Changing what people genuinely want takes more than threats and money

In the words of the psychologist Barry Schwartz, “Ninety percent of adults spend their waking lives doing things they would rather not be doing at places they would rather not be."

Edward Deci was researching for his PhD at a time when psychology was in the thrall of a theory known as “behaviorism,” which held the customary view that people are thoroughly passive creatures. The only thing powerful enough to goad us into action is a reward. Or fear of punishment.

Yet Deci had a nagging sense that something was being overlooked. All the time, people are doing bizarre things that don’t fit the behaviorist view. Like climbing mountains (cold!), volunteering (free!), and having babies (exhausting!).

That same summer, Deci made an even more incongruous discovery: sometimes, sticks and carrots actually reduce performance. When he paid student subjects a dollar to figure out a puzzle, they actually lost interest in the puzzle itself.

So are bonuses a complete fallacy? No, not always. Research conducted by behavioral economist Dan Ariely has shown that bonuses can sometimes be genuinely effective. But only where the tasks are simple and routine, like those Frederick Taylor timed on his stopwatch at factories.... Carrots and sticks mostly just give you more of the same. Pay by the hour and you’ll get more hours. Pay by publication and you’ll get more publications. Pay by the operation and you’ll get more operations.

Everywhere you look, we assume others are lazy and selfish. Recently, a British study found that the vast majority of the population (74%) identify more closely with values such as helpfulness, honesty, and justice over money, status, and power. At the same time, researchers found that the majority of people - 78% - hold other people to be more self-centred than they truly are.

According to the psychologist Dan Pink, the fact that rewards undermine intrinsic motivation is “one of the most robust findings in social science, and also one of the most ignored.” Now imagine for a moment that we were to reorganize the modern workplace to be keyed to everybody’s intrinsic motivation. It would mean an incredible revolution. CEOs would slave away out of faith in their companies, academics would burn the midnight oil out of pure curiosity, teachers would teach because they feel a duty to their pupils, psychologists would treat only as long as their clients require, and bankers would take pride simply in the services they render. Skill and competence would be treasured, instead of yields and productivity.

https://thecorrespondent.com/5889/long-live-intrinsic-motivation-or-why-its-time-to-ditch-the-carrots-and-the-sticks/226402605-5dbd8da4?utm_source=De+Correspondent+-+English+public+list&utm_campaign=1ce50a20f3-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2016_12_22&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_7bb174c8f0-1ce50a20f3-85567037

False memories can be infectious

Dr Henry Roediger, a professor at the Washington University Memory Lab, doesn’t think so. “Lots of people remember detailed, but utterly false, memories. In fact, we all have them,” he says. “I have published on what we named ‘the social contagion of memory’ and what others call ‘memory conformity’ – that may be at work here.” Roediger explains that frequently one person’s report of a memory influences another’s, and that false memories can spread in this way. “One person’s memory infects another,” he says.

It is clear that this contagion would only be exacerbated online, where an individual can be influenced by multiple people from all around the world in an instant. The existence of the Shazaam Reddit community, therefore, arguably helps a false memory to spread.

Like accusations that they are misremembering Kazaam however, Shazaam truthers balk at the idea they simply have false memories that have been influenced by one another.

Brains are indeed weird, but it explains a lot about conspiracy theories.

http://www.newstatesman.com/science-tech/internet/2016/12/movie-doesn-t-exist-and-redditors-who-think-it-does

Oh what a tangled web we weave...

The UK government says it is "disappointed" after the European Court of Justice said the "indiscriminate" collection of data was against EU law. EU judges said communications data could only be retained if it was used to fight serious crime. Its verdict came after a legal challenge to the UK government's surveillance legislation. The challenge was initially championed by Brexit Secretary David Davis, who was then a backbench Conservative MP.

#Irony
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38390150

Rogue One and why it is quite good.

Rogue One and why it is quite good. Contains minor spoilers (e.g. which cameos, differences from the trailer) so you might want to avoid this if you prefer to know absolutely nothing before seeing the movie.

