Facial expression software confirms bronze medalists happier than silver(twin-cities.umn.edu)
twin-cities.umn.edu
Facial expression software confirms bronze medalists happier than silver
https://twin-cities.umn.edu/news-events/facial-expression-software-knows-which-olympic-medal-makes-you-happier-and-why
141 comments
Well, there's a silver lining (pun intended), which is that the silver medal is made out of pure silver and is therefore worth much more than the bronze medal.
The gold medal is made of solid silver that is plated by a small amount (4oz, IIRC) of gold. EDIT: 6 grams, not 4oz, as pointed out below.
The gold medal is made of solid silver that is plated by a small amount (4oz, IIRC) of gold. EDIT: 6 grams, not 4oz, as pointed out below.
This is one of the things I find most annoying about the Olympics. Oh you spend billions on useless frivolous things. And then the literal gold medal is fake.
It doesn't matter if the gold metal is fake. Assuming you can prove it's real, a gold coated hunk of silver that was a real medal in the Olympics has to be worth more than an equivalent amount (weight or volume) of gold. The same reason no one is concerned about the intrinsic value of dollars.
There was, if I recall, an example of two Olympians melting down their medals because of some totalitarian government (Jews in 1940's Germany?) The medals were later recast. Only example I know of of the base value being worth more.
Meanwhile, it helps athletes. Because you have to pay income tax on the base metal value, not the assumed collector value. Although the US may have exempted medals from income taxes??
There was, if I recall, an example of two Olympians melting down their medals because of some totalitarian government (Jews in 1940's Germany?) The medals were later recast. Only example I know of of the base value being worth more.
Meanwhile, it helps athletes. Because you have to pay income tax on the base metal value, not the assumed collector value. Although the US may have exempted medals from income taxes??
In the US, the prize money and value of the medals is exempted from income for athletes earning less than $1M.
https://www.espn.com/olympics/story/_/id/17740769/obama-ends...
https://www.espn.com/olympics/story/_/id/17740769/obama-ends...
The additional cost might be a small percentage of the budget but what does it buy you? If you can't justify it, it will get cut. All the other frivolous things have pointy haired managers advocating for them.
This happens a lot for any sport considered fun or prestigious. For example the prize money from competitive programming in the 2000s was actually pretty decent (topcoder paid out 100k total). Then they realized the top people will still show up even if there's no prize.
This happens a lot for any sport considered fun or prestigious. For example the prize money from competitive programming in the 2000s was actually pretty decent (topcoder paid out 100k total). Then they realized the top people will still show up even if there's no prize.
Oh I definitely understand. I just think it's ridiculous. The event is about the olympians. Spending a fraction of a percent of the budget of the event on the price seems fair.
Oh boy, if I am the best in the whole world at my discipline, and my performance has been broadcasted to everybody, and there's billions here and there made because of it. For sure I want my damn medal to be pure gold.
Unless they made the medals much smaller, that would be incredibly expensive. They give out thousands of medals, after all. Someone smarter than me can calculate the cost based on the size of the medals and the density of gold.
Also, athletes would probably feel more pressure to sell their medals if they were solid gold. That would enrich them, which is good, but there's something to be said for the medals remaining in the hands of the athletes.
Also, athletes would probably feel more pressure to sell their medals if they were solid gold. That would enrich them, which is good, but there's something to be said for the medals remaining in the hands of the athletes.
I once calculated it and came to the conclusion it was easily doable for the medals to be pure gold.
Let's take the Rio 2016 medal as a reference. It has 494g of silver and 6g of gold. For a cost of $564 [1]. There were 307 gold medals awarded[2]. This comes to a total of 173148$ for the medals.
Let's take the worst possible conversion. i.e. you want a solid gold medal with the same volume as the original. Silver has a density of 10,49g per cubic centimeter and gold has a density of 19.32g per cubic centimeter. So to get the same volume we need 910g of gold to replace the silver. Price of gold per gram in 2016 was about 40$. So this 910g of gold would cost 36400$. For a total gold medal price of 53,329,584$. Let's ignore the silver you no longer need since it's not that significant.
For reference the entirety of the rio olympics cost 13.2 billion[3]. Having solid gold medals would be about 0.4% additional cost. Yes it's a lot of money but it doesn't seem unrealistic to me at all.
