Quote Originally Posted by c1ue View Post
The problem here is that the assignation of value was not determined by me, but by the economists analyzing the experiment.

Furthermore if you actually bothered to look into these experiments, perhaps you could either provide an understanding of the 'subjective' value or - less likely - acknowledge that you don't know what you're talking about.
You won't even give the title of these experiments so there really isn't anything to look up. I have no way of knowing if you are interpreting the results of these alleged experiments correctly or if you are doing what you normally do, which is to use words sloppily when discussing economics. Besides, if the economics' metrics of values were being used and compared, yet it was the participants' actions which resulted in gains or losses, then of course there would be a disconnect.

A small example: even if you tell me what to value in a given experiment, then there's still no guarantee that I will do certain actions as if I value what you have told me to value. If I value what you value, or place value in your perception of my value, then I will behave appropriately. Value is inherently subjective and constantly changing to some degree or another.

Quote Originally Posted by c1ue
For example: I posted a recent experiment where the subject were told that the data in question consisted of completely random coin flips.

The subjects knew explicitly then that the results of said coin flips are completely random and furthermore are 50% either heads or tails.

Yet communication of 'successful tips' via results segregation led to those receiving the segregated successes choosing to subscribe to said service.

Riddle me then the thought process which takes a completely random event - which you know to be random - and then causes you to subscribe to a service which purports to predict the result.
(Bold emphasis mine.)
There are plenty of reasons why people would do such a thing. First of all, what was at stake in that experiment? I see that the questionnaire was incentivized at S$0.20 per question, but I can't find the trade-in value of the tokens. Was it also S$0.20 per token? Regardless of what is at stake, do you assume that all participants value the tokens or the money equally? If so, why? All participants were undergraduates evidently, but what was their financial state?

Further, do you understand what other things they could value more than tokens or twenty Singapore cents? Of course you do, you mention it enough. Perhaps they valued simply being alleviated of the responsibility of making the choice. Value is entirely subjective in economics, after all. You can try to say that money, for example, is objectively valued to one degree or another, but if you don't acknowledge that even a given quantity of money can be valued differently by different individuals then you seriously lack a realistic perspective on the human experience.