mad social science

posts about #madsocialscience more →
Economists Suggest Mind-Reading As a Way to Determine Public Good
Chart Reveals Future of the Air Force Lies in the Blogosphere
Your Future Will Be Filled with Promiscuous Friends
Why All Female Superheroes Look the Same

Your version of Internet Explorer is not supported. Please upgrade to the most recent version in order to view comments.

Dsmvwl Admin Promote to frontpage Approve user Ban user ×

twDarkflame
09/11/09

In reply to Economists Suggest Mind-Reading As a Way to Determine Public Good
Actualy, most people lie about stuff because they already feel someone is owed to them, or they think they need to "counter" other lies, by telling one themselves.
Its normal far more complex then "me want X so I lie to get it cheaper"

The other factor to take into account is everyone tends to think everyone else is more stupid them themselves.
Reply

twDarkflame was starred twDarkflame was unstarred

CoffinDodger (If the typos crap. Blame my keyboard)
09/11/09

In reply to Economists Suggest Mind-Reading As a Way to Determine Public Good
Well im fucked!! Im worth about 1.50. Anything under a Tenner and your thrown off a bridge right???......Right?
Reply

mikecap
09/10/09

In reply to Economists Suggest Mind-Reading As a Way to Determine Public Good
I'd really rather see this applied in legal cases and criminal courts. Is the person lying when they say not guilty? That's what I want to know.
Reply

mikecap was starred mikecap was unstarred

Dirk Anger
09/11/09

@mikecap: "It's not about detecting lies," he says. "It's about detecting values-and then comparing them to what the subjects say their values are."
Reply

Dirk Anger was starred Dirk Anger was unstarred

WindowlickinDaywalker
09/11/09

@Dirk Anger: You're being sarcastic, right?

And it looks like some enterprising defense attorneys have already tried using the fMRI as a lie detection test in CA:
[www.wired.com]
Reply

twDarkflame
09/11/09

@mikecap: yes, only this stuff never works reliable.
Reply

twDarkflame was starred twDarkflame was unstarred

Dirk Anger
09/11/09

@WindowlickinDaywalker: I wasn't, but now that I re-read it, that chunk I pasted sounds pretty stupid when taken out of context. I've discussed what I mean in a couple huge posts around here, mine and tetracycloide's
Reply

Dirk Anger was starred Dirk Anger was unstarred

dry-roasted-peanuts
09/10/09

In reply to Economists Suggest Mind-Reading As a Way to Determine Public Good
We are still killing the crusty jugglers for the greater good, right?
Reply

tetracycloide
09/11/09

@dry-roasted-peanuts: the greater good...
Reply

tetracycloide was starred tetracycloide was unstarred

Ghede
09/11/09

@tetracycloide: Would you stop saying that?!
Reply

Edited by Ghede at 09/11/09 6:53 AM Ghede was starred Ghede was unstarred

Cory Gross
09/10/09

In reply to Economists Suggest Mind-Reading As a Way to Determine Public Good
I must be misunderstanding this because I'm reading it like "if universal healthcare is of more value to you, then you pay more for it, whereas if it isn't you pay less." If so, then UR DOIN IT WRONG!

Oh well, all these economists are going to find out from me is that all military spending should go to boobs.
Reply

Cory Gross was starred Cory Gross was unstarred

WindowlickinDaywalker
09/10/09

In reply to Economists Suggest Mind-Reading As a Way to Determine Public Good
Oh. My. Deity of Choice.

The economists have finally realized that all people rationalize (as opposed to being rational) and will always look for the free lunch. What a breakthrough!

And THIS is their solution? Spend $1M-$2.5M USD per fMRI machine so people can spend 15min-1hr and $400-$3500 USD per scan to tell them whether or not a voter values something?

Fail.
Reply

Franklin Harris
09/10/09

In reply to Economists Suggest Mind-Reading As a Way to Determine Public Good
"So, for example, a swimmer might benefit a great deal from a public pool. But she wants to pay as little as possible for it, so she lies about how much it will benefit her. This may not affect the public's decision to build the pool, but it could affect how much she pays for it."

Actually, a public pool isn't a "public good," as it is very easy to make only the people who use it pay for it. A public good is something like national defense, in which it's rather difficult to defend an entire continent while excluding Joe's house because he refuses to pay up.
Reply

bookwench promoted this comment Franklin Harris was starred Franklin Harris was unstarred

Dirk Anger
09/11/09

@Franklin Harris: It is a public good if the Government pays for building it and then there's not a company running it to maximize benefit, but only to cover costs (or even covering only a part of them if covering everything would mean people not being able to afford the price and use it)
Reply

Dirk Anger was starred Dirk Anger was unstarred

Franklin Harris
09/11/09

@Dirk Anger: No, that's not a public good. [en.wikipedia.org]
Reply

Franklin Harris was starred Franklin Harris was unstarred

tetracycloide
09/10/09

In reply to Economists Suggest Mind-Reading As a Way to Determine Public Good
it doesn't have to lead to a terrifying, dystopia welfare state. i could just as easily lead to a more perfect government decision making process. this isn't to far removed from direct democracy via permanent net connection only so efficient the voting takes place on a subconscious level free from political posturing and deceit.
Reply

tetracycloide was starred tetracycloide was unstarred

Dirk Anger
09/11/09

@tetracycloide: Voting from a subconscious level? That would make for the worst government ever. I still have to see a politician appeal to feelings with a different reason than to exploit them to further an agenda (the most innocent of them being winning the next election.

