Image via Wikipedia California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today announced a $7.5million settlement with financial-services firm Edward Jones Co. for the company’s…

New York is among the states that have wisely enacted payee-notification; wonder whether that might be a reason this $300,000 Long Island defalcation was caught quickly [NYLJ] Big mess ensues after Corpus Christi political kingmaker and injury lawyer M…

An interesting follow-up to the Cain, Lowenstein, and Moore study would be to increase the number of feedback rounds from 3 (rounds 4-6) to maybe 30 feedback rounds. This simulates relationships. It would also be interesting to allow estimators to choose which advisor they will “purchase” estimates from. While advisors may retain their conflict of interest, they will also be in competition with other advisors to attract estimators as clients. This better resembles how the real world works in many conflict of interest situations.

Two forms of the experiment could explore how estimators react when the quality of advisor’s recommendations are spread through word of mouth, or through a more transparent system of reporting. It would also be interesting to explore the system dynamics as the number of feedback rounds vary. What might happen if the experiment participants are aware that the game will be played for a certain number of predefined rounds, or if they are told that the game will continue for an unknown amount of time? How will the final round differ from the first few?

Does anyone know about a relationship bias?

One of the major themes of my writings on disclosure laws is an example of the law of unexpected consequences: more disclosure law produces less…

Feynman being an expert, he had the luxury of not trusting them… Most of the examples of not trusting experts in his book come from moments when he, specifically, knew better. Great book, though.

A collection of reminiscences from taped interviews with fellow scientist and friend Ralph Leighton. ISBN 0393316041

“I’ll never make that mistake again, reading the experts’ opinions. Of course, you only live one life, and you make all your mistakes, and learn what not to do, and that’s the end of you.”

So says my most distinguished co-author, Richard Feynman.

“If these experts say their research is surprising”

I think you’re misreading what they wrote, and so is HA. “Expected” probably doesn’t refer to what people in general would or would not expect. These scientists did not as far as I know precede their experiment by a second bit of research in which they surveyed what the general population would have expected as the outcome of the experiment. Statements about what was “expected” likely refers to what the scientists hypothesized would happen. Scientists commonly precede an experiment by stating a hypothesis about how the experiment will turn out. That seems a likely candidate for what “expected” refers to.

Here’s an example (with a horrendous background – I am picking it because it was literally the first page I clicked on):

http://www.uow.edu.au/eng/phys/students/fractals/experiment.htm

I googled “experimental procedure”, and I got that page. Notice that the page includes a statement of hypothesis, and notice that the statement of hypothesis starts as follows:

” Hypothesis: We expected to find the fractal dimension of a ball of any material, created by crumpling [...]”

Notice that the word “expected” crops up in the hypothesis. This confirms my idea that when scientists talk about what was expected, they are likely talking about their own hypothesis. And a statement of one’s hypothesis should not be read as an assertion about what the general population would be surprised by.

If these experts say their research is surprising, I tend to trust them, despite the conflict of interest…

If these experts say their research is surprising, I tend to trust them, despite the conflict of interest…