4th Grade Nation State

[Galloism]

Ok, so here's the result from the very first attempt by the morning psychology class - sort of unexpected for me, but most of the students went by Xero's "rules" so to speak, and bid for what they really wanted, with a couple of outliers. I had to crop this down a bit to fit within Nationstates screen size (you'll note the total and reasoning columns are a little mashed - sorry about that. Otherwise it wouldn't fit and still be readable.)

(Image)

However, in line with expectations, the professor's hedging strategy made him the big winner.


Relevant information: at the time class was held, it was 77 degrees with a wind variable at 3 knots (IE, a light breeze), and clear skies.



Edit: Also, it wasn't my idea, but there's a third class that will be voting on the same decisions. I'll provide a basic summary of those decisions with vote totals. Professor wants to measure the psychological effects when voting is used compared with gambling, to see if one of or the other results in more psychological satisfaction/distress.

LOL, 75% of the people who bid on "stay inside" did so for profit.

And Gallo, you should ask Mr. Allergy if $0.84 is enough compensation for him feeling like shit now...

Not gonna say a thing to Mr./Ms. Allergy. Unlike some people, I don't wantonly and negligently corrupt the experiment into uselessness.

[The Two Jerseys]

LOL, 75% of the people who bid on "stay inside" did so for profit.

And Gallo, you should ask Mr. Allergy if $0.84 is enough compensation for him feeling like shit now...

Not gonna say a thing to Mr. Allergy. Unlike some people, I don't wantonly and negligently corrupt the experiment into uselessness.

Heh.

Slightly disappointed though, I was really interested in seeing if Xero's "loser is happy because they get money" claim actually holds up, especially when someone has a serious stake in the outcome.

[Galloism]

Observations -

1, most people like round numbers - a nickel, a dime, a quarter, 20 cents, 30 cents, etc - except for L, apparently. I can't figure out where the 42 comes from.

2, I think E and I both thought they would be the only ones bidding on the losing side, and so betting small could, as E put it, "get the pot", well more than they put in. Of course, the hedge spoiled that.

3, I was humored that "K" just wrote "stupid game" and bid nothing. That amused me.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Ok, so here's the result from the very first attempt by the morning psychology class - sort of unexpected for me, but most of the students went by Xero's "rules" so to speak, and bid for what they really wanted, with a couple of outliers. I had to crop this down a bit to fit within Nationstates screen size (you'll note the total and reasoning columns are a little mashed - sorry about that. Otherwise it wouldn't fit and still be readable.)

(Image)

However, in line with expectations, the professor's hedging strategy made him the big winner.


Relevant information: at the time class was held, it was 77 degrees with a wind variable at 3 knots (IE, a light breeze), and clear skies.



Edit: Also, it wasn't my idea, but there's a third class that will be voting on the same decisions. I'll provide a basic summary of those decisions with vote totals. Professor wants to measure the psychological effects when voting is used compared with gambling, to see if one of or the other results in more psychological satisfaction/distress.

So out of 14 people 12 decided to play for profit. 15% of people speculated on the market, which seems more or less in line with what me and others theorized about "speculating" and "tyranny of the minority".

Speculators are not a supermajority of people, or an unanimous consensus that speculating and gaming the system to be the winner of the pot is a good gamble. They are rather, a minority, even speculative markets are not something everyone wants to get into, just a minority of people who are not adverse to risk and like winning big when they do (think George Soros type of speculators).

So this would, more or less, fall within a representative range of speculation roughly equivalent to that of the futures market as opposed to the total of people participating in some sort of stock/bond/commodity trade.

[Lost heros]

Are the results visible to the class? Because I wouldn't be surprised that the next bidding will see a lot more hedging.

Results, yes. Reasonings, no.

I was just trying to collate the information into a single image for nationstates so I added in the reasonings column based on the reasonings submitted by the students (to make it easier on you guys).

We appreciate it. Yeah all of those profit guys are going to hedge most likely and I wouldn't be surprised if some of the "it's a nice day outside" did so as well.

Not gonna say a thing to Mr. Allergy. Unlike some people, I don't wantonly and negligently corrupt the experiment into uselessness.

Heh.

Slightly disappointed though, I was really interested in seeing if Xero's "loser is happy because they get money" claim actually holds up, especially when someone has a serious stake in the outcome.

I'm sure he was jumping up and down while spinning exclaiming "I get compensated!"

[Galloism]

Ok, so here's the result from the very first attempt by the morning psychology class - sort of unexpected for me, but most of the students went by Xero's "rules" so to speak, and bid for what they really wanted, with a couple of outliers. I had to crop this down a bit to fit within Nationstates screen size (you'll note the total and reasoning columns are a little mashed - sorry about that. Otherwise it wouldn't fit and still be readable.)