The Force Fell Flat, But Now It's Picked Itself Up And Is Whistling Nonchalantly And Hoping No-One Noticed Its Embarrassing Slip-Up

Disclaimer : This post contains extremely minor details which I don't believe will spoil your enjoyment of the film. However, if you're a purist, you shouldn't read this post until after you've seen the movie. You have been warned.

Rogue One : it's quite good

The Force Re-Awakens

My short, spoiler-free verdict on Rogue One : thumbs up ! I give it a solid 7/10. Not epic, but not mediocre either. Very solid and well worth watching. I'm pretty sure there are bits in the trailer that aren't in the film though, which is odd. Felt like it was mostly telling its own independent story, much gritter than the main Star Wars tale, but occasionally flirted quite heavily with the main fairy tale arc.

And it did so quite sensibly - you can easily believe that the Rogue One characters are living their (somewhat) smaller, more real lives, while Luke and Han et al. are doing their grander, far more storytale thing somewhere else but definitely in the same universe. The Rogue character story feels gritty and real whereas the other elements retain their pantomime aspect somehow without causing conflict - a difficult act indeed.

Will write longer review later, but it will mostly be me saying, "yes, that was quite good, wasn't it ?"

Everyone is wrong, but some people are more wrong than others

Britons are wrong about nearly everything... but are more right than everyone else except the Dutch.

British people were especially far from the mark when asked what proportion of the UK population is Muslim. The real answer is just one in twenty – but Britons believe it to be almost one in six. That would mean there were almost 10 million Muslims in the UK when in reality there are 2.8 million.

British people also think their fellow citizens are unhappier than they actually are. They believe only 47 per cent of Britons would say they are very or rather happy, when actually 92 per cent express that view.

Britons are much more accurate when asked about inequality. People guessed the least wealthy 70 per cent in Britain own just 19 per cent of the country’s wealth. The real figure is only slightly higher, at 21 per cent.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-people-muslims-uk-inequality-happiness-ipsos-mori-survey-a7476526.html

The NSF asked for letters about Arecibo funding plans, so I sent them this

My draft letter to the NSF. Much less polite than the other one, because they've gone loopy.

Regarding the recent draft Environmental Impact Statement on the future of Arecibo Observatory, while the stated NSF support for the continuing operations at AO is commendable, the details of the DEIS are, to put it mildly, completely mad. The proposed demolition of 26 buildings will not make any financial savings; on the contrary, it would cause irrevocable damage to the Observatory. Removing the buildings necessary for the planetary radar would eliminate the possibility of the Observatory continuing to secure the millions of dollars of NASA funding it currently receives as one of only two facilities in the world capable of Solar System radar studies. Removal of the scientific offices and Visting Scientists Quarters would effectively kill Arecibo as a scientific facility - it will not merely cease to support scientifc staff for their own operations, but fail to provide observing support for external scientists. This is madness. The buildings are not obsolete, they are essential. Consequently any institute wishing to invest in Arecibo would inevitably face the added cost of having to rebuild the lost facilities. This is unnecessary and stupid.

Arecibo is both an iconic, inspirational facility and uniquely scientifically capable. Since starting my PhD 10 years ago, Arecibo data has been integral to my research. I have used data to teach students from high school to graduate level, many of whom have been inspired to pursue careers in science and technology, as well as to produce outreach materials that inform the general public about basic research. No planned or existing facility, including FAST or the SKA, offers Arecibo's unique capabilities, let alone at such a modest level of investment. Furthermore it is by far the most prominent scientific facility in Puerto Rico and local residents are justifiably proud of their historic instrument. For a paltry level of funding it continues to contribute not only to local culture but to global teaching and scientific activities not merely at a world-class level, but with capabilities which are simply impossible at other instruments. There is no prospect of a replacement, let alone superior, instrument in the next few decades, and the current prospect of rendering this magnificent telescope impotent is an absolute absurdity.

Save Arecibo !

Resharing in the light of the NSF's draft "Environmental Impact Statement", a.k.a., "what shall we do with Arecibo Observatory ?"

http://astrorhysy.blogspot.co.uk/2016/06/just-give-them-some-money-already.html

Robert Minchin writes :

Help save Arecibo Observatory!

