Well, this is starting to become pointless, but...
Yes, what the research claims to show is painfully obvious, but they have set up an experiment in which there is no rational basis for making a choice. So you can irrationally choose to slavishly follow a risk aversion strategy regardless of the presentation, or you can irrationally choose to slavishly follow a risk taking strategy regardless of the presentation, or you can irrationally choose to follow different strategies depending on the presentation. The point is that all of the possible behaviors appear to be irrational on the surface, so it is difficult if not impossible to draw conclusions based simply on the fact that the choice was irrational - all other choices are also irrational.
Now, let me be clear. I understand the experiment. I understand what you are trying to say. I just think you are wrong. I'm also sure that you understand what I'm trying to say and that you think I'm wrong. I think we've reached the point of diminishing returns.
But there is no way to make a rational choice - all of the choices have equal outcomes. Once you recognize this then you have to accept that the basis for the choice is going to be irrational (at least from a financial perspective).
> What the experiment has chosen is that depending on the initial statement of an > otherwise identical choice, both monkeys and humans make a different selection.
Exactly, since there is no rational basis for choosing, they fall back on the phrasing of the question. How you phrase a survey question will influence the answer. And how you present a choice will influence the answer.
To be a clever experiment, it would have needed to show that the subjects made a choice that was less optimal based on the presentation of the choice.
Once again. I made up some trivial examples to make a point about researchers assuming that their results address only the specific question asked and not any other question. I wasn't trying to write a peer reviewed article offering an alternative explanation. If you don't like my example, think up a different one. It isn't hard.
I think you have failed to notice that there is no rational basis for making the choice. The two choices are equally good (or bad). So in the absense of a rational basis for choosing, why is it surprising that the choice isn't rational? And why is making different choices in the two scenarios more irrational than always choosing the sure thing or always taking the risk?
No, I made up some trivial examples to illustrate a point about viewing results only within the context of a previously posed question. Just because the researcher was interested in a specific behavior that doesn't mean the test subjects weren't basing their responses on some other criteria.
I love reading about an experiment in which a question is posed and then the reults are interpreted strictly within the context of that specific question without considering other possible explanations for the observed behavior.
In this case, the guy on the left always cheated while the guy on the right sometimes cheated but sometimes completed the trade as advertised. So why isn't the conclusion that monkeys have a sense of fair play? So they choose not to deal with the guy who always cheats. Or maybe the conclusion is that happy outcomes are remembered for longer than unhappy ones, so that the monkey's memory says that dealing with the guy on the right produces a better outcome more often?
Failing to consider other explanations seems... well... irrational.
OK. So when you get stopped for speeding, how does the cop know who gets the ticket? Or who gets busted for the stolen car or the drugs in the center console - normally its the driver, but now...
TFA mentions that the over-limit charges were waived but did they reverse the charge in a way that won't affect his average daily balance? Or will he be facing a 15 trillion dollar finance charge on his next statement?
Let's see... what's the slashdot meme for situations like this...
In Soviet Russia, cats... no
I for one welcome our new cat... no
4) Profit... no
Oh, I remember now... Water is wet, film at 11.
You missed the point of your own story
on
Hello World!
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
You went out of your way to praise your Dad for having the foresight to move beyond his comfort zone by bringing home a computer. Isn't computing simply your version of "sports and cars"? Shouldn't you be trying to emulate your father by moving beyond your comfort zone and bringing home something that will inspire your kids to pursue their own interests rather than yours?
That's a good idea. It would establish a grey area where a picture doesn't clearly meet the standards on either side. So it would not contribute to refining the standard.
Although, this would require the group of reviewers to routinely view photos that have been determined to be child pornography. That would be a very unpleasant job.
The concept of picking the illegal photo from a lineup of legal ones is a good one, but it will inevitably lead to a slow migration of the legal standard to an ever more permissive definition of provacative. In order for a photo to be consistently selected from the lineup it would have to be significantly more provacative that the legal ones. Any photos that were only sligthly more provacative would not be identified and would therefore become part of the suite of photos that had been determined to be legal.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, this is starting to become pointless, but ...
Yes, what the research claims to show is painfully obvious, but they have set up an experiment in which there is no rational basis for making a choice. So you can irrationally choose to slavishly follow a risk aversion strategy regardless of the presentation, or you can irrationally choose to slavishly follow a risk taking strategy regardless of the presentation, or you can irrationally choose to follow different strategies depending on the presentation. The point is that all of the possible behaviors appear to be irrational on the surface, so it is difficult if not impossible to draw conclusions based simply on the fact that the choice was irrational - all other choices are also irrational.
