In reading about child motivation I have often come across the thesis that motivating children by means of rewards (basically payment) was not only not more effective, but might actually discourage them from the desired behaviour in general. I think the common example given is children being offered a reward to play with a certain toy (but one which would appeal to them anyyway) and then are monitored when they are left alone later with the same toy. The studies showed that children who had been provided with an incentive then didn't play much with that toy when the incentive was removed, whereas control children continued to do so. The interpretation was that the children now viewed playing with the toy almost as 'work', and hence had it was somehow excluded then from what there normal behaviour. The implication of course being that if such a reward mechanism is used, it will fail once the reward is removed, and does nothing to encourage the child to 'internalize' the behaviour, which is obviously what is actually needed.
But it is interesting to see that the same conclusion can apply to adults as well, and even more specifically, adults in the domain of economics, where rationality is still, even if bounded, largely assumed. Aditya Chakrabortty's Guardian article "When people are paid by results their attitudes change" is primarily focuses on how English rugby seems to have descended into selfish money grabbing, but references some interesting studies on this general phenomenon.
For example :
"Researchers now know a fair bit about how that shift works. Well over 100 tests have been carried out in which subjects are split in two and set some puzzles, next to a table with some glossy magazines. One group is paid $1 for each puzzle solved; the other does it for free. Time after time, the group working for nothing devote themselves to solving the puzzles. Those getting paid finish fast, then flick through the mags"
Or how when an Israeli daycare centre started charging parents for late drop-offs, the problem actually got worse:
"With tardiness now costing 10 shekels a pop, more parents should have turned up on time. But no. They came even later, because they saw the late pick-up now not as social embarrassment but as a service. And even when the centres stopped charging, the latenesses remained permanently higher. The introduction of a market norm had made its participants permanently more selfish."
In a society based on incentives and deterrents, this is something that needs to be taken seriously.
References (from Chakrabortty's article) :
A book review of "Not Just for the Money: An Economic Theory of Motivation" (Bruno Frey) which suggests:
"Extrinsic motivation involves external rewards, most usually associated by economists with the price system. Intrinsic motivation, or "behavioral motivation" as Frey also refers to it, comes from within. For both extrinsic and intrinsic motivation taken separately, the more we are motivated, the more effort we will put into a task. But research has shown that there may be situations when the two do not necessarily work together.
Frey invokes a familiar term to economists, ?crowding out? to describe the worst-case scenario. Crowding out occurs when the negative effect on intrinsic motivation of offering a monetary reward outweighs the positive extrinsic motivation. To use the labor market as an example, the result would be reduction of work effort despite more pay. The profundity of this finding is that the result runs counter to the predictions of economic theory."
The paper on the Israeli daycare centre.
Abstract :
"The deterrence hypothesis predicts that the introduction of a penalty that leaves everything else unchanged will reduce the occurrence of the behavior subject to the fine. We present the result of a field study in a group of day-care centers that contradicts this prediction. Parents used to arrive late to collect their children, forcing a teacher to stay after closing time. We introduced a monetary fine for late-coming parents. As a result the number of late-coming parents increased significantly. After the fine was removed no reduction occurred. We argue that penalties are usually introduced into an incomplete contract, social or private. They may change the information that agents have and therefore the effect on behavior may be opposite than expected. If this is true, the deterrence hypothesis loses its predictive strength, since the clause 'everything else is left unchanged' might be hard to satisfy. "
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
The swype is mightier than the sword
Due to a broken shoulder I'm down to one working hand at the moment and as a result have been writing a lot on my phone using swype. Apart from finding it actually easier and more efficient than trying to stab away on a laptop, once again I find myself thinking about the method itself, and whether there might be a qualitative difference in using it.
Writing with swype is actually very much like writing with a pen, in that one sweeps gracefully through the word one letter at a time, and I could imagine that this involves a different mental focus when compared to proper double handed typing (or even its two fingered virtual keyboard cousin). With typing, the word is pumped out almost as a unit, via an automatic burst of key strokes which are almost in parallel, and there is little thought or feeling of the individual letters that constitute it (which might explain my tendency in emails to mix up similarly sounding words, like "are", "our" and "or"). But when writing with a pen, or swype, one must deliberately spell out the word, letter by letter, and this must involve slightly different thinking? If only because one must wait until each word has fully resolved itself, and made that bit more of an impression, before one can fully turn one's attention to the next. Maybe it is even similar to the difference between the old way in which reading was taught, with the focus on the full word as a whole, and the new phonics method of teaching, which is supposed to be more effective. The fact that the two styles of instruction differ in effectiveness indicates a difference in mental processing, between gulping the word down as a block, and slowly sipping it in in chunks.
