经济与社会科学2016nber.org
小额报酬显著缩小党派事实问题上的回答差距
Small payments sharply diminish gap in responses to partisan factual questions
进阶 · 约 40 分钟读完前置知识：实验设计、统计推断、政治极化
导读
这篇 NBER 工作论文研究党派事实性问题上的回答差距，并通过给正确回答小额报酬（约 17 美分至 1 美元）的实验考察激励是否会缩小该差距。核心结论是：小额支付能显著降低党派偏向造成的回答差异。
HN 关注点：政治偏见能否用很小的经济激励纠正，并延伸到投票激励不足、"利益相关"是否让人更审慎等话题。
HN 评论精选
这几条评论里：支持 1 质疑 2 补充 1
质疑质疑题目措辞混淆债务与赤字、物价与通胀，可能影响对回答差距的解释。
这些例子里的问题都很刁钻，因为描述的是导数的导数！赤字是债务的时间导数；所以有人可能听成"克林顿时期债务上升了吗"（这会是真）。通胀是货币价值的导数，所以有人可能听成"里根时期东西变贵了吗"（也会是真）。赤字/债务尤其容易混，两个词都以 D 开头，我虽然知道区别，聊天时偶尔也会说混。
dnautics查看英文原文
"For example, Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say that the deficit rose during the Clinton administration; Democrats are more likely to say that inflation rose under Reagan." These are both really tricky questions, because the questions described are derivatives of derivatives! The deficit is the time derivative of the debt; so it's possible that someone is hearing "did the debt rise during clinton" (which would be true). Likewise, inflation is the derivative of the value of money. So someone might be hearing "did things get more expensive over reagan" (which would also be true). The deficit/debt one is really tricky since they both start with the letter D and even though I know the difference occasionally in conversation I switch the two.
补充用投票激励不足解释政治非理性，并引用 Caplan 的《理性选民神话》。
有意思的发现。投票的一个问题是，没有激励或激励很小去选政策最好的候选人，因为你一票起作用的概率太小。因此人们投票给让自己感觉好的候选人，而不是有能力的候选人。这可以说是许多坏政策的根源。Caplan 在《The Myth of the Rational Voter》中讨论了这个问题。
Fr0ntBack查看英文原文
Interesting finding. One of the problems with voting is that there is no incentive or a very small incentive to choose the candidate with the best policies, because the chance of your vote making a difference is so small. Therefore people vote for a candidate that makes them feel good, rather than a competent one. This is arguably the cause of many bad policies. Caplan discusses this issue in his book 'The Myth of the Rational Voter' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_the_Rational_Voter
支持"skin in the game"、承担后果能促使更审慎判断。
利益相关会让人更审慎。辩论中有时也管用："我们做 A 吧，设计好得多。""你来做这个功能的调试和支持吗？""呃，也许再想想 A，我看到一些缺陷。"
praptak查看英文原文
Having skin in the game makes one thoughtful. Sometimes it works in debates too. "Let's do A, it's much better design." "Will you do the debugging and support for the feature?" "Ummm, maybe let's rethink this A, I see some flaws in it."
质疑怀疑参与者未理解复杂支付规则，实验结果可能受此混淆；并讽刺困惑说明本身可能起效。
小额支付在 17 美分到 1 美元之间。但支付计算方式的描述很复杂，基于奇怪的抽奖资格概率获得礼品卡，或者不同问题随机值 25 美分、50 美分等，概率各不相同。坦率说，我怀疑多数参与者没理解正确回答能拿多少钱的说明。这可能意味着，在提问前放一段夹杂美元符号的令人困惑的话，也可能减少政治党派偏见回答。
qwrusz查看英文原文
The small payments ranged between 17 cents and $1. But how the payment calculations were described, based on weirdly complicated raffle entry odds for gift certificates or with different questions randomly worth 25 cents or 50 cents or whatever with various probabilities. Frankly, I doubt most participants understood the payments guidance about what amount correct answers would earn them. This could imply just putting a paragraph of confusing words with dollar signs mixed in before asking questions might also diminish political partisan bias in responses.
历次讨论
- 2016Hacker News 讨论帖221 分 · 166 评
同领域还值得读
一切的回报率，1870–2015
The Rate of Return on Everything, 1870–2015
利用1870–2015年多国的长期数据，估算股票、住房等各类资本的回报率，并将其与经济增长率进行比较。
经济与社会科学2019 · 487 分 · 260 评进阶 · 约 100 分钟编辑精选一切资产的回报率，1870–2015
The Rate of Return on Everything, 1870–2015
构建了 1870–2015 年 16 个国家的长周期资产回报数据集，覆盖股票、住房、政府债券和短期票据，系统比较各类资产的真实回报与波动性。
经济与社会科学2018 · 215 分 · 151 评进阶 · 约 120 分钟编辑精选一切资产的回报率，1870–2015（2019）
The Rate of Return on Everything, 1870–2015 (2019)
这篇发表于《经济学季刊》的论文构建了 1870–2015 年间 16 个主要发达国家的股票、债券、房地产等资产收益率的长周期数据库。
经济与社会科学2024 · 190 分 · 148 评进阶 · 约 80 分钟编辑精选想法是否越来越难找？
Are ideas getting harder to find?
探讨“想法是否越来越难找到”：通过衡量多个领域的“研究生产率”，发现维持相同的增长需要投入指数级增长的研究资源，即研究效率在持续下降。
经济与社会科学2016 · 182 分 · 106 评入门 · 约 60 分钟编辑精选比特币与区块链的经济极限
The Economic Limits of Bitcoin and the Blockchain
芝加哥大学 Eric Budish 的论文从经济学角度分析比特币与区块链的根本限制：核心论点是只要攻击网络（双花或砸盘做空）的收益超过挖矿成本，51% 算力攻击就有利可图，而挖矿…
经济与社会科学2018 · 176 分 · 37 评进阶 · 约 90 分钟编辑精选