You want me to encourage people to use an anonymous channel by publicly praising their anonymous advise? Why would any normal status-seeking individual want that kind of praise?
Because they are bugged. We do not correctly account for anonymity since it is a relatively new phenonemon. This is most obviously visible in voting habits. (Humans vote as if they are making declarations of support in a public arena.)
Humans vote as if they are making declarations of support in a public arena.
Interesting. Can you point me to an example of something surprising that’s predicted by this interpretation? I’m a little confused, though, because for many people they’re very public about how they voted anyway (it seems unlikely they’re lying), so it is effectively public, no?
There are some examples that suggest that at least people think that voting actions have aspects of that sort,. The campaign slogans in the 1948 Italian election seem potentially relevant, where one famous slogan was ” “In the secrecy of the polling booth, God sees you—Stalin doesn’t.” Evidence against people voting like they are in public is the Bradley effect, so called because in the US, more people would in some elections say they were going to vote for a minority candidate than actually did so. However, there’s some question if the Bradley effect was ever genuine and not just a function of noise in the polls. This is potentially connected to social desireabiility bias.
Can you point me to an example of something surprising that’s predicted by this interpretation?
No. This prompts a tangential observation: I can’t give any examples of anything surprising that’s predicted by any belief that is coherently integrated into my mental model (ie. believed and understood). Things that occur exactly how I expect them to occur tend not to be surprising.
What I can do is point to an intuition that you have which I share and additional consider to be a related insight into trends in human behaviour:
I’m a little confused, though, because for many people they’re very public about how they voted anyway (it seems unlikely they’re lying)
There is something about you that makes it seem to you that they are unlikely to be lying. In addition, there is something about most humans that means you are likely to be right. There is a clear distinct difference in the payoff structure for the anonymous action and the unrelated verbal signalling game but we both expect humans to behave in part as though there isn’t.
, so it is effectively public, no?
Wedrifid_2010 could perhaps have appended the following to the comment you quoted: “in fact, human status-seeking behavioural heuristics are so bad at accounting for anonymous ballots that it seems to some observers that anonymous ballots are effectively public”.
Because they are bugged. We do not correctly account for anonymity since it is a relatively new phenonemon. This is most obviously visible in voting habits. (Humans vote as if they are making declarations of support in a public arena.)
Interesting. Can you point me to an example of something surprising that’s predicted by this interpretation? I’m a little confused, though, because for many people they’re very public about how they voted anyway (it seems unlikely they’re lying), so it is effectively public, no?
There are some examples that suggest that at least people think that voting actions have aspects of that sort,. The campaign slogans in the 1948 Italian election seem potentially relevant, where one famous slogan was ” “In the secrecy of the polling booth, God sees you—Stalin doesn’t.” Evidence against people voting like they are in public is the Bradley effect, so called because in the US, more people would in some elections say they were going to vote for a minority candidate than actually did so. However, there’s some question if the Bradley effect was ever genuine and not just a function of noise in the polls. This is potentially connected to social desireabiility bias.
No. This prompts a tangential observation: I can’t give any examples of anything surprising that’s predicted by any belief that is coherently integrated into my mental model (ie. believed and understood). Things that occur exactly how I expect them to occur tend not to be surprising.
What I can do is point to an intuition that you have which I share and additional consider to be a related insight into trends in human behaviour:
There is something about you that makes it seem to you that they are unlikely to be lying. In addition, there is something about most humans that means you are likely to be right. There is a clear distinct difference in the payoff structure for the anonymous action and the unrelated verbal signalling game but we both expect humans to behave in part as though there isn’t.
Wedrifid_2010 could perhaps have appended the following to the comment you quoted: “in fact, human status-seeking behavioural heuristics are so bad at accounting for anonymous ballots that it seems to some observers that anonymous ballots are effectively public”.