Of course this is not science as we know it.

But then what is it then?

Post facto ideological rationalisation?

Probably.

Bring back the psychoanalysts. Bin these economic shamans.

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

Ask any student or Professors of Economics or Psychology anywhere in the world. None has ever heard of this Daniel Kahneman, who became somehow known ( but none has read his books) only after getting a Nobel Prize in Economics.

Who is this Daniel Kahneman???.

Is he an economist or a Psychologist or just a writer of non-fiction books??.

An effect called 'halo'?

Whadabout Jay-low?

Try to do economic theory with 10 out of 60 million people who regularly vote as to matters of on-ability or off-ability, on the X Factor every Saturday night.

This is a land where we've PFI'ed all our holdings, and thrown caution to the wind.

Sing about that, Littlerhythmmix.

Appealingly, the pair tended to base their exploration of human foibles on their own errors: their faulty memories and dodgy mental shortcuts. Fallibility often begins at home – a lesson more economists might learn.

You make them sound like Walter Bishop from Fringe (whichever variant we're at now).

And Kahneman should be applauded for opposing that nonsense 'Game theory' bollocks we're all suffering from the effects of to this day.

Kahneman is a very appealing personality according to his books. His value lies very much in his dismissing the popular perceptions, the 50 million Frenchmen can't be wrong syndrome.

He opens the door to new scientific discoveries by making us understand that the simplest preconceptions may be wrong.

For centuries it seemed obvious that if a child coudn't learn to read & write s/he must be of a low intelligence: but investigation showed something else.

There are nevertheless broad consistencies and causalities in the world of economics that make it possible to forecast that policy A will sooner or later lead to phenomenon B.

The world of economics is not one of random happenings.

Sheer sophistry....in the example given elsewhere on the lady who works in a bank and may be or not an activist feminist the proposal becomes mendacious at best.......the lady has to work in a bank because that is the only option given in the two 'options' provided: 1) work in a bank, 2) work in a bank and be an activist feminist.......thus, the only real option is whether she is an activist feminist or not, which she likely is given the background information given on her personality traits......this whole stuff is pre-Protagorean........bronze-age sophistry, I mean.

Thanks for another interesting "In praise of...".

@ShwriYaMungu
The halo effect refers to bias due to different aspects of a given individual, object etc. (that car's red, it must go fast; she's blonde, she must be stupid). The anchoring effect is different.

@DBose1949
I read Kahnemann & Tversky many years ago as a mathematician/statistician, and recognised the importance. If it's indeed true that no students or professors of economics or psychology have even heard of Kahnemann, then that's disappointing. And explains a lot.

@Theskysgoneout
Game theory, like any theory, can be misapplied. Why do you say it's bollocks?

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

It's useful work, taking the practices of, say, a used car salesman and translating them into academic theory. Visit a car dealership and you'll be shown an expensive car first so that the next one looks like a bargain: that's anchoring.

He's also got a book out right now and his publishers have mastered the behavioural economics of newspaper editors to get this free advert.

Do you not like this original work, which was done in the 1970s by a pair of experimental psychologists, because later in life one of them received the Nobel prize for Economics?

stalin is reputed to have observed that setting half a dozen economists loose on a country's economy can destroy an enemy more quickly and effectively than any number of nuclear weapons

Bring back the psychoanalysts. Bin these economic shamans.

That would be like Homo sapiens on the threshold of the iron age throwing away his bronze utensils and opting for flint tools. Regression I guess you'd call it.

Ask any student or Professors of Economics or Psychology anywhere in the world. None has ever heard of

I asked Wiki instead.

If you buy a bat and ball for £1.10 and the ball cost £1less than the bat, how much did the ball cost?

@DBose1949

Who is this Daniel Kahneman???.

Is he an economist or a Psychologist or just a writer of non-fiction books??.

He is a psychologist, with a brilliant insight in to what is wrong with economics, at least as it was taught when I did my degree many years ago. A worthy recipient of the Nobel.

This is now known as "the anchoring effect" – where the mere suggestion of a number influences how one judges unrelated figures

These guys pre-empted Gideon-omics
Spin that wheel, Ozzie! We need a quick fix !

Sheer sophistry....in the example given elsewhere on the lady who works in a bank and may be or not an activist feminist the proposal becomes mendacious at best.......the lady has to work in a bank because that is the only option given in the two 'options' provided: 1) work in a bank, 2) work in a bank and be an activist feminist.......thus, the only real option is whether she is an activist feminist or not, which she likely is given the background information given on her personality traits......this whole stuff is pre-Protagorean........bronze-age sophistry, I mean.

Isn't the whole point that she has to work in the bank? The point was simply that, as option 2 is a subset of option 1 (i.e. if option 2 is correct, option 1 must necessarily be correct), then option 1 must be more likely than option 2 (unless it is 100% certain that she is a feminist, in which case the probabilities are the same).

