

'Pay it forward' pays off - ojbyrne
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-03/uoc--if030510.php

======
carterac
It's interesting how truth can be revealed through empirical research and also
art.

As someone who started out as purely a math, physics, hyper-rationalist type
of person, I used to think truth could only be found in empirical studies like
this one.

However, the results of this study became apparent to me several years ago,
largely due to watching the film Princess Mononoke. Since then, I've lived a
happier more fulfilling life.

@nazgulnarsil: I think both (the study and the film) have extremely applicable
conclusions that make them worthwhile to pay attention to: Since there is a
multiplier effect on all of your actions, don't do bad things and do do good
things. Or more simply, Karma exists. Just because the conclusion is simple,
doesn't mean it can't have powerful effects.

~~~
huherto
"Karma exists"

That is definitely true. I don't think there anything magical about it though.
When you damage somebody, that person may kick you back. Even if they don't,
if you keep acting that way eventually somebody will. Doing wrong also has a
bad effect on your self esteem. That's got to affect you. There is also the
issue of your reputation. Acting wrongly will definitely damage it. The same
applies for doing good.

------
nazgulnarsil
what exactly does this study tell us that we didn't know before?

edit: I'm going to assume down votes without a response don't have anything
more solid than the article's nebulous bullshit.

~~~
ryanelkins
Are you really going to say you "knew" this rather than perhaps assumed it?
The test may not be perfect but it is some sort of proof beyond anecdotal
evidence.

Also I'd say down votes are because you made a accusatory statement without
any sort of thought behind it.

~~~
nazgulnarsil
I read the article, saw no conclusion that was novel or applicable, saw the 18
upvotes...

~~~
idm
You're doing your science wrong.

The upvotes are because the conclusion is novel.

~~~
nazgulnarsil
let me rephrase: what quantitative predictions can I make using the results of
this study?

~~~
idm
A relevant quantitative prediction would be of this form:

When participants are randomly divided into two experimental conditions,
"donation" and "no-donation", participants in the donation condition donate
significantly more than no-donation participants. The amount of donation is
the dependent variable - it's the way you measure, quantitatively, that the
experimental manipulation caused the participants to behave differently.

EDIT: I forgot the prediction part. So, I predict that this "donation effect"
generalizes. If I ran a charity and I wanted to increase donations, then I
might predict that if I gave something to potential donors, they would donate
more when they were given the chance. I'd measure the outcome in terms of
dollars donated.

~~~
nazgulnarsil
this study explicitly controls for reciprocity effects though.