Godwin's Law keeps me from giving the most compelling examples, but there are plenty of them. We wouldn't probably have any civil rights for racial minorities, or women, if laws were decide by what people subconsciously want. And you Americans don't have equal rights for other minorities,like the homosexuals, because the majoritary feelings are opposed to them.

My point being: Politics should be done with your brains, not your guts. As a white heterosexual male, I'm bombarded with messages telling me I'm a supreme being and should despise everyone that is not the same, and it would be naive to think that does not affect my judgement. But fortunately, I have enough brains not to say "fuck them, if they earn less, it's because they're not as good as me, after all, I'm a supreme being, you just have to see how everyone in any position of power looks like me, because we're better, except for a couple ones, but that's because of a conspiracy".

We've evolved to be like that, callous and narcissistic, but if we've grown past killing everyone who looks from another tribe, and rape everyone who seems fertile, it's because, part of the time, we don't do what we want, but what we think we should
Reply

Dirk Anger was starred Dirk Anger was unstarred

tetracycloide
09/11/09

@Dirk Anger: i think you've conflated 'on a subconcious level' to mean 'in the subconcious in a freudian sense' which was not my intent. my intention was to discribe a system where voting preferences are polled from the aggregate of an individuals actions and thoughts instead of their stated preference when asked. i think we would find that many that oppose equal rights for homosexuals or socialized medicine actually act and feel differently than they say they do, that they maintain their position because they don't fully understand the implications of it and that if they did they would come to a different conclusion. the fundamental problem with most issues such as these is a lack of empathy and, if properly constructed, this could put them in someone else's shoes without actually requiring they be capable of seeing themselves in someone else's shoes.
Reply

tetracycloide was starred tetracycloide was unstarred

Dirk Anger
09/11/09

@tetracycloide: "my intention was to discribe a system where voting preferences are polled from the aggregate of an individuals actions and thoughts instead of their stated preference when asked. i think we would find that many that oppose equal rights for homosexuals or socialized medicine actually act and feel differently than they say they do" and that is exactly what I meant, but I don't think that's a bad thing, I think that, while it's virtually impossible to take a prejudice out of somebody's head, if they're, let's say, bullied into acting like they don't have it, via social pressure, their sons won't grow up hearing those all the time (some will) and won't repeat it.

I can't see how having a machine that tells you what somebody really thinks can help you empathize with anyone. It could help if it was applied to politicians and the results would be made publicly available... but it probably would keep everybody from voting
Reply

Dirk Anger was starred Dirk Anger was unstarred

tetracycloide
09/11/09

@Dirk Anger: it doesn't help the individual empathize, it adds empathy to their votes when the individual is, for whatever reason, unable to do so themselves. the laws then create the social pressure that forces the individual to come to terms with the reality of their preferences and, at a minimum, stifle their baser instincts to the benifit of the next generation. it's really not all the dissimilar from what happened to in the civil rights movement and the courts.
Reply

tetracycloide was starred tetracycloide was unstarred

Anekanta - Go Play!
09/10/09

In reply to Economists Suggest Mind-Reading As a Way to Determine Public Good
This assumes that people can accurately know the value of something ahead of time. Most of the time, people make these choices based on assumptions and impressions, not on actual experience.

Like socialized health care--a lot of people say they don't want it, but how much of that is based on some irrational fear of state-run anything (oh noes! Communism!) and how much of it is based on actual understanding or experience with the costs and benefits of socialized health care?
Reply

tetracycloide
09/10/09

@Anekanta: actually it doesn't. by polling true preferences it can apply them to the conditions as they would actually be and not as the voter thinks they would be.
Reply

tetracycloide was starred tetracycloide was unstarred

Ghost_in_the_Machine
09/10/09

@Anekanta: But economists tell me people act rationally. Are you saying economists are wrong?
Reply

tetracycloide promoted this comment

tetracycloide
09/10/09

@Ghost_in_the_Machine: you should have more conversations with economists that made it past econ 101.
Reply

tetracycloide was starred tetracycloide was unstarred

Ghost_in_the_Machine
09/10/09

@tetracycloide: But if the voters preference is based on faulty premises (socialized health care leads to communism, for example) it is still his true preference, isn't it? How are you determining "true preferences"?
Reply

tetracycloide promoted this comment

Anekanta - Go Play!
09/10/09

@tetracycloide: I apologize, as my example was a bit unclear. What I mean is, even true preferences are based on assumptions about reality. If those assumptions are inaccurate, people's preferences, though they may be honest about them, will not necessarily lead to a good decision.
Reply

Anekanta - Go Play!
09/10/09

@Ghost_in_the_Machine: I'm saying that rationality depends a lot on context. You can only act based on what you believe you know--and the way a situation is described / presented to you completely changes the decisions you are likely to make about it.

