Research Blogging - Philosophy - English

Rich People May Not Be So Unethical

2012-05-23T14:47:31Z

There was quite the stir a few weeks back about a psychology paper claiming that rich people aren't very nice: Higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior. The article, in PNAS, reported that upper class individuals were more likely to lie, cheat, and break traffic laws.However, these results have been branded "unbelievable" in a Letter to PNAS just published. Psychologist Gregory Francis notes that the paper contains the results of 7 seperate experiments, and they all found statistically significiant socioeconomic effects on unethical behaviour.Those 7 replications of the effect "might appear to provide strong evidence for the claim" - one study good, 7 studies better, right? - but Francis says that actually, it's too good to be believed.Each of the studies was fairly small, and the effects they found were modest, and only just significant. So the observed power of the studies - the probability that a study of that size would detect the effect that they did, in fact, find - was only about 50-88% in each case.Think of it this way: if you took a pack of cards and discarded half of the black ones, then shuffled the remainder, a random card from the deck would most likely be red. But even so, it would still be very unlikely that you'd pick 10 reds in a row.The chances of all 7 studies finding a positive result - even assuming that the effect claimed in the paper was real - is just 2%, by Francis's calculations.Ow.He concludes "The low probability of the experimental findings suggests that the data are contaminated with publication bias. Piff et al. may have (perhaps unwittingly) run, but not reported, additional experiments that failed to reject the null hypothesis (the file drawer problem), or they may have run the experiments in a way that improperly increased the rejection rate of the null hypothesis (4)".What might have happened? Maybe there were more than 7 studies and... maybe they peeked at the data before deciding on the same size, took other outcome measures unreported. See also the 9 Circles of Scientific Hell.Piff et al respond, firmly denying that they ran any other unpublished experiments, and saying that they "scrutinized our data collection procedures, coding protocols, experimental methods, and debriefing responses. In no case have we found anything untoward." They go on to criticize the method Francis used to get his magic 2% figure, which they point out relies on some debatable assumptions.Even if you buy the 2% figure, it doesn't mean that the true effect is zero; it might be real, but exaggerated. Ultimately it all becomes rather murky and subjective, which is why I think we need preregistration of research, which would prevent any possibility of such data fiddling, and also remove the possibility of false accusations of it... but that's another story.Francis, G. (2012). Evidence that publication bias contaminated studies relating social class and unethical behavior Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1203591109...

Francis, G. (2012) Evidence that publication bias contaminated studies relating social class and unethical behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1203591109

The Difference Between Adaptive And Adapted

2012-05-20T13:05:22Z

This is going to be something of a back to basics post, but a necessary one. Necessary, that is, if the comments I’ve been seeing lately are indicative of the thought processes of the population at large. It would seem … Continue reading →...

Conley, T. (2011) Perceived proposer personality characteristics and gender differences in acceptance of casual sex offers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(2), 309-329. DOI: 10.1037/a0022152

Study: Want to Look Aggressive? Wear Black

2012-05-18T16:54:49Z

Psychology is rich in findings that emerge from complex statistics done on the behavior of college students behaving for money or course credit. It's fair to wonder, then, how well those findings relate to the real world: Maybe a result is peculiar to undergrads, or maybe it's a subtle effect that ...Read More...

Webster, G., Urland, G., & Correll, J. (2011) Can Uniform Color Color Aggression? Quasi-Experimental Evidence From Professional Ice Hockey. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(3), 274-281. DOI: 10.1177/1948550611418535

Where Has Our Capitalist Spirit Gone?

2012-05-17T01:02:43Z

The Source of Consumption and Commodity Max Weber was concerned, sociologically, on the effects of class, status, party, and the bureaucratic nature of the struggling lower classes in everyday life. He, too, spent much time contemplating religion (since it has been known to shape party), status, and the daily life of citizens, as well as effecting attitudes [...]...

Coser, L., & Agger, B. (1991) The Decline of Discourse: Reading, Writing and Resistance in Postmodern Capitalism. Contemporary Sociology, 20(2), 282. DOI: 10.2307/2072981

The Impact of Death on Belief Systems

2012-05-14T10:38:19Z

As demonstrated in Jessica L. Tracey’s paper, Death and Science: The Existential Underpinnings of Belief in Intelligent Design and Discomfort with Evolution (referenced below), many turn to intelligent design theory in search for meaning when faced with their own mortality. Despite the scientific proof supporting evolutionary theory (and the one that I believe is most accurate), [...]...

