I’d like to see psych studies find different ways to motivate people besides token amounts of money.
For example, take that 60% heads coin-flipping experiment. What if you had participants do it in an uncomfortable environment, and you told them that they could leave and be done once they’d gotten a certain number of heads? I bet nobody would call tails.
The subjects are rational IMO. The “experimenters” have told them that heads are more likely. It’s not like they have seen that for themselves. Exploring tails a few times won’t cost much.
Also, being predictable is usually bad in a multi-agent environment. It’s possibly not bad in this specific environment, but using cheap heuristics that mostly work is not the height of irrationality.
You don’t need to call tails to explore whether tails is possible, though—the information gain of a coin flip is the same whether you call heads or tails
Unless the mechanics of the coin is dependent on you calling it tails.
I am not saying this behavior is rational in isolation, but in decisions that matter, it’s a good heuristic. The real-world is very complex and humans are in general very stupid. Empirical testing pays better than a priori reasoning.
Do you mean “certain number of wins”? Number of heads is independent of their guesses, and number of correctly-guessed heads is asking a different question than the original experiment
Also, I think the study actually did offer enough money to be motivating, and given that the average payout was $91 and 28% of people went bust, I’m updating based on that study to think people are really bad at betting. Although I think that using “escape from discomfort” as motivator would be better than small token payouts, this study’s reward is probably more motivating and a better way to study the topic than the one I proposed.
I’d like to see psych studies find different ways to motivate people besides token amounts of money.
For example, take that 60% heads coin-flipping experiment. What if you had participants do it in an uncomfortable environment, and you told them that they could leave and be done once they’d gotten a certain number of heads? I bet nobody would call tails.
The subjects are rational IMO. The “experimenters” have told them that heads are more likely. It’s not like they have seen that for themselves. Exploring tails a few times won’t cost much.
Also, being predictable is usually bad in a multi-agent environment. It’s possibly not bad in this specific environment, but using cheap heuristics that mostly work is not the height of irrationality.
You don’t need to call tails to explore whether tails is possible, though—the information gain of a coin flip is the same whether you call heads or tails
Unless the mechanics of the coin is dependent on you calling it tails.
I am not saying this behavior is rational in isolation, but in decisions that matter, it’s a good heuristic. The real-world is very complex and humans are in general very stupid. Empirical testing pays better than a priori reasoning.
What uncertainty do you think the experiments would illuminate?
“Are people dumb, or do they just not care?”
Do you mean “certain number of wins”? Number of heads is independent of their guesses, and number of correctly-guessed heads is asking a different question than the original experiment
Yes, I meant certain number of wins. Good catch.
Also, I think the study actually did offer enough money to be motivating, and given that the average payout was $91 and 28% of people went bust, I’m updating based on that study to think people are really bad at betting. Although I think that using “escape from discomfort” as motivator would be better than small token payouts, this study’s reward is probably more motivating and a better way to study the topic than the one I proposed.