It must be possible to devise studies that could analyse this, e.g. by comparing paragraphs written with the different methods, and it would be interesting to see if there is any variation in style, flow or word choice. For example, maybe the rapid fire of typing encourages free association, with words and ideas leading almost unconsciously to the next, and maybe in contrast the slow plodding pen (or swype) results in more deliberate thought. I'm not suggesting this is the case, but think our mental processing can be so influenced by subtle things, that such phenomena are definitely possible. And, since digital writing is now the norm, even being common place in schools etc. , replacing the centuries old tradition of inscription, then it is surely a topic worthy of study. Online and in archives we are what we write, so it is important to know if how we write matters.
Of course, maybe we just haven't developed the same proficiency in swype as have in typing, and lost that proficiency through disuse in writing by hand, so even if mental differences now, maybe would converge over time. Again this is something which could be tested, for example by comparing types and swypes of subjects with varying skill.
However, I think it will always be true that swype/pen is slower and requires more effort, since the letters come out serially while typing is more parallel, and maybe this contains the significant difference. And this extra effort is I think a good thing - I am reminded of the Ents in the Lord of the Rings, with their excruciatingly labourious language, which was so drawn and took so long to say anything with, that they only ever said something if it was worth taking a long time to say.
What also might be relevant is that writing never used be as natural as speaking (even if not our biological default it is of course still in some way "natural" if we do it all, like wearing clothes), and maybe proficient typing, in being almost automatic, is actually closer to speaking. Which then raises questions about whether 'new' writing is different to 'old', and whether there are any consequences of this.
Or is this maybe changing, at least in certain domains? And should we be aware of this, and maybe learn when each style is more appropriate? The productivity of modern technology also means easier to generate more rubbish, and the sheer volume of comment and statement we can produce might dilute what actually matters, and result in reduced quality, particularly through lack of clarity. Because no matter how effortless it is, speaking relies on accompanying elements beyond the words, such as tone, facial demeanour and expressive sounds, which help convey subtlety and nuance, tools which writing must do without, and hence requires more care and effort to avoid misinterpretation.
Which is why of course rapid text/chat speak was accompanied by the invention of emoticons like smileys, but these are relatively weak aids given the complexity of human expression.
So while we should think before we speak, we must think even more before we write, and maybe slower, serial input methods further this. The pen is mightier than the sword, but the qwerty keyboard is double edged.
Writing with swype is actually very much like writing with a pen, in that one sweeps gracefully through the word one letter at a time, and I could imagine that this involves a different mental focus when compared to proper double handed typing (or even its two fingered virtual keyboard cousin). With typing, the word is pumped out almost as a unit, via an automatic burst of key strokes which are almost in parallel, and there is little thought or feeling of the individual letters that constitute it (which might explain my tendency in emails to mix up similarly sounding words, like "are", "our" and "or"). But when writing with a pen, or swype, one must deliberately spell out the word, letter by letter, and this must involve slightly different thinking? If only because one must wait until each word has fully resolved itself, and made that bit more of an impression, before one can fully turn one's attention to the next. Maybe it is even similar to the difference between the old way in which reading was taught, with the focus on the full word as a whole, and the new phonics method of teaching, which is supposed to be more effective. The fact that the two styles of instruction differ in effectiveness indicates a difference in mental processing, between gulping the word down as a block, and slowly sipping it in in chunks.
It must be possible to devise studies that could analyse this, e.g. by comparing paragraphs written with the different methods, and it would be interesting to see if there is any variation in style, flow or word choice. For example, maybe the rapid fire of typing encourages free association, with words and ideas leading almost unconsciously to the next, and maybe in contrast the slow plodding pen (or swype) results in more deliberate thought. I'm not suggesting this is the case, but think our mental processing can be so influenced by subtle things, that such phenomena are definitely possible. And, since digital writing is now the norm, even being common place in schools etc. , replacing the centuries old tradition of inscription, then it is surely a topic worthy of study. Online and in archives we are what we write, so it is important to know if how we write matters.
Of course, maybe we just haven't developed the same proficiency in swype as have in typing, and lost that proficiency through disuse in writing by hand, so even if mental differences now, maybe would converge over time. Again this is something which could be tested, for example by comparing types and swypes of subjects with varying skill.
However, I think it will always be true that swype/pen is slower and requires more effort, since the letters come out serially while typing is more parallel, and maybe this contains the significant difference. And this extra effort is I think a good thing - I am reminded of the Ents in the Lord of the Rings, with their excruciatingly labourious language, which was so drawn and took so long to say anything with, that they only ever said something if it was worth taking a long time to say.
