Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The pros and cons of placebo buttons

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 142 posts

Re: The pros and cons of placebo buttons

#61

Post by gadders »

skaomatic wrote: post #22

This reminds me of an elevator's "Door Close" button. Manufacturers still include them for the peace of mind of passengers, despite computerized systems and many area laws (in the US, the ADA has language regarding door-open timespan for wheelchair access). EDIT: Thanks to a_c_s for pointing out that the button can work when the elevator is in emergency/service mode. More fun information on elevators, crosswalk and o…

They're not placebos in all cases. They definitely work in one tall bank building I worked in in Canary Wharf.

Re: The pros and cons of placebo buttons

#62

Post by zimablue »

_bxg1 wrote: post #15

This makes me so annoyed. I much prefer ones without buttons because I don't have to mess with it; when there is a button, I assume I have to go over and press it, but it sounds like in some cases I don't (for a while now I've suspected them to be pointless). But there's no way to tell the difference so I still have to everywhere.

This whole piece, and to be honest most of the comments here come from such a dark, authoritarian, arrogant perspective.

"lying to the plebs modifies their behavior very slightly in a good way or is it in a bad way?"

It's irrelevant, treat your fellow humans with some modicum of respect and dignity. Terry Pratchett's first rule of morality "don't treat people as if they're objects".

Anyone caught casually deceiving people for some tiny perceived benefit to either themselves or the people deserves a severe lesson in how "irrationally" angry people get when they're lied to.

You can save this page and the comments as an example to future generations of how the elites of this century had become morally bankrupt.

Re: The pros and cons of placebo buttons

#63

Post by cannonedhamster »

Steltek wrote: post #32
jkingsbery wrote: post #10

I work in New York, but I go to Seattle periodically because that's where my company's headquarters is. How people treat the buttons is wildly different between those two cities. I hardly ever see anyone press the cross button in NY, since the convention is to wait for there to be no cars and then cross (and not bother with the button). In Seattle, I've seen people wait patiently at a cross walk even though there's n…

In Boston, we cross in front of cars that have a green light :). Although honestly, the cars aren't moving because there's too much traffic to go anywhere as box-blocking laws aren't enforced as it is in NYC.

You do not generally have right of way in a marked crosswalk if you have a signal. Anywhere that doesn't have a signal you have the right of way at all times within a marked crosswalk only, regardless of the color of light, outside of marked crosswalks pedestrians are not guaranteed right of way in MA.

I used to be a Bostonian and am a current MA resident, though I work in Cambridge. I've played more chicken on Comm Ave than I care to admit. :)

Re: The pros and cons of placebo buttons

#64

Post by cannonedhamster »

pc86 wrote: post #41
Steltek wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jaywalking is a $1 ticket in Massachusetts. I believe it's there simply to assign fault in a crash.

A crash involving whom? I'd be shocked if a driver can hit a jaywalking pedestrian and not be at fault.

Massachusetts pedestrians are only guaranteed right of way in marked crosswalks that do not have a signal. When there is a signal the light denotes right of way.

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXIV/Ch...

Re: The pros and cons of placebo buttons

#65

Post by daveFNbuck »

amelius wrote: post #8
carbocation wrote: post #2

I feel like there is a bit of ethical hysteresis here. If you have buttons that are designed to be placebo from the start, I find that unethical. If you have buttons that work, but have to be disabled due to a change in plans, that strikes me as less problematic (but they should still eventually be removed). So, how you get there matters.

It's still better than the "nocebo buttons", which make the waiting longer the more often you press them :)

A nocebo is still inactive, just with negative rather than positive expectations. So the nocebo button would still be a button that doesn't do anything, but people believe that pressing it increases their wait time.

Re: The pros and cons of placebo buttons

#66

Post by zimablue »

snarf21 wrote: post #5
fredley wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh. I think although it's a 'dark pattern', it's one with measured effects on behaviour that result in less people crossing against the light, which (I would assume) correlates with less accidents. I think calling it unethical is a bit much.

I'm sure I'm in the minority but I don't even think it is that. If the button at each intersection prevents one accident (hospital or even death) then it is worth it. So people got tricked to be safer? Oh, the humanity. People who are going to cross anyway still will.

It's immoral because you don't have the right to deceive and make decisions for other people.

Let's take the example further and see if you can find a point where it starts to be obviously unethical, then work your way backwards on the principle discovered.