(Image)

However, in line with expectations, the professor's hedging strategy made him the big winner.


Relevant information: at the time class was held, it was 77 degrees with a wind variable at 3 knots (IE, a light breeze), and clear skies.



Edit: Also, it wasn't my idea, but there's a third class that will be voting on the same decisions. I'll provide a basic summary of those decisions with vote totals. Professor wants to measure the psychological effects when voting is used compared with gambling, to see if one of or the other results in more psychological satisfaction/distress.

So out of 14 people 12 decided to play for profit. 15% of people speculated on the market, which seems more or less in line with what me and others theorized about "speculating" and "tyranny of the minority".

Speculators are not a supermajority of people, or an unanimous consensus that speculating and gaming the system to be the winner of the pot is a good gamble. They are rather, a minority, even speculative markets are not something everyone wants to get into, just a minority of people who are not adverse to risk and like winning big when they do (think George Soros type of speculators).

So this would, more or less, fall within a representative range of speculation roughly equivalent to that of the futures market.

Well, including the one player who's playing by a defined set of rules is probably disingenuous - A is the hedger that must hedge always, to see what effect his behavior has on the rest of the bidders.

Besides that one person, it appears only 2 played for profit. 6 specifically stated it was variants of a 'nice day' so they wanted to be outside, one cited allergies to stay inside, while the rest either gave responses that were blank or non-indicative.

(I don't know what "what the heck" means. I assume it was a bid for the hell of it.)

[Killdash]

Observations -

1, most people like round numbers - a nickel, a dime, a quarter, 20 cents, 30 cents, etc - except for L, apparently. I can't figure out where the 42 comes from.

2, I think E and I both thought they would be the only ones bidding on the losing side, and so betting small could, as E put it, "get the pot", well more than they put in. Of course, the hedge spoiled that.

3, I was humored that "K" just wrote "stupid game" and bid nothing. That amused me.

1.The Answer to Life, The Universe and Everything? Maybe not, it could be a coincidence. But it might be possible that that was their reasoning.

[The Two Jerseys]

Observations -

1, most people like round numbers - a nickel, a dime, a quarter, 20 cents, 30 cents, etc - except for L, apparently. I can't figure out where the 42 comes from.

The Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe, and Everything, duh!

3, I was humored that "K" just wrote "stupid game" and bid nothing. That amused me.

K gets it.

Heh.

Slightly disappointed though, I was really interested in seeing if Xero's "loser is happy because they get money" claim actually holds up, especially when someone has a serious stake in the outcome.

I'm sure he was jumping up and down while spinning exclaiming "I get compensated!"

AH-CHOO! "I get *sniff* compensated!" AH-CHOO!

[Galloism]

Observations -

1, most people like round numbers - a nickel, a dime, a quarter, 20 cents, 30 cents, etc - except for L, apparently. I can't figure out where the 42 comes from.

2, I think E and I both thought they would be the only ones bidding on the losing side, and so betting small could, as E put it, "get the pot", well more than they put in. Of course, the hedge spoiled that.

3, I was humored that "K" just wrote "stupid game" and bid nothing. That amused me.

1.The Answer to Life, The Universe and Everything? Maybe not, it could be a coincidence. But it might be possible that that was their reasoning.

I considered that. It's possible, but all they wrote was "pretty weather".

Such is the bane of well-controlled studies, you are sometimes left with even more intriguing questions.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

So out of 14 people 12 decided to play for profit. 15% of people speculated on the market, which seems more or less in line with what me and others theorized about "speculating" and "tyranny of the minority".

Speculators are not a supermajority of people, or an unanimous consensus that speculating and gaming the system to be the winner of the pot is a good gamble. They are rather, a minority, even speculative markets are not something everyone wants to get into, just a minority of people who are not adverse to risk and like winning big when they do (think George Soros type of speculators).

So this would, more or less, fall within a representative range of speculation roughly equivalent to that of the futures market.

Well, including the one player who's playing by a defined set of rules is probably disingenuous - A is the hedger that must hedge always, to see what effect his behavior has on the rest of the bidders.

Besides that one person, it appears only 2 played for profit. 6 specifically stated it was variants of a 'nice day' so they wanted to be outside, one cited allergies to stay inside, while the rest either gave responses that were blank or non-indicative.

(I don't know what "what the heck" means. I assume it was a bid for the hell of it.)

Whoops I just saw what I wrote. I should edit more often before posting. *facepalm*

What I mean is only 2 people played for profit, so that'd make 15% of the people playing for profits and 11 people (78%) either playing for a chance to go outside or inside, and one hedger (7%) who tries to prevent as much loss of their money as possible.

