5 ms·

If someone asks me my opinion about something I'm much more likely to say what I know they want to hear if they offer to pay me to say that, and I'm less likely

If someone asks me my opinion about something I'm much more likely to say what I know they want to hear if they offer to pay me to say that, and I'm less likely to debate with them instead. If they aren't paying me, I'm more likely to say what I really think.

ForHackernews 10y ago
Alternatively: If I'm getting paid for factually-correct answers, I'm less likely to throw away money by using my answers as an opportunity to signal my ideology.
- jstanley 10y ago
  If your ideology is at odds with factual correctness... maybe you should rethink your ideology?
  - ForHackernews 10y ago
    You can say that, but [almost] everyone has ideological beliefs that conflict with the best available evidence. Maybe you rationalize it to yourself that "well, the jury's still out...those studies aren't conclusive" or "yes, but in principle my belief is correct, it's just that X, Y and Z are confounding variables so..."
  - twoquestions 10y ago
    Hardly! Professing belief in something blatantly untrue is a wonderful social signal, it says you're willing to stick with the in-group no matter what! Example: Someone close to me thinks the Detroit Lions are the best football team.
    - bduerst 10y ago
      Which seems like harmless, lightheared tribalism, sure, but there are many forms of tribalism that have quantifiable negative impact. Even for Midwest football: http://qje.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/03/21/qje.qjr001.full http://qje.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/03/21/qje.q...
      - twoquestions 10y ago
        I meant to be subtle about this, and you raise an excellent point. Tribalism is great for the in-group members and the in-group itself, but it can be horrifying to out-group members and greater society.
        bduerst 10y ago
        The point was that suspending critical thinking to belong to a tribe has consequences when reality catches up, unless you're trying to imply that abused wives are not part of an out-group.
  - __jal 10y ago
    Humans as a whole have a revealed preference for tribal cohesion over accepting reality. It was probably a beneficial trait when the Dunbar number roughly matched the number of people with in a day's communication.
ghaff 10y ago
Or you're more likely to do the troll thing for the lulz if there's no incentive to give your honest opinion. When you see poll results where some outlandish result (the earth is flat or whatever) gets 10-15% agreement, I suspect that's what is happening--combined with some percent who just misunderstood the question.
aetherson 10y ago
Well, the concept here is that they're asking very simple unambiguous factual questions, so if you know what they "want you to say," then you at least know the truth, even if you don't believe the truth. That is: If I ask you what's 3x3, for you to know that the answer that I want is 9, then you must know the truth. But I suppose there is some room for nuance. Like, take asking this question: "Has a human walked on the surface of the moon?" Let's suppose that Alfred answers that question with "No." Then you offer to pay Alfred if he answers the question correctly, and he changes his answer to "Yes." So, does Alfred actually know that people walked on the moon, and before he was just trolling or trying to get into the in-crowd of moon-landing deniers? Or is it that Alfred actually, sincerely believes that the moon-landing was a fake, but he knows that you likely believe that the moon-landing was real, and wants the payment?
- aetherson 10y ago
  That said, I don't really believe the moon-landing thing. Here's my logic: I'm talking to Alfred, moon-landing-truther. Alfred, I feel, is open in telling me how it works. He knows that I believe that the moon landing is real. He acknowledges that there is reason for me to believe that it is real -- he understands the conventional narrative. He explicitly argues his own (crazy) counter-narrative that subsumes the conventional narrative, reinterpreting the facts that I use. I've never heard anyone articulate a conspiracy theory around the example questions this study gave. Nobody has ever said to me -- not even online -- "Sure, it appears that inflation decreased during Reagan, but actually, here's the reason why that's a lie," nor "Sure, it appears that the deficit shrank during Clinton, but that's a lie." The closest that I've heard is two things: 1. A general belief that the media or the establishment lie or shill for Team X, without specifics. 2. Not on "inflation during Reagan" or "deficit during Clinton," but I do sometimes hear conspiracy theories that inflation is not actually currently low because the way that they calculate it and handle new inventions is a cheat, or that unemployment is not actually currently low because the proper measurement of unemployment is workforce participation.

