1/14
More on @soniasodha's Analysis program from last night.
@ReicherStephen was wonderfully clear. He says there's a "classic" view of humans now, according to which we are psychological frail, biased, faulty. We cannot cope with emergencies.
bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00…
More on @soniasodha's Analysis program from last night.
@ReicherStephen was wonderfully clear. He says there's a "classic" view of humans now, according to which we are psychological frail, biased, faulty. We cannot cope with emergencies.
bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00…
2/
This view, he says, is contradicted by the evidence. People don't tend to panic in emergency situations but act rather soberly and sensibly.
To me, that makes perfect sense: evolution would have swiftly got rid of us if our psychology failed us whenever we needed it the most.
This view, he says, is contradicted by the evidence. People don't tend to panic in emergency situations but act rather soberly and sensibly.
To me, that makes perfect sense: evolution would have swiftly got rid of us if our psychology failed us whenever we needed it the most.
3/
It also chimes with what we found in economics: the narrative is one of irrational humans, but when we check, the evidence had a tendency to evaporate, and models that take people's situations into account tend to predict actions correctly.
It also chimes with what we found in economics: the narrative is one of irrational humans, but when we check, the evidence had a tendency to evaporate, and models that take people's situations into account tend to predict actions correctly.
4/
I find it astonishing that the false narrative of irrational panic-people is so dominant. It makes no sense a priori.
Economics, and in particular behavioral economics, stands along in assuming that people are generally irrational.
I find it astonishing that the false narrative of irrational panic-people is so dominant. It makes no sense a priori.
Economics, and in particular behavioral economics, stands along in assuming that people are generally irrational.
5/
Indeed, @soniasodha's program zeros in on behavioral economics as the source: citizens not as adults but as children who must be coaxed and nudged - rather than informed.
I note: this is the story of patriarchy, empire, monarchy: peasants thinking for themselves? Good Heavens!
Indeed, @soniasodha's program zeros in on behavioral economics as the source: citizens not as adults but as children who must be coaxed and nudged - rather than informed.
I note: this is the story of patriarchy, empire, monarchy: peasants thinking for themselves? Good Heavens!
6/
Soon the program arrives at @CassSunstein and @R_Thaler's book Nudge. The story: just by making a desirable behavior easier than another, people tend to default into what's desirable. No need to inform and argue.
An extraordinarily slippery slope: who decides what's desirable?
Soon the program arrives at @CassSunstein and @R_Thaler's book Nudge. The story: just by making a desirable behavior easier than another, people tend to default into what's desirable. No need to inform and argue.
An extraordinarily slippery slope: who decides what's desirable?
7/
Another bit of insight worth pondering: among politicians, economics has naive credibility.
Among scientist it doesn't. It's looked down upon with bemusement: uneducated children playing scientist. Naturally, good economists are themselves deeply skeptical of economics.
Another bit of insight worth pondering: among politicians, economics has naive credibility.
Among scientist it doesn't. It's looked down upon with bemusement: uneducated children playing scientist. Naturally, good economists are themselves deeply skeptical of economics.
8/
But apparently, if you want to sell something in politics, claim what you're doing is economics rather than for instance psychology or anthropology. Ideally, relieve the politician of responsibility as you do so.
Disbelief will be suspended.
But apparently, if you want to sell something in politics, claim what you're doing is economics rather than for instance psychology or anthropology. Ideally, relieve the politician of responsibility as you do so.
Disbelief will be suspended.
9/
How did economics - empirically dreadfully unsuccessful - become so influential in politics? The subject matter is, of course, essentially that of politics, but its track record is so poor, a fortune teller will often do better.
How did economics - empirically dreadfully unsuccessful - become so influential in politics? The subject matter is, of course, essentially that of politics, but its track record is so poor, a fortune teller will often do better.
10/
Where do we stand? Our program - Ergodicity Economics - starts with the recognition of a catastrophic error in the foundations of mainstream economics. It is fascinating to draw the line from there to the UK becoming the country which handled the pandemic the worst.
Where do we stand? Our program - Ergodicity Economics - starts with the recognition of a catastrophic error in the foundations of mainstream economics. It is fascinating to draw the line from there to the UK becoming the country which handled the pandemic the worst.
11/
The idea of idiosyncratic irrationality enters economics in 1738, as a band-aid applied to a formalism with errors in its mathematical basis. That formalism made nonsensical predictions, and because no better mathematics was available at the time, people were branded defunct.
The idea of idiosyncratic irrationality enters economics in 1738, as a band-aid applied to a formalism with errors in its mathematical basis. That formalism made nonsensical predictions, and because no better mathematics was available at the time, people were branded defunct.
12/
Acceptable in 1738, today: no.
Over the centuries, consequences of the core error - ergodicity - were discovered, but each led to another "irrationality" patch, not to scientific progress. Today, there are hundreds of named "biases" to make the failed model fit reality.
Acceptable in 1738, today: no.
Over the centuries, consequences of the core error - ergodicity - were discovered, but each led to another "irrationality" patch, not to scientific progress. Today, there are hundreds of named "biases" to make the failed model fit reality.
13/
The overall model of humans in economics is indeed what @ReicherStephen describes as the classic view: we're unable to cope and need to be manipulated into the right actions by a paternalistic government, or better still a paternalistic consulting firm like the UK Nudge unit.
The overall model of humans in economics is indeed what @ReicherStephen describes as the classic view: we're unable to cope and need to be manipulated into the right actions by a paternalistic government, or better still a paternalistic consulting firm like the UK Nudge unit.
14/
Why is that so bad? The intentions of @R_Thaler were surely good: get more people to donate organs. But democracy needs the argument, the fight. It breaks down if we replace that with (initially mild) forms of manipulation. We deprive ourselves of the wisdom of crowds.
Why is that so bad? The intentions of @R_Thaler were surely good: get more people to donate organs. But democracy needs the argument, the fight. It breaks down if we replace that with (initially mild) forms of manipulation. We deprive ourselves of the wisdom of crowds.
