How language reflects the balance of good and bad in the world

“Rozin’s team began by analysing a corpus of 100 million words of spoken and written English and found that positive words are used far more often than negative words – just as you’d expect if positive events are more common (to take one example, ‘good’ is mentioned 795 times per million words compared with 153 mentions per million for ‘bad’).”

http://digest.bps.org.uk/2010/06/how-language-reflects-balance-of-good.html

If an Algorithm Wrote This, How Would You Even Know?

“Because, these days, a shocking amount of what we’re reading is created not by humans, but by computer algorithms. We probably should have suspected that the information assaulting us 24/7 couldn’t all have been created by people bent over their laptops.”

“With technology, the next evolutionary step always seems logical. That’s the danger. As it seduces us again and again, we relinquish a little part of ourselves. We rarely step back to reflect on whether, ultimately, we’re giving up more than we’re getting.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/08/opinion/sunday/if-an-algorithm-wrote-this-how-would-you-even-know.html

Freakonomics Podcast: The Maddest Men of All. Episode about Behavioral Economics

Another interesting discussion on the field of behavioral economics (see a previous post on the topic). Some really interesting discussions on this podcast about the contrast between classical economics and behavioral economics. You get some insight into the different approaches to knowledge and assumptions between two related fields in the human sciences.

You also get some interesting insights about how we make decisions. To what degree are our decisions motivated by reason? And to what degree are they motivated by emotion? Is it ethical for someone to use their knowledge of our emotional decision making to push us to make a decision they want us to make (i.e. buy something we otherwise wouldn’t)?

“Let’s take an example where you go to an airline website and it … quotes you a price for your seat to Sacramento, whatever it may be, and it says only four seats left at that price. Now, that works on me. I’ve spent eight years studying this stuff, I know it’s an attempt to exploit my scarcity bias, but it still makes me click. That’s just the way I’m wired. Now implicit in that line is that subsequent seats will be more expensive. But actually the person in their weasel wording hasn’t exactly made that promise, have they? They’ve merely said at this price. At this price is not quite clear. It could be that the subsequent four seats are being sold actually at a lower price.”

http://freakonomics.com/2015/02/26/the-maddest-men-of-all-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/

Verbal Warming: Labels in the Climate Debate

Interesting piece that focuses on the power of language and labels when framing a debate and characterizing your position on an issue. Why does it matter whether a person is called a “skeptic” or “denier?” Even if the arguments don’t change, the labels have a powerful influence on characterizing their positions and affecting the way they are perceived.

“The petition asks the news media to abandon the most frequently used term for people who question climate science, ‘skeptics,’ and call them ‘climate deniers’ instead.”

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/02/17/science/earth/in-climate-change-whats-in-a-name.html