Wednesday, March 16, 2011
A tongue twister, an attempted alliteration or a journal title...
This is the title of a review from a recent issue of nature reviews.... found it hard to believe !!!
Predictably irrational...
A twitter link, a you tube video and book review later, i came across a book by this title .... Predictably Irrational.
It is a popular book written by Dr Dan Ariely describing the irrationality that is coded in our behavior and its implications in our economic and financial dealings.
Dan Ariely (born 1967 in New York) is an Israeli American professor of psychology and behavioral economics. He teaches at Duke University and is the founder of The Center for Advanced Hindsight. In his book, Dan Ariely challenges the rational thought theory which has been the foundation for present day economics. Through various examples, he illustrates that we as people are not completely rational and that our actions are governed by our emotions. He uses many examples to illustrate how we make our choices on a relative scale when compared to the options presented to us than on an absolute scale of their economy and efficiency. He highlights the wonder of free and discount as we run from store to store or product to product to get that one free thing. He uses these and many such everyday examples to demonstrate how our behaviors influence our financial dealings and as to how these are predictable enough for companies and advertisers to exploit us. I am sure for those who have not read it, it sounds like a fascinating book. It is not disappointing too. I mean, it shows you how irrational we all can be. But to me, a number of the outcomes seemed predictable for some reason but since the book was a funny and a light read, I finished it in a few hours (Maybe i should have added that i was on a 5 hour train journey !!). Anyways the book is certainly worth a read for anybody interested in understanding the daily economics.
But there were also a couple of points in the book that i didnt quite agree with and i decided to write an email to the author seeking his opinion on the questions raised by me.
So here is the mail is wrote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Dear Dr Dan,
I am a graduate student at the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India and have been pursuing my graduate studies in Molecular Oncology.
I have recently read your book "Predictably Irrational" and found it to be quite a page turner. I must say I agreed with you on most accounts and had come to similar conclusions (on an intuitive level of course) a lot of times. I must also say that i thoroughly enjoyed the experimental designs you and your team have come up with (Especially liked the beer and restaurant one)! However, while i was reading your book, two points you mentioned did jump out at me as seemingly odd...
The first of course is with your chapter where you talk about the endowment value... where we value what we possess more than what we don't have. The point was well illustrated with your example of the basket ball tickets and i do agree with your case to some extent. However, a more common place observation i have is that people often value something a lot more when they don't have it and the charm wears off once you own it... let me cite a few examples:
- I am sure you've found a book to be irresistible when you are issuing it from a public resource like a library, but the moment you manage to purchase the book, you know that you own it and can therefore read it at any time. You thus move onto other books that you are desirous of reading.
- Similarly, we all wish for the great dress which costs a bomb and looks great on the mannequin but then if we get hold of it and we find that it doesn't match up to our glorious expectations, then the mere possession of the dress makes it less elusive and less desirous.
- Once a student gets into a great school, he really doesn't think it is too difficult to get there and therefore doesn't value it as much as someone who was rejected, who holds on to the school as a dream for a lifetime.
In case of the basket ball game too, I wonder if the ticket winners would have had a different quote to make with the benefit of hindsight... I mean, say the game was not all that great or say that it was not worth all the hype after all... Just that, once you truly experience what you've paid for, i doubt if it will hold the same charm. It is possible that the experience at the game would in hindsight allow someone to change his mind and devalue the ticket.
Thus, I see a certain disagreement with your statement that people tend to value things they possess than what they haven't managed to get hold of. In your experiment you are only measuring the value people attach to the prospect of a game and that too before the game happened. In my opinion, your point will be well justified only if the same differences hold when the students have seen the game...
The second is not really a point of contention but i was merely surprised (like your students) at the result with the increased levels of cheating with the tokens. I would expect increased levels of dishonesty with non-monetary transactions but that would not be expected to be so high especially when tokens were only one step away from cash (as was declared already). I find it extremely surprising and a bit too alarming too at the thought that in a world that is fast moving away from cash, our moral fibers are becoming more and more lenient with cheating (esp since the rewards are non monetary). I do share your concern for the same and I wish there could be solution other than a moral code.
I also have a feeling that while signing on a moral code and reminding people of the ten commandments did inspire honesty, i do have a fear that such honesty would probably be worn off under repetitive use. I mean, would people be so affected by the code if the same was offered all the time.... well, witnesses in court swear to honesty before their statements and yet they manage to blatantly lie.... It is just that with adequate training, work and time, we could all get over our moral inhibitions.
(Though, i really hope that this doesn't happen.)
