But how would their lack of motivation explain a consistent pattern in their choices 
and how that pattern would change depending on their susceptibility to pregnancy.  I 
don't understand your objection.  - - Bill Dickens

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/10/01 02:05PM >>>
The EP experiments don't seem that convincing. Can't you make the same
arguments against the EP experiments that many economists make against the
work of Kahneman/Tversky --that there isn't enough at stake for the
individual to make a "good" decision. It seems silly to show people
pictures and ask them who'd they'd like to spend their life with or have
a fling with. Would the test subject care about putting any effort into
making their decesion in such an artificial setting?

Daljit Dhadwal

William Dickens wrote:

>Today's EP practitioners use their
 explanations to generate predictions for laboratory behavior of humans today
 and then test those predictions. They are sometimes quite startling. 

>      Perhaps the best example is the many many experiments that show that
 an elementary logic problem can be posed in dozens of different more and less
 familiar ways and most people will get it wrong. But pose the problem in a
 form in which it involves identifying cheating on social exchange, even if
 the setting is very unfamiliar, and almost everybody gets it right.
 This pattern was a prediction of EP theory of social exchange. 
>      In other examples, women have been asked in laboratories to select
 the pictures of men they find most appealing for short affairs and for
 long term relationships. There is a very strong tendency for them to
 choose men with physical characteristics typical of those with higher
 testosterone levels for affairs than for long term relationships. Also, 
the tendency to choose higher testosterone goes up when women are ovulating.
 (Both EP predictions.)

> - - Bill Dickens (DC based)
> William T. Dickens
> The Brookings Institution
> 1775 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
> Washington, DC 20036
> Phone: (202) 797-6113
> FAX:     (202) 797-6181
> AOL IM: wtdickens

Reply via email to