Dias comments on Open thread, Oct. 27 - Nov. 2, 2014 - Less Wrong

5 Post author: MrMind 27 October 2014 08:58AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (400)
Tags: open_thread

Comments (400)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Dias 30 October 2014 02:54:47AM 6 points [-]

Suppose I was an unusual moral, unusually insightful used car saleswoman. I have studied the dishonest sales techniques my colleagues use, and because I am unusually wise, worked out the general principles behind them. I think it is plausible that this analysis is new, though I guess it could already exist in an obscure journal.

Is it moral of me to publish this research, or should I practice the virtue of silence?

  • It might help people resist such techniques.
  • It might help salesmen employ these immoral techniques better.
  • Salesmen are more likely to already understand much of the content - vulnerable outsiders would have more to learn
  • Salesmen are more incentivized to learn from my analysis.
  • It is quite interesting to read as a purely abstract matter.
  • I like producing and sharing interesting research.

Obviously the dishonest car salesman is just an example so don't get too tied up on the efficiency of the second hand car market.

Comment author: gjm 30 October 2014 01:32:37PM 4 points [-]

Robert Cialdini did something a bit like this in researching his book "Influence", and so far as I can tell pretty much everyone agrees it's a good thing he wrote it.

I suspect attitudes to your doing this would depend on what your publication looked like. You could write

  • a book called "Secrets of Successful Second-hand Sales", aimed at used car salespeople, advising them on how to manipulate their customers;
  • a book called "Secrets of the Sinister Second-hand Sellers", aimed at used car buyers, advising them on what sort of things they should expect to be done to them and how to see through the bullshit and resist the manipulation;
  • a book called "A Scientific Study of Second-hand Sales Strategies", aimed at psychologists and other interested parties, presenting the information neutrally for whatever use anyone wants to make.

(As an unusually moral person you probably wouldn't actually want to write the first of those books. But some others in a similar situation might.)

My gut reaction to the first would be "ewww", to the second would be "oh, someone trying to drum up sales by attention-grabbing hype",and to the third would be "hey, that's interesting". Other people's guts may well differ from mine. Cialdini's book is mostly the third, with a little touch of the second.

Comment author: ChristianKl 30 October 2014 01:37:57PM 5 points [-]

Cialdini's book is mostly the third, with a little touch of the second.

And read by people who want to read the first ;)

Comment author: gjm 30 October 2014 07:02:37PM 1 point [-]

And also who want to read the second or the third. But yes, of course, writing for one audience won't stop others taking advantage.

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 31 October 2014 12:51:14AM 3 points [-]

I estimate that 95% of readers of Cialdini read it for business.

Comment author: ChristianKl 30 October 2014 11:03:18AM 2 points [-]

I think it depends very much on the case.

There are things in the social skill space that I discovered via experimentation that I don't openly share.

Sales man aren't the only people who care about getting people to make decisions. In medicine compliance is pretty important and choice engineering as a field isn't completely evil.

Understanding our decision making can also give us insight into issues like akrasia.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit