Talk:Perverse incentive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

I deleted this, as it is not an example of a perverse incentive (not to mention the fact it's rather silly):

"A glazier can generate business by encouraging vandals to smash windows."

If i may respond: If a glazier creates an incentive for vandals to smash as much glass tonight as they can, then the likihood is that the vandals will visit establishments whom have the most glass. For example, the glazier's place of business. If the glazier indended his glass to be smashed (for example, to make a bogus insurance claim) then it is not a perverse incentive. If he did not expect his own glass to be destroyed, then it is. So long as the incentive leads to an unexpected consequence for the glazier, then it is a perverse incentive. Acssm 11:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm seeing some examples on this page that would be better suited for "Side-Effect" or "Unintended consequences".

With respect to the question re: the worthiness of the Glazier statement as an example of perverse incentive:

If the statement were to read, "A glazier can generate business by paying vandals to smash windows" then I believe you would have a perverse incentive. --Dewbrain 19:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requests for citation

Someone has placed "citation needed" notes all over this page, including in spots where I don't think they are required. While I appreciate the importance of providing citations, I think citations ought to be restricted to those passages that are either obviously a matter of opinion, or highly debated. Statements based on straight forward logic, or common knowledge, should not require citations to back them up. The statements like "Mexico lies south of the USA", "elephants are usually bigger than mice", or "World War II ended in 1945", do not need to be cited. They are common knowledge. Similarly, if a statement is based on a combination of common knowledge and simple logic, then it shouldn't need to be cited. For example, there are a lot more people living on the earth today than there were 1000 years ago (common knowledge). Logically then, we can conclude that the reason more people died in the year 2004, than did in the year 1004, is that there are simply a lot more people around today than there were a thousand years ago. We ought not to have to provide a citation for this statement. It is fairly obvious. For the same reasons, many of the examples, for which someone has requested citations, do not, in my oppinion, require citations. They are common knowledge & straight forward logic. Northern Bear 21:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

For example, someone requested a citation for the statement "When it is illegal to sell to minors but legal to sell to adults, drug dealers have an incentive to refuse to sell to children."
I don't think that needs any citation. It is common sense. All it says, is that if X is illegal, there will be an incentive not to do X. It is common knowledge that breaking the law can result in penalties, and it is common sense that people do not like receiving penalties and so have an incentive not to break the law. Why should this require a citation?Northern Bear 21:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Agree 20% with the tags Examplefarm and Prose

Alerted by the tags I agree, some of the examples seem not much illuminating. While I was about to remove a few, I'd add others. Checked on the tag "Examplefarm" and found 7 occurrences in all of Wikipedia. Although that tag links to Wikipedia:Writing better articles, I find no support there for having fewer examples. As for the remaining 80%, I do not see how fewer examples would improve readability and support understanding for our readers. Or changing this article to prose, for that matter.

I'd add (not sure I got the citation syntax right)

Paying architects and engineers for what they spend, not for what they save. [1]

Paying medical professionals and reimbursing insured patients for treatment but not for prevention. [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernd in Japan (talk • contribs) 09:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Signature added Bernd in Japan (talk) 09:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)