The paradox of behaviour tests

Failure rate of 50% a worrying statistic for drivers - The Irish Times - Wed, Aug 08, 2012



It seems 50% of cars fail their yearly roadworthiness test in Ireland, which raises some interesting paradoxes. Should this be viewed as a good thing, in that so many dangerous cars are identified and taken off the road? Or is the testing contributing to the problem, since knowing that there will be a yearly test, people are skipping on regular maintenance and services? This is an interesting example of a common undesired side-effects of checking human behaviour : it removes responsibility for the problem from the individual, which means both bad and good behaviour is reduced. I could see something similar occurring in France, where now motorists are legally obliged to carry breathalizers  with them. Initially, and overall, I think this is a good thing, since most people do not want to drive over the limit, but might often (if even wilfully) assume they are not. However if confronted with clear evidence (from their own breathalizer) that they are, then they are left no moral wiggle room, and can only continue to drive if make a clear decision to break the law, as opposed to just hoping they aren't. And of cours those that would drive regardless would so so anyway, test or not. The corrolary of the test though, is that there are probably many cases where people overestimate their blood alcohol content, and don't drive because they think they are over the limit when they actually aren't (the limit is apparently surprisingly high for some people). These people would never have driven when fully inebriated, but now would be encouraged to do so when partially. Given that any alcohol in the system affects performance, then there is a likelihood that this will actually result in these people crashing, when they otherwise wouldn't.

So while testing is overall needed, since it clamps down on the extremes, it is never without unintended consequences.

Are Believers Really Happier Than Atheists?

Are Believers Really Happier Than Atheists?
Who is better off: the religious or atheists? Cultural values determine the answer

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=healthy-skepticism

• Being religious is often linked with greater well-being. New research suggests that the effect is culture-specific.
• A strong predictor of a person’s religiosity is the condition of the society in which he or she lives.
• Finding communities and social groups that align with your beliefs can improve life satisfaction.

Bankers and the neuroscience of greed | Ian Robertson | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

Bankers and the neuroscience of greed | Ian Robertson | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

• power is one of the most potent brain-changing drugs known to humankind, unconstrained power has enormously distorting effects on behaviour, emotions and thinking.
• Researchers at Tilburg University showed that people made to feel more powerful cheated more when they believed themselves to be unobserved. Power also made ordinary people more hypocritical when making judgments about moral dilemmas, being much more strict in applying rules to others, but much more lax in applying them to themselves. Even tiny amounts of artificial power, in other words, increased both immorality and hypocrisy.
• Paul Piff of the University of Berkeley found in a US-based study that, compared with lower class people, upper class individuals were more likely to break the law while driving, to show unethical tendencies in decision-making, to take valued goods from others, to lie in a negotiation, to cheat in order to improve their chances of winning a prize, and to endorse unethical behaviour in a work situation.
•  It has become a cliche to explain the behaviour of bankers in terms of greed, but cliches are not always wrong. Power and money both act on the brain's reward system, which if over-stimulated for long periods develops appetites that are difficult to satisfy, just as is the case for drug addiction. We call these appetites greed and greedy people are never satisfied. That is the challenge for politicians and regulators.

Self help: try positive action, not positive thinking | Science | The Observer

Self help: try positive action, not positive thinking | Science | The Observer

Why working-class people vote conservative | Society | The Guardian

Why working-class people vote conservative | Society | The Guardian

Feel bad to feel good

Alain de Botton on self-help books : " [they] make the grave assumption that the best way to cheer someone up is to tell them that all will be well. They are utterly cut off from the spirit of their more noble predecessors, who knew that the fastest way to make someone feel well is to tell her that things are as bad as, and possibly much worse than, she could ever  have thought. Or, as Seneca put it so well, "What need is there to weep over parts of life? The whole of it calls for tears." "

The Irrationality of Irrationality: The Paradox of Popular Psychology | Guest Blog, Scientific American Blog Network

The Irrationality of Irrationality: The Paradox of Popular Psychology | Guest Blog, Scientific American Blog Network
Extracts : 

