Current Economics Textbooks and Economists justify a theory of consumer behavior based on utility maximization on a priori grounds. This methodology follows Lionel Robbins’ idea that economic theory is based on logical deduction from postulates which are 'simple and indisputable facts of experience.' Strong evidence has emerged from many different lines of research that these 'simple and indisputable facts of experience' are contradicted by human behavior. In this article, we summarize some of main contradictions between predictions of utility theory and actual human behavior. Efforts to resolve these contradictions continue to be made within orthodox frameworks, but it appears likely that a paradigm shift is required.
Join Scoop.it for Free
Share ideas that matter on the social web and experience
the benefits of curating the world's best content.
I don't have a Facebook, a Twitter or a LinkedIn account
Already have an account: Login
|
Scooped by Alessandro Cerboni onto Bounded Rationality and Beyond |
No comment yet.
Sign up to comment
Delete the scoop?
Are you sure you want to delete this scoop?
Yes
 Your new post is loading...
Scoop.it!
Why do CEOs who excel at golf get paid more, despite poorer stock market performance? Via Philippe Vallat 
luiy's curator insight,
May 10, 5:10 PM
To see how easily the mind jumps to the wrong conclusions, try virtually taking part in a little experiment...
...imagine that you are presented with information about two groups of people about which you know nothing. Let's call them the Azaleans and the Begonians.
For each group you are given a list of positive and negative behaviours. A good one might be: an Azalean was seen helping an old lady across the road. A bad one might be: a Begonian urinated in the street. So, you read this list of good and bad behaviours about the Azaleans and Begonians and afterwards you make some judgements about them. How often do they perform good and bad behaviours and what are they? What you notice is that it's the Begonians that seem dodgy. They are the ones more often to be found shoving burgers into mailboxes and ringing doorbells and running away. The Azaleans, in contrast, are a sounder bunch; certainly not blameless, but overall better people.
While you're happy with the judgement, you're in for a shock. What's revealed to you afterwards is that actually the ratio of good to bad behaviours listed for both the Azaleans and Begonians was exactly the same. For the Azaleans 18 positive behaviours were listed along with 8 negative. For the Begonians it was 9 positive and 4 negative. In reality you just had less information about the Begonians. What happened was that you built up an illusory connection between more frequent bad behaviours and the Begonians; they weren't more frequent, however, they just seemed that way. When the experiment is over you find out that most other people had done exactly the same thing, concluding that the Begonians were worse people than the Azaleans. Delete the scoop?
Are you sure you want to delete this scoop?
Yes
Scoop.it!
Everyone has an opinion on the issue of determinism and free will and most people accept the idea of determinism but nonetheless believe they are in charge of their actions. Busy people are willing to accept these disparate views and just live life. For those who stop a second and wonder, “hey how does that all work?” this is the book for them. It tells the story of my life in brain research and how after 50 years of it, I have come to think about the crucially important idea of personal responsibility in a determined brain. Via Philippe Vallat Delete the scoop?
Are you sure you want to delete this scoop?
Yes
|
Scoop.it!
We live in a world of increasing pressure and uncertainty, driven in large part by digital technology infrastructures. These marvelous infrastructures bring us unprecedented connectivity and opportunities to better ourselves. Via Philippe Vallat Delete the scoop?
Are you sure you want to delete this scoop?
Yes
|
