Psychological experiments D. Kaneman in the economy
october 2002, the Nobel Committee announced awarding his memorial premium in the field of economy with two outstanding scientists: Daniel Kanenu from Princeton (USA) and Jerusalem (Israel) of universities "for integrating the results of psychological research into economic science, primarily in the field of judgment and decision making Under the conditions of uncertainty "and Vernon Smith from the University of George Mason (USA) -" for approval of laboratory experiments as an empirical analysis tool in the economy, especially in the study of alternative market mechanisms. "
Caneman and Smith's nomination, although expected several years ago, served as a formal recognition of the fact that in the framework of economic discipline there were such independent areas as an experimental economy, economic psychology, behavioral economy. However, the 2002 nomination means something more. First, the Nobel Prize in the economy, awarded to the representative of psychological science, obviously confirms the principal course of the global scientific community to integrate research programs of various sciences about the person. Secondly - and this is perhaps even more importantly - the very recognition of the significance of the psychological characteristics of individual behavior by professional economists marked and recorded a significant shift in approaches and issues of all economic science. In fact, this fact means recognition not only expediency, but also the need to go beyond formal axiomatic models, weakly related to the real behavior, which these models are designed to describe. Economic sciences enter the era of a gradual revision of the established methods and doctrines, starting with the foundation of the foundations - Models of Noto Ossopoticus, a rational economic person. The fundamental empirical material for such a revision was obtained as a result of psychological studies in which Daniel Kanenu belongs to one of the main roles; And the main tool for accumulating such a material was the experiment as a special method of increment scientific knowledge, entered the arsenal of economic sciences thanks to the pioneering works of Vernon Smith.
In the tradition of neoclassical economic science, it was somehow subconsciously, it was accepted that empirical research (and even more experiments with real people) - lesson less "serious" than the "high" theory. Neoclassical economists preferred to deal with more "serious", increasingly understanding under the progress of science and more sophisticated formal constructions as part of their scientific tradition based on the model of nototo oestosophysus of the point of view of standard theory , have absolute memory and computing abilities, always well aware of your interest (preferences) and act in accordance with it. A formal description of rational behavior in theory was preceded by a number of assumptions (such as convexity, continuity, monotony and transitivity of individual preferences), which allowed the preferences of individuals a truly-valued utility function and use a powerful analytical tool for mathematical and functional analysis. Moreover, in complete agreement with the positivistic methodology, the theory argued that even if the agent does not solve the consciously maximizing task, he still acts as if he had solved it. This happens at least because systematic deviations from such behavior would inevitably lead to losses expressed in money, and in the case of a systematic repetition, and to the bankruptcy of the "irrational" agent.
Reality, however, stubbornly did not want to fit in the "procker bed" of canonical schemes, however convenient they were analytically. Back in 1950s, the American economist and psychologist Herbert Simon convincingly showed that real decision makers behave completely differently than described in the textbooks on the economy. The limitations of cognitive abilities does not allow real people in practice to find solutions that are optimal from a theoretical point of view. If so, the concept of substantive rationality, adopted in standard models, should give way to the concept of limited rationality as more correct from a descriptive point of view.
Simon's works, marked in 1978 by the Nobel Prize "For pioneering studies of decision-making processes in economic organizations," then they still could not enter the scientific arsenal, and probably perceived by most economists as an adverse and insignificant branch of science. However, over the past twenty years, the subject and the economy method has changed if not radically, it is very essential. University programs firmly included such fundamental empirical phenomena as the paradoxes of Alla or the "FRAMING EFFECT) in the theory of individual behavior under risk.
Psychologist Daniel Kaneman is one of the founders of psychological economic theory and, perhaps, the most famous researcher of how a person makes decisions and what mistakes based on cognitive distortions allow for this. For the study of human behavior in the conditions of uncertainty Daniel Kaneman received the Nobel Prize in the economy in 2002 (this is the only case when the Nobel Prize in the economy received a psychologist). What did this manage to open a psychologist? For many years of research that Kaneman spent with a colleague Amos Tver, scientists found out and experimentally proved that human actions lead not only and not so much the mind of people as their stupidity and irrationality .
And with this, you see, it is difficult to argue. Today we offer to your attention 3 lectures Daniel Kanenan, in which he will take place once again at an irrational human nature, will tell about cognitive distortions that prevent us from adequately to make decisions, and will explain why not always to trust expert estimates.
Daniel Caneman: "The mystery of dichotomy" experience-memory "
Using various examples, from our relationship to vacations before the impressions of colonoscopy, the Nobel laureate and the founder of the behavior economy Daniel Caneman demonstrates how differently our "experiencing I" and our "remembering I" perceive happiness. But why is it going on and what consequences does such a splitting of our "I" lead? Answers are looking for in this lecture.