[1] https://somethingborrowedpdx.com/how-much-does-a-olympic-gol...
[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Summer_Olympics_medal_tab....
[3] https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1051553/cost-of-rio-...
Let's take the Rio 2016 medal as a reference. It has 494g of silver and 6g of gold. For a cost of $564 [1]. There were 307 gold medals awarded[2]. This comes to a total of 173148$ for the medals.
Let's take the worst possible conversion. i.e. you want a solid gold medal with the same volume as the original. Silver has a density of 10,49g per cubic centimeter and gold has a density of 19.32g per cubic centimeter. So to get the same volume we need 910g of gold to replace the silver. Price of gold per gram in 2016 was about 40$. So this 910g of gold would cost 36400$. For a total gold medal price of 53,329,584$. Let's ignore the silver you no longer need since it's not that significant.
For reference the entirety of the rio olympics cost 13.2 billion[3]. Having solid gold medals would be about 0.4% additional cost. Yes it's a lot of money but it doesn't seem unrealistic to me at all.
[1] https://somethingborrowedpdx.com/how-much-does-a-olympic-gol...
[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Summer_Olympics_medal_tab....
[3] https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1051553/cost-of-rio-...
it's not the cost that matters, its the uselessness and hugely increased security risk.
Then why not just make them out of steel, or aluminum, or--hell--plastic?
Clearly, the composition of the medal has symbolic value beyond "usefulness". Also, I expect an Olympic medal is worth at least a little more than any ol' hunk of the same constituent materials. So it's not like they are without risk as is.
Clearly, the composition of the medal has symbolic value beyond "usefulness". Also, I expect an Olympic medal is worth at least a little more than any ol' hunk of the same constituent materials. So it's not like they are without risk as is.
If you know Rio, then a less valuable gold medal seems to be a good thing.
> There were 307 gold medals awarded
Does that account for team sports, or Paralympics?
Does that account for team sports, or Paralympics?
It doesn't include team sport and the paralympics. But I wouldn't include the paralympics anyway, just like I wouldn't include the youth olympics. Team sport actually does have to be counted. But I don't think it changes the conclusion. By far the most olympic sports are solo.
Even if only 10% of olympic sports were team sports - but those teams were things like basketball/soccer/volleyball that have 15+ players per team - that would mean the majority of medals given out are to people who were on a team.
Teams are hardly as large as 15+. Of course the athletes that don't compete are not given medals. Even if you more then double the amount I calculated let's say 1%. That's still a reasonable price pool.
Edit: this is wrong, see the comment below, I misunderstood an article that said "339 medals will be awarded". It's 339 events will be contested, and of course team events have multiple medals.
Well, not really thousands of medals - in this year's summer games there will be 339 medals awarded, so 113 gold medals.
Tokyo gold medals weigh 556g, so if they were solid gold (their weight would differ a bit but be in the same ball park) each gold medal would be worth nearly $33,000 just in metal costs, which would work out to a total of $3,694,286 for all the gold medals.
Well, not really thousands of medals - in this year's summer games there will be 339 medals awarded, so 113 gold medals.
Tokyo gold medals weigh 556g, so if they were solid gold (their weight would differ a bit but be in the same ball park) each gold medal would be worth nearly $33,000 just in metal costs, which would work out to a total of $3,694,286 for all the gold medals.
I think you miscalculated. 339 sets of medals will be given for a total of 5000. Also, the Paralympic Games add some more medals.
So the actual number will be north of 10 million it seems.
So the actual number will be north of 10 million it seems.
So, around 0.1% of the cost of putting on the games?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-tokyo-olympics-staggering-p...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-tokyo-olympics-staggering-p...
The extra security around all this gold would probably end up costing more than the medals themselves.
> their weight would differ a bit but be in the same ball park
Apparently gold is nearly twice as dense as silver: https://www.edrsilver.com/English/ceo-corner/ceo-corner-deta...
Apparently gold is nearly twice as dense as silver: https://www.edrsilver.com/English/ceo-corner/ceo-corner-deta...
Gold is also nearly twice as dense as lead (which is around 11g/cm^3, slightly more than silver.)
[deleted]
4oz would be a large amount of gold, over $7000 worth.