Tracy JL, Hart J, & Martens JP. (2011) Death and science: the existential underpinnings of belief in intelligent design and discomfort with evolution. PloS one, 6(3). PMID: 21479169

Making Your Business My Business

2012-05-13T14:39:16Z

“The government has no right to do what it’s doing, unless it’s doing what I want it to do” – Pretty much everyone everywhere. As most people know by now, North Carolina recently voted on and approved an amendment to the … Continue reading →...

Weeden, J., Cohen, A., & Kenrick, D. (2008) Religious attendance as reproductive support. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29(5), 327-334. DOI: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2008.03.004

Love Pill #9

2012-05-08T17:19:43Z

Would you take a pill to save your relationship? Researchers are suggesting that this type of “medicine” might not be too far off....

Savulescu, J., & Sandberg, A. (2008) Neuroenhancement of Love and Marriage: The Chemicals Between Us. Neuroethics, 1(1), 31-44. DOI: 10.1007/s12152-007-9002-4

Mutant Flu Study (Finally) Published

2012-05-04T09:07:48Z

Once upon a time… There were two studies, one performed in the Netherlands, one in Japan, that showed how the avian flu virus could become more dangerous for human beings. Normally, the avian flu (or H5N1) is very inefficient in … Continue reading →...

Imai Masaki, Watanabe Tokiko, Hatta Masato, Das Subash C., Ozawa Makoto, Shinya Kyoko, Zhong Gongxun, Hanson Anthony, Katsura Hiroaki, & Watanabe Shinji. (2012) Experimental adaptation of an influenza H5 HA confers respiratory droplet transmission to a reassortant H5 HA/H1N1 virus in ferrets. Nature. DOI: 10.1038/nature10831

