I consider entertainment to be a field with a substantial degree of objective measurement because people are good at telling whether they've been entertained.
People choose entertainment for basically the same reasons they choose political opinions or other beliefs: social pressures, being part of a team. Entertainment has objective measurement because people directly change what it is that's being measured.
If I decide that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction because I like the team that says so, I'm still wrong. If I decide that Nickelback is entertaining to me because people around me say the same thing, I become correct.
If I decide that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction because I like the team that says so, I'm still wrong. If I decide that Nickelback is entertaining to me because people around me say the same thing, I become correct.
I don't have high hopes for CEV, but I hope that humans at least converge on the obviously correct preferences to avoid hot pockets and Nickelback whenever possible.
(I think I became slightly infamous at Benton house for insisting that certain preferences could be objectively correct under any reasonable amount of reflection. This was m...
I'm trying to better understand the relationship between incentivization and rationality, and it occurred to me that it is a "folk fact" around here that large financial incentives don't make cognitive biases go away.
However, I can't seem to find any papers that actually say this. It's not easy to google for (I have tried) so I wonder if the Less Wrong collective memory knows how to find the papers?
Is there a pattern to which biases go away with incentivization? Do we have at least 5 examples of biases that go away with incentivization and 5 examples that don't go away with incentivization?
As an incentive, I'll paypal $10 to the commenter whose answer is least biased and most useful.