From an article I read:
This year's medals are made from material recycled from electronic devices donated by the people of Japan. However, Olympic gold medals are required to be made from at least 92.5% silver, and must contain a minimum of six grams of gold. The Tokyo 2020 Olympic gold medals contain more than six grams of gold plating on pure silver. Silver medals are pure silver while bronze medals are red brass (95% copper and 5% zinc). The Olympic gold medals at Tokyo 2020 weigh roughly 556g, with silver weighing 550g and bronze 450g.
From an article I read:
This year's medals are made from material recycled from electronic devices donated by the people of Japan. However, Olympic gold medals are required to be made from at least 92.5% silver, and must contain a minimum of six grams of gold. The Tokyo 2020 Olympic gold medals contain more than six grams of gold plating on pure silver. Silver medals are pure silver while bronze medals are red brass (95% copper and 5% zinc). The Olympic gold medals at Tokyo 2020 weigh roughly 556g, with silver weighing 550g and bronze 450g.
That's why I think there should be two silver medals, immediately given to the winner of two semi-finals.
If you think about any sport with a one-on-one final, the silver medal is for the loser of that final. But the same team/athlete won a semi-final and were probably excited when they did. So just hand them the medal at that point.
Things are a tad more complicated for tournaments with 3+n finalists. But I have the feeling that being the second-fastest out of ten sprinters is not a bad thing.
If you think about any sport with a one-on-one final, the silver medal is for the loser of that final. But the same team/athlete won a semi-final and were probably excited when they did. So just hand them the medal at that point.
Things are a tad more complicated for tournaments with 3+n finalists. But I have the feeling that being the second-fastest out of ten sprinters is not a bad thing.
If they introduced a 4th place medal, would the bronze medalists feel worse?
Remember the McKayla Maroney "not impressed" meme? Silver medal.
[deleted]
I did not see any mention of the type of sports they analysed. I think it makes a big difference, e.g. winning silver in a tournament type competition like basketball means you lost your last game, whereas winning bronze means you won your last game. On the other hand a 100 meter dash is 8 people racing all at the same time, so winning silver does not feel like losing gold as much to me. You still beat out the bronze medalist in direct competition.
edit: but of course, it's also common that there are two big names in a competition, so winning silver in that case means you lost gold.
edit: but of course, it's also common that there are two big names in a competition, so winning silver in that case means you lost gold.
Due to the 3 place podium, regardless of the type of competition second place looks like narrowly missing a total win, while third place looks like narrowly missing a total loss. People tend to look at the alternative to decide their relative feelings.
It's why even tragic situations can be an opportunity to be happy because the alternative is even worse, while some happy situations can be disappointing because they could have been so much better. Or the stock market where a modest win that could have been huge might feel worse than a loss that could have been huge.
It's why even tragic situations can be an opportunity to be happy because the alternative is even worse, while some happy situations can be disappointing because they could have been so much better. Or the stock market where a modest win that could have been huge might feel worse than a loss that could have been huge.
[deleted]
Yes, IIRC, for Formula One there was a saying ages ago that the 3 most unhappy participants after a race are 2nd place (did not win), 4th place (did not get to be on the podium) and 7th place (did not get any points).
edit: Now I looked at it again and I see that F1 has adjusted their points system throughout the following years, so you need to replace the 7th place with whatever is relevant now.
edit: Now I looked at it again and I see that F1 has adjusted their points system throughout the following years, so you need to replace the 7th place with whatever is relevant now.
They simplified F1 a bit. Now the most unhappy participants are Haas.
What do you mean by Haas?
Just a bit more context that might explain why Haas might be the unhappy ones currently. There's a lot of capital-D Drama surrounding the team right now but I'll stick to these two facts:
- Due to financial reasons they had to let go their veteran drivers (just two in F1) from last season and are currently featuring an all-rookie line up.
- They've gone on record to say that they are not developing the 2021 car, instead focusing on the specs change for 2022.
So two rookies in a team that is basically just in the competition for the participation. At least one driver from Williams, the bottom feeders a season or two ago, have the chutzpah to aim for points finish this year. Haas can't be a fulfilling team to be in right now.
- Due to financial reasons they had to let go their veteran drivers (just two in F1) from last season and are currently featuring an all-rookie line up.
- They've gone on record to say that they are not developing the 2021 car, instead focusing on the specs change for 2022.