Why This Horde of Idiots is No Genius

2012-05-02T12:53:14Z

At first look (in Part 1 of this post), swarm theory seems to predict that the larger the social group, the better the resulting group decisions and behaviors. Then, with over 300 million of us in the U.S., shouldn’t we only be making brilliant decisions? And with over 7 billion worldwide, shouldn’t we have already prevented all international conflicts, cancer, and environmental destruction? And why the heck is Snooki still everywhere we look?! A riot in Vancouver, Canada after the Vancouver Canucks lost the Stanley Cup in 2011 left the city with scars. Photo by Elopde at Wikimedia Commons. Many large groups of people make incredibly stupid decisions. Like proverbial lemmings (a hoax perpetuated by Disney), large groups of people have caused incredible damage to their community after their hockey team lost the Stanley Cup, quit their jobs and given away all of their possessions believing the end of the world was coming on May 21, 2011 (ehem… we’re still here), and insisted that wearing baggy pants around the thighs is a reasonable thing to do even though it is not sexy and it trips you when you try to run. Where are we going wrong? Tom Seeley at Cornell University has gained tremendous insight into effective group decision-making from his years observing honeybees, which he shares with us in his book, Honeybee Democracy. (By the way, this is also one of the best books out there for painting a picture of the life of a behavioral biologist). Honeybees live in swarms of thousands. When the hive becomes overcrowded, about a third of the worker bees will stay home to rear a new queen while the old queen and the rest of the hive will leave to begin the process of finding a new home. During this time, the migrants will coalesce on a nearby branch while they search out and decide among new home options. This process can take anywhere from hours to days during which the colony is vulnerable and exposed. But they can’t be too hasty: choosing a new home that is too small or too exposed could be equally deadly. This homeless honeybee swarm found an unconventional "branch". They'd better decide on a new home before the cyclist gets back! Photo by Nino Barbieri at Wikimedia. Although each swarm has a queen, she plays no role in making this life-or-death decision. Rather, this decision is made by a consensus among 300-500 scout bees that results after an intense “dance-debate”. Then, as a single united swarm, they leave their branch and move into their new home. At this point, it’s critical that the swarm is unified in their choice of home site, because a split-decision runs the risk of creating a chaos in which the one and only queen can be lost and the entire hive will perish. This is a high-stakes decision that honeybees make democratically, efficiently, and amazingly, they almost always make the best possible choice! How do they do that? And how can we do that? Each dot represents where on the body this dancer was head-bumped by a dancer for a competing site. Each time she's bumped, she's a little less enthusiastic about her own dance. Figure from Seeley, et al. 2012 paper in Science.The honeybee house-hunting process has several features that allow them as a group to hone in on the best possible solution. The process begins when a scout discovers a site that has potential for a new home. She returns to her swarm and reports on this site, using a waggle dance that encodes the direction and distance to the site and her estimate of its quality. The longer she dances, the better she perceived the site to be. Other scouts do the same, perhaps visiting the same site or maybe a new one, and they report their findings in dance when they return. More scouts are recruited and the swarm breaks into a dancing frenzy, with many scouts dancing for multiple possible sites. Over time, scouts that are less enthusiastic about their discovered site stop dancing, in part discouraged by dancers for other sites that head-bump them while beeping. Eventually, the dancing scouts are unified in their dance for what is almost always the best site. The swarm warms up their flight muscles, and off they go, in unison to their new home.What can we learn from this process? Tom has summarized his wisdom gained from observing honeybees in the following: Tom Seeley’s Five Habits of Highly Effective Hives 1. “Group members share a goal”. This is easy for honeybees, but not as much for us. All of the honeybees in a swarm share the same goal: Find the best possible home as quickly as possible. People are not always similar in our goals, needs and wants and one person’s goals are sometimes in direct conflict with another person’s goals. The trick here is finding common ground. 2. “Group members search broadly to find possible solutions to the problem”. Seek out information from as many sources as you can. Be creative. Use your personal experience. And if the group is diverse, there will be a broader range of personal experience to harness. Diversity increases the ability of a group to make the best decisions. 3. “Group members contribute their information freely and honestly”. This requires a welcoming and supportive environment that withholds judgment of the individuals for the ideas expressed. You don’t have to agree with an idea to respect and listen to the person expressing it. 4. “Group members evaluate the options independently and they vote independently”. Just as scout bees don’t dance for a site they have not visited and assessed themselves, we should not advocate possible solutions or candidates that we have not ourselves looked into and thought critically about. A group can only be smarter than the individuals in it if the individuals think for themselves. 5. “Group members aggregate their votes fairly”. Everyone gets a vote and each one counts equally. ‘Nuff said. We can learn a lot from these honeybees. Even when the stakes are high, we can make good decisions for our group if we are open, honest, inclusive, fair and think independently. Want to know more? Check these out: 1....

Seeley, T., Visscher, P., Schlegel, T., Hogan, P., Franks, N., & Marshall, J. (2011) Stop Signals Provide Cross Inhibition in Collective Decision-Making by Honeybee Swarms. Science, 335(6064), 108-111. DOI: 10.1126/science.1210361

List, C., Elsholtz, C., & Seeley, T. (2009) Independence and interdependence in collective decision making: an agent-based model of nest-site choice by honeybee swarms. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1518), 755-762. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2008.0277

Can a Horde of Idiots be a Genius?