What also might be relevant is that writing never used be as natural as speaking (even if not our biological default it is of course still in some way "natural" if we do it all, like wearing clothes), and maybe proficient typing, in being almost automatic, is actually closer to speaking. Which then raises questions about whether 'new' writing is different to 'old', and whether there are any consequences of this.
Or is this maybe changing, at least in certain domains? And should we be aware of this, and maybe learn when each style is more appropriate? The productivity of modern technology also means easier to generate more rubbish, and the sheer volume of comment and statement we can produce might dilute what actually matters, and result in reduced quality, particularly through lack of clarity. Because no matter how effortless it is, speaking relies on accompanying elements beyond the words, such as tone, facial demeanour and expressive sounds, which help convey subtlety and nuance, tools which writing must do without, and hence requires more care and effort to avoid misinterpretation.
Which is why of course rapid text/chat speak was accompanied by the invention of emoticons like smileys, but these are relatively weak aids given the complexity of human expression.
So while we should think before we speak, we must think even more before we write, and maybe slower, serial input methods further this. The pen is mightier than the sword, but the qwerty keyboard is double edged.
Friday, November 4, 2011
Cutting Edge : anonymous accountability?
Real not reality
I really like Channel 4's documentary series Cutting Edge, even though its subject matter is generally much more mundane than the topics that normally catch my eye (or DVR). Indeed it's probably because its topics are often so seemingly everyday and normal (for example comparing different pubs with the same name or the day of a bin man etc.) that it stands out, because it consistently manages to capture illuminating and interesting facets in seemingly ordinary situations.
As I've often said, I am definitely not a people person, and hate reality TV, but even I am often intrigued and drawn to the unusual individuals that it uncovers in every day life. These are 'real' not 'reality' people, and I have to admit there is something cheering about encountering such characters, and to be impressed with unexpected qualities of the average 'man in the street' (the classic example of which was the binman who quoted socrates in between emptying trash cans). What I think differentiates these people primarily from the type who appear on reality TV, is that in reality TV, they actively want to be on it, and are generally projecting a vain and vacuous image for that purpose, whereas in the documentaries such as Cutting Edge, the participants are simply observed going about their daily lives, and even if there might inevitably be some playing to the camera, it seems minimal.
Who guards the advisors
This weeks episode (Channell 4's webpage is here, and also seems to be available on youtube here) was on the problem (or promise) of the burdgeoning phenomena of online reviewing, and in particular Trip Advisor. On one side were the hotel owners who claimed they were powerless in the face of anonymous and unaccountable damaging reviews, and on the other were examples of the more prolific of trip advisor contributers, self-confessed fanatics who saw it as their duty to inform and warn others.
Apart from the classic Cutting Edge characters captured (the 'basil fawlty' style hotel manager, or the nerdy reviewer who reads everything he writes out to his grandmother over the telephone) it was an interesting expose of a complicated area which is symbolic of the modern internet age. On the one hand it is definitely a good thing that the service industry can be constantly reviewed, and potential tourists can inform themselves, yet on the other there is the significant power without responsibility wielded by the commentators.
Personally, from the small set of examples in the programme, I would tend to be on the side of the hoteliers, since they were visibly hurt (emotionally and economically) by the reviews they were receiving, and did seem to really want to provide a good service. In addition, some of the reviewers seemed an unlikeable lot, obsessed with finding things wrong, or in the case of one particularly annoying woman, refusing even to debate on camera what she had written. But it was not as clear cut as that, since there was bad behaviour by some owners out of view, and some of the reviewers were cheerful and witty about their work, and more than happy to defend it in person.
What makes this interesting, is that I think it is an illustrative example of how we need to adapt to the new world order of an online culture of commentary. What I think needs to be accepted is that there is no going back to the days of a handful of 'elite' reviewers, and both sides will have to live with this new phenomenon. To do this, what I think is required is education and increased awareness on both sides. The hotel owners need to accept that there can now be instant, widespread and yet possibily groundless publication about any mistakes they make, but also the tourists themselves, who use Trip Advisor, need to factor in that the person making the review may not be reliable or unbiased.
For the hoteliers, now that they know everyone can write a review afterwards, they need to establish feedback mechanisms, or even simply ask, to allow visitors to vent any frustration (if only partly) without resorting to the net.
