Mind Matters is edited by Jonah Lehrer, the science writer behind the blog The Frontal Cortex and the book Proust was a Neuroscientist.
Subscription Center
MIT's Dan Ariely discusses his research in behavioral economics and explains how to deal with our brain's flawed decision-making process
Mind Matters is edited by Jonah Lehrer, the science writer behind the blog The Frontal Cortex and the book Proust was a Neuroscientist.
See what we're tweeting about
BrainyActs Patient Zero:What We Learned from H.M. Review of Suzanne Corkin's new book on Henry Molaison http://t.co/575jhSgflq @BasicBooks @SfNtweets
scicurious ICYM Friday Weird Science...how much do you fart per day? And would you wear a tube up your butt to find out? http://t.co/VPT3e0fVaS
AWaytz 2 of @fastcompany's 100 most creative people in business are in academia, neither are in b-schools...
Deadline: Jul 15 2013
Reward: $5,000 USD
SciBX: Science-Business eXchange, a joint publication from the makers
Deadline: Jun 30 2013
Reward: $1,000,000 USD
This is a Reduction-to-Practice Challenge that requires written documentation and&
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
21 Comments
Add CommentI'm wondering if we're irrational in the same way the coin toss is random - it's NOT! We simply lack sophistication to measure the order. My grandmother told me a few times that my choices were irrational, to which I thought "yeah, whatever grandma, if you saw the details and made less assumptions, you'd see that my choices were very rational indeed!"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf we're going to talk science, first I'd like to see the author to clearly define what he means by "irrational" without relying on the common sense 'you know what I mean' definition. I'd like to see him use his expertise in cognitive psychology to demonstrate how the reward/punishment system in the brain doesn't function with respect to his expectations of how it SHOULD function; and how he arrives at his expectations. To me, evolution fine tuned a sophisticated reward/punishment mechanism that produces behaviour that allows us to survive. To claim this mechanism is broken is to presume teleology and a measuring stick. I'd like to see it being demonstrated. Without such demonstration I have no idea on what grounds can anybody call us "irrational".
--
Edited by Pavel Nadin at 05/21/2008 9:01 AM
--
Edited by Pavel Nadin at 05/21/2008 9:10 AM
I suspect, by irrationality, they mean "behaviour that is seen as counter-productive in a given society." Evolved responses to stimulus may not be the most productive in a modern world. Drugs, for example, [url http://fixerdave.blogspot.com/2007/01/drug-philosophy.html]pretty well destroy[/url] the standard "feel good" reward mechanisms, often with disastrous results. Further, I would add that evolution may have optimised responses that do not work in all situations, responses that can be gamed to the detriment of the person making them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd, gaming is the likely outcome of this research. The researchers may talk about improving peoples lifestyles to promote health, or increased retirement savings, but I expect the results will be more sinister. Advertisers will be all over this, trying to figure out the best way to manipulate our behaviour. Politicians will too. Yes, they already do this as much as they can; this research will just add to their already-formidable toolkit. This research should be put in the same category as weaponised-biology. It will most certainly be used against us by somebody.
[url http://fixerdave.blogspot.com]David...[/url]
Hi David,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have a problem with such definition because it doesn’t offer a reference bar. Who legitimizes what “counter-productive to a given society†is? Doesn’t it depend on who you ask and explain why we have so many politicians? I’d be OK if we replace “society†with “purposeâ€, which is why I suggested teleology to be necessary for “irrationality†to make any sense. Thus, if the weather forecast is 90% rain, it would be irrational of me to take sunglasses instead of an umbrella if I want to stay dry. It might be irrational for you to believe in 72 virgins in heaven, but not to the terrorist group who needs to convince people to blow themselves up. Yes, it’s irrational to be hooked on drugs, but only if you have a specific purpose about your health and others around you.