I also thoroughly enjoyed the parts of your books that dealt with the placebo effect. It is true that the mind has a great influence on our physical self as well and this understanding is important in many aspects. The ethical issues that arise are also pretty serious. And i guess, the use of randomized trials with patient consent is the most sensible way of going about it - where people are informed about the treatment, its side effects and the placebo/alternative treatment. The patients could then be randomly divided into two - one which gets the treatment and one which gets the placebo. This is how a lot of trials are being carried out these days.
Finally, I would like to thank you for writing a book in such a non-technical manner that people who are not in the field like me too can understand the underlying concept.
I am sure you have pretty hectic schedule but I would love to hear your opinion on my thoughts.
Looking forward to hearing from you"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And then I got a prompt response:
"Dear Suvasini,
Tanks for the email and your kind words
I am not sure that people value things less once they get them, but it is an interesting ideas that the endowment effect is larger because of our inability o predict that we will like something less once we have it. Worth checking one of these days
As for the signing of the honor code -- for sure this will only work temporarily. I did not propose it as a long term approach ...
Irrationally yours"
Other than the fact that he isn't as verbose as the book suggests, i haven't quite had much to take home from the email.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, i would like to hear your take on the subjects ?
It is a popular book written by Dr Dan Ariely describing the irrationality that is coded in our behavior and its implications in our economic and financial dealings.
Dan Ariely (born 1967 in New York) is an Israeli American professor of psychology and behavioral economics. He teaches at Duke University and is the founder of The Center for Advanced Hindsight. In his book, Dan Ariely challenges the rational thought theory which has been the foundation for present day economics. Through various examples, he illustrates that we as people are not completely rational and that our actions are governed by our emotions. He uses many examples to illustrate how we make our choices on a relative scale when compared to the options presented to us than on an absolute scale of their economy and efficiency. He highlights the wonder of free and discount as we run from store to store or product to product to get that one free thing. He uses these and many such everyday examples to demonstrate how our behaviors influence our financial dealings and as to how these are predictable enough for companies and advertisers to exploit us. I am sure for those who have not read it, it sounds like a fascinating book. It is not disappointing too. I mean, it shows you how irrational we all can be. But to me, a number of the outcomes seemed predictable for some reason but since the book was a funny and a light read, I finished it in a few hours (Maybe i should have added that i was on a 5 hour train journey !!). Anyways the book is certainly worth a read for anybody interested in understanding the daily economics.
But there were also a couple of points in the book that i didnt quite agree with and i decided to write an email to the author seeking his opinion on the questions raised by me.
So here is the mail is wrote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Dear Dr Dan,
I am a graduate student at the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India and have been pursuing my graduate studies in Molecular Oncology.
I have recently read your book "Predictably Irrational" and found it to be quite a page turner. I must say I agreed with you on most accounts and had come to similar conclusions (on an intuitive level of course) a lot of times. I must also say that i thoroughly enjoyed the experimental designs you and your team have come up with (Especially liked the beer and restaurant one)! However, while i was reading your book, two points you mentioned did jump out at me as seemingly odd...
The first of course is with your chapter where you talk about the endowment value... where we value what we possess more than what we don't have. The point was well illustrated with your example of the basket ball tickets and i do agree with your case to some extent. However, a more common place observation i have is that people often value something a lot more when they don't have it and the charm wears off once you own it... let me cite a few examples:
- I am sure you've found a book to be irresistible when you are issuing it from a public resource like a library, but the moment you manage to purchase the book, you know that you own it and can therefore read it at any time. You thus move onto other books that you are desirous of reading.
- Similarly, we all wish for the great dress which costs a bomb and looks great on the mannequin but then if we get hold of it and we find that it doesn't match up to our glorious expectations, then the mere possession of the dress makes it less elusive and less desirous.
- Once a student gets into a great school, he really doesn't think it is too difficult to get there and therefore doesn't value it as much as someone who was rejected, who holds on to the school as a dream for a lifetime.
In case of the basket ball game too, I wonder if the ticket winners would have had a different quote to make with the benefit of hindsight... I mean, say the game was not all that great or say that it was not worth all the hype after all... Just that, once you truly experience what you've paid for, i doubt if it will hold the same charm. It is possible that the experience at the game would in hindsight allow someone to change his mind and devalue the ticket.
Thus, I see a certain disagreement with your statement that people tend to value things they possess than what they haven't managed to get hold of. In your experiment you are only measuring the value people attach to the prospect of a game and that too before the game happened. In my opinion, your point will be well justified only if the same differences hold when the students have seen the game...