So two rookies in a team that is basically just in the competition for the participation. At least one driver from Williams, the bottom feeders a season or two ago, have the chutzpah to aim for points finish this year. Haas can't be a fulfilling team to be in right now.
Oh, and one of their rookie drivers sexually assaulted a woman and posted it on Instagram...
Watch an F1 race, look at the leaderboard, look for the bottom 2 positions.
That's Haas
That's Haas
It's one of the Formula 1 teams
[deleted]
I'd go along with that. 2nd place == first loser. Bronze is still top 3, more recognition than the rest of the field.
11th is the current equivalent.
I remember the same. It seems we're nearly 20 years out of date! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Formula_One_World_Cham...
I never v thought of it that way, but your reminds me of Daniel Kahneman’s work regarding how people remember their own experiences. Regardless of how well things went during the entire duration of the activity, the last experience was disproportionately weighted in terms of framing the memory. In that context, it makes sense why the tournament style silver medalists would be more dissatisfied.
“We suggest that patients' memories of painful medical procedures largely reflect the intensity of pain at the worst part and at the final part of the experience.”[1]
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/030439...
“We suggest that patients' memories of painful medical procedures largely reflect the intensity of pain at the worst part and at the final part of the experience.”[1]
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/030439...
Yes exactly, the style of competition can certainly affect your perception of the results. For example, in foot race with multiple participants, the silver medalist might be happy with second, because they know they dug in deep and barely beat out the bronze medalist at the finish line. Whereas in archery since you are competing in isolation of the other contestants, the silver medalist might be annoyed that the one shot in round 3 cost them the chance for the gold.
I mean isn't it obvious? Third place is great because you narrowly avoided winning no medals, but second place isn't because you narrowly avoided winning the first place.
I don’t have a source, but I think I remember seeing something about this in the context of a study about olympic swimming, back in my swimming days, for what little that’s worth.
I’m very skeptical about the veracity and accuracy of facial recognition software to detect emotions.
I went to an affective computing conference in 2019 and was underwhelmed; models couldn’t distinguish between looking upwards (and raising your eyebrows) from exhibiting surprise. Emotions are complex and personal, and the phrase from the article “facial expression software — which nearly eliminates possible bias” seems absolutely ludicrous to me.
I take results like this with an absolutely massive grain of salt, and don’t expect them to be reproducible.
The danger is that they’re “catchy”, clickbait-y results, that are popular because people like to hypothesize about underlying psychological reasons why those bronze medalists might be happier. But let’s examine the core claim first, and not take facial recognition software as a ground truth for emotional state.
I went to an affective computing conference in 2019 and was underwhelmed; models couldn’t distinguish between looking upwards (and raising your eyebrows) from exhibiting surprise. Emotions are complex and personal, and the phrase from the article “facial expression software — which nearly eliminates possible bias” seems absolutely ludicrous to me.
I take results like this with an absolutely massive grain of salt, and don’t expect them to be reproducible.
The danger is that they’re “catchy”, clickbait-y results, that are popular because people like to hypothesize about underlying psychological reasons why those bronze medalists might be happier. But let’s examine the core claim first, and not take facial recognition software as a ground truth for emotional state.
In this case, however, there is evidently prior research using humans judging the faces that shows similar results. There definitely are all kinds of biases that could creep in from using facial recognition software, but a well designed study will attempt to quantify and control for those biases.
I definitely agree that the idea that software eliminates bias is laughable. Swaps it for another, hopefully less extreme set of biases doesn’t draw as many clicks, though.
I definitely agree that the idea that software eliminates bias is laughable. Swaps it for another, hopefully less extreme set of biases doesn’t draw as many clicks, though.
>prior research using humans judging the faces that shows similar results
I always assumed that was generally what the models were trained from, are they not? Agree though that ai will just replicate the bias in the training data, which is why its important to have "bias free" data. Or at least as much as such a thing exists.
I always assumed that was generally what the models were trained from, are they not? Agree though that ai will just replicate the bias in the training data, which is why its important to have "bias free" data. Or at least as much as such a thing exists.
I think he meant humans judging Olympic medalists specifically.
