Comments on: They’re Only Tokens http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/03/theyre-only-tok.html Overcoming Bias is economist Robin Hanson’s blog, on honesty, signaling, disagreement, forecasting, and the far future. Sun, 12 Feb 2012 01:09:57 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: Dan Ariely http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/03/theyre-only-tok.html#comment-406974 Dan Ariely Fri, 21 Mar 2008 03:26:10 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2008/03/theyre-only-tokens.html#comment-406974 I do appreciate the discussion and the time people are spending on this (plus I am learning from it). here are a few general comments: 1) Sorry to disappoint anyone but my blog is mine and no one else is writing it. 2) As for the 2 games, realize that they are only meant as demonstrations and these are not the real experiments that we draw conclusions from. 3) The paper that describes the research on the door game (with proper experiments) is at: http://www.predictablyirrational.com/pdfs/doors.pdf I am very interesting in criticism, but I would much rather have it based on the real research and not on a demonstration that is designed to be an illustration. Yours Dan I do appreciate the discussion and the time people are spending on this (plus I am learning from it). here are a few general comments:

1) Sorry to disappoint anyone but my blog is mine and no one else is writing it.

2) As for the 2 games, realize that they are only meant as demonstrations and these are not the real experiments that we draw conclusions from.

3) The paper that describes the research on the door game (with proper experiments) is at:

http://www.predictablyirrational.com/pdfs/doors.pdf

I am very interesting in criticism, but I would much rather have it based on the real research and not on a demonstration that is designed to be an illustration.

Yours

Dan

]]> By: Eliezer Yudkowsky http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/03/theyre-only-tok.html#comment-406973 Eliezer Yudkowsky Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:54:59 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2008/03/theyre-only-tokens.html#comment-406973 Props to Zubon. Props to Zubon.

]]> By: Zubon http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/03/theyre-only-tok.html#comment-406972 Zubon Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:33:44 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2008/03/theyre-only-tokens.html#comment-406972 I took a different lesson from Easy Hard than was intended. It is a time-based game with no limit on the number of plays beyond how many choices you can make in two minutes. Given that, why spend any time in judgment at all? I doubled my score by holding down the Z key; load times were my only barrier. Even if every single puzzle was "easy," and Z was always the smaller, you would still score more points by getting 2*Z rather than 1*M (since at worst Z is 0.75*M). I took a different lesson from Easy Hard than was intended. It is a time-based game with no limit on the number of plays beyond how many choices you can make in two minutes. Given that, why spend any time in judgment at all? I doubled my score by holding down the Z key; load times were my only barrier. Even if every single puzzle was “easy,” and Z was always the smaller, you would still score more points by getting 2*Z rather than 1*M (since at worst Z is 0.75*M).

]]> By: TGGP http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/03/theyre-only-tok.html#comment-406971 TGGP Tue, 18 Mar 2008 07:39:36 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2008/03/theyre-only-tokens.html#comment-406971 The video didn't work for me, but the youtube is <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16Ct-FDNdWs" rel="nofollow">here</a>. The video didn’t work for me, but the youtube is here.

]]> By: LemmusLemmus http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/03/theyre-only-tok.html#comment-406970 LemmusLemmus Tue, 18 Mar 2008 02:51:43 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2008/03/theyre-only-tokens.html#comment-406970 Isn't this easily explained by the fact that the learned association of certain pieces of paper with the concept "valuable, don't waste" is stronger than that of the tokens used? If you want to call this irrational, o.k. If the first sentence is true, this might <i>in part</i> explain why people are more of a spendthrift while on holiday (using unfamiliar money). Isn’t this easily explained by the fact that the learned association of certain pieces of paper with the concept “valuable, don’t waste” is stronger than that of the tokens used? If you want to call this irrational, o.k.

If the first sentence is true, this might in part explain why people are more of a spendthrift while on holiday (using unfamiliar money).