We’re in a cultural habit to expect people to have certain purposes in their lives and we say they "behave so strangely" if they don’t meet our expectations. I really have no problem with Ariely’s research. I think it’s very interesting and insightful. I just want the article to be a little more rigorous and specific if he wants to call it “[i]the [b]science[/b] of irrationality[/i]â€. As presented, it leaves too much room for interpretation and philosophizing. For example, I have a self-serving bias which affects my judgment and subsequently decision making. Is that irrational? Well, yes and no – depends on the context. There is a reason we have cognitive biases – they help us save energy, make quick decision, and live happier lives. How is that irrational? I'd rather jump to conclusions and be 80% right rather than be 99% right but spend the whole day to decide what I'm going to eat for breakfast. I'm suspecting, as I mentioned earlier, that we could explain all the [i]perceived[/i] irrationality with a more sophisticated theory.
Hi Pavel,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI just re-read the article and I suspect that we both missed the mark. It appear to me that the original article is referencing a single person. ie. a person that rationally chooses to do something but then does something else. Thus, that person would then be in a position to say "I'm being irrational." No other yardstick is mentioned, not society, not evolution...
The article wanders a bit, understandably given the interview format, but if you look at the answers closely, the researcher is not judging groups of people as irrational. He is, rather, suggesting that people and policy makers can learn to deal with tendencies toward irrational choices. But, 'irrational' seems to remain personal rather than externally judged. On the other hand, I've not read the referenced research so this take on the writing might be overly generous.
I do agree with you that we have evolved efficient responses to stimulus that work most of the time, and that it's good we have them. I also agree that one person's rational choices can appear to be irrational to other people. However, I'm a little more inclined to think that those "efficient responses" can be used against us.
This research will benefit the sunglass manufacturers that are attempting to make you irrationally decided to wear their $100 sunglasses in the rain, and not the $3 versions that block UV just as well, while you forgo the umbrella. Maybe it's an irrational response, but research into human decision-making systems leaves me far more unsettled than stuff like human cloning.
[url http://fixerdave.blogspot.com]David[/url]
Ah! Would not be the first time I miss the mark reading something :--). You’re probably right in the interpretation and I’m probably expecting too much rigidity from a social science research. I mean, what does it conclude then? That I should resist temptation to spend my retirement money today because that would be irrational? That’s kinda old news, isn’t it? It still looks to me like it’s some kind of language game to possibly grab some attention. They mention the Ultimatum game. Yes, it’s irrational of me to reject the offer, but only if you assume that the sole thing I care about in this world is getting as many dollars as possible [u]within the $100 range[/u]. But that’s a bad presumption, because the other thing I care about is my sense of fairness and my psychological state that allows me to move on in piece. I value the satisfaction of that sense more than $30. How is that irrational? Because I value the sense of altruism subconsciously and money consciously? Is that why I’m being irrational? Now, let’s play this game with 100 million dollars instead and see if we come up with the same results. I’m predicting we’d be less concerned with the sense of altruism and try to get as much as we can and worry about fairness later. Would you agree? I consider both of those as rational choices despite the fact that there was a subconscious component influencing the decision. This is why I really want to spell out what is meant by “irrationalâ€. As presented, there’s enough wiggle room for pretty much any conclusion I want to draw, a hallmark of social science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou’re bringing an interesting point about manipulations. I agree that the more we understand how our mind makes decisions, the more ways the companies will design to take advantage of our automatic thought process. The interesting question is, what do you do about it? I myself notice being irritated every time I spot the “plot†in a commercial or a survey. The “I know what you’re after†thought bothers me, but then I ask, why not just let it go? I don’t really consider corporations to be evil. They’re a necessary part of the system that allows us to meet our needs in a very efficient manner. I’m obviously making a generalization here, but for the most of us, I think that holds true. These corporations need to stay competitive and take advantage of knowledge. At what expense? At the expense that only some of us get ticked off when we see being manipulated? Well, is that too much of an expense for the greater good? I don’t know. What do you think?