ForHackernews 10y ago

Alternatively: If I'm getting paid for factually-correct answers, I'm less likely to throw away money by using my answers as an opportunity to signal my ideology.

jstanley 10y ago
If your ideology is at odds with factual correctness... maybe you should rethink your ideology?
- ForHackernews 10y ago
  You can say that, but [almost] everyone has ideological beliefs that conflict with the best available evidence. Maybe you rationalize it to yourself that "well, the jury's still out...those studies aren't conclusive" or "yes, but in principle my belief is correct, it's just that X, Y and Z are confounding variables so..."
- twoquestions 10y ago
  Hardly! Professing belief in something blatantly untrue is a wonderful social signal, it says you're willing to stick with the in-group no matter what! Example: Someone close to me thinks the Detroit Lions are the best football team.
  - bduerst 10y ago
    Which seems like harmless, lightheared tribalism, sure, but there are many forms of tribalism that have quantifiable negative impact. Even for Midwest football: http://qje.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/03/21/qje.qjr001.full http://qje.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/03/21/qje.q...
    - twoquestions 10y ago
      I meant to be subtle about this, and you raise an excellent point. Tribalism is great for the in-group members and the in-group itself, but it can be horrifying to out-group members and greater society.
      - bduerst 10y ago
        The point was that suspending critical thinking to belong to a tribe has consequences when reality catches up, unless you're trying to imply that abused wives are not part of an out-group.
- __jal 10y ago
  Humans as a whole have a revealed preference for tribal cohesion over accepting reality. It was probably a beneficial trait when the Dunbar number roughly matched the number of people with in a day's communication.

ghaff 10y ago

Or you're more likely to do the troll thing for the lulz if there's no incentive to give your honest opinion. When you see poll results where some outlandish result (the earth is flat or whatever) gets 10-15% agreement, I suspect that's what is happening--combined with some percent who just misunderstood the question.

aetherson 10y ago

Well, the concept here is that they're asking very simple unambiguous factual questions, so if you know what they "want you to say," then you at least know the truth, even if you don't believe the truth. That is: If I ask you what's 3x3, for you to know that the answer that I want is 9, then you must know the truth. But I suppose there is some room for nuance. Like, take asking this question: "Has a human walked on the surface of the moon?" Let's suppose that Alfred answers that question with "No." Then you offer to pay Alfred if he answers the question correctly, and he changes his answer to "Yes." So, does Alfred actually know that people walked on the moon, and before he was just trolling or trying to get into the in-crowd of moon-landing deniers? Or is it that Alfred actually, sincerely believes that the moon-landing was a fake, but he knows that you likely believe that the moon-landing was real, and wants the payment?

aetherson 10y ago
That said, I don't really believe the moon-landing thing. Here's my logic: I'm talking to Alfred, moon-landing-truther. Alfred, I feel, is open in telling me how it works. He knows that I believe that the moon landing is real. He acknowledges that there is reason for me to believe that it is real -- he understands the conventional narrative. He explicitly argues his own (crazy) counter-narrative that subsumes the conventional narrative, reinterpreting the facts that I use. I've never heard anyone articulate a conspiracy theory around the example questions this study gave. Nobody has ever said to me -- not even online -- "Sure, it appears that inflation decreased during Reagan, but actually, here's the reason why that's a lie," nor "Sure, it appears that the deficit shrank during Clinton, but that's a lie." The closest that I've heard is two things: 1. A general belief that the media or the establishment lie or shill for Team X, without specifics. 2. Not on "inflation during Reagan" or "deficit during Clinton," but I do sometimes hear conspiracy theories that inflation is not actually currently low because the way that they calculate it and handle new inventions is a cheat, or that unemployment is not actually currently low because the proper measurement of unemployment is workforce participation.