In Introductions and Conclusions, it is stated that introductions consist of contextualizing the background of your issue, stating the problem, and responding to said problem. By setting up an introduction using the Context-Problem-Response formula, it allows for the reader to get really invested in your paper and wish to read more. To start off, the writer has to contextualize their information which is called “common ground” due to the fact that it “establishes a shared understanding between reader and writer about the general issue the writer will address.” (225) Following this the writer must state their problem and convince the reader that their research problem is significant and once it is resolved it will benefit everyone. After stating your problem, it is suggested that the writer ask, “So what?” Following this is the solution. In an introduction the writer can go one of two ways- they can promise that their issue will be solved later on in the essay or explicitly state the main points of what your solution is about. The author makes note that introductions do not necessarily always need all three parts of the Common Ground+Problem+Response set up because it depends on what your reader is familiar with regarding the topic you write about. However, this form allows the reader to find their way through the essay easier, and have them think more deeply about the topic at hand.
Sunday, November 15, 2015
Friday, November 6, 2015
Ch. 12 Predictably Irrational Summary and Response
In chapter 12 of Predictably Irrational, author Dan Ariely explains that people will very easily be dishonest and cheat when they are one step removed from cash, or using non-monetary object before cash. Ariely performed another test looking for similar results. He set up three different groups, the first of which was the test group that had five minutes to solve 20 math questions and with each correct answer they received 50 cents. The second group had the same exact rules except after they finished the questions they were allowed to tear of their papers and tell the grader how many they got right for money. This provided an opportunity to be dishonest. The last group had the same conditions as the second group but were telling a grader their answers in exchange for coins that held no value. These coins were then traded in for actual money. Ariely discovered that the last group lied the most out of the control group and the second group because there was an insertion of a token into the transaction that made the students less honest because they weren’t directly lying for money. This group ‘solved’ 5.9 more problems than the control group that didn't have any options of cheating. This proved that given the chance, people will cheat, but only if it’s a step away from actual money.
According to Ariely, cheating is easier when you're one step removed from cash because it is easier rationalize why we do certain dishonest acts. People who cheat or are dishonest when one step removed from actual money would most likely consider themselves honest people and would never actually want to steal actual money from people. Ariely performed several experiments to see if his theory was accurate, one of which involved putting a six-pack of coke in a college dormitory fridge as well as a plate with six one dollar bills on it. Ariely tested to see how long it would take until all of each item was taken, and soon found out it took less than 72 hours for all of the coke’s to be taken, yet the money was never stolen. Ariely concluded that people rarely cheat or be dishonest with cold hard cash, but they will be dishonest when something is one step removed from money because it is easier to justify. This was shown in his testing example that I stated in my summary. This type of cheating relates directly to insurance fraud. When people report losses in their homes or with their cars they tend to exaggerate their claims by around 10%. For example, Ariely says that if someone owned a 27 inch television they would say that a 32 inch television was stolen from them. People who do this would be very unlikely to steal money directly from their insurance companies but by telling a lie about how grand their product was makes their lying justifiable. The rise of identity theft in America can be explained by Ariely's theory because people are not directly stealing money from people but rather are using a different mode to access these victims money. Ariely also looks into banks and what they are doing with credit card rates and how when people don't pay their bills in full the credit issuer will charge them a higher interest rate and charge interest rate on past purchases. This is an example of a company indirectly stealing from someone.
According to Ariely, cheating is easier when you're one step removed from cash because it is easier rationalize why we do certain dishonest acts. People who cheat or are dishonest when one step removed from actual money would most likely consider themselves honest people and would never actually want to steal actual money from people. Ariely performed several experiments to see if his theory was accurate, one of which involved putting a six-pack of coke in a college dormitory fridge as well as a plate with six one dollar bills on it. Ariely tested to see how long it would take until all of each item was taken, and soon found out it took less than 72 hours for all of the coke’s to be taken, yet the money was never stolen. Ariely concluded that people rarely cheat or be dishonest with cold hard cash, but they will be dishonest when something is one step removed from money because it is easier to justify. This was shown in his testing example that I stated in my summary. This type of cheating relates directly to insurance fraud. When people report losses in their homes or with their cars they tend to exaggerate their claims by around 10%. For example, Ariely says that if someone owned a 27 inch television they would say that a 32 inch television was stolen from them. People who do this would be very unlikely to steal money directly from their insurance companies but by telling a lie about how grand their product was makes their lying justifiable. The rise of identity theft in America can be explained by Ariely's theory because people are not directly stealing money from people but rather are using a different mode to access these victims money. Ariely also looks into banks and what they are doing with credit card rates and how when people don't pay their bills in full the credit issuer will charge them a higher interest rate and charge interest rate on past purchases. This is an example of a company indirectly stealing from someone.
Wednesday, November 4, 2015
Ch. 11 of Predictably Irrational- Summary and Response
In Chapter 11 of Dan Ariely’s book, Predictably Irrational, he discusses how there are different types of dishonesty, and how we perceive dishonesty differently by who does the dishonest acts and what kind of acts they are. Ariel explain that there is the standard image of dishonesty that appears in the form of crooks circling around a gas station, debating whether or not they should rob it. The second image is that of people who would typically consider themselves to be honest people- these are the people who might take a pen from a conference site or take some extra soda from a drink dispenser. This second group it the one Ariely decided to test to see how prevalent this type of honesty was. his subjects consisted of students from Harvard University. Ariel asked the students to take a test of 50 multiple choice questions in 15 minutes. The students then had to transfer their answers to a scoring sheet (bubble sheet). However, Ariely broke this process up into four groups to test dishonesty. One group twas the group Ariely compared the other three to- these were just students who took the test normally and just transferred their answers to the bubble sheet. The second group had premarked correct answers on their bubble sheet, the third, had premarked answers and and could shred their original worksheet, and the fourth could shred both the original worksheet and the premarked bubble sheet. Ariel’s results showed that each group with the premarked bubble sheet cheated- but only slightly. Even though they were given the chance to cheat more, they chose to play it safe. Ariel claims that there is a cost-benefit analysis when it comes to honesty or dishonesty. Ariel claims that honesty is important to people, but that people’s internal honesty monitor in the Superego is only active when people think about committing big transgressions. Ariely suggests that if people use non-religious benchmarks that make people think about honesty before the take tests, for example, it may reduce the amount of dishonesty we see.
