dan ariely

He and Cathy doing an open course together at Duke:

How we deal with randomness, is incredibly important, and we do a really bad job at it.

We imagine so much of life is rules. When it’s not. So we’ve learned to live rule-based.. and yet that’s not how it really is.

Potential blindness, we see with our brains rather than our eyes. It means something about human laziness. ..we have an idea of what we’re going to see and we don’t re-examine it. 

What would stop you and make you pay attention… What would give you enough stir to start imposing your view on the world… get you to re-examine.

2013 – what makes us feel good about our work

What motivates us to work? Contrary to conventional wisdom, it isn’t just money. But it’s not exactly joy either. It seems that most of us thrive by making constant progress and feeling a sense of purpose. Behavioral economist Dan Ariely presents two eye-opening experiments that reveal our unexpected and nuanced attitudes toward meaning in our work.

________________________

2008 – are we in control of our own decisions

the problem is we don’t know our preferences

_______________________

2010 – temptations and self-control

thursday, january 6, 2011

dan ariely

can you take on short term consequences of loss for a long term gain

waiting for choc, doing exercise, etc… we’ll do it
because in the future we’ll wonderful people
problem is we don’t live in the future

his trick for self-control
he loves movies but has no time to watch, so his deal was after injection, he would watch movies

we exagerate the now and ignore the future
he did reward substitution, he acted as if he cared about the liver

we face problems with self-control all the time
can we use reward substitution, maybe

all the elements that create human apathy – rolled into one
perhaps it isn’t reward substitution

1) reward substitution
2) self-control contracts – creative ideas, alarm clock connected to your least fav charity, etc

_______________________

behavioral econ

some of us dabbled in, mingled with his coursera (mooc) course:

________________________

Find/follow him many places, but perhaps start here:

Or on wikipedia.

(but then this – added after i added this page – intro’d to it via fb share.. that also said this: ‘A whole Israeli documentary on it, alas not subtitled. Someone did a nice twitter encapsulation. He’s pretty fucking awful.’ ):

In 2006, Ariely, at the time a professor at the MIT Media Lab, conducted experiments including electric shocks without the required ethics approval. ..

In 2010, Ariely told NPR in an interview that data from Delta Dental, an insurance provider, showed that dentists frequently (with a probability of “about 50 percent”) misdiagnosed cavities when analyzing X-rays, and speculated that this might happen so that dentists could charge more money. A Delta Dental spokesperson later stated that they do not collect data that could support such a conclusion. ..

In July 2021, the journal Psychological Science issued an Expression of Concern regarding a 2004 paper by James Heyman and Dan Ariely, “prompted by some uncertainty regarding the values of statistical tests reported in the article and the analytic approach taken to the data”. ..

In August 2021, data from a field study in a 2012 PNAS paper by Lisa L. Shu, Nina Mazar, Francesca Gino, Dan Ariely, and Max H. Bazerman was reanalyzed on the blog Data Colada. The blog post claimed that the study data was fabricated. All of the 2012 study’s authors agreed with this assessment and the paper was retracted. ..

In November 2022, a TV investigation show Hamakor (Channel 13) aired an episode questioning a number of Ariely’s studies that were not reproducible or for which there are significant doubts about their reliability – the way they were carried out, the data that were collected or whether they were carried out at all. ..

Or take a look at his book:

book links to amazon

__________

ted 2015

how equal do we want the world to be

_________

on small talk:

adding page via Jason‘s fb share saying – small talk is oppressive:

http://www.wired.co.uk/article/banning-small-talk

Small talk prevails because of the need to find a socially acceptable topic. But when it’s removed, it changes the game

[..]

surface level small talk does not build relationships and it is not great for our happiness levels. The obvious question: if it’s not that good for us, why does it prevail?

[..]

The basic idea is that if every individual is free to act as they please, the combination of these individual behaviours might be sub-optimal for the group.

perhaps.. but assuming ..in the world we live in now.. w/science of people  ness ie: stress form money as os et al.. but if we tried a nother way.. with a mech to facil two convos.. to facil our individual curiosities.. (which we can now do.. for 7 billion people – no having to open door for 25 people and send out rules of game prior to).. like article says.. people do crave deep convos..

them asked for and wanting more rules.. is like.. to me.. a kid in school excited about an hour to do whatever.. happy to abide by little rules.. just to get that.. but that’s not freedom.. that’s a breather..

[..]

So what should we do? We could add co-ordination and create a new set of social norms. What if companies told people that email will only be delivered during just three pre-specified times? This would set the expectations of the senders, and reduce the need of the recipient to continuously monitor their email.

so what should we do…? we could coord hosted life bits.. and truly create a set of new social non-norms..ie: idiosyncracies of 7 bill that io dance….  beyond how to do email.. right? we don’t really want to know how to do email better.. do we..? perhaps it feels like it.. for a breather.. but if we had no strings attached.. were free in the city.. as the day.. we wouldn’t need/want rules/expectations..  for how to do .. email..

[..]

In situations where individuals normally have freedom, social co-ordination in some areas is likely to have surprising benefits

again – true if not 7 billion people truly free.. true if we assume .. science of people  ness.. which Ariely seems to ..

_________

Who You Find Attractive Is Based on How Hot You Are

http://bigthink.com/videos/who-you-find-attractive-is-based-on-how-hot-you-are

4 min – we all see beauty in the same way.. ie: rating was same no matter how the person was rated

5 min – people know their rate.. see beauty in same way..  but what we saw.. people who were attractive cared more about attractive ness.. and vice versa.. so adapt by changing priorities

_________