]]> By: Hal Finney http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/03/theyre-only-tok.html#comment-406969 Hal Finney Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:49:21 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2008/03/theyre-only-tokens.html#comment-406969 Sorry for giving away too much, and thanks to Eliezer for editing my comments. There was a great deal of discussion about the Door Game on the <a href="http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/dear-irrational-reader-close-the-door/" rel="nofollow">February 25th TierneyLab</a>, and Tierney is supposed to be opening up a thread for comments on the Easy Hard game today, although it has not appeared as I write. Many people shared my opinion that the game did not quite do what it claimed, although some did not seem to fully understand the rules. As far as the quoted behavior about more cheating with tokens, this might also shed light on why people are relatively likely to pilfer office supplies and the like. However I don't think people are particularly more likely to steal valuable objects than correspondingly large sums of cash. I wonder if there is a sort of threshold effect here where certain things get subjectively classified as relatively worthless and cheating with them or stealing them is OK, and these tokens fell into that category. Also interesting to consider casino gambling, which is mostly based on chips. It seems a lot easier to put a $50 chip down on a hand than it would be to bet a $50 bill. When tipping with chips I tend to be a lot more generous, too. The linked article included this perceptive comment: "As a side note, I also took this as evidence that the pervasiveness of cash has made people forget that it is just as abstracted as tokens are." There was a time when paper money was seen as just a "token" that stood in for real gold and silver. Sorry for giving away too much, and thanks to Eliezer for editing my comments. There was a great deal of discussion about the Door Game on the February 25th TierneyLab, and Tierney is supposed to be opening up a thread for comments on the Easy Hard game today, although it has not appeared as I write. Many people shared my opinion that the game did not quite do what it claimed, although some did not seem to fully understand the rules.

As far as the quoted behavior about more cheating with tokens, this might also shed light on why people are relatively likely to pilfer office supplies and the like. However I don’t think people are particularly more likely to steal valuable objects than correspondingly large sums of cash. I wonder if there is a sort of threshold effect here where certain things get subjectively classified as relatively worthless and cheating with them or stealing them is OK, and these tokens fell into that category.

Also interesting to consider casino gambling, which is mostly based on chips. It seems a lot easier to put a $50 chip down on a hand than it would be to bet a $50 bill. When tipping with chips I tend to be a lot more generous, too.

The linked article included this perceptive comment: “As a side note, I also took this as evidence that the pervasiveness of cash has made people forget that it is just as abstracted as tokens are.” There was a time when paper money was seen as just a “token” that stood in for real gold and silver.

]]> By: Michael Webster http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/03/theyre-only-tok.html#comment-406968 Michael Webster Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:23:21 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2008/03/theyre-only-tokens.html#comment-406968 Ariely's blog doesn't seem to be written by him, many times. I get the sense that it is more to create a book buzz than to actually engage an audience. Ariely’s blog doesn’t seem to be written by him, many times. I get the sense that it is more to create a book buzz than to actually engage an audience.

]]> By: jsalvati http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/03/theyre-only-tok.html#comment-406967 jsalvati Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:00:58 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2008/03/theyre-only-tokens.html#comment-406967 Ariely also has <a href="http://www.predictablyirrational.com/" rel="nofollow">a blog</a>, but I haven't found it that great or illuminating so far. Ariely also has a blog, but I haven’t found it that great or illuminating so far.

]]> By: Nick Tarleton http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/03/theyre-only-tok.html#comment-406966 Nick Tarleton Mon, 17 Mar 2008 17:15:01 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2008/03/theyre-only-tokens.html#comment-406966 I don't see why the jvyyvatarff gb cnl gb xrrc lbhe bcgvbaf bcra (rot13'd) demonstrated by the door game is necessarily irrational. I suppose the book demonstrates we have more of it than we should? I don’t see why the jvyyvatarff gb cnl gb xrrc lbhe bcgvbaf bcra (rot13′d) demonstrated by the door game is necessarily irrational. I suppose the book demonstrates we have more of it than we should?

]]> By: Eliezer Yudkowsky http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/03/theyre-only-tok.html#comment-406965 Eliezer Yudkowsky Mon, 17 Mar 2008 16:14:43 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2008/03/theyre-only-tokens.html#comment-406965 Hal, please don't post those kinds of spoilers! I practiced the games, but I knew their point, and didn't <i>learn</i> anything as a result. I've taken the liberty of editing your comment. Hal, please don’t post those kinds of spoilers! I practiced the games, but I knew their point, and didn’t learn anything as a result.

I’ve taken the liberty of editing your comment.

]]>