Wait, I have one more request!

Please bring my group for J&DM back to life!

From the 4 original members, 2 of them have gone AWOL, and unless the other two surviving members (HI SUZANNE, and myself) do some DOUBLE EXTRA WORK, we are FUBAR pretty much yes.

I love how FUBAR is accepted, but some people would be disappointed if I said "fucked up beyond all repair". Woops!

Dear Christmas guy that gives presents:

Please bring me this ONE thing, I beg of you.

Forbid the use of facebook ANYWHERE at university, specifically on those hooked up computers in the library being used by one of the following:

• Groups of people checking facebook accounts
• Individuals checking facebook accounts
• Groups checking with one individual his/her facebook account
• People using facebook in any form.
  
• All of the above
• Exceptions include:
• People with their own laptops (they don't take space to students who want to ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING IN THE LIBRARY FOR ACADEMIC PURPOSES OH MY GOD)
• Staff
• Hold on right there. Staff looking at facebook on their spare time is fine. Staff that is supposed to be working and instead is having a nice time on facebook should NOT be fine.

That's about it. There should be some sort of questionnaire/study regarding the use of computers, and how people decide NOT to murder that idiot using facebook whilst they are waiting for any available computer to do their uni stuff.

rant over. Please carry on.

Reading week (random topic week!)

Someone mentioned in the revision week the fact that judgment and decision making studies are always based on the same topics:

• Money (that's what I want)
• MORTAL ASIAN DISEASES (caps locks for effect), in which two sets of population perfectly opposite and equivalent, but presented in a different way (saving lives vs killing them), are genocided multiple times. 
• people giving you randomly money in the street, and asking you to gamble with it
• people giving you mugs and asking you how much would you sell them for
• people asking you how much do you want to pay for that mug the same people gave to someone else seconds ago (bastards! they could have given me the mug, instead of giving it to them!)

And it goes on. Since the statistical chances of that happening (ANY of those, as a matter of fact) is slim-to-none, I fail to see where those studies are helping me. Yes, they have proven that framing effects do exist, but I'm not usually presented with an option and the immediate equivalent opposite nearby, thus probably I won't even know that I've been framed (since you don't know the reference, the whole picture!).

I have decided to compile a list of things that need to be studied by judgment and decision making studies:

1. why I go to work instead of staying in bed sleeping in a cold morning.
2. why I don't mug that person on the street, and instead I go to work in cold mornings.
3. why I spend my money fixing a bike instead of stealing one.
4. why I don't steal a bike nor buy a new one, and instead I spend my money fixing that same bike.
5. why people behave like animals when a radius = 15 feet of any form of public transport
6. why some people prefer Coke rather than Pepsi
7. why I am so lazy on doing the coursework, and I always seem to find that thing that happens to be more interesting than doing the coursework, instead of actually doing it.
8. why different people use different web browsers
9. why some people consider Yoko Ono the breaker of The Beatles, whilst other people don't.
10. why some people vote Labour, and some people don't.
11. why some people read The Sun (no excuse on that one!)
12. why Judgement and Decision making studies don't address these VERY IMPORTANT QUESTIONS, and instead keep doing their research on trivial things like "money".
13. why I don't consider money important, whilst other people consider it the most importantest [sic] thing ever
14. why some people just can't spell properly, whilst I personally enjoy making some spelling mistakes for effect 
15. why some people are ignorant because of lack of knowledge, and some other people are ignorant because they seem to enjoy the status that it confers them
16. why I should stop writing witty comments and go to eat something instead of er..., well, keep writing witty comments and NOT eat something.

So there you go. Dear oh dear, plenty of things that need research!

Week 6 (13th November post): Endowment Effect

Having read the article named Aspects of Endowment, by Johnson, Häubel & Keinan (full reference: Johnson, E.J., Häubel, G., & Keinan, A. (2007). Aspects of endowment: A query theory of value construction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33 (3), 461-474. [click to download pdf]), some things become clear: People attach more value to whatever belongs to them, even if it has just been given to them, and thus the "emotional attachment" due after lengthy periods of possession time is non existent.

That means that (following the classical experiments), if you are given a mug, you will attribute it a higher value than what you (or an "equal") would pay for it, even if you have had that mug for a mere minute.

Also, that could explain the loss aversion effect that is shown/explained several times, in which people tend to make more conservative choices once they have the "item" (let it be money, mugs, air guitars, knowledge?), by means of not wanting to lose what it's "yours", thus sometimes not making the rational choice (a nice video on this here (which is the same one we added on our wiki page)

Week 5 (6th November post): Decision framing

Just a quick note on this week: Since it is the week in which we based our first assessment, I thought that instead of posting a review here, you could just read the coursework wiki, which works as well, and saves me from dying in the attempt!

Measuring Utility

How useful it is to measure utility! (pun intended).

After having spent at least 40 attempts to recreate the graphs from David Hardman's post, I finally made it! Hooray!

As you can read, the first one is for Certainty equivalence, and the second one for Probability equivalence.

As you can see, both graphs are fairly similar, only with slight differences. On the vertical scale Y you will find the utility values given, whilst on the X scale there are 2 different elements represented.