Excellent point. People need to be more skeptical of novel technology in general. I mean, the big proponents of any new technology usually have a financial incentive to over sell its capabilities. I've noticed that with AI/ML especially people are willing to hand-wave away nuance and blindly believe that anything is possible. In reality AI is mostly iterative pattern matching and is far from perfect.
In this case however, I do believe that bronze medalists are happier than silver medalists provided that all the participants had a similar probability of victory.
In this case however, I do believe that bronze medalists are happier than silver medalists provided that all the participants had a similar probability of victory.
> I do believe that bronze medalists are happier than silver medalists provided that all the participants had a similar probability of victory.
But that's never the case: betting companies are good at earning money off of that.
But that's never the case: betting companies are good at earning money off of that.
You are right in being skeptical.
First, behavioural responses vary from person to person and from culture to culture (Americans will smile in most social situations, Russians don't smile unless there is a laughter coming in).
Second, we are far from associating an internal subjective experience (joy) to an external objective behaviour (smile). It's actually one of the greatest challenges in psychology today. Also, how do you gauge my level of happiness compared to yours?
Third, the whole article is superficial and they don't hide it: first they measure who smiles more ... then they jump to the conclusion - all bronze winners perform the same cognition. Pure speculation.
Even if smiles would denote an emotional episode (joy) it would have to be right in the moment of the emotional episode - and it would be a micro expression (under one second).
Quote: "they studied medal stand photographs" -> posed circumstances.
First, behavioural responses vary from person to person and from culture to culture (Americans will smile in most social situations, Russians don't smile unless there is a laughter coming in).
Second, we are far from associating an internal subjective experience (joy) to an external objective behaviour (smile). It's actually one of the greatest challenges in psychology today. Also, how do you gauge my level of happiness compared to yours?
Third, the whole article is superficial and they don't hide it: first they measure who smiles more ... then they jump to the conclusion - all bronze winners perform the same cognition. Pure speculation.
Even if smiles would denote an emotional episode (joy) it would have to be right in the moment of the emotional episode - and it would be a micro expression (under one second).
Quote: "they studied medal stand photographs" -> posed circumstances.
I was going to say the same thing: There's no way facial expression software (not quite the same as facial recognition software) is un-biased. What unbiased ground truth could you possibly train it on? Answer: I don't think there is anything, at least nothing that is valid across cultures, genders, races and so forth (and I'm skeptical that there is any good training data even for white college age males).
Confirming research done by Jerry Seinfeld in 1998: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xK9rbwM3omA
This fits my personal experience very well.
I was once a volunteer at the world championships of a team sport. At the podium sceremony my job was to lead the team to the spot where each player received their medal. The bronze medalists were super happy and smiling. Almost all silver medalists that I led to the podium were literally crying.
No sophisticated facial recognition was needed to ascertain who was happier.
I was once a volunteer at the world championships of a team sport. At the podium sceremony my job was to lead the team to the spot where each player received their medal. The bronze medalists were super happy and smiling. Almost all silver medalists that I led to the podium were literally crying.
No sophisticated facial recognition was needed to ascertain who was happier.
Medal ceremonies in team sports are usually after a bronze medal match (which bronze medalist won), and a gold medal match (which silver medalist just lost).
In addition to the "last match" effect mentioned in the thread, I wonder if this has to do with who wins which medal. Maybe the people winning bronze are more often doing better than they expected, while the people winning silver are more likely to expect that they might have been able to win gold.
You don't need a study to understand this. Generally speaking getting silver means that you were fighting to get gold and you couldn't make it. Getting bronze means that you were fighting to be in the podium and you made it.
Again, this is a very general appreciation but it's likely the case for most athletes. In the Olympics you already know before hand who is a favorite and who is an underdog. Of course the athletes are self-aware enough to understand this as well.
Again, this is a very general appreciation but it's likely the case for most athletes. In the Olympics you already know before hand who is a favorite and who is an underdog. Of course the athletes are self-aware enough to understand this as well.
You DO need a study to understand this. Humanity's track record with 'you don't need a study' isn't exactly stellar.
If you don't study stuff like this, your models of the world won't update on 'obvious' things like geocentrism or spontaneous generation.
The last century saw enough of these rationalizations for human behaviour - they miss the mark more often than not.
Now for why they decided to use facial expression software on the other hand...
If you don't study stuff like this, your models of the world won't update on 'obvious' things like geocentrism or spontaneous generation.
