4 ms·

I've always felt they should give it out like the science prizes, wait 10-20 years before awarding it to see what/who really mattered.

by PJDK 12y ago

arrrg 12y ago
But that’s not why the prize is given. It is to encourage promising people to continue doing what they are doing. That’s a very clear pattern when you look at who received the prize. Implicit in that is that the prize might be given to people who turn out to be a disappointment. In many ways this is actually a very hard prize to award, but I’m ok with that. Sure, it will fail from time to time, but that’s just human.
- vidarh 12y ago
  And it's in that context one should view the price to Obama: It was a signal to Obama, and the US, of the amount of contempt a lot of the world held Bush in, and an attempt at encouragement to put those years decisively in the past. While that award is ridiculed outside the US too, I think few Americans appreciate just how terrifying the thought of anything like a continuation of the Bush legacy was to many people the rest of the world. We were shocked when he was elected the first time, and even more so that he became president a second time (and it doesn't matter that it was close, anything but a landslide for Gore would have still shocked us). It seemed like America had gone totally of the rails and was firmly headed into a level of previously unseen craziness. After the election of Obama is the first time I've seen non-Americans in many larger European cities hold parties to celebrate the election of a US president. It didn't matter that whether you believed his campaign promises or his background or that he is still far to the right of most of Europe - he was still someone who at least appeared to people to have some measure of intelligence and restraint. Someone who would at least listen to foreign leaders instead of some voice he believed to be God. Merely by stemming the neocon tide, he was seen as a giant step forward (or backwards, to the saner era of e.g. Clinton, who was probably more popular in Europe than in the US, or even Bush senior; heck, we'd even take Reagan)
  - CWuestefeld 12y ago
    I hate to wax too political here, but... I can imagine some people may have believe that Obama's first election signified, well, Hope and Change. But in the intervening years, we see that the Obama administration's foreign policy, at least as seen through its end effects, is scarcely distinguishable from that of GWB. The Iraq war "ended" precisely on the same schedule that GWB had put forward, we've found ourselves in an increasing number of armed conflicts, and we still seem to see the world as being beholden to American interests (e.g., countries around the world are expected to run their domestic policies such that they align with the US war on drugs). So it doesn't seem like the Prize did very much to encourage Pres. Obama to continue on a promise of peace. And why should it? If he does continue, he's not going to get a second prize. And if he doesn't follow through, they're not going to take the prize away. One might as well say to a child "since you said you'd clean your room, here's some candy to encourage you to actually do the cleaning".
    - vidarh 12y ago
      Note that while I don't particular care that Obama got the prize, I also don't think it was a particularly inspired choice so I won't defend the award. I think frankly few people would - it was very much a sign of the time and I agree with you that Obama hasn't done much to deserve it in retrospect. And we shouldn't really have expected him to either: > I can imagine some people may have believe that Obama's first election signified, well, Hope and Change. I find that curious, though, because he went into the election with a relatively conservative platform. It's not that long ago that his policies would have made him fit squarely in the Republican party. It's presumably exactly because of this he was able to draw in such a big portion of the electorate. That, and being painted as the anti-Bush. > One might as well say to a child "since you said you'd clean your room, here's some candy to encourage you to actually do the cleaning". There's actual psychology research to back up the idea that giving a reward in anticipation of positive action is in many circumstances more effective than promising a reward after the fact (Influence by Cialdini covers several different approaches to this, with references) so that's not such an outlandish idea, though not perhaps with that particular wording. In general, we have a very strong predisposition for consistency. If we are surrounded by signs that we are seen as the type of person who does X, then we are more likely to do X. But a promise of a reward does not signal we're the type of person who does X, it signals that we're the type of person who will do X when the benefit derived is perceived to be greater than the opportunity cost. (It's not clear to be, btw., that the Peace Price to Obama even potentially had a beneficial effect on this basis; it's not like it's a lever you can pull and it'll always work as intended on every person - if you manage to do things right to trigger the effect, it improves your average level of influence)
jonifico 12y ago
As the other person said, it's a lot about encouraging today's heroes into continuing with what they're doing. However, the prize should be awarded when the results of the person's work has really passed. Plus, it's only one person a year out of the other hundreds or thousands of people who don't get recognized. But again, it's a Nobel, whatever that's worth nowadays.