• People do not compensate sufficiently for missing information even when it is painfully obvious that the information available to them is incomplete.
• we humans love narratives...But narratives are also irrational because they sacrifice the whole story for one side of a story that conforms to one?s worldview. Relying on them often leads to inaccuracies and stereotypes..rarely do we ask: ?What more would I need to know before I can have a more informed and complete opinion??
• The last several years have seen many popular psychology books that touch on this line of research....[BUT] when people learn about how we irrationally jump to conclusions they form new opinions about how the brain works from the little information they recently acquired. They jump to conclusions about how the brain jumps to conclusions and fit their newfound knowledge into a larger story that romantically and naively describes personal enlightenment
• The crux of the problem, as Cowen points out [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoEEDKwzNBw], is that it?s nearly impossible to understand irrationalities without taking advantage of them. And, paradoxically, we rely on stories to understand why they can be harmful
• Brenner, Koehler and Tversky...reduced conclusion jumping by getting people to consider the other information at their disposal
• Ultimately, we need to remember what philosophers get right. Listen and read carefully; logically analyze arguments; try to avoid jumping to conclusions; don?t rely on stories too much. The Greek playwright Euripides was right: Question everything, learn something, answer nothing.

On writing, memory, and forgetting

I only recently encountered the Zeignarik Effect (that people remember uncompleted or interrupted tasks better than completed tasks) for the first time  in a book on concentration, and had only thought about it in negative terms, since it could lead to constant distraction as unfinished tasks repeatedly popped back into mind. So intriguing (and after consideration very plausible) to think that it might have a more general and positive role in maintaining memories, or at least the ones that matter (which maybe are just those that are still 'open'). In this article, Maria Konnikova wonders if this effect was something that has been recognized as far back as Socrates, and whether his warnings then against the written word might be relevant today with respect to our embracing of online tools and databases. In both cases we are delegating the mental effort of memory to something external to us, and while this is  useful and necessary for the preservation of the data itself, it is perhaps worth considering what the affect it has on our own remaining awareness of that information, once we have successfully 'shelved' it. Indeed she even mentions a study which suggested that people are far less able to recall information that they expect to be able to have access to in the future. Socrates on Google, now that's prescient....

On writing, memory, and forgetting: Socrates and Hemingway take on Zeigarnik
Some extracts from Konnikova 's article :

• I can't help but think of an admonition that came centuries before Ms. Zeigarnik sat down to her Viennese coffee: Socrates? reproach in The Phaedrus that the written word is the enemy of memory. In the dialogue, Socrates recounts the story of the god Theuth, or Ammon, who offers the king Thamus the gift of letters:

 This, said Theuth, will make the Egyptians wiser and give them better memories; it is a specific both for the memory and for the wit. Thamus replied: O most ingenious Theuth, the parent or inventor of an art is not always the best judge of the utility or inutility of his own inventions to the users of them. And in this instance, you who are the father of letters, from a paternal love of your own children have been led to attribute to them a quality which they cannot have; for this discovery of yours will create forgetfulness in the learners? souls, because they will not use their memories; they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves. The specific which you have discovered is an aid not to memory, but to reminiscence, and you give your disciples not truth, but only the semblance of truth; they will be hearers of many things and will have learned nothing; they will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing; they will be tiresome company, having the show of wisdom without the reality.

• In this [Hemingway's] view, talking something through?completing it, so to speak, off the page?impedes the ability to actually create it to its fullest potential. Somehow, that act of closure, of having talked through a piece of work, takes away the motivation to finish.
• the advice offered by the author Justin Taylor: "Don't take notes. This is counterintuitive, but bear with me. You only get one shot at a first draft, and if you write yourself a note to look at later then that's what your first draft was?a shorthand, cryptic, half-baked fragment"
• Hemingway seems to be, in many ways, on the same page as Socrates and the same page as Zeigarnik and her foundational studies of our memories? curious quirks. What's more, the more we know about memory, the more true it seems to be that we somehow let go of the information that we no longer feel we absolutely must hold on to. Last year, a study by Betsy Sparrow and colleagues, published in Science, suggested that people are far less able to recall information that they expect to be able to have access to in the future. Instead, they remember where and how to find that information.- I would never give up the ability to record, to access, to research endless topics at the click of a button. But, with Hemingway and Socrates never far from mind, I may be slightly more cautious about how I use that ability.

note : the paper "Google Effects on Memory" is discussed in this article, and the abstract is :


Google Effects on Memory: Cognitive Consequences of Having Information at Our Fingertips
Betsy Sparrow1,*,Jenny Liu2,Daniel M. Wegner
The advent of the Internet, with sophisticated algorithmic search engines, has made accessing information as easy as lifting a finger. No longer do we have to make costly efforts to find the things we want. We can ?Google? the old classmate, find articles online, or look up the actor who was on the tip of our tongue. The results of four studies suggest that when faced with difficult questions, people are primed to think about computers and that when people expect to have future access to information, they have lower rates of recall of the information itself and enhanced recall instead for where to access it. The Internet has become a primary form of external or transactive memory, where information is stored collectively outside ourselves.