The last century saw enough of these rationalizations for human behaviour - they miss the mark more often than not.
Now for why they decided to use facial expression software on the other hand...
For my bachelors I went to this school in India which did grading on a 10 point scale -
AA == 10, DD == 4, FF (fail and eligible for re-exam) == 3 and FR (fail and repeat the coursework next semester).
Gradesheet was put publically in the hall. I consistently saw that the two happiest people were those either got the AA or DD.
When I got AA I was obviously happy! Once I got a DD on a particularly difficult course. I was damn happy I didn't fail!
AA == 10, DD == 4, FF (fail and eligible for re-exam) == 3 and FR (fail and repeat the coursework next semester).
Gradesheet was put publically in the hall. I consistently saw that the two happiest people were those either got the AA or DD.
When I got AA I was obviously happy! Once I got a DD on a particularly difficult course. I was damn happy I didn't fail!
d is for diploma
In sports where there's no group competition but results come after gold final, bronze final, semi-finals, etc. a silver medal means you lost the gold final, that is, your last match was a defeat, while if you get the bronze it means your last match ended up a victory, also a victory coming well after you accepted the reality that there won't be any gold.
So how do sports with single-elimination compare to other sports in this regard? In single-elimination bronze medalists finish on a high note, while silver medalists finish with a loss.
As someone who was involved with music competitions I can attest to being happier with 3rd than 2nd. For me it was the fact that if I was 3rd, well at least 2 people were better than me, but if I was 2nd (and it was a close competition) it became an issue of "why did I loose?"
When competition is close you can loose for factors outside of the competition itself. You can loose because of differences in judging opinions or because of a Judge not liking you, worse ranked competitors can win due to scoring calculation systems, you can even loose biased on how hungry or how bad the judges last meal was.
When competition is close you can loose for factors outside of the competition itself. You can loose because of differences in judging opinions or because of a Judge not liking you, worse ranked competitors can win due to scoring calculation systems, you can even loose biased on how hungry or how bad the judges last meal was.
In high school there was a kid who got all A except one B. First I thought they must be very happy. Then I thought again....
In my experience nobody fretted about grades and minor grading issues more than the folks who had high marks.
The burden of perfection (or close to it) is pretty brutal.
Among other topics the film Gattaca seemed to address that issue.
The burden of perfection (or close to it) is pretty brutal.
Among other topics the film Gattaca seemed to address that issue.
Like worrying about the first tiny scratch on your new car or new phone. Eventually it happens, you feel bad, but then are free from the burden of perfection.
The effect is also strengthened when you're competing with your peers for grades; it's been several decades now but I still remember someone beating me by 0.7% going into the final exam, and me finishing the course 0.1% ahead of him. It's interesting I still remember the differences, but not the grade (high 90s, probably) nor the course.
(Contrary to popular western culture, there are groups who enjoy "grade-racing" --- and from first-hand experience, I can say it was very motivational as well as stressful.)
(Contrary to popular western culture, there are groups who enjoy "grade-racing" --- and from first-hand experience, I can say it was very motivational as well as stressful.)
Taking the "good enough" approach in life has probably left a lot of potential on the table, but it really has gotten the maximal utility out of any work I put in. It's probably ~50%-100% more work to go from a B+ in life to a straight A.
The opportunity costs can be profound as well. Doing B rather than A level work on many tasks can allow you to get 2-3x more things done.
I was that guy in college. It's an OCD-triggering experience, looking at the transcript. Can confirm that it's not a good feeling.
I got a distinction for my masters thesis, but my exam results where such that I was 1-2% off from a distinction overall. I was not happy that day!
That was me. I wasn’t happy at all after I got 2nd.
>The results replicated and expanded on what was previously found: bronze medalists were more likely to exhibit a smile than silver medalists, while gold medalists were happier than other medalists
Confirmation of the fairly obvious aside, if anyone thinks that something as superficial as smiling tells you anything reliable about the internal mental state of a person we truly have reached a new age of phrenology.
Confirmation of the fairly obvious aside, if anyone thinks that something as superficial as smiling tells you anything reliable about the internal mental state of a person we truly have reached a new age of phrenology.
I think studies confirming conventional wisdom are often unfairly maligned as uselessly addressing the obvious. It makes sense to back up perception with data.