Economics, that is its beauty, as it grows all science are needed to explain phenomenon
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I don’t really consider corporations to be evil. They’re a necessary part of the system that allows us to meet our needs in a very efficient manner. I’m obviously making a generalization here, but for the most of us, I think that holds true. These corporations need to stay competitive and take advantage of knowledge. At what expense? At the expense that only some of us get ticked off when we see being manipulated? Well, is that too much of an expense for the greater good? I don’t know. What do you think?" [Pavel Nadin]
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell... I would agree that the corporate world does a fairly good job of meeting the needs of many people. Also, getting really worked up about my evolved tendency towards group loyalty being subverted into brand loyalty, and making me pay more for my hair shampoo than it's really worth, is not something to get overly worked up about. However, there is the other end of the spectrum.
"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." [Hermann Goering]
Any decent politician knows many of these "tricks" to get people to respond appropriately. The above process is, more or less, the one used to get Americans on-board with the Iraq invasion. That's a little more serious than paying inflated prices for stuff we've been tricked into thinking we want.
My admittedly-shallow understanding of this "Science of Irrationality" is that it is attempting to codify and explain the mechanics of these tricks. This will likely produce a new batch of possible "human nature exploits" that we'll have to be on guard for. Then again, perhaps codifying them will make it easier for vigilante people to warn us when politicians are trying to make us do something that is not in our personal interest. Knowledge is power; perhaps we can use this to protect ourselves.
[url http://fixerdave.blogspot.com]David...[/url]
--
Edited by fixerdave at 05/23/2008 4:51 PM
Irrationality is synonymous with lack of self-discpiline? I think the idea is flawed, considering there are matrices of factors that contribute to our everyday decisions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this> ... considering there are matrices of factors that
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this> contribute to our everyday decisions.
Exactly. Some of those factors are the rational, logical, thoughts of a disciplined mind. However, there are a lot of factors that are not, they remain subconscious. Now, some of those subconscious factors, like ducking when some movement catches your attention, probably evolved for good reason. Your ancestors survived because of them. The emotions you feel are also factors that helped human survival. Lots of factors come into play as you make decisions through the average day; only some of them are consciously rational. Probably a lot less than you think.
People can't rationally make all the necessary decisions in a day, there simply isn't enough time. So, we pattern-recognise on a subconscious level and jump to choices that worked before as a way to save time. Some of these pattern-responses are learned, others may very well be pre-programmed via genetics (where the balance is between these is another debate). This jumping to conclusions leaves us susceptible to making errors - of being irrational. It makes us susceptible to being tricked by people that understand how we can make these erroneous decisions.
There is a long list of things that would not exist in our society save for our irrational decisions: Las Vegas, lotteries, ... [url http://fixerdave.blogspot.com/2008/04/debating-belief-in-god-is-wrong.html]God[/url]
[url http://fixerdave.blogspot.com]David...[/url]
A fair bit of the irrational behaviour we see around us would be significantly reduced if people were to understand what I call the 'action meaning' of the transitive relationship [i][b]"contributes to"[/b][/i].
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBecause the relationship [i][b]"contributes to"[/b][/i] is transitive, it is not difficult to build up sizable chains of reasoning showing how activities er perform today may [i][b]contribute[/b][/i] over time, to objectives we desire to accomplish. The rationality of a great many of our objectives can be quite effectively measured, based on how they may contribute to whatever we accept as our 'Mission'. I'm NOT claiming that we can measure the rationality or otherwise of everything we think and do, but we can certainly enhance, quite significantly indeed, the rationality of most things we do...
I shall try to attach a file that will show some of the useful (and highly usable) representations of mental models that develop when we use the transitivity of the contribution relationship (and other transitive relationships). However, I am not certain whether the Sciam attachment facility provided here allows attachment in Word format - I plan to check out. In case it does not allow such attachments, I shall be happy to send those documents to anyone who writes in to me at gs (underscore) chandy (at) yahoo (dot) com.
In the conventional way, yes, we do seem to live in a majorly irrational world - this simple move by people of working to properly understanding the relationship [i][b]"contributes to"[/b][/i] on real life issues could help us make our human-created world significantly more rational in many ways.
