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

It's On You - Nick Chater and George Loewenstein *****

Going on the cover you might think this was a political polemic - and admittedly there's an element of that - but the reason it's so good is quite different. It shows how behavioural economics and social psychology have led us astray by putting the focus way too much on individuals. A particular target is the concept of nudges which (as described in Brainjacking ) have been hugely over-rated. But overall the key problem ties to another psychological concept: framing. Huge kudos to both Nick Chater and George Loewenstein - a behavioural scientist and an economics and psychology professor - for having the guts to take on the flaws in their own earlier work and that of colleagues, because they make clear just how limited and potentially dangerous is the belief that individuals changing their behaviour can solve large-scale problems. The main thesis of the book is that there are two ways to approach the major problems we face - an 'i-frame' where we focus on the individual ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Introducing Artificial Intelligence – Henry Brighton & Howard Selina ****

It is almost impossible to rate these relentlessly hip books – they are pure marmite*. The huge  Introducing  … series (a vast range of books covering everything from Quantum Theory to Islam), previously known as …  for Beginners , puts across the message in a style that owes as much to Terry Gilliam and pop art as it does to popular science. Pretty well every page features large graphics with speech bubbles that are supposed to emphasise the point. Funnily,  Introducing Artificial Intelligence  is both a good and bad example of the series. Let’s get the bad bits out of the way first. The illustrators of these books are very variable, and I didn’t particularly like the pictures here. They did add something – the illustrations in these books always have a lot of information content, rather than being window dressing – but they seemed more detached from the text and rather lacking in the oomph the best versions have. The other real problem is that...
Post a Comment
Read more

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