Share and enjoy

Now for the good news – sharing can make you happy. Pass it on
some extracts:
-Social media have tapped into something quite fundamental and the sharing urge in human nature may stem from something more basic than anything else: simple arousal and the fight-or-flight response that we share with our distant ancestors. .
-A group of students was asked either to sit still or jog in place for 60 seconds and then to read a neutral news article that they could email to anyone if they so desired. Fully 75% of the joggers decided that the article was fascinating enough to email to someone else. And the non-joggers? Only 33% thought sharing was the right option. Perhaps Facebook's next major acquisition should be StairMaster.
-being virtually rejected actually activates the same brain areas that are associated with physical distress, the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex and the anterior insula.
-Psychologist and novelist Charles Fernyhough once referred to Twitter – on Twitter, of course – as "a great example of what Piaget called 'collective monologues'. Lots of people chattering away with no attention to each other."
-Indeed, a recent study suggested that individuals who ranked higher on emotional instability were more likely to share online, though not in person, echoing the findings of psychologist John Cacioppo that a greater proportion of online interactions correlates with increased loneliness and isolation. Clearly, not all sharing is created equally.
-According to unpublished results by Eva Buechel, now at the University of Miami, online sharing can actually make us feel better, serving as a very real form of emotional therapy. It's as if every tweet that gets passed on, every link that is re-shared activates our brains' pleasure centres, releasing endorphins in much the same way as physical pleasure, exercise, excitement or strong sensory stimulation.

The price of your soul: How your brain decides whether to 'sell out'

A neuro-imaging study shows that personal values that people refuse to disavow, even when offered cash to do so, are processed differently in the brain than those values that are willingly sold
http://www.emory.edu/EMORY_REPORT/stories/2012/01/esc_brain_decides_sell_out.html
Some points from the study :

• The brain imaging data showed a strong correlation between sacred values and activation of the neural systems associated with evaluating rights and wrongs (the left temporoparietal junction) and semantic rule retrieval (the left ventrolateral prefrontal cortex), but not with systems associated with reward.
• "Most public policy is based on offering people incentives and disincentives," Berns [ Gregory Berns, director of the Center for Neuropolicy at Emory University and lead author of the study] says. "Our findings indicate that it?s unreasonable to think that a policy based on costs-and-benefits analysis will influence people?s behavior when it comes to their sacred personal values, because they are processed in an entirely different brain system than incentives."
• Research participants who reported more active affiliations with organizations, such as churches, sports teams, musical groups and environmental clubs, had stronger brain activity in the same brain regions that correlated to sacred values. "Organized groups may instill values more strongly through the use of rules and social norms" Berns says.
• The experiment also found activation in the amygdala, a brain region associated with emotional reactions, but only in cases where participants refused to take cash to state the opposite of what they believe."Those statements represent the most repugnant items to the individual" Berns says, "and would be expected to provoke the most arousal, which is consistent with the idea that when sacred values are violated, that induces moral outrage."
• Future conflicts over politics and religion will likely play out biologically, Berns says. Some cultures will choose to change their biology, and in the process, change their culture, he notes. He cites the battles over women's reproductive rights and gay marriage as ongoing examples.

The full report is available here

Virtuous Behaviors Sanction Later Sins

People are quick to treat themselves after a good deed or healthy act:

"the study, published in the journal Addiction, is the first to examine the health ramifications of the licensing effect, but others have shown its influence on moral behavior. In 2009 a study found that reminding people of their humanitarian attributes reduced their charitable giving. Last year another experiment showed that when individuals buy ecofriendly products, they are more likely to cheat and steal.
"Sometimes after we behave in line with our goals or standards, it's as if our action has earned ourselves some moral credit," says psychologist Nina Mazar of the University of Toronto, an author of the green products study. "This credit can then subsequently be used to engage in self-indulgent or selfish behaviors without feeling bad about it."

 http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=license-to-sin


While I think it is already clear that morality relies on feeling ‘good’ about something (but this is not to denigrate it, just to point out it’s mechanism is tied to our emotions ) maybe these findings indicate that the emphasis is more about feeling good about oneself, as opposed to feeling good about any particular action. I.e. it is not at the low level of individual moral choices that the emotional drives work, but at the higher level of our overall self-image, whether we see ourselves as ‘good’ people. Seen in this way, maybe if one boosts one’s self-perception, by for example giving to charity, or making an effort to recycle, then there is temporarily less drive to boost it any further. This ‘I’ve done my bit’ approach is of course insidious, since can lead to a slippery slope of moral abrogation, and it is our actions in all moral spheres that matter.