How about we lie to you about the contents of your food, in some way that manipulates you to be healthier?

Still OK with that, why don't we tell you that something is vegetarian if you can never tell the difference, by your utilitarian metric you've increased my happiness, I got to enjoy some delicious meal.

If I find out you have one day left to live and that day will be happier not knowing that fact, do I have the right to lie to you about it? The utilitarian benefit calculation goes up so case closed right?

If someone if a devout Jehovah's witness, give them a blood transplant and deny that it ever happened, do you have the right to do that?

Not everyone is on the same utilitarian value curve as you and you don't have the right to mess with and deceive them because you think you're smarter than they are. Some (most) people value truth, dignity or reality in their utility function, and you might not even be smarter than all of them.

Re: The pros and cons of placebo buttons

#67

Post by bhauer »

_bxg1 wrote: post #15

This makes me so annoyed. I much prefer ones without buttons because I don't have to mess with it; when there is a button, I assume I have to go over and press it, but it sounds like in some cases I don't (for a while now I've suspected them to be pointless). But there's no way to tell the difference so I still have to everywhere.

Agreed. As a pedestrian, one of the most irksome circumstances is incorrectly assuming an intersection is automatic and losing a cycle because you chose to optimistically not press the button. So if you're not absolutely certain an intersection is automatic, you generally will press the button.

Frankly, I don't think governments should engage in this kind of deceptive social engineering. If you have a problem with jaywalking, enforce jaywalking laws. Crosswalk functions should be transparent: either manual with a button or automatic without a button. It fuels resentment to be toyed with by a clever social experiment, which is a small but real erosion of the trust relationship between government and citizenry. It's a hidden cost that isn't captured in the financial bottom line (cost savings being the original argument for leaving the buttons when intersections were converted to automatic).

Re: The pros and cons of placebo buttons

#68

Post by carlob »

Steltek wrote: post #32
jkingsbery wrote: post #10

I work in New York, but I go to Seattle periodically because that's where my company's headquarters is. How people treat the buttons is wildly different between those two cities. I hardly ever see anyone press the cross button in NY, since the convention is to wait for there to be no cars and then cross (and not bother with the button). In Seattle, I've seen people wait patiently at a cross walk even though there's n…

In Boston, we cross in front of cars that have a green light :). Although honestly, the cars aren't moving because there's too much traffic to go anywhere as box-blocking laws aren't enforced as it is in NYC.

I once fell from my bike because of this behavior in Paris. I was basically in front of Notre Dame, car traffic was blocked at a green light but the bicycle lane was free. I was going at a good clip and a tourist crossed in front of me. I slammed my brakes and went over the handlebars avoiding the tourist.

I'm underlining it was a tourist not because I particularly like Parisians, but because there is enough bike traffic (and little electric cars) that most Parisians know not to cross using hearing only.

Re: The pros and cons of placebo buttons

#69

Post by claudiawerner »

zimablue wrote: post #62
_bxg1 wrote: post #15

This makes me so annoyed. I much prefer ones without buttons because I don't have to mess with it; when there is a button, I assume I have to go over and press it, but it sounds like in some cases I don't (for a while now I've suspected them to be pointless). But there's no way to tell the difference so I still have to everywhere.

This whole piece, and to be honest most of the comments here come from such a dark, authoritarian, arrogant perspective. "lying to the plebs modifies their behavior very slightly in a good way or is it in a bad way?" It's irrelevant, treat your fellow humans with some modicum of respect and dignity. Terry Pratchett's first rule of morality "don't treat people as if they're objects". Anyone caught casually deceiving p…

How is this relevant to this century? The concept of the Noble Lie has been around at least since Plato. Lying to someone isn't treating them as an object, it's actually confirming their subjectivity.

Re: The pros and cons of placebo buttons

#70

Post by rootusrootus »

Semaphor wrote: post #44
_bxg1 wrote: post #15

This makes me so annoyed. I much prefer ones without buttons because I don't have to mess with it; when there is a button, I assume I have to go over and press it, but it sounds like in some cases I don't (for a while now I've suspected them to be pointless). But there's no way to tell the difference so I still have to everywhere.

And unless you remember which ones are fake, you always have to press. And because you don't know if the people in front of you pressed, you have to awkwardly walk past them and press it (again). It's always annoying me.

Newer signal buttons have an LED indicator that shows they've been pressed, which is a nice touch. Saves having to reach around someone to make sure they pressed the button already.
Post reply on HN