Entries Tagged 'Psychology' ↓

An article at the New York Times by Benedict Carey talks about how we’ve become acclimated to ignoring the psychological shortcomings of individuals in our social groups to make our social interactions easier.

From the article:

In the modern vernacular, to say someone is “in denial” is to deliver a savage combination punch: one shot to the belly for the cheating or drinking or bad behavior, and another slap to the head for the cowardly self-deception of pretending it’s not a problem.

Yet recent studies from fields as diverse as psychology and anthropology suggest that the ability to look the other way, while potentially destructive, is also critically important to forming and nourishing close relationships. The psychological tricks that people use to ignore a festering problem in their own households are the same ones that they need to live with everyday human dishonesty and betrayal, their own and others’. And it is these highly evolved abilities, research suggests, that provide the foundation for that most disarming of all human invitations, forgiveness.

In this emerging view, social scientists see denial on a broader spectrum — from benign inattention to passive acknowledgment to full-blown, willful blindness — on the part of couples, social groups and organizations, as well as individuals. Seeing denial in this way, some scientists argue, helps clarify when it is wise to manage a difficult person or personal situation, and when it threatens to become a kind of infectious silent trance that can make hypocrites of otherwise forthright people.

This opens up all sorts of questions regarding our own self-perceptions of honest, forthright behavior. While I’m not sure how effectively social scientists and psychologists are truly able to quantify the number of allowances of dishonest behavior, it is an interesting study nonetheless.

Benoit Hardy-Vallée at Natural Rationality posted an article about how the Dictator Game may have come into play with Radiohead’s recent “It’s Up To You” pricing method.

From the article:

The situation is thus similar (but not exactly) to a Dictator Game: player A spits a “pie” between her and player B, but B accepts whatever A offers. Thus, contrarily to the Ultimatum Game, B’s decisions or reactions has no influence on A’s choice behavior. Radiohead fans were thus in a position similar to A’s position. If we make the assumption that they framed the situation as a purchasing one in which they choose how much of the CD price they want to split between them and the band, and given that a CD is typically priced £1o (roughly 20 U.S.$), then the fans are choosin how to split 10£ between them and Radiohead. Usually, experimental studies of the Dictator Games shows that 70% of the subjects (A) transfer some amount to Players B, and transfer an average of 24% of the initial endowment (Forsythe et al. (1994). Hence if these results can generalized to the “buy Radiohead album” game, it would suggest that about 70% of those who download the album would pay an average of £2.4 , while 30% would pay nothing.