Are there any possible solutions? If this really is the case  then the most effective one might be to try to make the right actions less ‘special’  but instead consider them basic minimum of what we should do, and hence less  ‘boosting’ individually to our overall image. So for example if green behavior is the exception, then it might lead to excessive moral self-congratulation, whereas if it is the norm, then this effect is limited. Nobody feels particularly good about not having dropped litter, since it is just expected, and such ‘baseline’ attitudes need to be expanded. Of course ‘norms’ rely on society at large, and are slow, and hard, to change. Incidentally this is perhaps another argument against the ‘makes no difference’ response, since even if the action itself (recycling one’s own waste) results in no tangible effects, it has a social effect by serving as an example, and might help change the norms so that eventually enough people act so as to make a difference (and of course arguing against it has an even greater corrosive negative effect, since it also contributes to what the ‘norm’ will be).

But what can the individual do? As suggested in the report self-awareness seems the best candidate to try compensate for the ‘license to sin’ effect. Knowing that we are predisposed to such behavior may make us analyze each future choice that bit more, and by centering our focus on the now and not the past, our self-perception will be perhaps less biased by the good things we’ve done previously.

"You may be able to avoid the pitfall simply by remembering that the feeling of having "earned it" leads down a path of iniquity."
 
Hopefully this will work, since to twist the famous phrase, it seems all that is needed for evil to triumph is for good people to have done some good before.

How stereotypes influence us, even if we don't accept them

Interesting analysis of the recent Trayvon Martin incident based on psychology studies involving 'the Police Officer's Dilemma' : tests to make split second shoot/don't shoot decisions.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2012/03/26/trayvon-martins-psychological-killer-why-we-see-guns-that-arent-there/?WT_mc_id=SA_WR_20120330
Some points :

• First of all, no matter how racist the participants were (or were not), they were equally likely to shoot unarmed Black targets; outright levels of racism did not predict the results at all. However, one thing did predict performance on the task ? the participants? level of awareness that there is prejudice towards Black people in American society, even if the participant adamantly did not support those stereotypes. Simply being highly aware of prejudice in the world, even if you don?t agree with, support, or like that prejudice, makes it more likely that you might make the fateful mistake of shooting an unarmed target when making split-second decisions in uncertain conditions. The more aware you are of cultural stereotypes, the more likely you are to make a biased mistake.
• Correll?s research demonstrated that everyone ? even an upstanding college undergraduate lacking any racial prejudice ? is vulnerable to making racially biased decisions, particularly under the split-second pressures of the Police Officer?s Dilemma. Did racism motivate George Zimmerman?s actions against Trayvon Martin? Yes. But does a person have to be racist to make the same split-second decision? No.
• When the ?shooting game? task was given to Black participants, they turned out to be just as likely to accidentally shoot unarmed Black targets as the White participants were.
• At the end of the day, it?s not always about whether or not you are racist, or whether or not you think that Black people are violent. Cultural stereotypes can become automatically activated and applied to our behaviors even when we don?t actually endorse them; the sheer knowledge that these stereotypes exist can be enough to influence our judgments, especially when it comes to split-second decisions. Because of cultural stereotypes, the shooters in Correll?s games had a lower threshold for when they would decide it was OK to shoot at Black targets, although most of them probably could not have told you that this was happening, and most of them would have been appalled to find out about their biases.

Jonathan Haidt on 5 moral foundations, and political differences

Another fascinating TED lecture : Jonathan Haidt on the moral roots of liberals and conservatives.

Have encountered quite a few articles on this theme (e.g. those mentioned in previous blog post here) but Haidt presents not only some light liberal/conservative trait differences, but a concept for the underlying innate foundation of morality which these stand on.

