= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
shminux comments on Hope Function - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (8)
I'm wondering if what the researchers observed was not what the test subjects think, but what they think they think. This is because they did not observe the behavior, but only asked the subjects how they would behave.
For example, at what odds would those who said that the odds of the bus arrival do not depend on the time remaining till midnight (and are 50/50) actually bet on the bus arriving (provided they had to place a bet), when it's 11:59? My suspicion is that it would not be 50/50.
One has to wonder at the ethics of such an experiment - when you know tons of the subjects won't get even close to the right answer and thus would accept unfair bets!
You can certainly set it up in an ethical way. For example, tell the subject that they have to find something as fast as they can. It could be a set of drawers and a large bin nearby. One could deduce their (admittedly sunk-cost biased) intuitive probabilities from where they start looking and when/whether they switch from looking in the drawers to the bin. As described, this would not be easy or clean, but you can certainly modify the experiment to achieve both.
Can't you just pay them more for doing the experiment?
Then they might not have enough skin at stake? Or so one could argue.
I don't think you'd have to go so far as to bet. If people actually experience waiting until 11:59, they'll probably realise that the bus isn't likely to come.