23.11.2018 Views

Richard H Thaler - Misbehaving- The Making of Behavioral Economics (epub)

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

had not bothered to invent Hebrew equivalents. But I failed to generate a viable<br />

theory for why they would switch in the other direction. It might have helped to<br />

know some Hebrew.<br />

<strong>The</strong>y spent months polishing the paper. Most academics find getting the initial<br />

ideas the most enjoyable part <strong>of</strong> research, and conducting the actual research is<br />

almost as much fun. But few enjoy the writing, and it shows. To call academic<br />

writing dull is giving it too much credit. Yet to many, dull writing is a badge <strong>of</strong><br />

honor. To write with flair signals that you don’t take your work seriously and<br />

readers shouldn’t either.† “Prospect <strong>The</strong>ory” is hardly an easy read, but the<br />

writing was crystal clear because <strong>of</strong> their endless editing and Amos’s perennial<br />

goal <strong>of</strong> “getting it right.”<br />

Danny and I soon began the habit <strong>of</strong> taking walks in the hills near the Center<br />

just to talk. We were equally ignorant and curious about each other’s fields, so<br />

our conversations <strong>of</strong>fered many learning opportunities. One aspect <strong>of</strong> these<br />

mutual training sessions involved understanding how members <strong>of</strong> the other<br />

pr<strong>of</strong>ession think, and what it takes to convince them <strong>of</strong> some finding.<br />

<strong>The</strong> use <strong>of</strong> hypothetical questions <strong>of</strong>fers a good example. All <strong>of</strong> Kahneman<br />

and Tversky’s research up to this point relied on simple scenarios, such as:<br />

“Imagine that in addition to everything you now own, you gain $400. Now<br />

consider the choice between a sure loss <strong>of</strong> $200 or a gamble in which you have a<br />

50% chance to lose $400 and a 50% chance to lose nothing.” (Most choose to<br />

gamble in this situation.) As Kahneman delightfully explains in his book<br />

Thinking, Fast and Slow, they would try these thought experiments out on<br />

themselves and if they agreed on an answer they would provisionally assume<br />

that others would answer the same way. <strong>The</strong>n they would check by asking<br />

subjects, typically students.<br />

Economists do not put much stock in the answers to hypothetical questions, or<br />

survey questions in general for that matter. Economists say they care more about<br />

what people do as opposed to what they say they would do. Kahneman and<br />

Tversky were aware <strong>of</strong> the objections, undoubtedly raised by skeptical<br />

economists they had met, but they had little choice. A key prediction <strong>of</strong> prospect<br />

theory is that people react differently to losses than they do to gains. But it is<br />

nearly impossible to get permission to run experiments in which subjects might<br />

actually lose substantial amounts <strong>of</strong> money. Even if people were willing to<br />

participate, the university committees that review experiments using human<br />

subjects might not approve the experiments.<br />

In the published version <strong>of</strong> prospect theory, Amos and Danny included the<br />

following defense <strong>of</strong> their methods: “By default, the method <strong>of</strong> hypothetical<br />

choices emerges as the simplest procedure by which a large number <strong>of</strong>

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!