This author is beginning to annoy me. I agree with him less and less as I read on and I do believe that most of us have a little more understanding of some of our choices in life than he gives us credit for. I also do not agree with what he sees as rational vs irrational choices.

realiz wrote:This author is beginning to annoy me. I agree with him less and less as I read on and I do believe that most of us have a little more understanding of some of our choices in life than he gives us credit for. I also do not agree with what he sees as rational vs irrational choices.

Disagreement sounds good to me. Maybe you can give us some more background on why you're not with him. I'm thinking that, mostly, he's talking about behavioral economics, which isn't our whole lives, I agree. Do you think he extends his conclusions too far, then? If you accept that much of our behavior in the economic sphere isn't rational (and I think I do), does that mean that, overall, we aren't rational? I'm not sure about that.

DWill wrote:

realiz wrote:This author is beginning to annoy me. I agree with him less and less as I read on and I do believe that most of us have a little more understanding of some of our choices in life than he gives us credit for. I also do not agree with what he sees as rational vs irrational choices.

Disagreement sounds good to me. Maybe you can give us some more background on why you're not with him. I'm thinking that, mostly, he's talking about behavioral economics, which isn't our whole lives, I agree. Do you think he extends his conclusions too far, then? If you accept that much of our behavior in the economic sphere isn't rational (and I think I do), does that mean that, overall, we aren't rational? I'm not sure about that.

When I read this book 6 or 8 months ago, I remember a feeling of loosing faith in the research that Ariely presents to make his points. I'll have to go have another look at the book to come up with specifics. It's funny, I wanted to agree with Ariely, because I believe that we are mostly pretty irrational or at least, that we rely too much on auto-pilot in making too many of our decisions to get through the day.

For anyone who is interested there is an interview of Dan Ariely done by one of the NPR programs. I will go find the link and post it later.

The objections realiz and Saffron raise seem to always come up when science tries to apply itself to human lives. Science is reductive and must be to achieve anything at all. But we feel instinctively that in reduction we've lost something essential when science investigates seemingly non-physical phenomena like our decisions. We want to say there is more to it than that and we resist pigeon-holing.

The question about this reaction I suppose is whether we're right or just acting defensively, defending a myth that gives us full, rational command over what we do. Ariely tells us the latter is exactly what we're doing, at least in the economic sphere, where it's fairly easy to run experiments on how we "think." He's trying to say that standard economic theory is full of holes, because it assumes that in the marketplace we act as agents possessing all needed information and make decisions based only on that information. So all decisions are quantifiable. The reality is far different, he says.

Where he might get into overextension is claiming that his data refutes the "Shakespearean" view of man as being "noble in reason...infinite in faculty...in apprehension how like a god." Aside from the fact that Hamlet is indulging in poetic hyperbole in the speech, who is able to say, looking at our achievement in science and the arts, that something like this view is not justified? I think that in that speech it is understood that Hamlet is talking about man at his best, not about the everyday behavior that is the subject of Ariely's research.

Note: I came back to add this part. Ariely establishes the presence of significant irrationality in our economic decisions. He doesn't always tell us how big the effect size is of his experiments, only that it is significant. He says that when he says there is a difference, that means a significant difference. I'm not good at statistics, but I believe that a difference of 20% over the control group would be considered quite significant. Another way to summarize such a result would be to say that, still, 80% of the subjects didn't seem to be swayed by irrational considerations. What I'm getting at is the glass-half-empty bias of scientific research reporting. That is always going to emphasize the difference found, but it will never put the matter in perspective by telling us that we're not looking at a day-or-night difference. And that's why studies on disease state their findings in terms of increased relative risk. A 200% increase in risk sounds very impressive, but would the absolute figures seem as impressive (from 1 in 100 people to 3 in 100 people)? No.

So, I don't think, after all, that Ariely proves we are irrational when it comes to economic decisions. He does show that we sometimes are, and it's worthwhile to hear this so that we can guard against irrational decisions. And in terms of public policy, it does seem wise to factor in the irrational component, because it is certainly large enough to cause trouble. What was the sub-prime housing fiasco but irrationality running away with people, on both sides of the desk. (Okay, on the lender side it could be plain old greed.)

DWill wrote:The objections realiz and Saffron raise seem to always come up when science tries to apply itself to human lives. Science is reductive and must be to achieve anything at all. But we feel instinctively that in reduction we've lost something essential when science investigates seemingly non-physical phenomena like our decisions. We want to say there is more to it than that and we resist pigeon-holing.

Don't include me in this. My objections had more to do with the research design. I will go get the book from the library so I can be more specific.

BTW: Dan Ariely has a new book out. The Upside of Irrationality

http://www.amazon.com/Upside-Irrational ... 594&sr=8-1


Confession: I think I might be getting Dan Ariely's book mixed up with another book on Irrationalality. I'm heading to the library right now.

Saffron wrote:BTW: Dan Ariely has a new book out. The Upside of Irrationality

http://www.amazon.com/Upside-Irrational ... 594&sr=8-1


Confession: I think I might be getting Dan Ariely's book mixed up with another book on Irrationalality. I'm heading to the library right now.

Ooopie daisy, I was thinking about the research in the book by Todd Riniolo, "When Good Thinking Goes Bad." I did read Dan Ariely's book and now I have gotten it so mixed up with Riniolo's book I can't remember if I like Ariely's book or not.

Saffron wrote:

Saffron wrote:BTW: Dan Ariely has a new book out. The Upside of Irrationality

http://www.amazon.com/Upside-Irrational ... 594&sr=8-1


Confession: I think I might be getting Dan Ariely's book mixed up with another book on Irrationalality. I'm heading to the library right now.

Ooopie daisy, I was thinking about the research in the book by Todd Riniolo, "When Good Thinking Goes Bad." I did read Dan Ariely's book and now I have gotten it so mixed up with Riniolo's book I can't remember if I like Ariely's book or not.

Didn't you also read the book on happiness by Daniel Gilbert, whose title I forget. Could it be that one you're confusing this one with? (Was it Stumbling into Happiness?)

P.S. You're heading to the library right now? Must be nice.

DWill wrote:

Saffron wrote:

Saffron wrote:BTW: Dan Ariely has a new book out. The Upside of Irrationality

http://www.amazon.com/Upside-Irrational ... 594&sr=8-1


Confession: I think I might be getting Dan Ariely's book mixed up with another book on Irrationalality. I'm heading to the library right now.

Ooopie daisy, I was thinking about the research in the book by Todd Riniolo, "When Good Thinking Goes Bad." I did read Dan Ariely's book and now I have gotten it so mixed up with Riniolo's book I can't remember if I like Ariely's book or not.

Didn't you also read the book on happiness by Daniel Gilbert, whose title I forget. Could it be that one you're confusing this one with? (Was it Stumbling into Happiness?)

P.S. You're heading to the library right now? Must be nice.

I did read Daniel Gilbert (yes, Stumbling on Happiness), but it was the Todd Riniolo book that I was getting tangled up with Ariely. Now that I've had time to reflect, I did like Mr. Ariely's book and have already placed a hold on the new one. And if you must know and of course you do, I was driving someone else to the library and was obligated to go in - so, why not have a look around, right?