Consider, for a 'minor' example of irrationality, the rationality behind GW Bush's invasion of Iraq as one of the most profoundly irrational of decisions that has ever been taken by a national leader - I understand he did it because a) he wanted to rid the world of Saddam's WMD (which turned out to be non-existent anyway) b) Saddam had tried to assassinate his daddy; c) because Jesus told him to; d) he wanted to bring democracy to Iraq, e) he wanted to attack al-Quaeda (which were not a force in Iraq at that time; they have become a force there now) f) ..... (and on and sor forth: doubtless GW Bush and his advisors are coming out daily with yet more specious reasoning showing the rationality behind those truly idiotic decisions of theirs)
There were any number of truly rational things GW Bush could have done in his situation (which would have led to happier results for the USA and for the world) - but he chose the most profoundly irrational (say idiotic) of all responses to his situation - and US citizens and US Congress collaborated in that irrationality and idiocy... at an outlay of at least US $ 500-odd billion. (Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has computed the real cost of GW Bush's little misadventure as actually being something like US $ 3 trillion).
Well, that [i][b]'little bit'[/b][/i] of irrationality of GW Bush's has cost the world very dearly indeed, mainly by diverting our attention from the issues we should have been working on: global warming; resource depletion; pollution; loss of bio-diversity; over-population of this planet by human beings (the prime cause of all the earlier ills).... and now, GW Bush, leader of the most overconsuming society on earth has attempted to fix the blame for various food and other resource shortages on India and China!
That was an example of irrationality of the highest possible order, at the highest possible level [and the man is still POTUS (which to me at least seems to indicate irrationality of an even higher order, if such is possible)].
Such instances of irrationality can be multiplied almost endlessly (not only in the US, but worldwide - in actions/ decisions of nations, organizations and individuals).
(Right: I find, on attempting to attach the file promised earlier, that I'm not allowed "to attach files of this type' (or words to that effect. The field was a Word file (.doc format). Earlier, I had found that it is not allowed to attach PowerPoint files (.ppt format). Would SciAm editors please provide us a rational explanation of why files of these very common and useful types that are not allowed for attachment? What really is the purpose of that 'attachment facility'??. Also, it would be highly rational indeed to indicate precisely the file-types are [i][b]ARE[/b][/i] allowed for attachment!) - BEFORE we waste our time and energies trying to attach files of types that you do NOT permit.
--GSC
--
Edited by gs_chandy at 05/26/2008 9:09 AM
--
Edited by gs_chandy at 05/26/2008 9:15 AM
--
Edited by gs_chandy at 05/27/2008 4:35 AM
Hi David,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI see what you're saying. I guess the best thing we can do, or at least hope for, is to ensure that there is no monopoly on knowledge. Having a democratic state surely helps. The 'powers that be' and their antagonistic forces must have the same level of access to the 'privileged' knowledge.
Pavel
"I'm NOT claiming that we can measure the rationality or otherwise of everything we think and do, but we can certainly enhance, quite significantly indeed, the rationality of most things we do..." [GSC]
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy theories of choice swing a little more to the "we make our choice then rationalise it" as opposed to "we rationally choose." I think most of our rational thoughts are merely justifications for choices we've subconsciously already made. I suspect a "contributes to" rationality could just as easily be used to explain any choice; it's just a matter of selectively choosing and weighting the contributions. This is one of those irrational skills that humans seem quite good at. After all, if you study advertising, the message is usually two-fold: the beautiful smiling woman and the rational "more towing capacity" messages are superimposed. Thus, you get an emotional desire buried underneath a rational "contributes to" conscious message. Advertising works at the emotional level much more than the rational because, well, thats how we work.
As for the Iraq war... well, I used to think that Bush had a [url http://strategydave.blogspot.com/2006/12/iraq-peak-oil-and-american-empire.html]secret master plan[/url], but now I'm not sure. Maybe [url http://http://strategydave.blogspot.com/2007/02/bushs-master-plan-or-not.html]he is an idiot[/url]. I just don't know anymore.
What does seem fairly obvious is that he, and the people around him, used a very standard and well known approach - a mental trick - to convince the American people to back him on the invasion. It worked well, as it usually does. I don't know if this "Science of Irrationality" will help us deal with being manipulated this way, or if it will just make more ways for us to be manipulated. I guess time will tell.
