Take a photo of a barcode or cover
bookwormmichelle 's review for:
I enjoyed this book and the research Ariely does, plus he has a fun writing style. (Warning: if you let your kids read this, there is a chapter to omit on sex) I really like to have the patterns that affect our thinking spelled out for us.
However, sometimes when Ariely applies his findings to what he calls "standard" or "classic" economics, he gets a bit off-base. He seems to be under the impression that "rationality" under classical economics means that all people act to maximize dollar benefits at all times, and any deviation is then "irrational." However, a better statement of position is that "rationality" means that all economic actors act to maximize their returns in accord with their preferences. Preferences themselves are not irrational, nor are they rational. They just are. Arational, I suppose, if one prefers. But Ariely sets up a straw man, showing that we often act in ways that reflect preferences we have, even unconscious ones, and then he says therefore that since humans are so clearly "irrational", then therefore the free market needs some help and we need government intervention. He also, when labeling us "irrational" fails to probe further in several of these--is it possible for us to learn these patterns and then avoid them? Actually, the research later in the book shows that this often is--when he uses, for example, the Ten Commandments to "remind" study participants to be honest. Why not continue digging with some of these other issues? Perhaps we just need education, not more government. And then he turns around and accuses classical economics of having NOTHING to say about low savings rates in the U.S. Beg pardon? But he treats this issue as a solely cognitive one, refusing to even discuss the incentives that affect savings rates. "Behavioral" this certainly is; "economics" it sometimes isn't. But a fun read.
However, sometimes when Ariely applies his findings to what he calls "standard" or "classic" economics, he gets a bit off-base. He seems to be under the impression that "rationality" under classical economics means that all people act to maximize dollar benefits at all times, and any deviation is then "irrational." However, a better statement of position is that "rationality" means that all economic actors act to maximize their returns in accord with their preferences. Preferences themselves are not irrational, nor are they rational. They just are. Arational, I suppose, if one prefers. But Ariely sets up a straw man, showing that we often act in ways that reflect preferences we have, even unconscious ones, and then he says therefore that since humans are so clearly "irrational", then therefore the free market needs some help and we need government intervention. He also, when labeling us "irrational" fails to probe further in several of these--is it possible for us to learn these patterns and then avoid them? Actually, the research later in the book shows that this often is--when he uses, for example, the Ten Commandments to "remind" study participants to be honest. Why not continue digging with some of these other issues? Perhaps we just need education, not more government. And then he turns around and accuses classical economics of having NOTHING to say about low savings rates in the U.S. Beg pardon? But he treats this issue as a solely cognitive one, refusing to even discuss the incentives that affect savings rates. "Behavioral" this certainly is; "economics" it sometimes isn't. But a fun read.