But the people in the study rated option 2 as more likely.

Why this is, is more speculative. Kahneman had theories (that the overall picture had more links with her background information, so seemed "closer" to it), and it is best to recognise that they seem to have only been theories. But the observation is still interesting.

the ball costs 0.05 pounds (bat = 1.05 + ball = 0.05 = 1.10

casualnova.

Very good. - Half of a group of Harvard students got it wrong; giving 10c as the answer.

Kahneman said that what he found most interesting about it, was that even though they were giving the answer in writing, they leapt to the incorrect answer and handed it in, without checking to see if it made sense.

People are not rational. How else could you explain veblen goods?
Or Tamara Ecclestone?

Sorry, but I beg to disagree.....you seem to fall for the trap of accepting the questioner's premise.....one cannot be made to consider an option what is not......the whole intellectual process here reminds me of the lawyer's approach: getting you to a question which presumably admits only either Yes or No as an answer, and where failure to provide one or the other will land you into a 'contempt-of-court' situation........I'd rather have questions put to me as such and not as questions pre-packaged with pseudo-alternative answers chosen by the interrogator.......you see?.......I grew up surrounded by catholic priests who were masters at this sort of scam in true form.

Thank you.....but I wouldn't qualify the students' behaviour as anything but careless and somewhat arrogant as well for thinking themselves utterly smart by solving the problem 'so easily'

Just one more point, if I may......one could easily argue that answer 1 is actually a subset of answer 2 simply because answer 1 contains one element which is also part of answer 2 .......at any rate, one can see the inner workings of our obsessively dualistic Reason in all of this......in other words, make this a more-than-two-answer option exercise and the whole Kahneman's shanty come crashing down.........this is fun !

Hmm

A better example of the 'conjunction fallacy' is the following: -

Estimate no of words that have the form "_ _ _ _ ing" (7 letter words ending in ing)
in four pages of a novel (about 2000 words).

Versus estimate no of words that have the form "_ _ _ _ _ n _"

Median estimate for first case = 13.4, in second case 4.7

Ease of generation etc is often not any indicator of much duh but hey carry regardless eh.

Respect to Kahneman and Tversky.

We shall be happy to show respect for your favorite Kahneman and Tversky as soon as you explain yourself a bit better.........is this the result of an unfortunate malfunction of your running penileplethysmograph?

casualnova

Who is this 'we' of whom you speak? Oh just you eh?

By 'we' I mean the sentient community of readers of your post

Casualnova

Who you represent? Give over. You post for yourself duh.

Rank the following most popular throwaway asides in Penileplethysmograph's posts according to their frequency

Duh
(Ha)*n where n is any integer
Sigh
Whateva

Surprised Kahneman has included this among his contrived and carefully crafted cracker conundrums.

I’m going for duh for top spot
Duh!

CrewsControl

If you want to, go ahead. Like I care. Kahneman's (and Tversky's) work has been widely confirmed across many domains and instances.

Duh : ).

Have a nice day.

You are suffering......... we can tell......we suggest you unplug yourself from your plethismograph....it may not be too late yet.

Casualnova (and Crewscontrol too I guess)

That you descend to such ah homs kinda says it all. Pathetic (and still deluded that you are a multiple that can diagnose over the internet). Anyways, it's in praise of Kahneman and not lets mob another poster.

Have fun guys.

Radio4 now, if you're interested.

The King of associationism, Daniel Kahneman.

'What's the first thing that comes to mind?'

The number acts as a suggestion. Your associated memory acts as a suggestion.

'associationism, theory that all consciousness is the result of the combination, in accordance with the law of association, of certain simple and ultimate elements derived from sense experiences. It was developed by David Hartley and advanced by James Mill.'

Columbia Encyclopedia

Interesting piece and it's always good to have some ammo against the destructive economic orthodoxies of the past few decades.

Still, I can't help feeling queasy at the implication, which I think can be deduced from what is here, that neo-liberalism only failed because people are irrational. That's to flatter all out of proportion a set of economic practices that have been quite rationally backed by powerful people who've done terribly well out of them -- and hang the rest of us. It also, more generally, glides over the problem with capitalism, which depends on constant, ultimately unsustainable growth to survive. That's why it fails, not because people make irrational choices (except, perhaps, to carry on with such a system at all).

Sheer sophistry....in the example given elsewhere on the lady who works in a bank and may be or not an activist feminist the proposal becomes mendacious at best.......the lady has to work in a bank because that is the only option given in the two 'options' provided: 1) work in a bank, 2) work in a bank and be an activist feminist.......thus, the only real option is whether she is an activist feminist or not

I agree. I would have answered (2) just because so much stuff you encounter in daily life is badly and illogically worded and you generally aren't given space to point it out.

Yup. Experiments, having fun, discovering weird things that were fascinating, and strangely useful.

Once, That is what science and research, were all about

Then the economists got at it, and re-assigned us, to develop marketable inventions.