What gives? If you're going to criticize just one of those two, which one has priority?
Criticizing someone for (the perception of) being mean or otherwise anti-social generally has higher priority than criticizing someone for (the perception of) being wrong.
In human social interaction, it's considered worse to be mean than to be wrong, unless you are wrong in a socially proscribed way. Social order is considered more important than everyone being right all of the time.
I wasn't criticizing Nancy for being wrong; I was criticizing her for ignoring part of what someone said. That counts as being anti-social too, so it's not an issue of "wrong vs. anti-social"; it's anti-social vs. anti-social.
So, why is the anti-sociality of ignoring someone's comment while pretending to reply to it worse than the anti-sociality of saying that someone, er, did that?
Also, would it be rude to point out that you also just did what I'm accusing Nancy of doing? ;-)
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.