However, the model of competitors feeling that silver=‘almost won’ and bronze=‘lucky to get a medal’ is by no means as novel as they claim. It’s strange to me that they present it as ‘new’ instead of a commonly held
However, the model of competitors feeling that silver=‘almost won’ and bronze=‘lucky to get a medal’ is by no means as novel as they claim. It’s strange to me that they present it as ‘new’ instead of a commonly held
It’s only 400 photos. They could have used human beings rather than AI. The result is probably bunkum.
Cornell University already did that over a decade ago so the conclusion that bronze medalist appear happier is probably true as the human and AI models got the same results.
The old joke: "And remember, second place is first loser!"
If you adjust for population growth and the growth of the games, it's clear that we should be giving medals to more than just the top three. And the results have gotten even closer. When I see someone like Torri Huske miss a medal by a hundredths of seconds, I think that something is just wrong.
There should be medals going down much lower in the results.
There should be medals going down much lower in the results.
That’s true for some events, baseball has 6 teams competing so if you copied say MOBA’s/RTS’s and have bronze, silver, gold, platinum and diamond you’ll have what 5 out of 6 teams getting a medal?
Medals aren’t everything passing the qualifiers is an achievement on its own…
Medals aren’t everything passing the qualifiers is an achievement on its own…
What metals would those runner-up medals be made of?
The fourth place is sometimes called "chocolate medal". But if IRC, 4 to 8 get an olympic diploma.
Aluminum, glass, plastic and cardboard.
After cardboard, sticker! gold stars through pink unicorns. and then a used pizza box for last place, because everyone else needs to feel better than someone.
There are many events where bronze is won after having to compete for it head-to-head (1-on-1 individual events like wrestling, or same for team sports)... so they just won in a situation where a loss meant no medal. They likely had more rounds before where a defeat meant elimination.
A lot of psychology probably goes into the backs against the wall scenario. Not only that, 3rd place in typical tournament bracket style is where you might see underdogs rise to the occasion.
So third got what they could ultimately achieve, second failed to do so.
* I have no idea which sports were analyzed, but as a previous athlete in a few sports the above is something Ive experienced.
* Just read the 10 other comments stating the same thing before I did.
A lot of psychology probably goes into the backs against the wall scenario. Not only that, 3rd place in typical tournament bracket style is where you might see underdogs rise to the occasion.
So third got what they could ultimately achieve, second failed to do so.
* I have no idea which sports were analyzed, but as a previous athlete in a few sports the above is something Ive experienced.
* Just read the 10 other comments stating the same thing before I did.
[deleted]
I feel like this would be heavily biased by the culture of the people in their training set and the culture of the medalists. Different cultures have different facial expressions for happiness.
[deleted]
"Are you color blind too Vincent? Its silver. Jerome Morrow was never meant to be one step down on the podium. With all I had going for me I was still just second best." - Gattaca
I mean for head to head sports, the bronze medalists won their last match while the silver medalists lost. That would obviously make a big difference in happiness.
My prediction: Soon this is going to be generalized and percolate into all sorts of self-help books and pop psy TED talks: why less is more, you need to lose to win, etc.
Only an anecdote, but...
https://cdn-ctstaging.pressidium.com/wp-content/uploads/2020... https://www.taipeitimes.com/images/2012/08/05/P18-120805-a5....
:)
https://cdn-ctstaging.pressidium.com/wp-content/uploads/2020... https://www.taipeitimes.com/images/2012/08/05/P18-120805-a5....
:)
In the case of the Chinese athlete, perhaps it is because the Chinese government takes a very dim view of 'failure'.
Does this actually give us a “ better idea why athletes who did objectively better, as in won silver versus bronze, might appear less happy” as claimed by the marketing professor running the study? How does this test the upward/downward comparison hypothesis?
I’m very ready to accept that image recognition can help support the idea that third place winners are happier than second place, but I don’t see how that helps tell us why at all.
I’m very ready to accept that image recognition can help support the idea that third place winners are happier than second place, but I don’t see how that helps tell us why at all.
I love that it took facial expression software for people to understand this. All anyone had to do was talk to a dozen internationally competitive athletes to understand this. Happiest competitor is the one who wins. Second happiest is the one who finishes third. Third happiest is second. Fourth happiest are all the finalists who didn't medal and didn't take fourth. And fourth place... Yeah. Fourth place SUCKS.
