People Aren’t Dumb, the World Is Hard(freakonomics.com)
freakonomics.com
People Aren’t Dumb, the World Is Hard
http://freakonomics.com/podcast/richard-thaler/
425 comments
I think people are dumb, and I'm not being derogatory about 'the 'masses' or any such crap. I'm unbelievably dumb. It often takes me a ridiculously long time to come to a solution to a problem, where the answer seems like it should be obvious. Instead my slow, feeble mammal brain takes forever to grope blindly around the issue before getting any traction.
Lets say there is a scale of sentience that goes from 1, which is the lowest level of sentience necessary to develop a technological civilization, up to who knows how high. Where are we on that scale? Well, given that we literally, in evolutionary terms, only just barely got our civilization off the ground we're pretty clearly very close to 1. I discussed this with my brother and he pointed out most of us are below that, because we get taken along for the ride by people who are at 1.0 or higher. They're the geniuses that truly drive innovation forward.
So we are literally at the dumbest, most intellectually feeble level of sentience required to get where we are, otherwise we'd have done it sooner.
Lets say there is a scale of sentience that goes from 1, which is the lowest level of sentience necessary to develop a technological civilization, up to who knows how high. Where are we on that scale? Well, given that we literally, in evolutionary terms, only just barely got our civilization off the ground we're pretty clearly very close to 1. I discussed this with my brother and he pointed out most of us are below that, because we get taken along for the ride by people who are at 1.0 or higher. They're the geniuses that truly drive innovation forward.
So we are literally at the dumbest, most intellectually feeble level of sentience required to get where we are, otherwise we'd have done it sooner.
This is probably the greatest argument for big government. If we were to eliminate the supervision of the establishment over the safety and security of everyday life, it would be very time consuming to handle every single aspect of it.
There is always the issue of an overreaching government, and that's where the left/right party split comes in. Each party either creates more regulation and protection or take some away. As voters, we have to recognize this duality of our system and embrace it. It's our only way to control the people we elect.
There is always the issue of an overreaching government, and that's where the left/right party split comes in. Each party either creates more regulation and protection or take some away. As voters, we have to recognize this duality of our system and embrace it. It's our only way to control the people we elect.
An interesting bit from the article was that he talks about 'sunk cost' with the defining example of ordering a dessert when you're nearly full and feeling compelled to finish it.
> There was an economist once early in my career who said to me, “You know, if you’re right, what am I supposed to do? What I know how to do is solve optimization problems.”
A career economist not wanting to change their ways because they have spent a career doing things when presented with a possible outcome that maybe those things didn't matter as much. Also:
> If you think of companies that have come and gone, like Kodak, which invented the digital camera, but they had an almost-monopoly in film, and didn’t really think this digital thing would go anywhere. Blockbuster Video, which came along and put tens of thousands of mom-and-pop video stores out of business, only to be put out of business by Netflix.
These are human behaviors to recognize - sunk cost. It can sink a company. Something to be wary of as a startup grows past adolescence and into adulthood.
> There was an economist once early in my career who said to me, “You know, if you’re right, what am I supposed to do? What I know how to do is solve optimization problems.”
A career economist not wanting to change their ways because they have spent a career doing things when presented with a possible outcome that maybe those things didn't matter as much. Also:
> If you think of companies that have come and gone, like Kodak, which invented the digital camera, but they had an almost-monopoly in film, and didn’t really think this digital thing would go anywhere. Blockbuster Video, which came along and put tens of thousands of mom-and-pop video stores out of business, only to be put out of business by Netflix.
These are human behaviors to recognize - sunk cost. It can sink a company. Something to be wary of as a startup grows past adolescence and into adulthood.
This looks to be a bunch of discussion around receiving the Nobel prize.
Any pointers to where to find the information/studies that won him the prize. What people should/shouldn't be doing when making financial decisions. For instance, there was a reference to the fact that people "should ignore sunk costs" but don't. What are some other things to watch out for, and the reasons to do so?
Any pointers to where to find the information/studies that won him the prize. What people should/shouldn't be doing when making financial decisions. For instance, there was a reference to the fact that people "should ignore sunk costs" but don't. What are some other things to watch out for, and the reasons to do so?
Having worked front line technical support, I have to disagree. People are indeed dumb, many choose to stay that way.
There was an interesting NPR Planet Money episode about Richard Thaler back in November. https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2017/11/01/561421807/epis...
B.E. is a subject I'm incredibly excited about. I'm glad to see this at the top of YC today.
Every (somewhat major) decision I'm making now, I'm constantly reminding myself of various biases and silliness that I participate in unwillingly (or even sometimes willingly).
I would say this study has been immensely helpful, and Thaler is a huge contributor to this for me. (Freakonomics, also, has been a great learning resource.)
For anyone interested in this subject, I recommend Thinking Fast and Slow by Kahneman. (You'd think I should get a referral bonus as often as I talk about this book.) It quite literally changed my life. Of course, Nudge is the other juggernaut in the field.
In fact, if anyone is particularly interested, I'd love to chat. Profile has contact details.
Every (somewhat major) decision I'm making now, I'm constantly reminding myself of various biases and silliness that I participate in unwillingly (or even sometimes willingly).
I would say this study has been immensely helpful, and Thaler is a huge contributor to this for me. (Freakonomics, also, has been a great learning resource.)
For anyone interested in this subject, I recommend Thinking Fast and Slow by Kahneman. (You'd think I should get a referral bonus as often as I talk about this book.) It quite literally changed my life. Of course, Nudge is the other juggernaut in the field.
