Comments on: Status Quo Institution Bias

By: Bill

Bill — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:52:46 +0000

You see this a lot whenever people try to explain a type of behavior or trait. An evolutionary explanation is immediately sought, when in fact it could just be the behavior is not than important or advantageous one way or the other.

By: anotherpanacea :: The Will-Be/Ought Gap: Marking Ideas to Market and Moral Realism

Mon, 30 Nov 2009 03:00:54 +0000

[...] on two related problems. One is Robin Hanson’s discussion of prediction markets to counteract status quo bias, and the other is my friend Leigh Johnson’s meditation on strong moral relativism. Because of [...]

By: Bill

Bill — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 21:47:48 +0000

Some prediction markets reward with money; others do not. If you have a fixed budget you can lose, point taken.

By: Floccina

Floccina — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:16:26 +0000

Scott I strongly agree with you on that and further we make excuses for some subjects we need teach Latin or factoring of quadratic equations though very few people will ever use them. People will make the excuse that we must teach Latin because it expands vocabulary. Has it been proven that Latin is a better way to expand vocabulary than teach more vocabulary. Do the Latin teachers even focus on expanding vocabulary or do they teach it as an academic exercise full useless declension and conjugation? People say but factoring quadratic equations teaches thinking skills but I ask could we learn to think skill while leaning something useful?

By: Michael Keenan

Michael Keenan — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:12:01 +0000

Prediction markets reward accuracy. Biased players go broke and exit the market; unbiased (or less biased) players remain, and are richer.

Prediction markets create a financial incentive to overcome bias.

By: LemmusLemmus

LemmusLemmus — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:02:11 +0000

Strangely enough, I published a post arguing against this view only a few hours ago.

By: anon

anon — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:10:36 +0000

Yes, of course to the extent that the current status quo has “stood the test of time” while alternatives have not, a status-quo bias is entirely reasonable. Even the assertion that the purpose of the sun is to nurture life makes a lot of sense as an application of the anthropic principle; just try living in interstellar space without a readily available energy source nearby!

By: michael vassar

michael vassar — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 07:14:22 +0000

I think it’s long for the world despite not being functional. The point of the post is that people preserve pointless institutions.

I agree with this post, but generalize it further. People perceive agency everywhere, whether it exists or not. Real agency looks like optimization pressure. When looking at objects that they can’t make themselves, people MASSIVELY overestimate the total optimization pressure that goes into the design of any given object.

By: Catfish

Catfish — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:46:34 +0000

I think one important point being ignored here is the fact that a person’s choice/final decision varies relative to the context at which he is being asked the question.

So lets say for example, the question is, who would be a better president? Person Y might vote McCain, but declare (verbally) someone else to a pollster. Because, as you know, due to the Bradley effect.

By: Steven Hales

Steven Hales — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 04:20:32 +0000

Institutions do arise from complexity. As relationships grow more interconnected in a market or markets regulators might seek to regulate risk of harm. For example size favors health insurers in the PPO market because of bargaining power with providers, the larger they are, the more patients they bring to the provider, the stronger their bargaining power on price. The sheer size of the insurer might lead to monopsony behavior so a minimum loss ratio is mandated by regulators to protect consumers from what might be popularly termed predatory pricing of health insurance policies. Since I am aware of this pattern of regulatory behavior would I be in favor or against a change in the way an insurance regulator operates if it would losen or tighten regulatory requirements. Again it would depend on which special interest I leaned towards. I don’t think that one could say goodness perception is a universal it is a nuance at best.

I might have a favorable opinion of the anti-trust division of the justice department prior to the Microsoft case but after the Microsoft case I might have a less favorable opinion. Is my change in opinion about the charter of the division being violated or am I biased about an admired company? If I on the other hand was a Linux user I might applaud the action.

Isn’t perceived goodness dependent on the behavior of the institution in relation to the perceiver’s point of view? You might have a favorable opinion of Medicare and Social Security if you are over 65 but a less favorable one if you are under 65. If you are under 65 and face supporting a parent in their retirement you might have a good perception of Social Security and Medicare.

This all boils down to context of observer and observed.