That'd make more sense in my overall response. I'd say it falls within expectations of what people would do, showing a minority of people WOULD speculate on the market (and would be shameless about it too apparently), which is something we didn't discount, and something that appeared on your results, and one hedger who can manipulate the market for minimizing how much money they'd lose (of course, the teacher was the hedging control, so he kinda doesn't count, but if you wish to count it as a possible behavior of people, then that's fine too).

I am not surprised by it, but this study of yours proves a lot of confirmed assumptions people had about Xero's system.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Observations -

1, most people like round numbers - a nickel, a dime, a quarter, 20 cents, 30 cents, etc - except for L, apparently. I can't figure out where the 42 comes from.

2, I think E and I both thought they would be the only ones bidding on the losing side, and so betting small could, as E put it, "get the pot", well more than they put in. Of course, the hedge spoiled that.

3, I was humored that "K" just wrote "stupid game" and bid nothing. That amused me.

Yea, I would have been a bit hesitant to participate too, to be honest. Because I would have been like "wait, what if my peers condemn me for actually voting outside with my money? What kind of fucking stupid game is this?"

[Soldati Senza Confini]

AH-CHOO! "I get *sniff* compensated!" AH-CHOO!

Honestly? That would be a great question for a follow up survey after the experiment.

Just to see the responses of people and how much their feelings factor into their voting patterns under the system Xero wants and we can qualitatively value how strong they felt about voting for the decisions they voted for relative to their spending.

Maybe then we can determine if Xero's statement that people's willingness to pay is always based on their feelings true. Which we know it wouldn't be, but still.

[Galloism]

AH-CHOO! "I get *sniff* compensated!" AH-CHOO!

Honestly? That would be a great question for a follow up survey after the experiment.

Just to see the responses of people and how much their feelings factor into their voting patterns under the system Xero wants and we can qualitatively value how strong they felt about voting for the decisions they voted for relative to their spending.

Maybe then we can determine if Xero's statement that people's willingness to pay is always based on their feelings true. Which we know it wouldn't be, but still.

Well, the final questionnaire does have quite a few questions regarding satisfaction, ease, distress, etc.

Keep in mind: this is a psychology experiment.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Honestly? That would be a great question for a follow up survey after the experiment.

Just to see the responses of people and how much their feelings factor into their voting patterns under the system Xero wants and we can qualitatively value how strong they felt about voting for the decisions they voted for relative to their spending.

Maybe then we can determine if Xero's statement that people's willingness to pay is always based on their feelings true. Which we know it wouldn't be, but still.

Well, the final questionnaire does have quite a few questions regarding satisfaction, ease, distress, etc.

Keep in mind: this is a psychology experiment.

That's true.

It would be interesting to have those results right now, but we can wait.

[Salandriagado]

Not gonna say a thing to Mr. Allergy. Unlike some people, I don't wantonly and negligently corrupt the experiment into uselessness.

Heh.

Slightly disappointed though, I was really interested in seeing if Xero's "loser is happy because they get money" claim actually holds up, especially when someone has a serious stake in the outcome.

Yeah, a satisfaction survey at the end would make sense.

[Galloism]

Ok guys, I need someplace else to host pictures. Photobucket is being a bitch.

I only kept using it because I had a lot of random shit stored there to post on forums.

I have the afternoon class's spreadsheet available, but can't upload it at the moment.

Recommendations?

[Camicon]

Ok guys, I need someplace else to host pictures. Photobucket is being a bitch.

I only kept using it because I had a lot of random shit stored there to post on forums.

I have the afternoon class's spreadsheet available, but can't upload it at the moment.

Recommendations?

Drop it in a Google Slides file, make it publicly view-able, lock editing authorization, and post a link.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Ok guys, I need someplace else to host pictures. Photobucket is being a bitch.

I only kept using it because I had a lot of random shit stored there to post on forums.

I have the afternoon class's spreadsheet available, but can't upload it at the moment.

Recommendations?

Like Camicon said, Google Slides.

Or, if you wanna be lazy like yours truly, Google Photos.

[Galloism]

Let's try this.

Ok, that was entirely too much work, but there you go. Hopefully photobucket will be up tomorrow.


EDIT: I added some header information - the spreadsheet is broken up into tabs for the given days, and has a title for morning class and afternoon class, but you couldn't see that with my cropping, so I added that information to the header.

Also, to make it distinctive, I made the afternoon class double-lettered.

By the way, for the class in the middle of the afternoon that's doing voting, it was 16:1 in favor of going outside (it's a slightly larger class).


Crap, weather! Temperature 81 degrees, wind out of the southeast at 4 knots, clear skies.

[Xerographica]

Heh, hehe. I was just chuckling quite a bit when I imagined that, thanks to Galloism, pretty soon all classes are going to be outside... weather permitting of course. Isn't that a funny thought? Everybody simply assumed that having classes inside was what everybody else wanted.