On the top graph (certainty equivalence), the x axis represents the economical prize (for sure) I'd settle down between obtaining that prize or a chance between £1000 or £0 (with different values for the winnable amounts).

On the bottom graph, probability equivalence, the represented value is the percentage in which I would be indifferent between winning a certain amount for sure or having that said percentage between winning £1000 or £0.

Reading the graphs themselves, you can see that I'm not really a gambler, prefering more than 50% of what I can win before I settle down for the cash prize (I'd rather take £600 than being able to win £1000 with a 50% chance). This is consistent with the fact that I'd chose the same amount in cash (£600) unless I was given a high chance (60%) of winning £1000.

In general, I prefer to have a bit more cash than 50% chance, and at the same time, I still prefer the cash than to get the "big prize", unless a high (HIGH) percentage (I would not risk £800 unless I was given a 70% chance of getting £1000!)

I hope this wasn't "too long; didn't read" for anyone reading this! If you have any questions/comments, post a comment (duh!) in the comment field!

Breaking news!

For those who follow/read my blog, you will have noticed that I've added everyone's blog on the right side.

It keeps the newer entries first, to make sure you post MORE to keep your blog on the top! :)

Also, google trends has reported an increase of 2000% on blogs named "Judgment and Decision Making" over the last 4 week period. Ha, ha.

Good luck with your module, and thanks to my followers, love you lots! :)

On Matching Heuristics (part 2)

After having read David Hardman's comments on my previous entry (see here), some things were left dingling in the air with little (to no) explanation.

Regarding the 95% accuracy, he is absolutely right pointing out that it does not refer to "correct" decisions, but to the fact that the Matching Heuristics model predicted accurately the decision bail/no bail on a 95% of the cases. Of course, on a decision like this there is no "correct" or "incorrect" decision, since it is, firstly, impossible to predict what would have happened if the decision was the opposite. Secondly, there is no "right" or "wrong" answer, since there is no established evaluation process. It can, however, be "popular" or "impopular", as in how it is regarded from the public's point of view.

Also, David mentions that I have not defined what the Matching Heuristic model actually is, which is the (main) point being adressed in this post.

The Matching Heuristic model is a non-compensatory model, which means that not all cues being considered (or available) to undertake the decision weight the same (i.e. the colour of the new car you want to buy is less important than the make, for example, whilst still keeping the price range the top priority (the one that weights more) on deciding which car to buy).

The objective of a non-compensatory model is to be able to base a decision on a minimal, small subset of possible cues, whilst still being able to provide a reasoned, based explanation.

For example, on Dhami & Ayton (1999), the matching heuristic model used to predict bail/no bail decisions (or punitive/non-punitive, respectively) used 2 cues, which were subdivided into two sets of questions:

1: Does the 1st cue give a reason for being punitive? If so, predict a punitive decision. Otherwise, go to question 2.
2: Does the 2nd cue give a reason for being punitive? If so, predict a punitive decision, otherwise, predict a non-punitive decision.

Fair enough, it uses plenty of weasel words, like "cue", without defining them. Specifically, they suggest this model for k=2 different cues taken into account. On their main experiment, they found that, for people using the matching heuristics model, the maximum amount of cues taken was k=3, so the more specific questions came out:

1: Did prosecution request conditional bail or oppose bail? If yes, then predict punitive decision. Otherwise (or no information), go to q2.
2: Did previous court impose conditions or remand in custody? If yes, predict punitive decision. Otherwise (or no information again), go to q3.
3: Did police impose conditions or remand in custody? If yes, punitive, otherwise (or no info), predict non punitive decision.

It is interesting how this model ressembles those "find your own adventure" books, in which you had to keep turning pages based on x or y decision at the end of each page. Has the prosecution requested bail? Then, punitive decision! This model is the ONE mentioned on the earliest post which provides 95% accuracy PREDICTING (I got it right this time!) the magistrates' decisions.

Some examples can be made for effect.
1st time offender, non violent, petty crime. Passes question 1 OK, question 3 OK (both for non violent crime, + petty crime), AND it's the first offence (so no chance of previous court), thus passing question 2 as well (order would still be 1-2-3). So, this offender goes on bail very nicely.

1st time offender, petty crime, violent to the police when arrested (aggressive drunk behaviour, for example?)
Question 1 goes as "pass", or maybe "no info". First time offender (might have been caught before but no previous conviction or first time through court), so question 2 goes as "ok". Question 3, however, might impose some differences, since the offender is likely to drink again, become very violent again, and probably offend again, thus police asks for his/her remand in custody. Question 3 fails, thus magistrate decides to give punitive action.

Seems reasonable enough, I'd say?

Nice to meet you, I already have a (probably valid) impression about you!

The eyes are a funny thing. They give you a view of the world (experience may vary on readers/observers using glasses [like me, until recently! :D])

Anyway, reading how courts make bail/no bail decisions, you'd think: why on earth are magistrates not using a scale whilst being blinfolded, and instead seem to be taking these decisions like "breakfast tea or earl grey tea" in the canteen?