In fact, if anyone is particularly interested, I'd love to chat. Profile has contact details.
We’re dumb in comparison to the systems we’ve created. Increasingly, the disparity between what our technology is capable of and our own limitations as animals will become a pressing issue.
One thing that always bothers me is how we have this myth of personal responsibility that supposes an individual is equipped to defend their own interests against a multinational corporation on their own.
“Well I just don’t get why the baby didn’t defend itself from the bear.”
One thing that always bothers me is how we have this myth of personal responsibility that supposes an individual is equipped to defend their own interests against a multinational corporation on their own.
“Well I just don’t get why the baby didn’t defend itself from the bear.”
Reminded of this timeless Carl Sagan quote:
"We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology."
"We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology."
Boy does it take a while to get to the main topic of the title. From the article/podcast:
...
THALER: Well, first of all, when we use this phrase
libertarian paternalism, we’re using libertarian as
an adjective. And so we’re trying to say we’re going
to design policies that don’t force anyone to do anything.
So the claim that we’re trying to tell people what to
do, or force them to do things, is just completely wrong.
We are also not trying to tell them to do what we think is
smart. We’re trying to help people do what they want to do.
I like to use G.P.S. as an analogy of what we’re trying to
do. So, I have a terrible sense of direction. And Google
Maps is a lifesaver for me. Now, if I want to go visit you,
I can plug in your address, and suppose I’m walking across
the park, and I see, “Oh, there’s a softball game over
there. I think I’ll go watch that for a while,” Google Maps
doesn’t scold me. It will re-compute a new route if I’ve
gone a bit out of my way. It doesn’t suggest addresses to
me. It just suggests a route. And if there’s a traffic jam,
it suggests maybe you should alter your route.
So, we don’t think people are dumb. We think the world is
hard. I mean, figuring out how much to save for retirement
is a really hard cognitive problem that very few economists
have solved for themselves. And it’s not only cognitively
hard, it involves delay of gratification, which people find
hard. It’s just like navigating in a strange city is hard.
So, why not try to help? When I first was working with the
U.K. Behavioral Insight Team, the first “Nudge unit,” the
phrase I kept saying in every meeting with some minister
was, “If you want to get people to do something, make it
easy. Remove the barriers.” That’s what we’re about.
...I remember starting to study economics as a kid and thinking "this is garbage" for two main reasons, one of which is now addressed by behavioral economics, to wit: the models of human behavior they were using were ridiculous. The other reason is that economists occupy a critical nexus in the feedback loops in human affairs. The best operational economists accrue wealth and keep their science a secret as best they can, and as an obvious part of that exterior economics can be (and is) filled with fluff and nonsense. It is little better than numerology. It doesn't surprise me that Thaler "has been an irritant to mainstream economists." More like an embarrassment, pointing out their lack of grounding in reality.
>> THALER: So my toast began by saying that my fellow winners had discovered things like gravitational waves, and circadian rhythms. And I discovered the existence of humans in the economy.
Funny quote. It's a testament to how complex things are and how far people go to simplify them.
Funny quote. It's a testament to how complex things are and how far people go to simplify them.
sometimes some people purposely create hard systems for others for their own benefit.
Some people are dumb. I'm sure of that. Myself included at times.
This scene of ex machina describes what human intelligence is really about:
http://www.criticalcommons.org/Members/ccManager/clips/the-t...
"imperfect, impulsive, chaotic, fluid, patterned"
This is where the politics of emotion and marketing are winning the most. Rational economics are only serving our moral standards, sense of merit and our fascination with order.
http://www.criticalcommons.org/Members/ccManager/clips/the-t...
"imperfect, impulsive, chaotic, fluid, patterned"
This is where the politics of emotion and marketing are winning the most. Rational economics are only serving our moral standards, sense of merit and our fascination with order.
If behavioural economists are so good at predicting human behaviour, why aren’t they popular among consumer facing companies? Why don’t such companies have a special position for behaviourial evonomists? Why none of the behaviourial Economists have ever tried starting up?
I know this is off-topic, but does anyone know if these interviews are scripted? It feels like their reading their back-and-forth banter to each other. (Nothing wrong with that.)
I understand that a nobel peace prize winner can NOT say that people are dumb.
However, there are people on this planet that believe the earth is flat.
However, there are people on this planet that believe the earth is flat.
and the world is hard(er) because people are dumb
...but what this works out to is that you should behave as if people are dumb. So.
The world doesn't need to be as hard as it is. Or what I should really say is, we spend more time/energy dealing with things than we shouldn't really need to, taking away from the time/energy we should be spending on other things.
The word being hard does not justify the success of reality tv, tabloids, lotery, music that is forgotten the next year or smoking.
Who do you think has the most chance to buy a lotery ticket. Somebody with 130 or 90 IQ ?
Who do you think has the most chance to buy a lotery ticket. Somebody with 130 or 90 IQ ?
Title gets discussed at ~50min of a 60min podcast...
[deleted]
The negation of the former is true but the latter is also true.
[deleted]
Life is hard, it's harder if you're stupid. - John Wayne
It's hard due to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_interdependence
Some good ones: - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1R2jH4PQEo - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9c7_8Gp7gI
Some people have strong opinions about Alan Kay's CS / programming work and I'd really encourage them to put them aside and deeply understand his points + context. The programming parts aren't ever the point, he's deeply interested in how as humans we improve our ability to collaboratively manage systems.