer is important' or 'your vote counts'. It's actually hard for me to put in words this concept but intuitively it is what seems is happening. Ok so let's take as an example upvote/downvotes on HN. Many of us give little thought to the impact and do it impulsively at least in some cases. Now let's pretend we know there is an impact, even minor, financially. We will pay more attention and I feel at least be more likely to carefully consider voting in either direction. Remember with money also people tend to not want to be wasteful it doesn't feel good. Nobody takes even pennies and throws them in the trashcan. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect

Swizec 10y ago
> Nobody takes even pennies and throws them in the trashcan. And yet they should. https://what-if.xkcd.com/22/ https://what-if.xkcd.com/22/ If you spend more than 3.6 seconds actively thinking about a penny, you value your time at less than $10/h. This comment is unfortunately self-referrential. Oops
- gist 10y ago
  Well not to dispute some of your points but let me introduce another concept here. That is the act of 'forced savings'. And example of this is when you build equity in something that doesn't appear to be a good idea in the long run financially when compared to another alternative. Ok here is an example. Let's say that your home that you are paying a mortgage on offers a 5% increase in value per year (totally made that up) vs. putting the money in a money market that pays 6% per year (definitely totally made that up). On the surface the money market is a much better return let's stipulate and observe. After all you have liquidity and I will even further assume that the 6% is guaranteed. But wait a second. If the money is tied up in a house you can't spend it. In the money market you can. So the house is forced savings and in the end you might very well end up with more, all else equal. I say this as someone who just took cash that I had and bought a sort of expensive car by the way. Realizing that if I had the money in more real estate (which I also own) I most likely wouldn't have bought the car (since I don't like to finance or lease even though in theory it can make more sense financially).
  - Swizec 10y ago
    I completely agree. And I don't think it works with pennies. Pennies are heavy and not worth much. You need a 100 of them to get $1. That's a lot of coins. For $100 you'd need 10,000 coins and that's going to start taking significant space.[1] There's a reason people don't use pennies a lot. [1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9sJcyRMVufM https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9sJcyRMVufM

usefulcat 10y ago

Probably not. The reason they payments appear to work to increase accuracy is because the possibility of a payment motivates critical thinking abilities--what Daniel Kahneman, author of _Thinking Fast and Slow_ would refer to as "system 2". As described in the book, system 1 is effortless and automatic; it produces the first thought to come to mind when attempting to answer a question. It is good at pattern matching and associative memory. However, when faced with a difficult question, often times the best it is capable of is to answer a different, easier question instead. System 2, on the other hand, is the source of effortful, logical thought. It requires deliberate effort to engage and because of this is often described as "lazy". In everyday experience, we rely on system 1 most of the time, and most of the time that works well and is sufficient. An example is reading: an experienced reader rarely needs to sound out the individual letters of each word, instead perceiving entire words and phrases at once; that's system 1 at work. Now, if you ask someone to answer an objective question that has a partisan aspect to it, system 1 will immediately provide an answer (without you even asking it to, and regardless of whether system 1 is actually capable of providing an accurate answer). In this case, it's likely that system 1 is actually answering a question which is superficially similar to but not the same as the one that was asked (e.g., "is this my tribe" instead of "did deficits increase or decrease during the Clinton administration"). At this point, unless a person chooses to engage system 2, they are likely to accept the only answer at hand, the one suggested by system 1. The possibility of receiving a payment for an objectively accurate answer provides motivation for engaging system 2.

davidw 10y ago
This is kind of tangential, but is Michael Lewis' new book about Kahneman worth reading if you've already read "Thinking Fast And Slow"? I'd certainly recommend the latter - it's a very interesting book.
- usefulcat 10y ago
  I actually hadn't heard about the Lewis book. Having read most of TFAS myself, I now have the same question :) Though I suspect that for me the answer will be "no".
- 10y ago