RSS
 

Posts Tagged ‘Miscellaneous’

Why Being Relaxed Makes Us Spend Too Much Money

21 Sep

The typical casino is an intentionally unpleasant place. The ceiling is low and the sight lines are hidden, producing a claustrophobic effect. The lights are dim and the air is filled with the clatter of randomness, as slot machines spit out coins and sound effects. The floor is a labyrinth of drunk gamblers and card tables, making it all but impossible to navigate. (There are also no clocks, so people have no idea what time it is.)

Why are casinos so uncomfortable? The standard explanation is that the cavernous spaces are meant to confuse, like a maze with a convoluted escape route. In other words, the gaming room is really a trap. After all, if we can’t locate the exit, then perhaps we’ll linger for a little bit longer. We’ll lose more money to the house.

In recent years, however, the design of high-end casinos has undergone a dramatic shift. The ceilings are no longer low and oppressive; the layout is straightforward; the exits are obvious. Many gambling experts trace this shaft back to the Bellagio, the massive luxury resort in Las Vegas built in 1998 by Steve Wynn. For the first time, the casino experience was engineered to be mostly pleasant, filled with flowers, tasteful chandeliers and marble floors.

The redesign of the casino had a profound effect on revenues: in 1999, the Bellagio set the record for gaming income in Vegas. (The hotel remains one of the highest earners in Vegas, even though it’s antiquated by the standards of the Strip.) It turned out that when people felt comfortable – when they were put in a relaxed and pleasant environment – they were more willing to take irrational risks, to place losing bets on games of chance.

There’s now some interesting evidence to explain the Bellagio phenomenon. A new paper in the Journal of Marketing Research, led by psychologist Michel Tuan Pham at Columbia Business School, probes the effect of relaxation on consumer behavior. It turns out that people who feel relaxed spend far more freely than those who feel less at ease, even when they are in an equivalent emotional state.

The research was straightforward. The scientists began by exposing several hundred undergraduates – they ended up testing more than 670 subjects – to a variety of carefully pretested stimuli, including short videos and pieces of music. Some of these clips and songs were known to lull people into a state of calm contentment. (One relaxation video, for instance, consisted of ten minutes of tranquil nature scenes set to soft music.) After being assigned to either the “relaxed” or the “pleasant but not relaxed” condition, subjects were then asked to assess the monetary value of various products.

Here is where the data gets interesting: those who felt more relaxed spent more money. In one experiment, the subjects had to bid on a digital camera in a simulated auction. While those in the control condition made bids that closely approximated the actual value of the camera, the relaxed subjects made bids that, on average, were about 15 percent higher than the market price. And it’s not just cameras: the same effect was observed across a large variety of products and experiences, from spa treatments to ice cream sundaes. Feeling relaxed even increased the willingness of subjects to bid on risky activities, such as a bungee-jumping session.

Why does relaxation turn us into spendthrifts? When we feel safe, we are better able to fully focus on the potential rewards at stake. Instead of worrying about price, we can contemplate the advantages of having a sophisticated camera, or the thrill of falling through the air. As the psychologists demonstrated in subsequent experiments, those subjects who were more relaxed thought less about particulars – the specific cost of the gadget or the dangers of the risky behavior – and more about the abstract pleasures they were trying to purchase.

And this returns us to casinos. At first glance, casinos are faced with a daunting psychological challenge: they have to persuade people to play games in which the odds are stacked against them. They have to convince their customers that losing money to a random number generator or a pair of dice is a lovely way to spend an afternoon. Given this intimidating mission, casinos need all the help they can get, which is why they’ve long been interested in design. The casinos know that architecture has cognitive consequences, influencing our mood and spending decisions.

The problem for Vegas is that, for decades, they subscribed to the wrong model of design. They assumed that the way to get people to take outlandish risks was to trap them inside the building, to make it too difficult to leave. But that was almost certainly a big mistake. Why? Because claustrophobic and confusing rooms aren’t relaxing. Instead of being put at ease, we end up slightly anxious, all too aware of the fact that we are losing money to a machine, that we just got fleeced by the house.

The Bellagio was the first modern casino to get it right. Because it emphasized the importance of relaxation – it treated the casino as an extension of the hotel lobby, not as a place to suffer through on the way to the lobby – it helped influence gamblers to take bigger risks. Because it’s when we feel safe that we act most recklessly, that we’re most likely to think about the potential rewards of the game and ignore the fact that we just lost hundreds of dollars. Relaxation is the opposite of vigilance. And vigilant people don’t play the slots.

