Skip to main content

Predictably Irrational – Dan Ariely ****

There is a certain breed of popular science book, often around the social sciences or economics that sets out to shock us by revealing that human nature doesn’t work the way we expect it to. I suppose a good example would be Freakonomics. This books is very much of that ilk, but is more based on science than the purely observational approach of Freakonomics, and manages to produce a similar level of fascination.
In a sense, although not presented as such, it’s a wholesale attack on economics as it is traditionally practised. This is, let’s face it, an easy target. I’ve never understood how economics can compare itself to real sciences, when Nobel Prizes are regularly awarded for totally opposing theories. Real science is built on observation and experiment, while economics seems more based on the Ancient Greek approach of coming up with a top-of-the-head theory to explain something, then defending it by argument.
At the core of the book’s attack is the assumption in traditional economics that human beings are rational and that we try to maximize our benefit. It is only in such circumstances that it is sensible to let the market determine anything – yet the reality (and well all know this without the experiments, but they serve to underline the situation) is that our decisions are anything but rational. We are, as the book’s title suggests, predictably irrational.
This is demonstrated with a wide range of experiments undertaken on the long suffering students of MIT and other nearby universities. (In case this suggests an economic bias, they do sometimes experiment on real human beings, as well as students.) Because this is first person stuff, there are sometimes entertaining outcomes, such as when the author, posing as a barman to study how people’s drink orders are influenced by others at the same table, is assumed to have failed in his career by an ex-colleague. But there is also a steady flow of small shocks as we realize just how irrational we are, whether we’re being unfairly influenced by initial prices (sale, anyone?) or being cured better by expensive medicine.
One side effect of reading this book is you pick up more on irrationality around you. Immediately afterwards, a friend came back from a visit to Blockbuster to rent two DVDs. He came back with four. When asked why, he pointed out that two would have cost £7.50, while four only cost £10. It was much better value for money, he argued. Yes, but he only wanted two DVDs, and he had just spent a third as much again. Yet he couldn’t see that the cunning pricing structure had forced him into irrationality.
The only trouble with a book like this is that after a while the ‘surprises’ when people act irrational are lessened because we’ve come to expect it. So it sags a little towards the end. And it’s short on answers when the author points out the negative effect of a particular irrationality, but can’t suggest any way to overcome that negative. But it’s still a very useful addition to the literature giving the general reader an understanding of why humans will never be truly rational – and why economics needs to recognize this.

Paperback:  
Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you  
Review by Brian Clegg
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Laws of Thought - Tom Griffiths *****

In giving us a history of attempts to explain our thinking abilities, Tom Griffiths demonstrates an excellent ability to pitch information just right for the informed general reader.  We begin with Aristotelian logic and the way Boole and others transformed it into a kind of arithmetic before a first introduction of computing and theories of language. Griffiths covers a surprising amount of ground - we don't just get, for instance, the obvious figures of Turing, von Neumann and Shannon, but the interaction between the computing pioneers and those concerned with trying to understand the way we think - for example in the work of Jerome Bruner, of whom I confess I'd never heard.  This would prove to be the case with a whole host of people who have made interesting contributions to the understanding of human thought processes. Sometimes their theories were contradictory - this isn't an easy field to successfully observe - but always they were interesting. But for me, at least, ...
Post a Comment
Read more

The AI Paradox - Virginia Dignum ****

This is a really important book in the way that Virginia Dignum highlights various ways we can misunderstand AI and its abilities using a series of paradoxes. However, I need to say up front that I'm giving it four stars for the ideas: unfortunately the writing is not great. It reads more like a government report than anything vaguely readable - it really should have co-authored with a professional writer to make it accessible. Even so, I'm recommending it: like some government reports it's significant enough to make it necessary to wade through the bureaucrat speak. Why paradoxes? Dignum identifies two ways we can think about paradoxes (oddly I wrote about paradoxes recently , but with three definitions): a logical paradox such as 'this statement is false', or a paradoxical truth such as 'less is more' - the second of which seems a better to fit to the use here.  We are then presented with eight paradoxes, each of which gives some insights into aspects of t...
Post a Comment
Read more

Einstein's Fridge - Paul Sen ****

In Einstein's Fridge (interesting factoid: this is at least the third popular science book to be named after Einstein's not particularly exciting refrigerator), Paul Sen has taken on a scary challenge. As Jim Al-Khalili made clear in his excellent The World According to Physics , our physical understanding of reality rests on three pillars: relativity, quantum theory and thermodynamics. But there is no doubt that the third of these, the topic of Sen's book, is a hard sell. While it's true that these are the three pillars of physics, from the point of view of making interesting popular science, the first two might be considered pillars of gold and platinum, while the third is a pillar of salt. Relativity and quantum theory are very much of the twentieth century. They are exciting and sometimes downright weird and wonderful. Thermodynamics, by contrast, has a very Victorian feel and, well, is uninspiring. Luckily, though, thermodynamics is important enough, lying behind ...
Post a Comment
Read more