(see this guy: [en.wikipedia.org])

So, if you have bad information, or bad context, you can have bad (but perhaps honest) preferences and end up making bad decisions--even though the choices you made were perfectly rational / consistent with respect to the context.
Reply

tetracycloide
09/11/09

@Ghost_in_the_Machine: you poll actions and behaviours and compare them with accurate premises to come to a conclusion effectivly making an end run around imperfect information on the individual's part by eliminating as completely as possible the imperfect information on the system's part.
Reply

tetracycloide was starred tetracycloide was unstarred

twophrasebark
09/10/09

In reply to Economists Suggest Mind-Reading As a Way to Determine Public Good
I just did an experiment, too.

I asked a group of economics experts questions about the market and the global economy. Each time the fMRI scan showed that they didn't know shit, they received an electric shock.
Reply

twophrasebark was starred twophrasebark was unstarred

twophrasebark
09/10/09

(That's the whole experiment. I just like electrocuting economists.)
Reply

twophrasebark was starred twophrasebark was unstarred

Annalee Newitz
09/10/09

@twophrasebark: Me too! Funny how IRBs never seem bothered when I submit requests to do research that involves delivering powerful electric shocks to economists!
Reply

Annalee Newitz was starred Annalee Newitz was unstarred

tetracycloide
09/10/09

@Annalee Newitz: hey! i'm an economist and i don't like electric shocks as far as i know. however i've never actually received on in a control setting so it's hard to judge the utility and i supposed we could come up with some really interesting regression models to predict my reactions to future electric shocks. tell you what, i'll let you strap me in and administer one shock for science.
Reply

tetracycloide was starred tetracycloide was unstarred

OW-Holmes:Bringer of Fear
09/10/09

@twophrasebark: To be fair, economists have predicted 7 of the last 4 recessions.
Reply

comics0026
09/10/09

In reply to Economists Suggest Mind-Reading As a Way to Determine Public Good
Yes, that's what we need, people telling the government to read our minds. Just a matter of time untill someone seriously suggests Thought Police.
Reply

NerD: R.O.A.C.H. promoted this comment comics0026 was starred comics0026 was unstarred

NerD: Blattella
09/10/09

@comics0026: This is what makes me not worry about that at all.

[www.dailymail.co.uk]
Reply

NerD: Blattella was starred NerD: Blattella was unstarred

Torley
01/06/09

In reply to Chart Reveals Future of the Air Force Lies in the Blogosphere
This has got to be a parody - how Byzantine, it screams Starship Troopers over-the-top too. The amount of Dilbertian sludge here makes me weep. And not with joy. Alas, this is how some foolish companies make use of "social media" to "thoughtfully message" and "engage their customers". Ah, buzzwords.

Too many rules make people give up. I've seen it kill the "spirit" of company blogging before.
Reply

Torley was starred Torley was unstarred

Don't Make Me Ang Lee. You wouldn't like me when I'm Ang Lee.
01/06/09

In reply to Chart Reveals Future of the Air Force Lies in the Blogosphere
It may be an overly complicated flow chart, but I bet the USAF could put together a damn entertaining board game if they put their minds to it...
Reply

Annalee Newitz
01/06/09

@c0dek: Ha! True. Where is the USAF Special Board Games Unit?
Reply

Annalee Newitz was starred Annalee Newitz was unstarred

night.laila
01/06/09

In reply to Chart Reveals Future of the Air Force Lies in the Blogosphere
I'm more concerned about the fact that the response to Trolls and Ragers is "notify HQ." Do they have a list of dissenting rants, rages, jokes, and satires at the expense of the air force?
Reply

night.laila was starred night.laila was unstarred

Evil Tortie's Mom: R.O.A.C.H.
01/06/09

@night.laila: HQ's going to be spending all day and night on Something Awful, 4chan, etc. if they actually do this.
Reply

ManchuCandidate
01/06/09

In reply to Chart Reveals Future of the Air Force Lies in the Blogosphere
From what I understand, launching Nukes is less complicated than responding to blog posts.
Reply

ManchuCandidate was starred ManchuCandidate was unstarred

geekgrrl
01/07/09

@ManchuCandidate: i'd like to see a setup wherein two keys have to be turned simultaneously in order to activate the "submit" button. preferably in a Futuarama-like universe.
Reply

geekgrrl was starred geekgrrl was unstarred

Earlier threads | All threads | Show hidden threads | Show featured threads only | Start a new discussion