Daniel Kahneman on Making Smarter Decisions The bestselling author of Thinking, Fast and Slow talks about overcoming the cognitive biases and errors that can affect decision-making. You can avoid decision-making mistakes by understanding the differences between these two systems of thought. Nobel winner Daniel Kahneman says we tyically fear loss twice as much as we relish success. Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman says people always overestimate their ability to predict the future. Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman says that if you rationally weighed the odds of success, you'd never start a business. Don't let especially lucky or unlucky outliers influence your decisions. You're likely to give more weight to experience than hard data, even when the past is unlikely to predict the future. You can gain the upper hand in negotiations by setting--or resetting--the anchor number. Be wary of constructing a story based only on what you see--you may not realize what you don't know.
Better Behaved Behavioral Models | MIND Guest Blog, Scientific American Blog Network The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American. We often can’t rely on ourselves to act rationally. We know this, but much social science has a bad habit of ignoring it. The widely used Rational Actor Model rests on three assumptions: First, life is a stream of decisions, second we make them consciously, often by calculation, and third, they lead us to act rationally. The Rational Actor Model isn’t an action model; it’s a decision-model that sadly ignores how we do much of what we do. Behavioral Economics—its name amusingly highlighting what’s been lacking— offers hope. Better behavioral models should be, like us, habit driven. Each habit can be modeled as a situational trigger with an action script. We must be rational when habits are acquired, since later they will be repeated without deliberation. Force of habit shapes our lives. Previously in this series:
Survival of the ... Nicest? Check Out the Other Theory of Evolution by Eric Michael Johnson A new theory of human origins says cooperation—not competition—is instinctive. posted May 03, 2013 A century ago, industrialists like Andrew Carnegie believed that Darwin’s theories justified an economy of vicious competition and inequality. They left us with an ideological legacy that says the corporate economy, in which wealth concentrates in the hands of a few, produces the best for humanity. Nearly 150 years later, modern science has verified Darwin’s early insights with direct implications for how we do business in our society. Tomasello holds that there were two key steps that led to humans’ unique form of interdependence. However, this survival strategy brought an entirely new set of challenges: Individuals now had to coordinate their behaviors, work together, and learn how to share. Like what you’re reading? This evolutionary legacy can be seen in our behavior today, particularly among children who are too young to have been taught such notions of fairness. Interested?
Do cheaters have an evolutionary advantage? -- ScienceDaily Anyone who has crawled along in the left lane while other drivers raced up the right lane, which was clearly marked "lane ends, merge left," has experienced social cheating, a maddening and fascinating behavior common to many species. Although it won't help with road rage, scientists are beginning to understand cheating in simpler "model systems," such as the social amoeba, Dictyostelium discoideum. At one stage in their life cycle thousands of the normally solitary Dicty converge to form a multicellular slug and then a fruiting body, consisting of a stalk holding aloft a ball of spores. It is during this cooperative act that the opportunity for cheating arises. Some amoebae ultimately become cells in the stalk of the fruiting body and die, while others rise to the top, and form spores that pass their genes to the next generation. Now the ease and low cost of genome sequencing has finally made it possible to answer the question. An arms race or trench warfare? But why is that?
Illustrated English Idioms and their Meanings Having recently moved to Brazil, learning a new language and also teaching English, illustrator Roisin Hahessy got thinking about the the English language. On her website, she declares, “When I stopped to think about some English idioms and their literal meaning, I found some of them very funny and thought it would be a nice idea to pick a few of the most common idioms and illustrate them.” The images below have been reproduced with the direct permission of the illustrator These fantastic illustrations would be ideal for classroom use, when discussing idioms, and similar expressions used in the English language: You can purchase each print individually on Roisin’s website by clicking here. News Websites for Language Learners by @rbsaglam I watch TV series in English and I read news in English. 8th April 2015 In "GuestBlog" Guest-Blog: The Importance of Language Learning by @TheEmmaWhite1 25th February 2015
Please, not another bias! An evolutionary take on behavioural economics | EVOLVING ECONOMICS Below is a transcript of my planned presentation at today’s Marketing Science Ideas Xchange. The important images from the slide pack are below, but the full set of slides is available here. Please, not another bias! Thank you for the invitation to speak today. I accepted the invite because natural selection has shaped the human mind to take actions that have, in our past, tended increase reproductive success. That statement isn’t as creepy as it sounds. For example, we seek status – and what could be more status-enhancing than speaking here. Another place where I signal is my blog, Evolving Economics. To explain why I engage in this costly signalling – conference speaking, blogging and the like – I will first take a step back and explain how the evolutionary approach to decision making relates to other approaches, starting with behavioural economics. I once had an online discussion about this point with last year’s MSiX headlining speaker Rory Sutherland. So, to content. Sex Present bias
This Thing For Which We Have No Name It's not my job to be a behavioral economist; my job is to actually popularize behavioral economics. The interesting thing to me—as someone who has a brother who's an academic—is that academics, however brilliant, are the worst marketers in the world. And there's a reason for this, which is they, of course, possibly rightly, despise the idea of marketing. Their idea is that there is a pure and objective truth and people should appreciate it. My contention would be that there are ideas which, depending on how you present them—it's rather like the experiment with Wason Cards—may either be easily accepted and understood or are incomprehensible and/or repellant. The reason I'd happily describe myself as a behavioral science impresario is that many recent insights from six or seven interrelated fields of social science are extraordinarily important in terms of business activity, but more important still, public policy. Another one, I suspect, is a peculiarity of academics.
University of Idaho Center for Forest Nursery and Seedling Research - Home Page 7 Weird Things Money Does To Your Brain Photo Credit: Shutterstock.com June 24, 2014 | Like this article? Join our email list: Stay up to date with the latest headlines via email. Money is packed with meaning, and it impacts our personalities, our relationships, and how we think. 1. According to research, money actually reduces empathy and compassion. Money also makes people behave more aggressively towards others. 2. The loss of money is known to share a similar psychological and physiological system with physical pain. People also hate losing money more than they love making it. 3. Just thinking about money can cause you to behave unethically. Money makes you dangerous, too. 4. Conventional wisdom holds that the more of something we have, the less important it’s supposed to be to us, but that’s not true with money.
Edible Landscaping Plant Sale: Buy plants online from our garden center and plant nursery Harvard Magazine “People care not only about outcomes, but about how outcomes came to be,” says associate professor of public policy Iris Bohnet of the Kennedy School of Government. “That doesn’t strike anyone but an economistlike meas a surprise.” Game theory, as conceptualized by conventional economics, suggests that players care only about substantive results. With Ramsey professor of political economy Richard Zeckhauser, Bohnet developed a concept of “betrayal aversion,” building on the well-established psychological principle of risk aversionby and large, humans simply don’t like to take risks. It turns out they don’t like to trust, either, because trust is a form of risk that makes one vulnerable to betrayal. Traditionally, academics have linked trust to risk tolerance, since it involves taking a risk. Bohnet and Zeckhauser have been running two games, now with about a thousand subjects around the world, playing in groups of 30 at a time. Trust has other policy implications.
Trees of Antiquity