2012-04-25T11:54:31Z

Let’s face it: The typical individual is not that bright. Just check out these human specimens: Yet somehow, if you get enough numbskulls together, the group can make some pretty intelligent decisions. We’ve seen this in a wide variety of organisms facing a number of different challenges.In a brilliant series of studies, Jean-Louis Deneubourg, a professor at the Free University of Brussels, and his colleagues tested the abilities of Argentine ants (a common dark-brown ant species) to collectively solve foraging problems. In one of these studies, the ants were provided with a bridge that connected the nest to a food source. This bridge split and fused in two places (like eyeglass frames), but at each split one branch was shorter than the other, resulting in a single shortest-path and multiple longer paths. After a few minutes, explorers crossed the bridge (by a meandering path) and discovered the food. This recruited foragers, each of which chose randomly between the short and the long branch at each split. Then suddenly, the foragers all started to prefer the shortest route. How did they do that?This figure from the Goss et al 1989 paper in Naturwissemschaften shows (a) the design of a single module, (b) ants scattered on the bridge after 4 minutes (I promise they’re there), and (c) ants mostly on the shortest path after 8 minutesYou can think of it this way: a single individual often tries to make decisions based on the uncertain information available to it. But if you have a group of individuals, they will likely each have information that differs somewhat from the information of others in the group. If they each make a decision based on their own information alone, they will likely result in a number of poor decisions and a few good ones. But if they can each base their decisions on the accumulation of all of the information of the group, they stand a much better chance of making a good decision. The more information accumulated, the more likely they are to make the best possible decision. In the case of the Argentine ant, the accumulated information takes the form of pheromone trails. Argentine ants lay pheromone trails both when leaving the nest and when returning to the nest. Ants that are lucky enough to take a shorter foraging route return to the nest sooner, increasing the pheromone concentration of the route each way. In this way, shorter routes develop more concentrated pheromone trails faster, which attract more ants, which further increase pheromone concentration of the shortest routes. In this way, an ant colony can make an intelligent decision (take the shortest foraging route) without any individual doing anything more intelligent than following a simple rule (follow the strongest pheromone signal). Home is where the heart is. Photo of a bee swarm by Tom SeeleyHoneybee colonies also solve complicated tasks with the use of communication. Tom Seeley at Cornell University and his colleagues have investigated the honeybee group decision-making process of finding a new home. When a colony outgrows their hive, hundreds of scouts will go in search of a suitable new home, preferably one that is high off the ground with a south-facing entrance and room to grow. If a scout finds such a place, she returns to the colony and performs a waggle dance, a dance in which her body position and movements encode the directions to her site and her dancing vigor relates to how awesome she thinks the site is. Some scouts that see her dance may be persuaded to follow her directions and check out the site for themselves, and if impressed, may return to the hive and perform waggle dances too. Or they may follow another scout’s directions to a different site or even strike out on their own. Eventually, the majority of the scouts are all dancing the same vigorous dance. But interestingly, few scouts ever visit more than one site. Better sites simply receive more vigorous “dance-votes” and then attract more scouts to do the same. Like ants in search of a foraging path, the intensity of the collective signal drives the group towards the best decision. Once a quorum is reached, the honeybees fly off together to their new home.But groups can develop better solutions than individuals even without communication. Gaia Dell’Ariccia at the University of Zurich in Switzerland and her colleagues explored homing pigeon navigation by placing GPS trackers on the backs of pigeons and releasing them from a familiar location either alone or in a group of six. Because they were all trained to fly home from this site, they all found their way home regardless of whether they were alone or in a group. But as a flock, the pigeons left sooner, rested less, flew faster, and took a more direct route than did the same birds when making the trip alone. By averaging the directional tendencies of everyone in the group, they were able to mutually correct the errors of each individual and follow the straightest path. In each of these examples, each individual has limited and uncertain information, but each individual has information that may be slightly different than their neighbors’. By combining this diverse information and making a collective decision, hordes of idiots can make genius decisions.Want to know more? Check these out:1. Couzin, I. (2009). Collective cognition in animal groups Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13 (1), 36-43 DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2008.10.002 2....

Couzin, I. (2009) Collective cognition in animal groups. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(1), 36-43. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2008.10.002

Goss, S., Aron, S., Deneubourg, J., & Pasteels, J. (1989) Self-organized shortcuts in the Argentine ant. Naturwissenschaften, 76(12), 579-581. DOI: 10.1007/BF00462870

Dussutour, A., Nicolis, S., Deneubourg, J., & Fourcassié, V. (2006) Collective decisions in ants when foraging under crowded conditions. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 61(1), 17-30. DOI: 10.1007/s00265-006-0233-x

List C, Elsholtz C, & Seeley TD. (2009) Independence and interdependence in collective decision making: an agent-based model of nest-site choice by honeybee swarms. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 364(1518), 755-62. PMID: 19073474

Dell'Ariccia, G., Dell'Omo, G., Wolfer, D., & Lipp, H. (2008) Flock flying improves pigeons' homing: GPS track analysis of individual flyers versus small groups. Animal Behaviour, 76(4), 1165-1172. DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.05.022