AspiringKnitter comments on SotW: Check Consequentialism - Less Wrong

38 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 29 March 2012 01:35AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (311)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: AspiringKnitter 04 April 2012 03:05:09AM -1 points [-]

Doesn't that rely on everyone eating candy? One person who doesn't eat candy and therefore isn't invested in the outcome could wreck that.

Also: theoretically, a student could win hundreds of pieces of candy? I'm sure the parents were very happy about that.

Comment author: handoflixue 04 April 2012 08:27:44AM 0 points [-]

Anyone can ruin it deliberately, true - it works best with a cooperative group, not a competitive one. Modifying it for a competitive group would definitely remove it from the real of "useful introductory ideas", but would probably still be a useful exercise for more advanced classes.

Candy is also concrete and engaging - most people don't respond as enthusiastically to raffle tickets or $0.25. As part of a larger set of challenges, using play money with some sort of modest exchange of play money -> small prizes at the end of the session might work.

Comment author: Nornagest 04 April 2012 03:14:39AM 0 points [-]

Doesn't need to be candy, necessarily. Money's the first thing that comes to mind, but if that's prohibitively costly to maintain while keeping the prizes attractive, you could play with probabilities: build a set of diverse prizes of approximately equal value, say, and instead of money or candy distribute tickets to a raffle where the winner'd be able to choose one prize. That might have some funny consequences in this experiment, though, depending on the quirks of how people think about probabilities.