Of course they do [1]
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/bronze-medal
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/bronze-medal
I heard something similar for management. In an org chart ICs and very top executives are the happiest. Middle management tend to be the most miserable.
Interesting. I think middle management is more stressful because your job is to execute on business goal, but your influence is still limited. There's too much out of your control to feel confident in success or that the failures are solely due to your own decision processes.
This is replicating a 1995 research, the new bit here appears to be the use of software to analyze facial expressions.
Bronze medallist by the time the competition is near the end, usually compete just to get on podium, or they will feel a silver was lost instead of gold, but a podium was gained. Silver medalist usually compete for the gold near the end, a gold lost is a bigger loss, and a silver is a bad consolation.
[deleted](1)
We're looking at the best of the best. These athletes - even the ones that finished last - have probably won countless events in their lives and will probably win a lot more.
They will probably get over it just fine. It's ok to be disappointed sometimes, it can even be motivating.
They will probably get over it just fine. It's ok to be disappointed sometimes, it can even be motivating.
[deleted]
Um, isn't that the obvious statement of the century?
Perhaps even more obvious than "Computer confirms, gold medalist happier than silver medalist"
Of course, silver LOST to gold, and bronze WON something better than nothing...
I wonder if there is bias where, in advance of the competition, the silver earners are more likely to think they have a shot at gold than the bronze earners or if they are generally more experienced.
Funny enough there’s a meme that illustrates the findings.
I also found my C students are happier than my A students.
A students are often formerly unhappy C students.
C students are often happy C students.
C students are often happy C students.
> A students are often formerly unhappy C students.
Is there any empirical evidence for this? It flies in the face of my experience, which is that A students were A students from the start; that C students almost never become A students, and that A students sometimes become C students.
Is there any empirical evidence for this? It flies in the face of my experience, which is that A students were A students from the start; that C students almost never become A students, and that A students sometimes become C students.
I think both cases exist commonly.
There are plenty of people entirely capable of A marks in most educational situations who don't get them because they don't care and don't do the work. Something changes and they get interested. The jump from an indifferent C to a solid A often isn't that far.
Somewhat related: There are more PhD's than you might expect that were also high school drop outs.
There are plenty of people entirely capable of A marks in most educational situations who don't get them because they don't care and don't do the work. Something changes and they get interested. The jump from an indifferent C to a solid A often isn't that far.
Somewhat related: There are more PhD's than you might expect that were also high school drop outs.
Only the second remembers who finished second...
"facial expression software — which nearly eliminates possible bias"
...and this is why we shouldn't let PR people write about ML.
...and this is why we shouldn't let PR people write about ML.
People who won Bronze might never thought they were going to win anything at all.
People who win Silver generally went after the Gold.
People who win Silver generally went after the Gold.
Also, in bracket events, the bronze medalists won their last match while the silver medalists lost their's.
This podcast discusses the phenomenon as well:
Episode 40: Silver and Gold
HIDDEN BRAIN
AUG 1, 2016 ⋅ 22:24
How often was the bronze winner a surprise winner or a runner up and gold and silver winners the favorites?
As Jerry Seinfeld once said, when you win silver, you're the 1st place loser. No one lost ahead of you.
I love it when studies match intuition. Silver mad they didnt get Gold, Bronze happy to get a medal.
Makes sense, bronze medallist are just happy to be on the podium whereas silver medallists usually messed up slightly, or even worse are simply slightly worse than the top dog, which prevented them from getting the gold.
tl;dr:
Silver: "Shit... I was so close to Gold." Bronze: "Damn, I medaled!"
Silver: "Shit... I was so close to Gold." Bronze: "Damn, I medaled!"
This seems logical, especially if the person who got bronze was not expecting to get higher. If the person who had gotten gold previously got bronze they probably are not going to be feeling this way so, so a bit of an expectations game too potentially..
If you take some simple theory - say that the top five people will be roughly the same across any tries, and three will metal, then the bronze medal winner is likely to be someone who wasn't certain they could medal at all.
[deleted]
`better than nothing > so closed to win` I guess
Probably because mentally bronze is 1 place away from not being a medalist while silver is 1 place away from being best in the world.
- Jerry Seinfeld