Dan Ariely states that in order to curb dishonesty in our lives we should have reminders of honesty before we do anything important. SO little reminders before people make big decisions can curb dishonesty. Students deal with a great deal of temptation on a daily basis. We deal with the temptation of what Ariely already mentioned, that of cheating, especially in classes where the teachers aren’t as stern or attentive. We also face temptation to skip class for extra time to sleep, hang out with friends, or to catch up on work. There is also temptation from friends to go out and not do work. Students commit small transgressions, like maybe doing an assignment and copying some answers from a friend and rewording them or perhaps lying to their teachers about why their assignments aren’t completed (ex: my computer isn’t working).
Dan Ariely states that in order to curb dishonesty in our lives we should have reminders of honesty before we do anything important. SO little reminders before people make big decisions can curb dishonesty. Students deal with a great deal of temptation on a daily basis. We deal with the temptation of what Ariely already mentioned, that of cheating, especially in classes where the teachers aren’t as stern or attentive. We also face temptation to skip class for extra time to sleep, hang out with friends, or to catch up on work. There is also temptation from friends to go out and not do work. Students commit small transgressions, like maybe doing an assignment and copying some answers from a friend and rewording them or perhaps lying to their teachers about why their assignments aren’t completed (ex: my computer isn’t working).
Monday, November 2, 2015
Chapter 2 Summary and Response for Predictably Irrational
In Dan Ariely’s 2008 book, Predictably Irrational, he explains how the first price we see for a good or experience affects how much we are willing to pay in the future. Ariely compares the human brain to that of a gosling which imprints on the first thing it sees after birth. Ariely claims consumers anchor to the first price they see and that arbitrary coherence, or when initial prices shape present and future prices we see, is very present in peoples minds. Both of these were shown in the class experiments Ariely and his colleagues did at MIT where they asked students to use the last two digits of their social security numbers to determine if they would pay that price for a given list of goods. They then asked them to indicate what the maximum amount they would pay for each object was. Their starting number affected their decisions in the future meaning, if they had a lower number at the start they were willing to pay less for items. The same thing happened to the people starting off with higher numbers- they were willing to pay higher prices for the exact same items. Ariely explains how price tags become anchors when the consumer considers buying something at the particular price it is offered at. This affects all future decisions. Ariely also claims that humans participate in herding and self-herding which happens when the consumer thinks something is good or bad based not heir previous behavior. Ariely shows this in an example of someone who switches from buying Dunkin’ Donuts coffee to slowly becoming a committed Starbucks fan. This shows that anchors can switch over time. In all, Ariely claims that the first choices we make heavily influence the choices we make in the future.
In Dan Ariely’s book, Predictably Irrational, anchoring is described as the first price the consumer sees. Arbitrary coherence is described by Ariely as, “although initial prices are arbitrary, once those prices are established in our minds they will shape not only present prices but also future prices.” (p. 26) As Ariely and his colleagues class experiments show, if you start off paying a higher price, that determines how much you are willing to pay for things in the future (you’ll pay higher prices for items). If you start with lower prices, you will also pay lower prices for certain items. So if a person worked really hard to raise $3,000 for a used car, they would most likely be a more frugal consumer in the future, not only because that student worked hard for their money, but because $3,000 of a car isn’t very expensive. They would stick to their anchor price. Ariely also discusses how it is assumed that consumers willingness to pay is one of the two inputs that determine demand or market prices as they’re also known. But Ariely’s experiments shows that consumers can be easily manipulated which means they really don’t have a good control over what they want and how much they’re willing to pay for various goods and experiences. Also, supply and demand are dependent forces, not independent. Market prices influence how much consumers are wiling to pay for things showing how supply and demand are connected entities. This is the fallacy of supply and demand.
In Dan Ariely’s book, Predictably Irrational, anchoring is described as the first price the consumer sees. Arbitrary coherence is described by Ariely as, “although initial prices are arbitrary, once those prices are established in our minds they will shape not only present prices but also future prices.” (p. 26) As Ariely and his colleagues class experiments show, if you start off paying a higher price, that determines how much you are willing to pay for things in the future (you’ll pay higher prices for items). If you start with lower prices, you will also pay lower prices for certain items. So if a person worked really hard to raise $3,000 for a used car, they would most likely be a more frugal consumer in the future, not only because that student worked hard for their money, but because $3,000 of a car isn’t very expensive. They would stick to their anchor price. Ariely also discusses how it is assumed that consumers willingness to pay is one of the two inputs that determine demand or market prices as they’re also known. But Ariely’s experiments shows that consumers can be easily manipulated which means they really don’t have a good control over what they want and how much they’re willing to pay for various goods and experiences. Also, supply and demand are dependent forces, not independent. Market prices influence how much consumers are wiling to pay for things showing how supply and demand are connected entities. This is the fallacy of supply and demand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)