The second is not really a point of contention but i was merely surprised (like your students) at the result with the increased levels of cheating with the tokens. I would expect increased levels of dishonesty with non-monetary transactions but that would not be expected to be so high especially when tokens were only one step away from cash (as was declared already). I find it extremely surprising and a bit too alarming too at the thought that in a world that is fast moving away from cash, our moral fibers are becoming more and more lenient with cheating (esp since the rewards are non monetary). I do share your concern for the same and I wish there could be solution other than a moral code.
I also have a feeling that while signing on a moral code and reminding people of the ten commandments did inspire honesty, i do have a fear that such honesty would probably be worn off under repetitive use. I mean, would people be so affected by the code if the same was offered all the time.... well, witnesses in court swear to honesty before their statements and yet they manage to blatantly lie.... It is just that with adequate training, work and time, we could all get over our moral inhibitions.
(Though, i really hope that this doesn't happen.)
I also thoroughly enjoyed the parts of your books that dealt with the placebo effect. It is true that the mind has a great influence on our physical self as well and this understanding is important in many aspects. The ethical issues that arise are also pretty serious. And i guess, the use of randomized trials with patient consent is the most sensible way of going about it - where people are informed about the treatment, its side effects and the placebo/alternative treatment. The patients could then be randomly divided into two - one which gets the treatment and one which gets the placebo. This is how a lot of trials are being carried out these days.
Finally, I would like to thank you for writing a book in such a non-technical manner that people who are not in the field like me too can understand the underlying concept.
I am sure you have pretty hectic schedule but I would love to hear your opinion on my thoughts.
Looking forward to hearing from you"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And then I got a prompt response:
"Dear Suvasini,
Tanks for the email and your kind words
I am not sure that people value things less once they get them, but it is an interesting ideas that the endowment effect is larger because of our inability o predict that we will like something less once we have it. Worth checking one of these days
As for the signing of the honor code -- for sure this will only work temporarily. I did not propose it as a long term approach ...
Irrationally yours"
Other than the fact that he isn't as verbose as the book suggests, i haven't quite had much to take home from the email.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, i would like to hear your take on the subjects ?
A few questions and an answer...
Interesting talk on the concept of morality in animals and man (differentiating him from the other animals as we egocentric humans tend to do)...
Speaker: Frans de Waal, the dutch primatologist.
He presents two theories of morality :
1) As formulated by Huxley and renamed as the veneer theory which says that humans are basically immoral at the core but they put on a veneer of morality to achieve their selfish interests. Being social animals humans tend to be "good" to achieve their selfish interests.
2) the second theory as proposed by Darwin himself, says that evolution has provided a built in framework for morality, empathy, honesty, righteousness, cooperation etc. Thus, he says that we and other primates have evolved to be moral beings and that our actions are governed by emotions more than the anticipation of a physical reward.
I did not find much of a difference between the two theories and so I decided to drop in an email to the speaker, without quite expecting a response.
The following are the contents of my email to Dr De Waal which is followed by his response to it... (Yes, he did reply !! I guess, i got lucky !!)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My email:
"Dear Dr Frans de Waal,
I am a post doctoral fellow at the Salk institute and was lucky enough to be present for your the Crick lecture that you delivered last week at the Institute. First of all, I must say that it was a great lecture - delightful, fact-based, thought provoking, insightful and sharp.
At the end of it, i did have a lot of thoughts to ponder about. However, despite a lot of deliberation i do seem to have some reservations about the two concepts of morality - one as propounded by Huxley and one, as presented by Darwin. While the veneer theory, as you call it, suggests that humans are inherently "bad" and self centered individuals who seem to resort to empathy, generosity and righteousness out of a selfish/ materialistic need. The other theory as was advocated by Darwin, seems to suggest that evolution has programmed a moral framework in humans and in other mammals. While you pointed to radical differences between the two theories, i seem to feel that there is not much of a difference between the two ideologies. Let me clarify..
While, Huxley says that humans maintain a veneer of morality to attain their selfish ends, the fact is that it is true. All our actions are geared to an end point, even altruistic acts: there may be a tangible, materialistic goal for some but for some it is an emotional high. We feel good, righteous and happy when we do the right thing and when we act moral and a burden of guilt when we are astray. All our acts, including charity and altruism can be traced to these "emotional" components one way or the other. I dont seem to be able to come up with an example of people acting moral despite feeling terrible (physically and emotionally) after committing the act. I guess, the evolutionary principle of "survival of the fittest" has selected for a rather self centered streak within us, although our social propensities have ensured that this streak is kept in check through the modulation of our emotions and feelings.