And for tourists, they have to realise that the type of person who writes a review is more likely to be either the kind of person who makes a hobby out of nitpicking, or was spurred to write by a particularly bad experience, and hence any collection of reviews will probably be biased to the negative. In addition, as studies such as the Stanford Prison Experiment have shown, anonymity is conducive to abusive behaviour, especially the exertion of arbitary power over others, which is exactly the power that online reviewers wield. As these dynamics become so prevalent in our society, we need to become more adept at recognizing and compensating for them.
At the end of the day, what I think is the real problem, is not anonymity, but accountability, or the lack of. Being anonymous may be problematic in how it enables irresponsible behaviour, but it is also advantageous, and not just for the extreme cases of people living in repressive regimes. The presence of malicious 'trolls' on the internet, and the damage they can inflict, means it is often advisable not to reveal ones identity, since online it is so easy to upset someone, and so hard to reconcile with them. Unfortunately there are plenty of (generally young male) people out there who are itching to take offence, and then take revenge (there are some horrific stories of people being smeared paedophiles etc. simply due to a simple onlin spat in a forum).
What I think is needed is some form of anonymous accountability, some way in which identities can be protected, but still held to account. One possible solution for this would be a registered anonymous identity, an online persona which would not be traceable back to one's real world name, but which would be a consistent persona on the internet. The idea would be that all comments and online activity would be made under the same psuedonym, allowing the history of what that person did to be seen, and judged. Of course this would not prevent malicious behaviour, since the person would still be untouchable, but it would encourage consistency, and reduce one-off attacks.
The main problem would be how to encourage people to actually maintain the same online identity, and not just switch and change, but one mechanism for this would be to have some central site which allocates these names, and restricts how many/often it does so, and for it to become appealing to have this particular name. For example an online newspaper might allow anonymous commenting, but only with registered names, and ensure one per use, with (appealable) banning for misuse. And of course the ideal version of this would be one (or a few) well respected social network sites issuing names, which would then be accepted by various other organizations (e.g. if a site facelessbook issued reliable usernames, then all newspapers might allow anonymous commenting under its login name).
The point is if a person's online history is available, then not only will they be induced to be consistent, and maybe think more about what they're doing, but also it will allow others to judge them by their previous actions. If someone only makes miserable reviews or indulges in trolling on various websites, then one would know to discount their comments. Similarly if someone DOESN'T use this mechanism, then maybe they've something to hide, or are at least not prepared to stand by what they said, so why listen to them.
There could even be things like an online 'reputation' credit rating service, whereby if you wanted to check up on a particular user's history, a web site would search the internet for all postings (all travel review sites, all newspapers) etc. to show what kind of person they were. It is important to note that this would not compromise privacy, people would 'opt in' by using the same name, but it could be setup in a way that most normal people would want to. And of course there ultimate identity would be secure (although maybe some protection would be needed to prevent indirect identification, e.g. google might well be able to link real named gmail accounts with IPs posting under particular pseudonyms).
My basic point is this phenomenon of online commentary is here to stay, and we as the technical generation need to work out new mechanisms to preserve the potential and avoid the pitfalls.
I really like Channel 4's documentary series Cutting Edge, even though its subject matter is generally much more mundane than the topics that normally catch my eye (or DVR). Indeed it's probably because its topics are often so seemingly everyday and normal (for example comparing different pubs with the same name or the day of a bin man etc.) that it stands out, because it consistently manages to capture illuminating and interesting facets in seemingly ordinary situations.
As I've often said, I am definitely not a people person, and hate reality TV, but even I am often intrigued and drawn to the unusual individuals that it uncovers in every day life. These are 'real' not 'reality' people, and I have to admit there is something cheering about encountering such characters, and to be impressed with unexpected qualities of the average 'man in the street' (the classic example of which was the binman who quoted socrates in between emptying trash cans). What I think differentiates these people primarily from the type who appear on reality TV, is that in reality TV, they actively want to be on it, and are generally projecting a vain and vacuous image for that purpose, whereas in the documentaries such as Cutting Edge, the participants are simply observed going about their daily lives, and even if there might inevitably be some playing to the camera, it seems minimal.
Who guards the advisors
This weeks episode (Channell 4's webpage is here, and also seems to be available on youtube here) was on the problem (or promise) of the burdgeoning phenomena of online reviewing, and in particular Trip Advisor. On one side were the hotel owners who claimed they were powerless in the face of anonymous and unaccountable damaging reviews, and on the other were examples of the more prolific of trip advisor contributers, self-confessed fanatics who saw it as their duty to inform and warn others.