Of course, this psychological principle doesn’t just apply to casinos. The researchers argue that luxury retail spaces have long emphasized a relaxing aesthetic in order to make consumers less sensitive to the extravagant prices. As a result, we worry less about overpaying for a Louis Vuitton bag or a Rolex watch, and think instead about the abstract virtues of the brand. We have been lulled into squandering money.

PS. This is also a reminder that it’s a bad idea to shop while on vacation.

 
 

Sufficiently large X

24 Jun

Victimless Crime

As comic Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal explains, this is what happens when a powerful weapon falls into the wrong hands. Or when someone in power is just plain dumb.

[SMBC via @eagereyes]

 
 

Still Searching: SETI Pioneer Jill Tarter Talks Shutdown, Aliens

28 Apr

For many alien enthusiasts, Jill Tarter is synonymous with the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. As the SETI Institute’s research director — and the inspiration for Jodie Foster’s character in Contact — she’s done more than anyone to raise the search for cosmic company from a fringe effort to serious science.

After receiving a TED prize in 2009, Tarter had grand plans for the Allen Telescope Array, a proposed field of 350 big-nosed radio dishes that would be the world’s only dedicated SETI telescope, as well as its most sensitive. But this week, budget cuts forced the ATA’s existing 42 dishes into hibernation mode. The rest are now just a dream.

Wired.com talked with Jill Tarter about the shutdown and what it means for the future of SETI.

Wired.com: The dishes are in hibernation mode now. What exactly does that mean?

Tarter: It means the array runs on a smaller staff. We keep the caretaker staff. We keep power on the antennas, so the cryogenics stay cold and they don’t get harmed. We just put them in a safe mode. But you can’t operate them, you can’t take data.

Wired.com: Does that mean you’re expecting to bring it back up?

Tarter: We’re doing everything we possibly can to bring it out of hibernation. But that, you know, that requires new funding.

We’re talking with the Air Force, and we’re hopeful for that. But we also need the public to step up and support SETI research, to keep that on an even keel. This unfortunate situation, coming at just the wrong time, when we were just beginning a two-year search of these Kepler worlds — we hope people understand the irony of that.

Wired.com: Tell me about the Kepler project. What were you going to do there?

‘We can expect 50 billion planets in the galaxy, and 500 million of those are likely to be habitable.’

Tarter: Before Kepler launched, we knew about a couple of hundred exoplanets. Most of those were big or right next to their stars. Not likely to be habitable. The Kepler worlds are different. There are 68 of them that are about the same size as Earth, of which it’s calculated that 54 may be in the “Goldilocks” habitable zone. And there’s 1,235 of them altogether, which [extrapolated] gives us the statistic that we can expect 50 billion planets in the galaxy, and 500 million of those are likely to be habitable.

The Kepler results have changed the way we can do our research. We can now point where we know there are likely to be good planet candidates. That’s a change. This is a fantastic new bounty of potential and information.

Wired.com: So you had specific plans to go after the Kepler planets directly?

Tarter: Yes. We’d scoped out a two-year observing program. There’s something called a “water hole” from 1 to 10 gigahertz, where the universe is naturally quiet. We want to search through that.

Wired.com: That makes it a particularly bad time to be shutting down the telescopes.

Artist's rendition inspired by data from the Kepler telescope, courtesy of NASA.

Tarter: It’s a hugely frustrating time. [SETI senior astronomer] Seth Shostak is all over the place with a great one-liner: “It’s as if the Nina, Pinta and Santa Maria were called back to dry dock.”

The other thing we’re doing now, which we’ve never done before, is trying to get the world involved. We’re trying to open up this search so that it isn’t just done in a silo by a tiny priesthood of astronomers.

Every Friday afternoon for the last year, we’ve saved and uploaded into the cloud huge amounts of data, about 10 terabytes altogether. The idea is to allow people who are good at signal processing to help us develop new algorithms to find new classes of signals. We’ve also just put out the first version of a citizen science participatory opportunity [SETIQuest Explorer], which is in beta test now. It’s our first attempt to see whether people can help us find patterns in the data that we haven’t yet built algorithms for.

Having an active global program — not just turning on your computer, installing software, walking away and never thinking about it again, but getting your brain turned on, thinking about the story, thinking about how you’re connected to the cosmos and everybody else on this planet — that’s another mission. But of course that means we have to get the telescope back on the air before we can carry through on that. Now is not a good time to stop. It’s never a good time to stop. We didn’t build these telescopes to put them into hibernation.

‘We’re trying to get the world involved. We’re trying to open up this search so that it isn’t just done in a silo by a tiny priesthood of astronomers.’

Wired.com: What other approaches are there for SETI?

