Cognitive illusions


Recommended Posts

One of the most frustrating things I have encountered in discussing persuasion, psychological triggers, instinct and a host of other similar cognitive issues on Objectivist forums is the belligerent denial that crops up. Not everybody does this, but I have often encountered people (on both sides of the love-Rand hate-Rand issue) who project the attitude of, "This is BS. Nobody tells me what to do."

This is irrespective of the material I present. Yet I cannot contain my fascination with this topic. My thinking is that if I am going to truly guide my own mind, I must learn how it works, even when that is not very flattering.

So I am delighted to present a delightful video by Dan Ariely called "We're All Predictably Irrational." There is no way the material he presents can be denied.

I am putting this in "Epstemology" for a specific reason. Our concepts are based on observation (the referents). This means both cognitive and normative abstractions. What do you do when those referents are false and you still get them wrong even after you are aware of them?

The good part is that we have other manners of measuring our observations and can correct the wrong perceptions and evaluations. This actually reinforces the integration idea of concepts

As a note to myself, I believe the principle Ariely mentioned, that when human beings care deeply about something but the issue is complex and they know little about it, they will take the option offered, is just as important as anything by Cialdini. This principle apparently works even when people choose something they don't believe in.

Enjoy the video, folks. I am going to look deeper into this guy.

btw - At the bottom is a link to the outline of Ariely's book.

Here is the outline: Predictably Irrational

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the link to an outline, Michael. This means I'll take a look at that written summary later today (and if it looks promising....)

(Aside: Time is fleeting and I simply don't have time to view videos that people post. I know this is a television and movies-raised generation, but podcasts, audio/visual clips often take ten times longer than it does to read an article, and unless the value is explained, may not be one's cup of tea.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I couldn't see the video yet, but based on the outline...

How much of these results are due to bad premises we've left unchecked? I think that the concept integration when we're youngest and most susceptible to learning others' bad premises leaves us with those bad premises (or equally invalid versions of those premises). Those unchecked premises are going to have consequences that may be an explanation of those 'irrational' decisions that are presented in the outline.

Let me ask in these other ways,

-if we presented these same experiments in a country where instead of things being commonly priced at $X.99 (X starting at zero) they were priced solely in whole numbers, 1 coin, 2 coins, 3 coins etc, would the SSN experiment have a different result?

-Would the ten commandments experiment have the same results with an Amazonian tribe who has never had any kind of access to the ten commandments?

I don't want it to seem like I'm attacking the guy. I'm convinced he achieved those results what I am questioning is the significance of his results, or more specifically the categorization of predictable irrationality to his results. I agree with you Michael, this topic definitely goes in epistemology and it definitely sells the integration of concepts in the objectivist epistemology.

I also think it's very clever of him to use the terms predictable and irrational together in order to imply a certain amount of "could you believe that irrationality is predictable" as if the two were exclusive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Free Health Care for all:

"Chapter 3: The Cost of Zero Cost

Why we often pay too much when we pay nothing

Zero/free is a source of irrational excitement. This is called the "zero price effect."

* Ariely, Shampanier, and Mazar conducted an experiment using Lindt truffles and Hershey's Kisses.

o When a truffle was $0.15 and a Kiss was $0.01, 73% of subjects chose the truffle and 27% the Kiss

o When a truffle was $0.14 and a Kiss was free, 69% chose the kiss and 31% the truffle

o According to standard economic theory, the price reduction shouldn't lead to any behavior change (relative price and expected pleasure should be equal between the two experiments)

* The same experiments were conducted with Kisses going for $0.02, $0.01, and free...and free again made a huge difference.

* Ariely's theory is that for normal transactions, we consider both upside and downside. But when something is free, we forget about the downside.

o "Free" makes us perceive what is being offered as immensely more valuable than it really is

+ Humans are loss-averse; when considering a normal purchase, loss-aversion comes into play

+ But when an item is free, there is no visible possibility of loss

* Ariely conducted a variation, where people were offered a choice between items.

o He gave kids (and students) 3 Kisses and offered to trade 1 Kiss for a small Snickers, and 2 Kisses for a large Snickers.

o The subjects overwhelmingly chose the large Snickers (which is rational, given the weights of the candies)

o When he instead offered to trade 1 Kiss for a large Snickers, or let the person take a small Snickers for free, the subjects overwhelming went for the free offer.

o The zero price effect applies even when money is not involved.

* In the real world, this effect was demonstrated by Amazon's free shipping.

o After Super Saver shipping was introduced, Amazon saw sales increases everywhere except for France

o It turned out that the French division offered 1 franc ($0.20) pricing instead of free pricing.

o When this was changed to free, France saw the same sales increases as elsewhere

* Another real-world example: People will wait in line for absurdly long times to get something for free.