As for Darwin's view, well, i do agree that we have an evolutionary built sense of morality and it has evolved like the other parts of humankind. I also do not disagree that other animals (primates and other mammals) could have a sense of morality (atleast the building blocks of empathy, generosity, problem solving etc).
So, I hope that at the end of this rambling from me, you will be able to sense my quandary. I will appreciate if you share some of your thoughts on these points.
I would also like to know how you chose to define morality (because you still shy away from calling mammals like chimpanzees as moral !). Also, on a more fundamental aspect what do you see as the difference between religion and morality (if you think morality is our ability to work in a social framework) ?
I hope I do hear from you,
Thanks and regards,
Suvasini"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for contacting me.
Yes, all behavior serves an end, but the difference is that Huxley didn't see how evolution could have produced morality whereas Darwin did. The problem is that if we call everything selfish (me helping you or me walking away from you in need) then the word selfish has become meaningless and doesn't help us distinguish between acts. But you're right, doing good makes us feel good, which means that nature has offered us a built-in incentive to be so, in the same way it has offered such an incentive for eating, sex, nursing and other things we need to do in order to survive.
A good introduction into the issues is perhaps my discussion with philosophers in Primates and Philosophers (Princeton UP).
All the best,
-- Frans de Waal
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I said in the title, he has only answered some of the questions that i have raised in my email which is still appreciable since he has taken the time out to answer someone who has no standing in the subject.
Coming back to the subject at hand, I find a theory which is a compromise between that of Darwin and Huxley's viewpoint most acceptable.
"While evolution has built in a moral framework of sorts making animals more cooperative, honest, altruist etc... these evolutionary frameworks are not devoid of self interest. We are good because we get an emotional high by doing the right thing. Material reward is not the only reward and in that light there is not much of a distinction between the two schools of thought."
Something for you to ponder about... !!!
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Those deep brown eyes...
I see your little brown eyes staring at me through the bars and I try not to think of what they can see. I give you food and water and my silent words. I follow your life as I would follow mine. I have seen you grow up from that tiny helpless being to this scampering, fighting adult. Over the months, I have cared for you with all my might but then one day I know, it is going to be the time for your last night. For the day when you will be just another subject. Just another answer and just another number. I tell myself this over and over again but your eyes still pierce my shell.
I can see death as I stare into the mirror. I can feel the pain that you may never feel. I feel your heart racing in my hand and I feel my heart racing too. Out of fear and out of guilt. I try to keep you away from the truth through a veil of darkness but somewhere, deep down inside, i think you know.
I feel your soft skin as i hold you in my hand. I can see the future and I know I am the cause. I see your struggle against the inevitable. I know you sense the future and I know you don't like it. I try not to pain you, even as i do the unmentionable. They tell me you don't feel a thing and that you are now in a blissful sleep. I pinch and prod only to make sure they are right. They tell me i should be calm, for you can feel my pulse through my fingers and I hope that you can feel my pain too.
My pain at giving you pain. My regrets at letting them do it. But then they tell me, it is inevitable and that I should look at the bigger picture. That some people must suffer for the greater good of many. And that your death was inevitable, and this way i just learnt more through it. They tell me you've made a difference in your death. I rationalize my actions and I try to look at the bigger picture. I say to myself, I am only the means and the end is already pre-ordained. I say to myself though i find it hard to believe that your life is justified by the end because that's what you were meant to do.
And then, i wonder if I too am just another mode of inquiry. If my life too rests at someone's mercy ? And if I too am fighting the inevitable ? Am also just another pawn who is unable to see the bigger picture ? Am I struggling in vain for someone higher up is pulling my strings too ? Am I also clothed in veil of darkness, a veil I am trying to break through.
Even as these thoughts haunt me, I know i have other things to take care of. And so I listen to them and shut my mind off. I get busy and my mind moves onto other matters, only to be reminded again when I find another you peeking through those doors and nibbling at my fingers.
And then, i wonder if I too am just another mode of inquiry. If my life too rests at someone's mercy ? And if I too am fighting the inevitable ? Am also just another pawn who is unable to see the bigger picture ? Am I struggling in vain for someone higher up is pulling my strings too ? Am I also clothed in veil of darkness, a veil I am trying to break through.
Even as these thoughts haunt me, I know i have other things to take care of. And so I listen to them and shut my mind off. I get busy and my mind moves onto other matters, only to be reminded again when I find another you peeking through those doors and nibbling at my fingers.
For those who are wondering ....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)