[url http://fixerdave.blogspot.com]David...[/url]
sorry, beacause of my limitation of my English, I fail to grasp the spirit of this article. anyway, I never the suspicious of the fact that it reveal a real master of the people's brian.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks, David, for your comments. I buy most of the *rational* and *irrational* arguments you have provided in your response to my message here - (but not all of them, or, at least, not in their entirety).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe do indeed often - perhaps almost always - make our 'choice' then rationalise it. But that choice and the subsequent rationalization are both dependent on the results of a whole series of choices and rationalizatins that have gone before, all of which have *contributed* to the state of mind that has led to each decision, each choice.
The game actually starts in our very infanthood, and each and every thing we do (and think) is largely a resultant of something that we have done and thought before. That is, indeed, the whole learning process, right there, at every instant of our lives!
Of course, we make *poor* decisions, *poor* choices all the time; sometimes, we also do make *good* decisions; *good* choices (or at least we believe they are *poor*; good; *sound*, and so on - those evaluations of *poor* and *sound* are themselves choices and decisions, based on some criteria or other).
Some of our 'wrong' decisions and choices we discover did not quite work the way we might have intended they should, sometimes we change the way we arrived at those decisions; sometimes not. It's all a part of the great game we play with ourselves in this marvelous world of ours!
Do check out the works of John N. Warfield for some truly profound insights into [i][b]*systems*[/b][/i] and [i][b]*complexity*[/b][/i] (and how we may learn to cope with complexity) - these have considerable significance. The [i][b]OPMS[/b][/i], about which I wrote, and my thoughts about the [i][b]contribution[/b][/i] relationship are in considerable measure a resultant of the learning process I experienced after meeting up with Warfield in 1979 and then *choosing* to spend the rest of my life exploring his work and its impact on the way we see our systems and work in them. (Most of the time I feel that I chose very well indeed; sometimes I wonder a bit about that).
I've visited your fascinating website/blog and have subscribed. I shall comment in due course if I have anything worthwhile to *contribute*.
--Best wishes, GSC
--
Edited by gs_chandy at 05/27/2008 4:38 AM
I HOPE YOU WILL ENJOY MY INTERVIEW OF DAN ARIELY. IT IS AVAILABLE AT HTTP:BOOKSANDIDEAS.COM
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is a growing tendency to cross the limits of sustainable greed which can be developed in a capitalist economy. Over and above the limit, you tend to behave irrationally. Subprime crisis is one such example.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisB. Ravichandran
Too little information
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this<<[i]I HOPE YOU WILL ENJOY MY INTERVIEW OF DAN ARIELY. IT IS AVAILABLE AT HTTP:BOOKSANDIDEAS.COM[/i]
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHi Ginger,
I followed your link and found all kinds of cool stuff. Those are great interviews. Thank you very much for making them available!
I think it is completely obvious why we make "rational decisions" but then do something else that give us shorter term benefit. We evolved in a world that was unpredictable, where saving for the long term did not pay off. Saving for the coming year, or to make it through the winter - that we can understand viscerally. We evolved to do so. But saving for retirement long in the future? No.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, we eat it, and get fat. This gives us stores that will tide us through the rough times. Likewise, we spend it now to get something that will be useful to us today. Storing money or valuables leaves them open for theft and creates risk of death. Right now, in the developed world in wealthy suburbs we see entire families wiped out by robbers from time to time. In higher poverty areas it is madness to make oneself a target by having too much.
Even today, for the majority of the world's people, such "rationality" as described is foolish or a recipe for disaster. That's why we are "irrational". It is our evolutionary success genes talking.
There is a fundamental definitional problem with rationality/irrationality. What is rational to Asian person A may be irrational to European person B. Furthermore, time may alter the rationality of an act or decision since the determination of rationality is based on culture and the state of knowledge. In the mid 19th century Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis suggested that doctors wash their hands before delivering babies, and his suggestion was considered ridiculous and irrational. The poor doctor was ostracized and eventually was placed in an asylum because of his continuing criticism of the medical establishment. Irrational indeed!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisright-on!,,_,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this