I’d think that, among the people who would consider attending such a workshop in the first place at least, the two are highly correlated. (Also, I meant “didn’t like” in a general sense, such as ‘regret’.)
Well.. I’d guess people go there to learn stuff, so they like it if they do learn stuff.
OTOH, they might at first be wrong about how useful the stuff they learn will turn out to be. For how long after the workshop will they accept requests for refunds?
OTOH, they might at first be wrong about how useful the stuff they learn will turn out to be.
Indeed.
They might be also permently wrong about how useful the stuff they learn will turn out to be: For instance they might attribute failed outcomes to failure to apply what they learned rather than to an inherent flaw of what they learned.
Or they may ignore/downplay failures and exaggerate successes: that’s good old confirmation bias and sunk cost fallacy (there are some costs, such as time spent and travel expenses, which wouldn’t be covered by a refund).
Admitting that they invested time and money on something that wasn’t worth its price, and that they didn’t find out immediately, would hurt their self-image. IIRC, even the victims of outright illegal scams often don’t report them to the authorities, even after they realize that they have been scammed. CFAR workshops most likely aren’t illegal scams, thus I expect that the resistence to seeking reparations would be even greater.
There might be further reasons not to ask for a refund: for instance people might want to attend to these workshops to associate themselves with high-status members of the so-called “rationalist” community. They might fear that asking for a refund might be seen as defection.
No. And you people are polluting this thread with nothing but personal attacks (probably out of spite because of what happened in another thread). Doesn’t that qualify as trolling?
It tells us that this is newer, and needs to prove itself. It tells us that the organizers of this event are confident in their abilities. It tells us that they are willing to put their money where their mouth is, with stakes of thousands of dollars. Pretty impressive, no?
It tells us that the organizers of this event are confident in their abilities. It tells us that they are willing to put their money where their mouth is, with stakes of thousands of dollars.
I think everyone’s pretty confident that the efficacy of something like this is very difficult to test even if the course is effective.
Pretty impressive, no?
You know, there’s a drug store near where I live, and a homoeopathy store. Drug store has a locked cabinet with high value drugs. Homoeopathy store, well, who the hell shoplifts at a homoeopathy store? The point is that if an university course offered a refund if you don’t like it after completing the course, well, a lot of folks would a: fail to get the job that they studied for, and demand a refund, and b: a lot of other folks would just go ahead and take a free ride. Why? Because effects of an university course are a: testable, and b: valuable.
Of course it would be very impressive if an university course offered a full refund after full completion of the course. Because it would require that the course has incredibly high success rate, and almost none of the attendees defect in this prisoner’s dilemma.
Of course it would be very impressive if an university course offered a full refund after full completion of the course. Because it would require that the course has incredibly high success rate, and almost none of the attendees defect in this prisoner’s dilemma.
Of course, if you get a refund from the course your qualification would be revoked and you would have to hand in your degree certificate. After all you are essentially admitting that you learned nothing worth paying for from the course, the university shouldn’t be expected to lend its costly affiliation status symbols to people who didn’t pay or learn something of value from their course.
A money back guaruntee doesn’t mean letting the customer keep the product and the money (although that is a sometimes used marketing ploy). It isn’t possible (or at least, not legally possible) to destroy the memories of what you have taught someone. It is possible to take back a piece of paper. This means that the impressive thing about a university that offered this would be that it implies that their pieces of paper are worth the price of the course even if you neglect anything students may have learned.
The point is that if an university course offered a refund if you don’t like it after completing the course, well, a lot of folks would a: fail to get the job that they studied for, and demand a refund, and b: a lot of other folks would just go ahead and take a free ride. Why? Because effects of an university course are a: testable, and b: valuable.
With respect to A:
You seem to be in a position of arguing that universities don’t offer refunds because their courses don’t deliver and people would want them.
With respect to B:
People have lots of poor reasons for valuing things. Going to university to find yourself springs to mind, or because they were told that a degree would benefit them in the job market. You’ve yet to illustrate that university is valued for some instrumental effect.
Ghmm. I forgot that universities are (oddly enough) not a non-controversial example here. I’m not interested in debating universities, so can I change the example? Say, a painting course.
Effects of a painting course are pretty easy to evaluate, so if a painting course offers a refund if you fail to learn to paint after completing the full course, that is indeed a case of putting the money where the mouth is. Conversely, if the effects are impossible to evaluate on a personal basis, how can one talk of “putting the money where the mouth is” ?
I don’t see how you’re getting to the idea that it’s impossible to evaluate. Their exercises are meant to promote certain habits, which seem fairly easy to quantify if you wanted to. Presumably if there wasn’t anything you wanted to get better at which you thought this might address there’d be no value in your attending—and if you want to get better at something then just evaluate that. The offer of a refund, as I understand it, was if you’re not satisfied—wherein you get to choose your metric for satisfied.
You might not precisely be able to identify the mechanism of action—was it just that you needed some sort of self-help woo-woo or was it that they actually told you something worthwhile. But if you had no expected value coming out of it why would you go in the first place?
I suppose, one of the thoughts you might be having here is something to the effect of: you want to be better at thinking—without having a precise metric for what you mean by thinking. Or that you don’t see how the habits they’re talking of developing are going to translate into $$ for you down the line. Kinda like when Dropbox first asked people whether they wanted effortless syncing most of them apparently said no—but then they coded up the MVP and people learnt that they wanted it. I can see how that would be problematic if deciding whether to attend. But though it might entail that you can’t personally evaluate the effects I think that’s different from the effects being impossible to evaluate for anyone.
This is mostly evidence that PUA instructors are familiar with human psychology, marketting research and the rates at which such refunds are claimed in practice.
