AllAmericanBreakfast

Monkeypox checklist: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/kPQAAb7ayZpKYPzME/?commentId=gJqJwdDHXpPjNMx7Q

Correlation does imply some sort of causal link.

For guessing its direction, simple models help you think.

Controlled experiments, if they are well beyond the brink

Of .05 significance will make your unknowns shrink.

Replications prove there's something new under the sun.

Did one cause the other? Did the other cause the one?

Are they both controlled by something already begun?

Or was it their coincidence that caused it to be done?

Wiki Contributions

Comments

For your proposed model to work, we have to assume that respondants think their own side is better at turning money into electoral victory, which they can then use to try and achieve concrete aims, but their opponents are able to turn money donated to their political campaign directly into concrete aims, without needing to achieve political victory. For example, the Democrats need to win the presidency to pass a law banning homophobic curriculums in the schools and thereby modestly advance the cause of gay rights, but the Republicans can spend campaign money directly on extremely effective homophobic TV advertising that has as major effect on stoking homophobia, no electoral victory required.

However, this still seems like a scenario in which the respondant is convinced that their opponent can spend the money more effectively than their own party. The study authors showed that even believing their own party spends money more effectively than the opposition doesn't persuade people by default to protect their own donation while allowing the opposition an additional $1. So I don't think your hypothesis fits the findings of the study, insofar as we can extrapolate.

Can you say where exactly you found the "I'm sick of the big parties and their interference" quote? I am having trouble finding it, not sure if you meant study 2 or supplementary 2 by S2.

After thinking about this more, I actually think there is a counter to that. The fifth study showed that people are really conforming to a norm, real or imagined. If they were really acting on their own individual preferences, then it seems like telling them their own side thinks it's important not to lose money, even though the other side gains money, ought not to be able to so thoroughly alter the choices they make.

What we probably need is an explanation for:

  1. Why people conform so strongly to the perceived norm.
  2. Why people imagine the norm is to sacrifice money for your own side to keep money out of the hands of the opponents.

The explanation for (1) seems to be an overriding desire to maintain their sense of political identity. But the explanation for (2) might be that, all else equal, they think it's sensible to diminish the amount of money wasted on politics. But if (1) dominates, then if they think the norm is to put money into politics, they'll do that instead.

I agree, I think that is an important alternative explanation that AFAIK the authors did not adequately explore.

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply

It seems like the explanation is that the desire to conform to the imagined norm in order to reinforce identity is so powerful that it can even override loss aversion to a large degree.

Sorry if I'm goofing up here, but I got confused about the math. You in "How do we look at this in the Factored Set Paradigm," you say that P(Z=0) = (1%+9%)/(81%+9%) = 1/9 = 11.111...%

It seems like P(Z=0) is actually (1%+9%)/(1%+9%+81%+9%) = 10%. Am I misreading something here?

What does the ⊊ symbol mean? I understand the basics of set notation but haven't taken a class, and I haven't been able to find this symbol on the tables of set notation I've looked at.

It's just supposed to represent a thought process someone might go through as an illustrative example, not to be factually accurate. Sorry that wasn't clear!

I thought about that, but I think it doesn't quite fit the details of the study. For example, in Study 1, they asked people to choose between two options:

  1. Give opponents $1, no effect on you.
  2. Your side loses $1, no effect on opponents.

The second option was much more popular, even though it involved taking a loss. So it seems to me that, if anything, loss aversion makes these results even more surprising. What do you think?

Load More