I AM reading MIT behavioural economist Dan Ariely's new book "Predictably Irrational" and finding it very frustrating. The book is chock full of fascinating experiments that reveal how people make choices followed by stunning non-sequiturs and quaintly naive cultural and political commentary. The scientific quality seems high. The philosophical quality... not so high.And that's the nice bit of the review.
Update: Tim Harford has a somewhat kinder review. Harford writes,
The book has a lot to recommend it. Ariely is a more than capable storyteller, and he sticks close to his own research so his writing is full of colour and detail. He also has a knack for conveying the rigour of the experiments without brandishing too many technicalities. And although he is pursuing a consistent theme throughout, there is a fresh insight in every chapter.But adds,
I could scarcely imagine a better introduction to “behavioural economics”, a discipline of growing influence that sits on the boundary between economics and psychology.
But opinions differ among economists as to whether behavioural economics seriously challenges the long-held basic assumption of economics that we make rational choices, or whether it merely illuminates some fascinating but relatively minor human foibles.Update 2: Tim Harford comments here on the difference between his review and that of the Economist.
No comments:
Post a Comment