Matching Heuristics (pdf, 72kb) give a pretty good explanation. Long story short, you can get a 95% accuracy on bail decisions based on 3 questions:
-Did the prosecution request conditional bail or oppose bail?
-Did the previous court impose a conditional or remand in custody?
-Did police impose conditions or remand in custody?

If you answered yes to any of those questions, please refer to your local Magistrates' court to be bailed/taken punitive action against you. That's 95% accuacy for you. However, if you have no information on those questions, it seems to be ok, and you can walk homehappily ever (until the trial, that is)

On a sidenote, reading Gladwell's Blink (yes, I love sofapsychology, don't you?) I've learned a thing or two (still reading it, though!)
-Get one of salt and one of pepper. Not everything said must be true, even if you want it to be (and you believe strongly in it), and even if Walt Disney told you that "your dreams will become true" bullshit. No, you can't fly just because you want to, and no, you can't make an argument valid just because you like how it looks.
-You form a pretty true image of a module/lecturer within 3 seconds of seeing him/her for the first time. This accuracy degree doesn't seem to increase too much.
-Listening to a conversation between a married couple will give you a pretty accurate picture of whether they will be married after 15 years see Gottman.

Yes, that's about it.

Psychology...., and zombies

I was watching last night this joyful program called Dead Set (and here), which basically consists of "Big Brother" meets "zombies", when I decided to write this small note.

What else can you find which is so fun, gory, and, at the same time, illustrative of how human psychology works?

Episode 1 does a presentation of the house per se, like one of those big brothers "let's kick the most moron out of the house" night. But, this time, the magical word zombie outbreak (which even has an entry on the wikipedia!!!) comes into play. However, the people from inside the house don't know, and they believe it's a trick played by the big brother to see how they react.

Spoilers aside, I love zombies. I love how, regardless of how many monsters, aliens, zombies, werewolves, zombi-alien-monster combined you throw at us, humans, we will probably end up destroying ourselves. Of course, you have that every day (switch on tv, look at news, receive proof), but it's more fun to watch how zombies (or "aliens", such as the ones from District 9) serve as catalyst for us to start murdering each other.

Plenty of zombie movies show that: 28 days later shows how the survivors are not enjoying themselves with the military (after "I promised them women"). Dawn of the Dead (the 2004 version) shows how teamwork can be fun (playing chess across rooftops, anyone?), whilst at the same time a one-off in a team can lead to its total destruction (more when you talk about zombies!). Going WAY back in time (1968) we find Romero's Night of the Living Dead, in which (SPOILERS HERE) the KKK kills the last survivor of the zombie horde, which happens to be out of the standard white-caucasian-american male. As commented in the documentary Zombiemania, Romero stated that they weren't expecting the sort of controversy from a simple, low budget movie. Of course, who would have imagined in 1968 a black, young male, leading a team of white young men and women to survive the zombie apocalypse? Nobody! And, who would have thought that the KKK would kill the only survivor of that horrific (because of the zombies!) experience? Nobody! This is why that movie is so good. The best part? It's available FOR FREE (and without the need of using dubiously-legal methods!)

Disaster movies, horror movies, zombie movies, big brother, all those are good examples of how people behave in groups when faced, and confronted, with the unknown (and danger!). Who would believe the crazy-looking woman from Dead Set when she enters the Big Brother house covered in blood, screaming "there's one of them outside!", and such and such? Nobody. And then that person, well, doesn't make it to the end of the show. I hope you have learnt the lesson, matey!

Disclaimer: Zombie movies may contain traces of violence, nuts and other bodily parts. Enjoy responsibly.

Presentation

If you are going to read this, I think it's important to know a little bit more about me and this blog.

Despite the offensive (?) nature of the name of the blog, it has two reasons of being:

1: Thinking. Do you think "The Thinker" is thinking? Great, you are on the right track. Do you think he was just... there, sitting, thinking? Wrong! Chances are that he was in the toilet. Thinking, yes, but in the toilet. Think about it this way: male, naked, sitting like that...., I'd bet my money that he's in the toilet.



2: It follows/spawns/clones my other blog, "No Shit, Sherlock". In there I ramble and complain about several things, but it was my first "thinking pad". This blog was created a while ago, but had little follow-up, so I merged Sherlock and Watson, deleted Watson, and re-made it again, for the sake of being "new". You will notice, if you visit Sherlock, that the stylesheet is similar (if not exactly the same). I've created many stylesheets, fought my wars, made very nice backgrounds and everything, but I'm terribly fed up with that, so I'm copypasting (or plagiarizing :P) myself. Ha ha!

Now, you will notice that the "music" bit, on the right, is quite high on the "things that are on the right side". Well, that is (you may have guessed it already) because music is a very important part of my life. I cry a little when my mp3 player runs out of battery :(

So, from now on, expect (hopefully) a weekly account of something psychology-related, with my normal deviations and the occasional enlightenment bits and pieces.

If you want to comment on anything, send me an email, post a comment, or whatever.

Ah, and for people doing the course and reading this, send me a link to your blog(s) and I'll add them to the right side.

This should be it. I guess you'll learn more as this goes on. And on. And on. And on.