Live data from Hacker News

Small payments sharply diminish gap in responses to partisan factual questions

nber.org

51–60 of 173 posts

Re: Small payments sharply diminish gap in responses to partisan factual questions

#51
post #7

The small payments ranged between 17 cents and $1. But how the payment calculations were described, based on weirdly complicated raffle entry odds for gift certificates or with different questions randomly worth 25 cents or 50 cents or whatever with various probabilities. Frankly, I doubt most participants understood the payments guidance about what amount correct answers would earn them. This could imply just puttin…

Probably not. The reason they payments appear to work to increase accuracy is because the possibility of a payment motivates critical thinking abilities--what Daniel Kahneman, author of _Thinking Fast and Slow_ would refer to as "system 2".

As described in the book, system 1 is effortless and automatic; it produces the first thought to come to mind when attempting to answer a question. It is good at pattern matching and associative memory. However, when faced with a difficult question, often times the best it is capable of is to answer a different, easier question instead.

System 2, on the other hand, is the source of effortful, logical thought. It requires deliberate effort to engage and because of this is often described as "lazy". In everyday experience, we rely on system 1 most of the time, and most of the time that works well and is sufficient. An example is reading: an experienced reader rarely needs to sound out the individual letters of each word, instead perceiving entire words and phrases at once; that's system 1 at work.

Now, if you ask someone to answer an objective question that has a partisan aspect to it, system 1 will immediately provide an answer (without you even asking it to, and regardless of whether system 1 is actually capable of providing an accurate answer). In this case, it's likely that system 1 is actually answering a question which is superficially similar to but not the same as the one that was asked (e.g., "is this my tribe" instead of "did deficits increase or decrease during the Clinton administration").

At this point, unless a person chooses to engage system 2, they are likely to accept the only answer at hand, the one suggested by system 1. The possibility of receiving a payment for an objectively accurate answer provides motivation for engaging system 2.

Re: Small payments sharply diminish gap in responses to partisan factual questions

#52
post #44
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could also be a version of the Hawthorne effect. [1] In this particular case the money was a proxy which was more powerful than words meant to say 'your answer is important' or 'your vote counts'. It's actually hard for me to put in words this concept but intuitively it is what seems is happening. Ok so let's take as an example upvote/downvotes on HN. Many of us give little thought to the impact and do it impulsively…

> Nobody takes even pennies and throws them in the trashcan. And yet they should. https://what-if.xkcd.com/22/ If you spend more than 3.6 seconds actively thinking about a penny, you value your time at less than $10/h. This comment is unfortunately self-referrential. Oops

Well not to dispute some of your points but let me introduce another concept here. That is the act of 'forced savings'. And example of this is when you build equity in something that doesn't appear to be a good idea in the long run financially when compared to another alternative.

Ok here is an example. Let's say that your home that you are paying a mortgage on offers a 5% increase in value per year (totally made that up) vs. putting the money in a money market that pays 6% per year (definitely totally made that up). On the surface the money market is a much better return let's stipulate and observe. After all you have liquidity and I will even further assume that the 6% is guaranteed. But wait a second. If the money is tied up in a house you can't spend it. In the money market you can. So the house is forced savings and in the end you might very well end up with more, all else equal.

I say this as someone who just took cash that I had and bought a sort of expensive car by the way. Realizing that if I had the money in more real estate (which I also own) I most likely wouldn't have bought the car (since I don't like to finance or lease even though in theory it can make more sense financially).

Re: Small payments sharply diminish gap in responses to partisan factual questions

#53

If someone asks me my opinion about something I'm much more likely to say what I know they want to hear if they offer to pay me to say that, and I'm less likely to debate with them instead. If they aren't paying me, I'm more likely to say what I really think.

Well, the concept here is that they're asking very simple unambiguous factual questions, so if you know what they "want you to say," then you at least know the truth, even if you don't believe the truth.

That is: If I ask you what's 3x3, for you to know that the answer that I want is 9, then you must know the truth.

But I suppose there is some room for nuance. Like, take asking this question: "Has a human walked on the surface of the moon?"

Let's suppose that Alfred answers that question with "No."

Then you offer to pay Alfred if he answers the question correctly, and he changes his answer to "Yes."

So, does Alfred actually know that people walked on the moon, and before he was just trolling or trying to get into the in-crowd of moon-landing deniers? Or is it that Alfred actually, sincerely believes that the moon-landing was a fake, but he knows that you likely believe that the moon-landing was real, and wants the payment?

Re: Small payments sharply diminish gap in responses to partisan factual questions

#54
"For example, Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say that the deficit rose during the Clinton administration; Democrats are more likely to say that inflation rose under Reagan."

