61–70 of 114 posts
Interesting. I apologise incessantly for everything and everyone, to everyone. I've never put much thought into why I have this behaviour, but it's possible I stumbled on the same phenomenon as these folks purely due to pressure.
> How trustworthy are these results? The accumulated findings from several experiments help build a convincing case, but unfortunately the field study - which had the potential to provide the most persuasive evidence - is seriously flawed. The actor apologised (sic) for the rain then asked to borrow a phone, or in the comparison condition he just asked to borrow the phone. There was no proper control condition. This…
Reminds me of the Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality quote: "Of course it was my fault. There's no one else here who could be responsible for anything." Which is to say, if I hear someone apologizing for the weather, one likely presumption would be that they're just assuming fault as a matter of etiquette, or some latent self-hating tendency... but another, more interesting, possibility is that they're apolo…
Or, along those lines but less world-dominating, "Sorry for [choosing a time and location for our meeting that resulted in exposing you to] the rain." Same point, though. The superfluous apology lends an implied sense of influence and responsibility.
If you ever wondered where the tax payers' money is going, it is going to fund Alison Brooks' "research".
She works at a private institution, and she lists no grants on her CV.
Reminds me of the Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality quote: "Of course it was my fault. There's no one else here who could be responsible for anything." Which is to say, if I hear someone apologizing for the weather, one likely presumption would be that they're just assuming fault as a matter of etiquette, or some latent self-hating tendency... but another, more interesting, possibility is that they're apolo…
Or, along those lines but less world-dominating, "Sorry for [choosing a time and location for our meeting that resulted in exposing you to] the rain." Same point, though. The superfluous apology lends an implied sense of influence and responsibility.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The last paragraph states: "How trustworthy are these results? The accumulated findings from several experiments help build a convincing case, but unfortunately the field study - which had the potential to provide the most persuasive evidence - is seriously flawed. The actor apologised for the rain then asked to borrow a phone, or in the comparison condition he just asked to borrow the phone. There was no proper cont…
Right, but "any kind of icebreaker" is a superset of "superfluous apology". It's a hypothetical extension of the result, not a flaw in the study. Saying there was no proper control condition is flat wrong. There is a control in the study that would falsify the hypothesis that they were testing.
I think it's going to far to call the study seriously flawed: The core claim presented "we find that superfluous apologies increase trust in the apologizer" is being properly controlled (superfluous apology, acknowledgment, or neutral greeting followed by a trust test). Suggesting that the mechanism for that result is caused by ice-breaking effects, or by delaying the time between the introduction and the request, or…
The last paragraph states: "How trustworthy are these results? The accumulated findings from several experiments help build a convincing case, but unfortunately the field study - which had the potential to provide the most persuasive evidence - is seriously flawed. The actor apologised for the rain then asked to borrow a phone, or in the comparison condition he just asked to borrow the phone. There was no proper cont…
I find it weird when they use percentages for groups that are smaller than 100. 9% of a group of 32 people makes it feel like 2 people and a torso handed over their phone without the rain apology. (I'm aware this is my poor math skill, and it's something I'm working on.) I don't know if the sub has been edited, but it mentions lack of controls: > How trustworthy are these results? The accumulated findings from severa…
I suppose it's slightly odd, but the point is to make it so you can compare results across similar studies and also understand how it would generalize to the general population.
>It doesn't seem to mention randomization either.
The study does (see the citation at the end). The blinding and randomization were done in the field study by not telling the person asking the questions what the hypothesis was, and by instructing him to alternate which script he followed.
Reminds me of the Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality quote: "Of course it was my fault. There's no one else here who could be responsible for anything." Which is to say, if I hear someone apologizing for the weather, one likely presumption would be that they're just assuming fault as a matter of etiquette, or some latent self-hating tendency... but another, more interesting, possibility is that they're apolo…