Lottery Ticket Approach Leads to Reduction in HIV Prevalence(foreignpolicy.com)
foreignpolicy.com
Lottery Ticket Approach Leads to Reduction in HIV Prevalence
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/05/12/lottery-ticket-approach-leads-to-drastic-reduction-in-hiv-prevalence/?utm_content=buffer037f2&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
2 comments
This is indeed where the article goes, but I suggest risk is overstated as a factor here.
Everyone knows they should be tested, so an incentive to actually go and do it doesn't need to be large or meaningful. This also acts as a genuine acknowledgement by the state that this is important and that it's without taboo.
Testing reduces everyone's chance of being infected - so it ought to reduce risk-takers' chances proportionately more, lottery or not.
Everyone knows they should be tested, so an incentive to actually go and do it doesn't need to be large or meaningful. This also acts as a genuine acknowledgement by the state that this is important and that it's without taboo.
Testing reduces everyone's chance of being infected - so it ought to reduce risk-takers' chances proportionately more, lottery or not.
I'm not sure how I feel about using "game-y" things to convince people to do stuff, especially when we're talking about serious stuff.
In Portugal a similar strategy was used to hinder tax evasion, where you got a chance (a ticket, so to speak) to win a car for each receipt you demanded on every purchase you made. (I'm oversimplifying a bit, I think)
It somehow feels like cheating/manipulating people, since we are terrible at estimating very small odds, making this kind of stuff an effective strategy with a very small cost for whoever provides the prize.
In Portugal a similar strategy was used to hinder tax evasion, where you got a chance (a ticket, so to speak) to win a car for each receipt you demanded on every purchase you made. (I'm oversimplifying a bit, I think)
It somehow feels like cheating/manipulating people, since we are terrible at estimating very small odds, making this kind of stuff an effective strategy with a very small cost for whoever provides the prize.
Your chance of winning money may be tiny, but your chance of actually not dying of a AIDS went way up. Pay for the infinitessimal chance of a coffee, receive a donut instead. Tasty, tasty donut.
Yeah, but the will to actually not dying of AIDS should be taught somehow. Otherwise, you are covering up the problem. In a year the lottery goes away, AIDS comes up again.
Just like fixing a bug superficially instead of going for the root.
If you wanted donuts you could've just get them in the first place.
I am not saying the results aren't positive, or that they aren't better than nothing. But I don't think this solves anything in the long term, and the manipulative and "the ends justify the means" approach rings the "should this really be done?" alarm bell in my mind.
Just like fixing a bug superficially instead of going for the root.
If you wanted donuts you could've just get them in the first place.
I am not saying the results aren't positive, or that they aren't better than nothing. But I don't think this solves anything in the long term, and the manipulative and "the ends justify the means" approach rings the "should this really be done?" alarm bell in my mind.
One reason that HIV infection is high is because it's a taboo subject. The government can affect this taboo status through education, yes, and also this way.
Punishing HIV positive people (for example, by making it illegal for them to enter the country) contributes to this taboo. Giving a government-mandated lottery ticket mitigates the taboo, and it's my belief that this will have lasting positive consequences even after the lottery goes away.
Also, people not getting infected today are not infecting people tomorrow (exponentially). Stopping infections today is exactly the right thing to do for the long-term.
Punishing HIV positive people (for example, by making it illegal for them to enter the country) contributes to this taboo. Giving a government-mandated lottery ticket mitigates the taboo, and it's my belief that this will have lasting positive consequences even after the lottery goes away.
Also, people not getting infected today are not infecting people tomorrow (exponentially). Stopping infections today is exactly the right thing to do for the long-term.
Weel, in the long term, the only thing that solves anything is probably a vaccine/cure. There are other initiatives also.
If this is true, then the alarm in my mind won't ring: The lotteries led to a 21.4 percent reduction in HIV incidence among participants over a two-year period, and a reduction of more than 60 percent among participants identified as “risk-loving individuals” — those who were identified at the study’s start as people who enjoyed risky behavior."
If this is true, then the alarm in my mind won't ring: The lotteries led to a 21.4 percent reduction in HIV incidence among participants over a two-year period, and a reduction of more than 60 percent among participants identified as “risk-loving individuals” — those who were identified at the study’s start as people who enjoyed risky behavior."
This kind of thing is apparently known as "Nudge theory": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_theory
It happens all the time everywhere anyway. Advertising, regular non-AIDS-related lotteries, law enforcement, even simple things like traffic signals, all are "game-y" to some extent. At least this instance is using it to accomplish something good, instead of just convincing people to consume a different brand of sugar water.
I understand the reluctance to use persuasive tactics like this. But in a practical sense, if being principled means avoiding anything "game-y" then all you're saying is that the world is to be run by non-principled people.
I understand the reluctance to use persuasive tactics like this. But in a practical sense, if being principled means avoiding anything "game-y" then all you're saying is that the world is to be run by non-principled people.
> I'm not sure how I feel about using "game-y" things to convince people to do stuff, especially when we're talking about serious stuff.
I see it as a tool, usable for both good and bad. Taking manipulation of others out of the equation: Would you have concerns "gameifying" things for yourself, on your own behalf, as a form of self manipulation?
I see it as a tool, usable for both good and bad. Taking manipulation of others out of the equation: Would you have concerns "gameifying" things for yourself, on your own behalf, as a form of self manipulation?
I wouldn't, because it would be a decision by me and for me. It is precisely the manipulative aspect that I am concerned with.
I am not against it, in this specific case, but the "end justifying the means" message it seems to send doesn't ring too well.
I am not against it, in this specific case, but the "end justifying the means" message it seems to send doesn't ring too well.
I agree. To me it also has echos of colonialism, as there's an overtone of "We just can't get the residents in Lesotho to stop contracting HIV so we, the (European) rich non-natives, are going to bribe the poor natives into taking care of themselves. Aren't we just so benevolent!" It reminds me of the picture of the Turkish officials with bread in the Armenian genocide.[1]
[1]http://rarehistoricalphotos.com/turkish-official-teasing-sta...
[1]http://rarehistoricalphotos.com/turkish-official-teasing-sta...
Clever.