There’s still SETI@Home, which is run by Berkeley and works on data recorded at the Arecibo Observatory. There’s a new collaborative project started by the Japanese called Project Dorothy. LOFAR, a new telescope that looks for signals at low frequency over the Netherlands, Germany, Holland and the U.K., has begun a SETI program. There’s a little bit of SETI in Australia, and SETI is still ongoing at Institute for Radio Astronomy in Argentina.

Wired.com: So there’s hope. The torch is still being carried.

Tarter: Oh, definitely. I’m working harder this morning and yesterday than I ever have before, trying to get the message out. We’re going to find different federal funds, but we really need people invested and engaged and supporting us to keep the funding stable.

Wired.com: How important is it to have continuous observations? If we’re targeting individual Kepler planets, the planets will still be there in 10 years.

Tarter: Sure, the planets will still be there. On the other hand, would it make a difference if you discovered a signal today, as opposed to waiting 10 years? I think it would, [especially] in getting people to recognize that their differences are small. That message is an important one.

Wired.com: What do you think would happen if we discovered a signal today?

Natural radio emissions from the Andromeda galaxy, courtesy of SETI.

Tarter: It would change everything overnight. SETI wouldn’t have any funding problems anymore. People would be eager to see if there was information in the signal. But even if it was only a cosmic dial tone, with no obviously or instantaneously available information, we’d still learn some very fundamental facts.

We’ll learn that technologies can survive a long time. Unless technological civilizations have long lifetimes, we’re never going to succeed in detecting a signal. We have to be close enough in three-dimensional space, and we also have to overlap in time. In the 10-billion-year history of our galaxy, if civilizations only last for 100 years, there’s not going to be any overlap. If we get a signal, it means that technologies, on average, can last a long time.

I’m not saying we’re going to get extraterrestrial salvation, by any means. But I am saying we’ll learn that it’s possible to survive our technological adolescence. That’s where we’re stuck right now, and there are a lot of indications that we won’t make it out of this. A signal would make all the difference, would show that it’s possible. That somebody else did it.

To donate to the Allen Telescope Array and the Kepler worlds project, go to SETI.org.

Full disclosure: This reporter spent a summer at the SETI Institute.

Images: 1, 2 & 4) SETI Institute. 3) NASA.

See Also:

 
 

Daily schedule of Benjamin Franklin

20 Mar

Benjamin Franklin schedule

From Maira Kalman's And the Pursuit of Happiness, this is just too good. It appears that there is in fact enough minutes in the day to get stuff done. What's your daily schedule?

[New York Times via swissmiss]

 
 

Hey Jude flowchart

21 Jan

Hey Jude flowchart

What day is it? Flowchart Friday of course. Old but new to me. Based on the Total Eclipse of the Heart flowchart, this one takes on Hey Jude. Don't get stuck on an infinite loop of na na na na na na na na na...

[Love All This via Laughing Squid | Thanks, John]


 
 

Ex-Apple CEO Gives Away Steve Jobs’ Product Strategy

14 Oct

Remember John Sculley? You know, the ex-Pepsi guy who helped run Apple and eventually forced Steve Jobs out of the company. Yeah, that guy.

Leander Kahney, editor of Cult of Mac and a former Wired.com news editor, has an exclusive interview with Sculley who offers an intriguing explanation of Jobs’ methodology for building great products.

Some of Jobs’ key strategies include beautiful design, minimalism, looking at a product from the customer’s perspective as opposed to relying on focus groups, hiring only the best and rejecting bad work, Sculley told Kahney.

“Steve said: ‘How can I possibly ask somebody what a graphics-based computer ought to be when they have no idea what a graphic based computer is? No one has ever seen one before,’” Sculley said when explaining Jobs’ refusal to use focus groups. “He believed that showing someone a calculator, for example, would not give them any indication as to where the computer was going to go because it was just too big a leap.”

Sculley provides rare insight into Apple’s extremely secretive CEO, who only speaks to a handful of mainstream journalists on occasion. Catch the rest of the interview over at Cult of Mac.

See Also:

Photo of Sculley on a cruise boat: Edyson/Flickr.com

 
 

Ex-Apple CEO Gives Away Steve Jobs’ Product Strategy

14 Oct

Remember John Sculley? You know, the ex-Pepsi guy who helped run Apple and eventually forced Steve Jobs out of the company. Yeah, that guy.

Leander Kahney, editor of Cult of Mac and a former Wired.com news editor, has an exclusive interview with Sculley who offers an intriguing explanation of Jobs’ methodology for building great products.

Some of Jobs’ key strategies include beautiful design, minimalism, looking at a product from the customer’s perspective as opposed to relying on focus groups, hiring only the best and rejecting bad work, Sculley told Kahney.

