Share good ideas and conversation.   Login, Join Us, or Take a Tour!
comment

People keep on criticism the methodology of the study. It's fair game.

Here is a more detailed report about the study:

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/8/e1600451

What I like in the methodology:

-Real significient price for winners of the games.

-Random pairing of player.

-the grouping of similar behavior was statistic (5 groups was the optimal solution according to "Davies-Bouldin index". This index might be bullshit, but ....hey... sometime you have to be trusting )

-The grouping seems statistically sound and simple (minimize dispersion in cluster)

What I dont like:

-sample size coming from a fair (might skew the population toward certain type)

-They could have report other statistical ways of grouping people to see it the result were still coherent.

And btw it's not a personality test per se. It's a solution to the old problem of rational agent in economy.

It might be a more precise separation than risk-adverse and risk-takers. And it only apply in collaborative interaction with perfect information (everyone know the chance, and payoff of their decision before hand.. Which never happen in real life)

Still a nice tool to have.