*
Free is one of the most powerful ways to trigger behavior
"

(emphasis mine)

His set recognition paper was interesting.
http://web.mit.edu/ariely/www/MIT/Papers/spot.pdf

Specifically, page 161:

Closely related to the study of set representation is the research on visual search the investigation of

what determines the speed with which a target item can be located when embedded in many other items, called the

distractors. The central - and initially surprising - finding in this field is that a target that is readily

discriminable from a single distractor may not be so discriminable (i.e., a relatively long time may be needed to

locate it) when it is embedded in multiple copies of that distractor.

See Fig. 5 on the same page.

Adam

Post Script: Ah now I got the indent - it was hiding in all those distractors! B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The video is a good introduction to behavioral economics.

Many of the proposed applications of behavioral economics have come from people with paternalistic views of the State and aspirations to "make policy."

But as Adam noted, nothing in behavioral economics actually dictates those outcomes. For instance, nothing in it makes out bureaucrats to be any less susceptible to cognitive illusions.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I ordered stuff from deepdiscountdvd.com (now deepdiscount.com) for years because of their free shipping policy.

It's a capital aspect of psychology that smart online businesses have been playing off of for years now

Edited by Michelle R
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the most frustrating things I have encountered in discussing persuasion, psychological triggers, instinct and a host of other similar cognitive issues on Objectivist forums is the belligerent denial that crops up. Not everybody does this, but I have often encountered people (on both sides of the love-Rand hate-Rand issue) who project the attitude of, "This is BS. Nobody tells me what to do."

Not surpising when you think about it. For something which threatens cherished beliefs is very likely to cause insecurity, and the resulting belligerence can be seen as a defense mechanism. Imo you will be far less frustrated and hurt by the belligerence if you try to view it from this angle. Personal attacks can even be an indicator that you have hit the nail on the head with something you presented.

This is irrespective of the material I present. Yet I cannot contain my fascination with this topic. My thinking is that if I am going to truly guide my own mind, I must learn how it works, even when that is not and flattering.

ITA. Any epistemology ignoring knowledge on how the mind works is bound to end up in a blind alley.

This principle involves taking into account the research results posted in the link you gave.

Ayn Rand may not have been amused, but keep in mind that if all inquring minds had let themselves be stopped by authority verdicts, we still might hold the belief that the earth was flat. :)

So I am delighted to present a delightful video by Dan Ariely called "We're All Predictably Irrational." There is no way the material he presents can be denied.

quote]I am putting this in "Epstemology" for a specific reason. Our concepts are based on observation (the referents). This means both cognitive and normative abstractions. What do you do when those referents are false and you still get them wrong even after you are aware of them

The observation itself is not the referent, is it? Observation is a process. Isn't the "referent" you are referring to here actually the "object" observed, and by "the referents are false" you mean "the conclusions are false"? Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam, free does indeed mangle people's brain. When I was a docent at the zoo, we'd celebrate Halloween by handing tiny miniature bits of candy to the kids. People stood in line for two hours for that bite of candy. Never ceased to amaze me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam, free does indeed mangle people's brain. When I was a docent at the zoo, we'd celebrate Halloween by handing tiny miniature bits of candy to the kids. People stood in line for two hours for that bite of candy. Never ceased to amaze me.

My mother is awful with stuff like this. She'll go to some boring diabetes convention for hours just to get a bag full of free pens and other useless crap that only ends up cluttering her living space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The observation itself is not the referent, is it? Observation is a process. Isn't the "referent" you are referring to here actually the "object" observed, and by "the referents are false" you mean "the conclusions are false"?

Xray,

You cannot have a conceptual referent without observing the referent at some point. It's not either/or. It's both.

(Thinking it can be either/or is probably the main fallacy in your entire approach.)

Even if you are abstracting from abstractions, which were abstracted from other abstractions, and so on, if you trace those down to the premise level, you will find direct observation of some sort.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Side note on this point (in the Chapter entitle Cost of Social Norms)

A real-life example: The AARP asked lawyers to participate in a program where they would offer their services to needy employees for a discounted price of $30/hour. No dice. When the program manager instead asked if they'd offer their services for free, the lawyers overwhelmingly said they would participate.

That result may have been influenced by the current trend in which state bars have a quasi-mandate asking lawyers to perform a certain minimum number of hours as pro bono work. (Here in Florida, for instance, lawyers are asked to perform 30 hours directly, or indirectly (by delegating it to another member of their firm), or donating at least $350 to their local Legal Aid or other pro bono program, and must report the number of hours so worked every year, although there is no attempt by the Bar to actually enforce the minimum with sanctions.) Depending on the jurisdiction, services performed at a discounted rate may not qualify as pro bono work. So the lawyers involved here may simply have been choosing an easy way to satisfy the pro bono requirement.

I can confirm from personal experience that the clients for whom pro bono work is performed are either the best sort of clients--appreciative and co-operative, and very grateful that a lawyer is giving them something for nothing--or the worst, demanding attention and treatment a client who pays five hundred dollars an hour might find excessive, and expecting the lawyer to donate not only excessive amounts of time but his money (for instance, by hiring a detective--which is really the client's responsibility even if they are indigent). There does not seem to be an in-between. Fortunately, most of the pro bono clients I've dealt with over the years have been in the first category.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now