Now, let me be clear. I understand the experiment. I understand what you are trying to say. I just think you are wrong. I'm also sure that you understand what I'm trying to say and that you think I'm wrong. I think we've reached the point of diminishing returns.
But there is no way to make a rational choice - all of the choices have equal outcomes. Once you recognize this then you have to accept that the basis for the choice is going to be irrational (at least from a financial perspective).
> What the experiment has chosen is that depending on the initial statement of an
> otherwise identical choice, both monkeys and humans make a different selection.
Exactly, since there is no rational basis for choosing, they fall back on the phrasing of the question. How you phrase a survey question will influence the answer. And how you present a choice will influence the answer.
To be a clever experiment, it would have needed to show that the subjects made a choice that was less optimal based on the presentation of the choice.
Once again. I made up some trivial examples to make a point about researchers assuming that their results address only the specific question asked and not any other question. I wasn't trying to write a peer reviewed article offering an alternative explanation. If you don't like my example, think up a different one. It isn't hard.
I think you have failed to notice that there is no rational basis for making the choice. The two choices are equally good (or bad). So in the absense of a rational basis for choosing, why is it surprising that the choice isn't rational? And why is making different choices in the two scenarios more irrational than always choosing the sure thing or always taking the risk?
No, I made up some trivial examples to illustrate a point about viewing results only within the context of a previously posed question. Just because the researcher was interested in a specific behavior that doesn't mean the test subjects weren't basing their responses on some other criteria.
I love reading about an experiment in which a question is posed and then the reults are interpreted strictly within the context of that specific question without considering other possible explanations for the observed behavior.
In this case, the guy on the left always cheated while the guy on the right sometimes cheated but sometimes completed the trade as advertised. So why isn't the conclusion that monkeys have a sense of fair play? So they choose not to deal with the guy who always cheats. Or maybe the conclusion is that happy outcomes are remembered for longer than unhappy ones, so that the monkey's memory says that dealing with the guy on the right produces a better outcome more often?
Failing to consider other explanations seems ... well ... irrational.
But leave important decisions to voters, and you ensure that nothing ever gets done.
You say that like it's a bad thing
Yes, but where is the chapter on how to do the dead parrot sketch?
OK. So when you get stopped for speeding, how does the cop know who gets the ticket? Or who gets busted for the stolen car or the drugs in the center console - normally its the driver, but now ...
TFA mentions that the over-limit charges were waived but did they reverse the charge in a way that won't affect his average daily balance? Or will he be facing a 15 trillion dollar finance charge on his next statement?
Let's see ... what's the slashdot meme for situations like this ...
In Soviet Russia, cats ... no
I for one welcome our new cat ... no
4) Profit ... no
Oh, I remember now ... Water is wet, film at 11.
You went out of your way to praise your Dad for having the foresight to move beyond his comfort zone by bringing home a computer. Isn't computing simply your version of "sports and cars"? Shouldn't you be trying to emulate your father by moving beyond your comfort zone and bringing home something that will inspire your kids to pursue their own interests rather than yours?
And that would make it different from all the other articles because ... ?
Wow, what a nerd!
That's a good idea. It would establish a grey area where a picture doesn't clearly meet the standards on either side. So it would not contribute to refining the standard.
Although, this would require the group of reviewers to routinely view photos that have been determined to be child pornography. That would be a very unpleasant job.
The concept of picking the illegal photo from a lineup of legal ones is a good one, but it will inevitably lead to a slow migration of the legal standard to an ever more permissive definition of provacative. In order for a photo to be consistently selected from the lineup it would have to be significantly more provacative that the legal ones. Any photos that were only sligthly more provacative would not be identified and would therefore become part of the suite of photos that had been determined to be legal.
If you are going to make a car analogy, do it right!
This is like when my BMW broke down and I drove my wife's Honda to the auto parts store:
Me: I need a starter motor for a 2005 BMW 325i
Clerk: I'm sorry sir, I can't sell you that part
Me: Why not?
Clerk: You are driving a 1998 Honda
Me: Yes, but I need a starter motor for a 2005 BMW
Clerk: Sir, I clearly saw you drive up in a 1998 Honda Accord
Me: Of course you did. I couldn't drive my BMW because the starter motor is dead!
Clerk: It's not dead, it's just pining for the fjords