So, in stark contrast to a 'blank slate' at birth, Hadit proposes we have a 'first draft' of morality, which he explains with a quote from the brain scientist Gary Marcus. "The initial organization of the brain does not depend that much on experience. Nature provides a first draft, which experience then revises. Built-in doesn't mean unmalleable; it means organized in advance of experience."
Haidt wanted to determine what such a first draft would be, and since it would need to be universal, studied the literature on anthropology, culture variation in morality etc. i.e. as he says "What are the sorts of things that people talk about across disciplines? That you find across cultures and even across species?"
As a result of this they identified 5 best matches, which they call the 5 foundations of morality, to quote (with some omissions) from the TED lecture:

1. harm/care. We're all mammals here, we all have a lot of neural and hormonal programming that makes us really bond with others, care for others, feel compassion for others, especially the weak and vulnerable. It gives us very strong feelings about those who cause harm. This moral foundation underlies about 70 percent of the moral statements I've heard here at TED.
2.  fairness/reciprocity. e.g. "The Golden Rule," and we heard about this from Karen Armstrong, of course, as the foundation of so many religions. That second foundation underlies the other 30 percent of the moral statements I've heard here at TED.
3. in-group/loyalty. And this tribal psychology is so deeply pleasurable that even when we don't have tribes, we go ahead and make them, because it's fun. (Laughter) Sports is to war as pornography is to sex. We get to exercise some ancient, ancient drives.
4. authority/respect. But authority in humans is not so closely based on power and brutality, as it is in other primates. It's based on more voluntary deference, and even elements of love, at times.
5. purity/sanctity. This painting is called "The Allegory Of Chastity," but purity's not just about suppressing female sexuality. It's about any kind of ideology, any kind of idea that tells you that you can attain virtue by controlling what you do with your body, by controlling what you put into your body. And while the political right may moralize sex much more, the political left is really doing a lot of it with food. Food is becoming extremely moralized nowadays, and a lot of it is ideas about purity, about what you're willing to touch, or put into your body.

Surveys of how people prioritized these values, showed reliable differences between liberals and conservatives, even in different countries. While all were agreed that harm/care and fairness were important, they were slightly more important to liberals than conservatives. Where there was much more difference however, was with respect to the other 3 foundations : in group loyalty, authority and purity. These were ranked significantly less than harm/care and fairness by liberals, but the more conservative the subject, the more important these pillars of morality became : 

                                       

The point being made is that all 5 elements are important to morality as resulting from our nature, so none can be dismissed, but people of different political stripe differ in their emphasis. This is not to be relativistic, since in certain times and certain societies some values maybe should take priority over others. Of course while it might be easy for liberals to point out how over adherence to in-group loyalty and authority might lead to things such as authoritarianism and xenophobia, it could also be argued that extreme fairness could be seen as the basis for forced communism, with disregard for individual rights. So these insights do not provide easy answers, but do suggest how we can work towards answers : namely to appreciate that all these strands are fundamental to our societies, and that we need to step back from our own personal convictions to see the whole picture, and properly evaluate the priorities of others. They may not be right, but then again we might not be either. 

Personally I find the whole area of moral psychology one of the most fascinating and challenging, since it cuts to the core of many of the most important issues, both at a personal and a cultural level - how we should live our lives and run our societies. As the ancient greek aphorism suggests, to know what to do, first know thyself, and these studies show science can help us in this, even in such seemingly unlikely and intangible fields as morality.

note : Haidt has an online website where you can complete a survey to determine one's own settings of these 5 moral channels : http://www.yourmorals.org/  

debatable disgnoses...the new DSM

While I'm all for quantitative measuring methods, I too have serious concerns about the DSM, and while it is hard to generalize, would think that there can be too much 'medicalization' of mental problems.The dangers are (a) that some kind of amazing level of balanced happiness is then considered both normal and achievable and that (b) those who can't achieve it are then considered 'sick', which generally implies external remedies are necessary. This is I think detrimental to both the 'well' and the truly 'sick'.
But, it is a complicated area, since of course as a materialist I am fully convinced that all behaviours originate from the chemical/neuronal status of the brain, and from this perspective, any mood can be changed. The problem is to manually force a change is to intervene in an amazingly complex and normally efficiently self-regulating system, and while sometimes the situation merits this, until the techniques are more developed (and their mechanisms properly understood) then I think it is not appropriate unless the person involved has serious problems coping with daily life. Life shouldn't be hell,but there's no reason to think it should be all rosy either...

"Hundreds of thousands of people will be labelled mentally ill because of behaviour most people would consider normal, if a new edition of what has been termed the psychiatrists' diagnostic bible goes ahead, experts are warning."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/feb/09/us-mental-health-manual

• Psychiatrists and psychologists in the UK are speaking out against the publishing of DSM-5, an updated version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual that categorises every type of mental disorder, including some that the psychologists say should not exist. 
• Under the DSM-4, last revised 12 years ago, children who argue and refuse to obey parents can be classified as having oppositional defiant disorder."
•  "Til Wykes, professor of clinical psychology at Kings College London, said: "The proposals in DSM-5 are likely to shrink the pool of normality to a puddle with more and more people being given a diagnosis of mental illness." "

When people look back on their life in their 30s, 40s and older what are some common regrets they have?