They offer a refund if you attended a workshop and didn’t like it. If you didn’t… what are you talking about? :-)
The point is not whether you like the workshop, it’s whether it teaches you something worth its price.
I’d think that, among the people who would consider attending such a workshop in the first place at least, the two are highly correlated. (Also, I meant “didn’t like” in a general sense, such as ‘regret’.)
Why?
Well.. I’d guess people go there to learn stuff, so they like it if they do learn stuff.
OTOH, they might at first be wrong about how useful the stuff they learn will turn out to be. For how long after the workshop will they accept requests for refunds?
One year.
Indeed.
They might be also permently wrong about how useful the stuff they learn will turn out to be:
For instance they might attribute failed outcomes to failure to apply what they learned rather than to an inherent flaw of what they learned.
Or they may ignore/downplay failures and exaggerate successes: that’s good old confirmation bias and sunk cost fallacy (there are some costs, such as time spent and travel expenses, which wouldn’t be covered by a refund).
Admitting that they invested time and money on something that wasn’t worth its price, and that they didn’t find out immediately, would hurt their self-image. IIRC, even the victims of outright illegal scams often don’t report them to the authorities, even after they realize that they have been scammed. CFAR workshops most likely aren’t illegal scams, thus I expect that the resistence to seeking reparations would be even greater.
There might be further reasons not to ask for a refund: for instance people might want to attend to these workshops to associate themselves with high-status members of the so-called “rationalist” community. They might fear that asking for a refund might be seen as defection.
And you, sir, most likely are a troll.
ad hominem
_ad logicam_
No. And you people are polluting this thread with nothing but personal attacks (probably out of spite because of what happened in another thread). Doesn’t that qualify as trolling?
Yeah, and the university, or a language course, or a writing course, or the like, do not offer refunds. I wonder what exactly does that tell us.
It tells us something bad about CFAR, right? But if they didn’t offer refunds, woudn’t you be saying that that tells us something bad about them too?
Actually, many universities do offer refunds if you drop the course sufficiently fast.
It tells us that this is newer, and needs to prove itself. It tells us that the organizers of this event are confident in their abilities. It tells us that they are willing to put their money where their mouth is, with stakes of thousands of dollars. Pretty impressive, no?
I think everyone’s pretty confident that the efficacy of something like this is very difficult to test even if the course is effective.
You know, there’s a drug store near where I live, and a homoeopathy store. Drug store has a locked cabinet with high value drugs. Homoeopathy store, well, who the hell shoplifts at a homoeopathy store? The point is that if an university course offered a refund if you don’t like it after completing the course, well, a lot of folks would a: fail to get the job that they studied for, and demand a refund, and b: a lot of other folks would just go ahead and take a free ride. Why? Because effects of an university course are a: testable, and b: valuable.
Of course it would be very impressive if an university course offered a full refund after full completion of the course. Because it would require that the course has incredibly high success rate, and almost none of the attendees defect in this prisoner’s dilemma.
Of course, if you get a refund from the course your qualification would be revoked and you would have to hand in your degree certificate. After all you are essentially admitting that you learned nothing worth paying for from the course, the university shouldn’t be expected to lend its costly affiliation status symbols to people who didn’t pay or learn something of value from their course.
A money back guaruntee doesn’t mean letting the customer keep the product and the money (although that is a sometimes used marketing ploy). It isn’t possible (or at least, not legally possible) to destroy the memories of what you have taught someone. It is possible to take back a piece of paper. This means that the impressive thing about a university that offered this would be that it implies that their pieces of paper are worth the price of the course even if you neglect anything students may have learned.
With respect to A: You seem to be in a position of arguing that universities don’t offer refunds because their courses don’t deliver and people would want them.
With respect to B: People have lots of poor reasons for valuing things. Going to university to find yourself springs to mind, or because they were told that a degree would benefit them in the job market. You’ve yet to illustrate that university is valued for some instrumental effect.
Ghmm. I forgot that universities are (oddly enough) not a non-controversial example here. I’m not interested in debating universities, so can I change the example? Say, a painting course.
Effects of a painting course are pretty easy to evaluate, so if a painting course offers a refund if you fail to learn to paint after completing the full course, that is indeed a case of putting the money where the mouth is. Conversely, if the effects are impossible to evaluate on a personal basis, how can one talk of “putting the money where the mouth is” ?
I don’t see how you’re getting to the idea that it’s impossible to evaluate. Their exercises are meant to promote certain habits, which seem fairly easy to quantify if you wanted to. Presumably if there wasn’t anything you wanted to get better at which you thought this might address there’d be no value in your attending—and if you want to get better at something then just evaluate that. The offer of a refund, as I understand it, was if you’re not satisfied—wherein you get to choose your metric for satisfied.
You might not precisely be able to identify the mechanism of action—was it just that you needed some sort of self-help woo-woo or was it that they actually told you something worthwhile. But if you had no expected value coming out of it why would you go in the first place?
I suppose, one of the thoughts you might be having here is something to the effect of: you want to be better at thinking—without having a precise metric for what you mean by thinking. Or that you don’t see how the habits they’re talking of developing are going to translate into $$ for you down the line. Kinda like when Dropbox first asked people whether they wanted effortless syncing most of them apparently said no—but then they coded up the MVP and people learnt that they wanted it. I can see how that would be problematic if deciding whether to attend. But though it might entail that you can’t personally evaluate the effects I think that’s different from the effects being impossible to evaluate for anyone.
I wonder if PUA bootcamps offer refunds.
Most of them do. For example.
This is mostly evidence that PUA instructors are familiar with human psychology, marketting research and the rates at which such refunds are claimed in practice.