Apart from the classic Cutting Edge characters captured (the 'basil fawlty' style hotel manager, or the nerdy reviewer who reads everything he writes out to his grandmother over the telephone) it was an interesting expose of a complicated area which is symbolic of the modern internet age. On the one hand it is definitely a good thing that the service industry can be constantly reviewed, and potential tourists can inform themselves, yet on the other there is the significant power without responsibility wielded by the commentators.
Personally, from the small set of examples in the programme, I would tend to be on the side of the hoteliers, since they were visibly hurt (emotionally and economically) by the reviews they were receiving, and did seem to really want to provide a good service. In addition, some of the reviewers seemed an unlikeable lot, obsessed with finding things wrong, or in the case of one particularly annoying woman, refusing even to debate on camera what she had written. But it was not as clear cut as that, since there was bad behaviour by some owners out of view, and some of the reviewers were cheerful and witty about their work, and more than happy to defend it in person.
What makes this interesting, is that I think it is an illustrative example of how we need to adapt to the new world order of an online culture of commentary. What I think needs to be accepted is that there is no going back to the days of a handful of 'elite' reviewers, and both sides will have to live with this new phenomenon. To do this, what I think is required is education and increased awareness on both sides. The hotel owners need to accept that there can now be instant, widespread and yet possibily groundless publication about any mistakes they make, but also the tourists themselves, who use Trip Advisor, need to factor in that the person making the review may not be reliable or unbiased.
For the hoteliers, now that they know everyone can write a review afterwards, they need to establish feedback mechanisms, or even simply ask, to allow visitors to vent any frustration (if only partly) without resorting to the net.
And for tourists, they have to realise that the type of person who writes a review is more likely to be either the kind of person who makes a hobby out of nitpicking, or was spurred to write by a particularly bad experience, and hence any collection of reviews will probably be biased to the negative. In addition, as studies such as the Stanford Prison Experiment have shown, anonymity is conducive to abusive behaviour, especially the exertion of arbitary power over others, which is exactly the power that online reviewers wield. As these dynamics become so prevalent in our society, we need to become more adept at recognizing and compensating for them.
At the end of the day, what I think is the real problem, is not anonymity, but accountability, or the lack of. Being anonymous may be problematic in how it enables irresponsible behaviour, but it is also advantageous, and not just for the extreme cases of people living in repressive regimes. The presence of malicious 'trolls' on the internet, and the damage they can inflict, means it is often advisable not to reveal ones identity, since online it is so easy to upset someone, and so hard to reconcile with them. Unfortunately there are plenty of (generally young male) people out there who are itching to take offence, and then take revenge (there are some horrific stories of people being smeared paedophiles etc. simply due to a simple onlin spat in a forum).
What I think is needed is some form of anonymous accountability, some way in which identities can be protected, but still held to account. One possible solution for this would be a registered anonymous identity, an online persona which would not be traceable back to one's real world name, but which would be a consistent persona on the internet. The idea would be that all comments and online activity would be made under the same psuedonym, allowing the history of what that person did to be seen, and judged. Of course this would not prevent malicious behaviour, since the person would still be untouchable, but it would encourage consistency, and reduce one-off attacks.
The main problem would be how to encourage people to actually maintain the same online identity, and not just switch and change, but one mechanism for this would be to have some central site which allocates these names, and restricts how many/often it does so, and for it to become appealing to have this particular name. For example an online newspaper might allow anonymous commenting, but only with registered names, and ensure one per use, with (appealable) banning for misuse. And of course the ideal version of this would be one (or a few) well respected social network sites issuing names, which would then be accepted by various other organizations (e.g. if a site facelessbook issued reliable usernames, then all newspapers might allow anonymous commenting under its login name).
The point is if a person's online history is available, then not only will they be induced to be consistent, and maybe think more about what they're doing, but also it will allow others to judge them by their previous actions. If someone only makes miserable reviews or indulges in trolling on various websites, then one would know to discount their comments. Similarly if someone DOESN'T use this mechanism, then maybe they've something to hide, or are at least not prepared to stand by what they said, so why listen to them.
There could even be things like an online 'reputation' credit rating service, whereby if you wanted to check up on a particular user's history, a web site would search the internet for all postings (all travel review sites, all newspapers) etc. to show what kind of person they were. It is important to note that this would not compromise privacy, people would 'opt in' by using the same name, but it could be setup in a way that most normal people would want to. And of course there ultimate identity would be secure (although maybe some protection would be needed to prevent indirect identification, e.g. google might well be able to link real named gmail accounts with IPs posting under particular pseudonyms).
My basic point is this phenomenon of online commentary is here to stay, and we as the technical generation need to work out new mechanisms to preserve the potential and avoid the pitfalls.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)