Of course I'm not saying that this will happen. It's just funny to imagine it happening. What would it be similar to?

Oh yeah, it would be similar to this short sci-fi story about tax choice.

Quite a few of you have said that Galloism's experiments confirmed your arguments. Well... I'm not impressed. If you want to impress me, then make some specific and accurate predictions about the outcomes the next time the students use spending to decide whether to have class inside or outside.

Will the demand for having classes inside decrease or increase? Will more, or less, students endeavor to make money?

One thing I'm not quite clear on... if it's a closed system and no money can be brought in... can any money be taken out? If no money can be taken out... then the only thing that the money can be spent on is deciding whether to have class inside or outside. But then why try and make money if the only thing you can do with the money is spend it to decide whether to have class inside or outside? Are the students going to be able to keep their money after the experiment is done?

Also, how is it the case that all 4? students who wanted to make money accurately guessed/predicted that having class inside would be the less valuable option? With perfect hindsight clearly it was the less valuable option. But how would they all correctly guess that beforehand? I'm a little surprised that nobody bet on the wrong horse. How many people will bet on the wrong horse the next time? Now all the students know that, assuming 1. the same weather conditions and 2. no diminishing returns, the demand for having class outside is greater than the demand for having class inside. Will this common knowledge increase or decrease the chances of betting on the wrong horse?

[Galloism]

If you want to impress me, then make some specific and accurate predictions about the outcomes the next time the students use spending to decide whether to have class inside or outside.

My specific predictions, although I won't specify class to class because I don't know any of the people involved except the professor involved.

1) In the morning class, the class will trend towards hedging, then abandonment
2) In the afternoon class, the class will trend towards more gambling, followed by abandonment of the 'straight players', then probably the gamblers, unless someone figures out the hedging option.
3) The voting class will have higher satisfaction levels by the end than the gambling classes.

Will the demand for having classes inside decrease or increase? Will more, or less, students endeavor to make money?

My prediction is that, over time, it will become so muddled with noise that you won't have any idea what the 'demand' even is.

One thing I'm not quite clear on... if it's a closed system and no money can be brought in... can any money be taken out? If no money can be taken out... then the only thing that the money can be spent on is deciding whether to have class inside or outside. But then why try and make money if the only thing you can do with the money is spend it to decide whether to have class inside or outside? Are the students going to be able to keep their money after the experiment is done?

Students get to keep their money at the end.

Also, how is it the case that all 4? students who wanted to make money accurately guessed/predicted that having class inside would be the less valuable option? With perfect hindsight clearly it was the less valuable option. But how would they all correctly guess that beforehand? I'm a little surprised that nobody bet on the wrong horse. How many people will bet on the wrong horse the next time? Now all the students know that, assuming 1. the same weather conditions and 2. no diminishing returns, the demand for having class outside is greater than the demand for having class inside. Will this common knowledge increase or decrease the chances of betting on the wrong horse?

People are strangely predictable. When there's nice weather, people will by and large want to go outside for classes.

My notion is that eventually the results will become fully random, and then the whole thing will be abandoned over time.

[Xerographica]

People are strangely predictable. When there's nice weather, people will by and large want to go outside for classes.

Did you predict that having class inside would be the less valuable option?

[Galloism]

People are strangely predictable. When there's nice weather, people will by and large want to go outside for classes.

Did you predict that having class inside would be the less valuable option?

I predicted we would get out of the gate with people deliberately trying to play the system for money instead of actually bidding for what they want.

[Neutraligon]

Did you predict that having class inside would be the less valuable option?

I predicted we would get out of the gate with people deliberately trying to play the system for money instead of actually bidding for what they want.

And we did see a few, meaning that there actual valuation of going outside is not being measured.... Although, it could be claimed that they value making money more (duh). Still it doesn't show their actual opinion on going outside which is what Xero's system was supposed to do.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Quite a few of you have said that Galloism's experiments confirmed your arguments. Well... I'm not impressed. If you want to impress me, then make some specific and accurate predictions about the outcomes the next time the students use spending to decide whether to have class inside or outside.

Sorry, but I don't gamble my hypotheses, I analyzed the results and compared it to certain arguments we've made.

I could tell you, for instance, that the next experiment will be everyone finding the game pointless and not play, but then again that'd be an empty prediction from me. If I predict it, and I get it wrong, oh well, but if I do not predict it I won't have preconceived notions about the data and I won't try to explain it away somehow.

We'll see what happens the next plot of data, and then I'll make my analysis. However, so far both trial runs have shown that there is at least some people positively interested in making money off of the system.

It's not a majority by any means, but some people did, and that's where we stood, that people will try to gamble the system. Nobody said everyone would try to, but that speculators will try and game the system for profits. Which is exactly what has happened on both cases. What you find impressionable matters little to me.