These are both really tricky questions, because the questions described are derivatives of derivatives! The deficit is the time derivative of the debt; so it's possible that someone is hearing "did the debt rise during clinton" (which would be true). Likewise, inflation is the derivative of the value of money. So someone might be hearing "did things get more expensive over reagan" (which would also be true). The deficit/debt one is really tricky since they both start with the letter D and even though I know the difference occasionally in conversation I switch the two.

Re: Small payments sharply diminish gap in responses to partisan factual questions

#55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...because the chance of your vote making a difference is so small. ...in national elections. Federal systems are designed with this in mind. In recent decades, more and more issues have become national issues, which erodes the influence of the individual voter. And, on top of that, if the power of the vote is ineffective, you can always move in a federal system. So the erosion of choice is compounded.

It really applies at all levels save perhaps very small town municipal elections. Whether the probability of influencing the election is 1 in 10M or 1 in 1M (or 1 in 100k) is all pretty much zero when multiplied by the change in benefits you could expect to receive.

Votes aren't worth more in more local elections, but activism certainly is. A few highly influential advocates out of a pool of 100k voters could be the difference between win and loss.

Big organizations are the only entities that can compete on a national scale, but your actions absolutely can matter more locally. That's a strong reason to favor more local government, IMO.

Re: Small payments sharply diminish gap in responses to partisan factual questions

#56

"For example, Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say that the deficit rose during the Clinton administration; Democrats are more likely to say that inflation rose under Reagan." These are both really tricky questions, because the questions described are derivatives of derivatives! The deficit is the time derivative of the debt; so it's possible that someone is hearing "did the debt rise during clinton" (wh…

The question itself is not important. The basis of the research is that one's political affiliations affect how you answer the question.

Re: Small payments sharply diminish gap in responses to partisan factual questions

#57
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that agrees with Caplan. People vote for what they think is good for society, rather than personal gain. The problem (according to Caplan) is that voters don't learn how society works and how different policies would affect it. So they support policies that sound good to the uninformed. And here we are :)

> So they support policies that sound good to the uninformed. And here we are :) It's too simplistic to put the entire blame on voters - I don't think the US has a monopoly on "low information"/uninformed/apathetic voters when compared to other OECD nations. Surely different social expectations on the issues squeezing the middle class (health/child/education costs), a different (more partisan?) media landscape, geogr…

Nobody is blaming voters. Their ignorance is entirely rational.

The cost of becoming an expert in society, economics, etc is vastly bigger than the benefit you can expect to get out of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_ignorance

Re: Small payments sharply diminish gap in responses to partisan factual questions

#58
post #7

The small payments ranged between 17 cents and $1. But how the payment calculations were described, based on weirdly complicated raffle entry odds for gift certificates or with different questions randomly worth 25 cents or 50 cents or whatever with various probabilities. Frankly, I doubt most participants understood the payments guidance about what amount correct answers would earn them. This could imply just puttin…

Probably not. The reason they payments appear to work to increase accuracy is because the possibility of a payment motivates critical thinking abilities--what Daniel Kahneman, author of _Thinking Fast and Slow_ would refer to as "system 2". As described in the book, system 1 is effortless and automatic; it produces the first thought to come to mind when attempting to answer a question. It is good at pattern matching…

This is kind of tangential, but is Michael Lewis' new book about Kahneman worth reading if you've already read "Thinking Fast And Slow"? I'd certainly recommend the latter - it's a very interesting book.

Re: Small payments sharply diminish gap in responses to partisan factual questions

#59
post #7

The small payments ranged between 17 cents and $1. But how the payment calculations were described, based on weirdly complicated raffle entry odds for gift certificates or with different questions randomly worth 25 cents or 50 cents or whatever with various probabilities. Frankly, I doubt most participants understood the payments guidance about what amount correct answers would earn them. This could imply just puttin…

Probably not. The reason they payments appear to work to increase accuracy is because the possibility of a payment motivates critical thinking abilities--what Daniel Kahneman, author of _Thinking Fast and Slow_ would refer to as "system 2". As described in the book, system 1 is effortless and automatic; it produces the first thought to come to mind when attempting to answer a question. It is good at pattern matching…

I think one could draw the inference that the possibility of cash rewards invokes System 2, not the complicated nature of the rewards system.

Re: Small payments sharply diminish gap in responses to partisan factual questions

#60

"For example, Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say that the deficit rose during the Clinton administration; Democrats are more likely to say that inflation rose under Reagan." These are both really tricky questions, because the questions described are derivatives of derivatives! The deficit is the time derivative of the debt; so it's possible that someone is hearing "did the debt rise during clinton" (wh…

The point is that people tend to answer the question in a way that favors their party and disfavors the other party if you just ask them, but they're more likely to get it right if you offer an incentive to do so. This can't be explained just by "The questions are tricky," though that might be contributing factor that helps people fool themselves when they want to.
Post reply on HN