The Cost of Free Doughnuts

Post by vacri » Sun, Jul 15, 2012, 2:45 AM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #21

cperciva wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. I'm sure milesokeefe suggested it because discontinuing a product and then relaunching it is standard practice for companies which want to get rid of anchoring biases. (And I'm not sure I'd say that trying to evade cognitive biases is a "trick", really.)

I think it's better for smart people not to have patronizing attitudes about the rest of humanity, but that's just me. I also think that charitable gestures towards men risking their lives and suffering great hardship to protect entire civilizations are categorically a different thing from a commercial product. I think the troops probably felt this way as well, which is really the crux of the whole issue, isn't it? T…

Post by philwelch » Sun, Jul 15, 2012, 4:40 AM UTC

vacri wrote: post #22

philwelch wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's better for smart people not to have patronizing attitudes about the rest of humanity, but that's just me. I also think that charitable gestures towards men risking their lives and suffering great hardship to protect entire civilizations are categorically a different thing from a commercial product. I think the troops probably felt this way as well, which is really the crux of the whole issue, isn't it? T…

There's a massive difference between "here's a little something to say thanks for fighting for our country" Why should that gesture be coming from the Red Cross, an organisation that's supposed to transcend nationalities and help all people regardless of politics?

Post by vacri » Sun, Jul 15, 2012, 5:09 AM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #24

vacri wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a massive difference between "here's a little something to say thanks for fighting for our country" Why should that gesture be coming from the Red Cross, an organisation that's supposed to transcend nationalities and help all people regardless of politics?

You're probably confusing the International Committee of the Red Cross (which is the organization you're describing) with the American Red Cross (which is explicitly American, and assists US troops overseas along with other charitable activities). As for the moral value of providing a gesture of thanks to people who are literally fighting the Nazis , I'll let you work that out for yourself.

Post by philwelch » Sun, Jul 15, 2012, 9:54 AM UTC

vacri wrote: post #26

philwelch wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're probably confusing the International Committee of the Red Cross (which is the organization you're describing) with the American Red Cross (which is explicitly American, and assists US troops overseas along with other charitable activities). As for the moral value of providing a gesture of thanks to people who are literally fighting the Nazis , I'll let you work that out for yourself.

Firstly, yes, I was confusing the international versus american. My apologies. Secondly, fuck you for that second statement (and somewhat implying that my morals are twisted). Those kinds of judgement calls are exactly why the Red Cross and MSF are apolitical. "Fuck those guys over there, they're -foo-" is precisely what these organisations area against, a core part of why they were formed.

Post by einhverfr » Sun, Jul 15, 2012, 11:52 AM UTC

chimeracoder wrote: post #23

hkmurakami wrote: post #12

If I remember correctly, one of Dan Ariely's first two books covers this kind of human behavior. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Ariely#Books

Predictably Irrational covers the case of an Israeli day care center, though it's actually a slightly different story - in that case, the parents felt an implicit moral duty not to pick their kids up late, which vanished once the cost was quantified (in terms of a 'late pickup fee'), causing more parents to pick up their kids late, even though it was technically free before. More importantly, when the fee was removed…