As you might have heard, Arecibo is currently under threat from the NSF. If you feel that your education has benefited from Arecibo and/or if you feel that you have been inspired by the Observatory (scientifically or culturally), please write to the NSF to let them know, and send a copy to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Letters/emails need to arrive by 12 December 2016.

Addresses are:
NSF: Envcomp-AST@nsf.gov
Ms. Elizabeth Pentecost
RE: Arecibo Observatory
4201 Wilson Blvd, Ste 1045S
Arlington, VA 22230

Advisory Council: achp@achp.gov
John Fowler
Executive Director
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
401 F Street NW, Suite 308
Washington, DC 20001-2637

Thanks!

The NSF's proposal is nothing short of bonkers :
http://websites.suagm.edu/ao/?q=AO-Response-EIS
(Full report > 200 pages : https://www.nsf.gov/mps/ast/env_impact_reviews/arecibo/eis/DEIS.pdf)

TLDR : They want to keep Arecibo running but with reduced funding from the NSF and more from partner institutions. That's fine, and quite understandable given a funding shortfall. However, for some reason known only to themselves, they also propose demolishing so many buildings that Arecibo would be dealt a very efficient death blow. It would completely stop Arecibo's planetary radar capabilities (Goldstone is the only Solar System radar transmitter in the world) which provides about $5 million of Arecibo's ~$12 million budget. It would demolish the buildings where the permanent scientist's work and the visiting observers are housed, thus killing it completely as a scientific facility. It would, in short, be completely mad, and I for one shall be telling them this using those exact words.

There is no good replacement for Arecibo planned. Not "planned in the near future", but at all. There is nothing remotely comparable to Arecibo - yes, China's FAST is bigger, but its frequency range is much smaller and it won't do planetary radar. It has yet to be demonstrated if it even works at all. Arecibo does unique science, and if we lose it there's little hope we'll ever be able to replace it. We're still making discoveries with Arecibo even in the very nearby Universe for goodness bloody sake; yes, eventually it will become obsolete, but with proper (though modest) investment and development it could remain competitive for decades to come.

Ian Hislop explains freedom of the press

Generally sums things up pretty well.

A great deal has been written recently about the influence of social media in helping people to become trapped in their own echo chambers, talking only to those who reinforce their views and dismissing not only other opinions, but also facts offered by those who disagree with them. When confronted by a dissenting voice, people get offended and then angry. They do not want to argue, they want the debate to be shut down. Drumpf supporters are furious with anyone who expresses reservations about their candidate. Pro-Brexit supporters are furious with anyone who expresses doubts about the way the process of leaving the European Union is going.

This has become a trend in those who complain: the magazine should be shouted down or, better still, closed down. 

...Later the same year it was revealed that the murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler’s phone had been hacked by the News of the World, along with those of a number of high-profile celebrities, and the public decided that actually journalists were all scumbags and the government should get Lord Leveson to sort them out. Those who maintained that the problem was that the existing laws (on trespass, contempt, etc) were not enforced because of an unhealthy relationship between the police, the press and the politicians were not given much credence.

Disturbing numbers of complainants feel that making jokes about the new president-elect should not be allowed, since he has won the election. Humour is not meant to be political, assert the would-be censors – unless it attacks the people who lost the vote: then it is impartial and neutral. 

Voters energised by Ukip and the EU referendum debate, or by the emergence of Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the Labour Party, or by the resurgence of Scottish nationalism or by the triumph of Drumpf, have the zeal of the newly converted. This is all very admirable, and a wake-up call to their opponents – the Tartan Tories and the Remoaners and the NeoBlairites and the Washington Liberal Elite – but it is not admirable when it is accompanied by an overpowering desire to silence any criticism of their ideas, policies and leading personalities. Perhaps the supporters of the mainstream parties have simply become accustomed to the idea over the decades, but I have found in Private Eye that there is not much fury from the Tory, New Labour or Liberal camps when their leaders or policies are criticised, often in much harsher ways than the newer, populist movements.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/12/age-outrage