“Steve said: ‘How can I possibly ask somebody what a graphics-based computer ought to be when they have no idea what a graphic based computer is? No one has ever seen one before,’” Sculley said when explaining Jobs’ refusal to use focus groups. “He believed that showing someone a calculator, for example, would not give them any indication as to where the computer was going to go because it was just too big a leap.”

Sculley provides rare insight into Apple’s extremely secretive CEO, who only speaks to a handful of mainstream journalists on occasion. Catch the rest of the interview over at Cult of Mac.

See Also:

Photo of Sculley on a cruise boat: Edyson/Flickr.com

 
 

Twitter Strangers

20 Jul

Over at Gizmodo, Joel Johnson makes a convincing argument for adding random strangers to your twitter feed:

I realized most of my Twitter friends are like me: white dorks. So I picked out my new friend and started to pay attention.

She’s a Christian, but isn’t afraid of sex. She seems to have some problems trusting men, but she’s not afraid of them, either. She’s very proud of her fiscal responsibility. She looks lovely in her faux modeling shots, although I am surprised how much her style aligns with what I consider mall fashion when she’s a grown woman in her twenties. Her home is Detroit and she’s finding the process of buying a new car totally frustrating. She spends an embarrassing amount of time tweeting responses to the Kardashian family.

One of the best things about Twitter is that, once you’ve populated it with friends genuine or aspirational, it feels like a slow-burn house party you can pop into whenever you like. Yet even though adding random people on Twitter is just a one-click action, most of us prune our follow list very judiciously to prevent tedious or random tweets to pollute our streams. Understandable! But don’t discount the joy of discovery that can come by weaving a stranger’s life into your own.

I’d argue that the benefits of these twitter strangers extend beyond the fleeting pleasures of electronic eavesdropping. Instead, being exposed to a constant stream of unexpected tweets – even when the tweets seem wrong, or nonsensical, or just plain silly – can actually expand our creative potential.

The explanation returns us to the banal predictability of the human imagination. In study after study, when people free-associate, they turn out to not be very free. For instance, if I ask you to free-associate on the word “blue,” chances are your first answer will be “sky”. Your next answer will probably be “ocean,” followed by “green” and, if you’re feeling creative, a noun like “jeans”. The reason for this is simple: Our associations are shaped by language, and language is full of cliches.

How do we escape these cliches? Charlan Nemeth, a psychologist at UC-Berkeley, has found a simple fix. Her experiment went like this: A lab assistant surreptitiously sat in on a group of subjects being shown a variety of color slides. The subjects were asked to identify each of the colors. Most of the slides were obvious, and the group quickly settled into a tedious routine. However, Nemeth instructed her lab assistant to occasionally shout out the wrong answer, so that a red slide would trigger a response of “yellow,” or a blue slide would lead to a reply of “green”. After a few minutes, the group was then asked to free-associate on these same colors. The results were impressive: Groups in the “dissent condition” – these were the people exposed to inaccurate descriptions – came up with much more original associations. Instead of saying that “blue” reminded them of “sky,” or that “green” made them think of “grass,” they were able to expand their loom of associations, so that “blue” might trigger thoughts of “Miles Davis” and “smurfs” and “pie”. The obvious answer had stopped being their only answer. More recently, Nemeth has found that a similar strategy can also lead to improved problem solving on a variety of creative tasks, such as free-associating on ways to improve traffic in the Bay Area.

The power of such “dissent” is really about the power of surprise. After hearing someone shout out an errant answer – this is the shock of hearing blue called “green” – we start to reconsider the meaning of the color. We try to understand this strange reply, which leads us to think about the problem from a new perspective. And so our comfortable associations – the easy association of blue and sky – gets left behind. Our imagination has been stretched by an encounter that we didn’t expect.

And this is why we should all follow strangers on Twitter. We naturally lead manicured lives, so that our favorite blogs and writers and friends all look and think and sound a lot like us. (While waiting in line for my cappuccino this weekend, I was ready to punch myself in the face, as I realized that everyone in line was wearing the exact same uniform: artfully frayed jeans, quirky printed t-shirts, flannel shirts, messy hair, etc. And we were all staring at the same gadget, and probably reading the same damn website. In other words, our pose of idiosyncratic uniqueness was a big charade. Self-loathing alert!) While this strategy might make life a bit more comfortable – strangers can say such strange things – it also means that our cliches of free-association get reinforced. We start thinking in ever more constricted ways.

And this is why following someone unexpected on Twitter can be a small step towards a more open mind. Because not everybody reacts to the same thing in the same way. Sometimes, it takes a confederate in an experiment to remind us of that. And sometimes, all it takes is a stranger on the internet, exposing us to a new way of thinking about God, Detroit and the Kardashians.