I've always felt they should give it out like the science prizes, wait 10-20 years before awarding it to see what/who really mattered.

by PJDK 12y ago

I've always felt they should give it out like the science prizes, wait 10-20 years before awarding it to see what/who really mattered.

arrrg 12y ago

But that’s not why the prize is given. It is to encourage promising people to continue doing what they are doing. That’s a very clear pattern when you look at who received the prize. Implicit in that is that the prize might be given to people who turn out to be a disappointment. In many ways this is actually a very hard prize to award, but I’m ok with that. Sure, it will fail from time to time, but that’s just human.

vidarh 12y ago
And it's in that context one should view the price to Obama: It was a signal to Obama, and the US, of the amount of contempt a lot of the world held Bush in, and an attempt at encouragement to put those years decisively in the past. While that award is ridiculed outside the US too, I think few Americans appreciate just how terrifying the thought of anything like a continuation of the Bush legacy was to many people the rest of the world. We were shocked when he was elected the first time, and even more so that he became president a second time (and it doesn't matter that it was close, anything but a landslide for Gore would have still shocked us). It seemed like America had gone totally of the rails and was firmly headed into a level of previously unseen craziness. After the election of Obama is the first time I've seen non-Americans in many larger European cities hold parties to celebrate the election of a US president. It didn't matter that whether you believed his campaign promises or his background or that he is still far to the right of most of Europe - he was still someone who at least appeared to people to have some measure of intelligence and restraint. Someone who would at least listen to foreign leaders instead of some voice he believed to be God. Merely by stemming the neocon tide, he was seen as a giant step forward (or backwards, to the saner era of e.g. Clinton, who was probably more popular in Europe than in the US, or even Bush senior; heck, we'd even take Reagan)
- CWuestefeld 12y ago
  I hate to wax too political here, but... I can imagine some people may have believe that Obama's first election signified, well, Hope and Change. But in the intervening years, we see that the Obama administration's foreign policy, at least as seen through its end effects, is scarcely distinguishable from that of GWB. The Iraq war "ended" precisely on the same schedule that GWB had put forward, we've found ourselves in an increasing number of armed conflicts, and we still seem to see the world as being beholden to American interests (e.g., countries around the world are expected to run their domestic policies such that they align with the US war on drugs). So it doesn't seem like the Prize did very much to encourage Pres. Obama to continue on a promise of peace. And why should it? If he does continue, he's not going to get a second prize. And if he doesn't follow through, they're not going to take the prize away. One might as well say to a child "since you said you'd clean your room, here's some candy to encourage you to actually do the cleaning".
  - vidarh 12y ago
    Note that while I don't particular care that Obama got the prize, I also don't think it was a particularly inspired choice so I won't defend the award. I think frankly few people would - it was very much a sign of the time and I agree with you that Obama hasn't done much to deserve it in retrospect. And we shouldn't really have expected him to either: > I can imagine some people may have believe that Obama's first election signified, well, Hope and Change. I find that curious, though, because he went into the election with a relatively conservative platform. It's not that long ago that his policies would have made him fit squarely in the Republican party. It's presumably exactly because of this he was able to draw in such a big portion of the electorate. That, and being painted as the anti-Bush. > One might as well say to a child "since you said you'd clean your room, here's some candy to encourage you to actually do the cleaning". There's actual psychology research to back up the idea that giving a reward in anticipation of positive action is in many circumstances more effective than promising a reward after the fact (Influence by Cialdini covers several different approaches to this, with references) so that's not such an outlandish idea, though not perhaps with that particular wording. In general, we have a very strong predisposition for consistency. If we are surrounded by signs that we are seen as the type of person who does X, then we are more likely to do X. But a promise of a reward does not signal we're the type of person who does X, it signals that we're the type of person who will do X when the benefit derived is perceived to be greater than the opportunity cost. (It's not clear to be, btw., that the Peace Price to Obama even potentially had a beneficial effect on this basis; it's not like it's a lever you can pull and it'll always work as intended on every person - if you manage to do things right to trigger the effect, it improves your average level of influence)

jonifico 12y ago

As the other person said, it's a lot about encouraging today's heroes into continuing with what they're doing. However, the prize should be awarded when the results of the person's work has really passed. Plus, it's only one person a year out of the other hundreds or thousands of people who don't get recognized. But again, it's a Nobel, whatever that's worth nowadays.