(what follows is a reposting fom Quora, but related is my own blog post on regret HERE) 

QUORA :

From Bradley Voytek, BA in psychology and PhD in neuroscience":

110 votes by Laura Copeland, Emily Altman, Monika Kothari, (more)

In 2011 there was a large, national survey of Americans across all age groups that looked at just this. The paper was called Regrets of the Typical American published by Roese and Morrison in Social Psychological and Personality Science.
http://spp.sagepub.com/content/2...

Here's the main finding, outlined by Vaughan Bell over on the Mind Hacks blog:
http://mindhacks.com/2011/03/27/...


The main sources of regret were, in order:

1. romance
2. family
3. education
4. career
5. finance
6. parenting
7. health
8. "other"
9. friends
10. spirituality
11. community
12. leisure
13. self

They also looked at differences between sexes:

Women, who tend to value social relationships more than men, have more regrets of love (romance, family) compared to men. Conversely, men were more likely to have work-related (career, education) regrets. Those who lack either higher education or a romantic relationship hold the most regrets in precisely these areas.


Americans with high levels of education had the most career-related regrets. Apparently, the more education obtained, the more acute may be the sensitivity to aspiration and fulfillment. Moreover, the youngest and least-educated people in our sample, who most likely possess the greatest capability of fixing their regrets, were indeed the most likely to provide fixable regrets.

Vaughan also has some great insight into this work:

The study also found that regrets about things you haven’t done were equally as common as regrets about things you have, no matter how old the person.


The difference between the two is often a psychological one, because we can frame the same regret either way – as regret about an action: 'If only I had not dropped out of school'; or as a regret about an inaction: 'If only I had stayed in school'.


Despite the fact that they are practically equivalent, regrets framed as laments about actions were more common and more intense than regrets about inactions, although inaction regrets tended to be longer lasting.

This was the easiest source to find, but from what I recall from psychology courses, for older adults without children, not having a family is the primary regret, which is corroborated by #2 from the larger group in this study.

update 10 April 2011 : 
another related article is Top 5 Regrets of the dying

1. I wish I'd had the courage to live a life true to myself, not the life others expected of me.
2. I wish I hadn't worked so hard. 
3. I wish I'd had the courage to express my feelings 
4. I wish I had stayed in touch with my friends 
5. I wish that I had let myself be happier.

 

Claiming success....

Interesting survey on country differences on the question of fatalism...or how much success is determined by forces outside our control :

"Just 36 percent of Americans believe in this fatalistic statement, while the vast majority of their compatriots are greater believers in self-determination. Put another way, Americans are (not surprisingly) more likely to believe in the American dream.
Americans with less education are more fatalistic..."


http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/23/fatalism-and-the-american-dream/

pink vs. blue, really boys toys?

The famous Hamley's toy store in London has decided to scrap its traditional separation of boys and girls toys and instead arrange the sections by type of toy. Apparently until now some floors were floral and pink for the 'girls stuff', and 'boys toys' were in their own levels , all noise and action.
This has prompted a couple of interesting news articles about what, if any, real gender taste differences there are. The bottom line is it's very hard to be sure either way, since nature and nurture are so intertwined, and initial environmental nudging can result in the same reinforced feedback loops as inate disposition. What does seem likely is there is no genetic female preference for pink (something which makes sense given that in previous times pink was considered a boy's colour!) but there is probably some tendency for boys to prefer vehicles and machines, and girls to prefer more role based toys, such as dolls. As someone with both a daughter and a son I can definitely provide ample supporting anecdotal evidence for this one, but despite this was still impressed recently to see in a documentary that this gender preferene is also visible in chimpanzees, even so far as the more masculine (as indicated by testosterone) the chimp was, the more likely it was to choose a toy car over a doll.
What follows are three articles from the Guardian. 

Pink vs, Blue - the initial piece that caught my attention:


Are pink toys turning girls into passive princesses  - an artcle by Kat Arny who argues against the matter

Out of the blue and into the pink  - by master debunker Ben Goldacre who turns his attention to spurious evolutionary reasonings

When people are paid by results their attitudes change

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. "