Now everyone talks about happiness. Once I asked one person to calculate all the books with the word "happiness" in the title, published in the last 5 years, and he surrendered after the 40th, but of course they were even more. Rise interest Fortunately huge among researchers. There are many trainings on this topic. Everyone wants to make people happier. But despite such an abundance of literature, there are some cognitive distortions that practically do not allow to think about happiness correctly. And my presentation today will be mainly devoted to these cognitive traps. This concerns I. ordinary peopleThinking about your happiness, and in the same extent scientists, reflecting about happiness, as it turns out that we all confused equally. The first of these traps is unwillingness to admit how difficult it is concept. It turns out that the word "happiness" is no longer so useful Wordbecause we apply it to too different things. I think that there is one particular importance that we must limit ourselves, but, in general, this is what we have to forget and develop a more comprehensive look at what well-being. The second trap is a mixing experience and memory: that is, between the state of happiness in life and the feeling of happiness relative to his life or the feeling that life suits you. These are two absolutely different concepts, but both of them are usually united into one concept of happiness. And the third is the illusion of focus, and this is a sad fact that we cannot think about any circumstance that affects our well-being, not distorting its significance. This is the most real cognitive trap. And simply there is no way to understand all this right.
© Ted Conferences.
Translation: "Audio School"
Read the material on the topic:
Daniel Caneman: "Inteen's study" ( EXPLORATIONS OF THE MIND INTITION)
Why sometimes intuition works, and sometimes not? For what reason most forecasts of experts do not come true and can I generally trust the intuition of experts? What cognitive illusions interfere with making an adequate expert assessment? How is this associated with the specifics of our thinking? What is the "intuitive" and "thinking" types of thinking? Why can intuition work not in all areas of human activity? About this and many other things, Daniel Kaneman told in his video track Explorations of the Mind Intuition.
* Translation starts at 4:25 minutes.
© Berkeley Graduate Lectures
Translation: P2IB.ru.
Daniel Caneman: "Reflections on the science of well-being"
Deployed version of Ted-performing Daniel Kaneman. A public lecture, read by a psychologist at the third international conference on cognitive science, is also devoted to the problem of two "I" - "remembering" and "real". But here the psychologist considers this problem in the context of psychology well-being. Daniel Kaneman talks about modern studies of well-being and those results that he and his colleagues managed to get lately. In particular, he explains from which factors the subjective well-being depends on our "present I", which represents the concept of utility on which the decision-making depends on how much attention is affected by the experienced happiness, as interconnected attention and pleasure, Which we are experiencing from anything, and how much do we exaggerate the meaning of what we think? And, of course, the question of what the importance of the study of happiness experienced is for society.
Daniel Caneman entered the history of economic science as the Nobel laureate and as the creator of a new research destination in the economy, which was subsequently called the "behavioral economy". What is such a revolutionary, the new one was able to bring a scientist who, in general, was not even an economist - he was primarily a cognitive psychologist.
The story began in 1979, when the article of Daniel Kanemann appeared in the prestigious economic journal "Econometric" and his Colleague Amos Tvers, who, unfortunately, did not live to give the Nobel Prize. In the article, they talked about their research, about a series of simple and elegant experiments who checked the viability of the economic theory of rational choice. The researchers asked in this work the question: as a person in reality - not an abstract Homo Economicus, which is a key figure in standard economic theory, but a real person - makes a choice in risk and uncertainty? Scientists spent very simple experiments, lottery to choose from a guaranteed outcome, and they looked like a person makes decisions. Canemann and Tver managed to show with the help of these experiments, that a person takes irrational decisions, 80-90% of people do not follow a rational choice.
It must be said that in economic theory, the concept of rationality is very specific. It diverges with our household concept of rationality. This is a set of specific axioms that postulate, as we make a choice: What we know all alternatives that we can run them, compare with all the information about each choice and, finally, that we mathematically assess the benefits of each option. And if it is, for example, an alternative in conditions of risk and uncertainty, we make the appropriate calculations that correspond to the theory of probability.
Imagine some probabilistic outcome: for example, you can win 4000 rubles with a probability of 80% or not to win with the remaining 20% \u200b\u200bprobability is the first alternative. And on another cup of scales, the guaranteed outcome is 3000 rubles. How would you rate the first alternative? As part of the standard economic theory, a person must evaluate the expected winnings, multiply with the outcomes of the probability and get 3200 rubles, compare with another alternative and say: "Oh! 3200 is better than 3000, I choose this option. "
But in life it turns out that people, of course, do not consider such probabilities. They somehow operate in a different way in the head with these outcomes, compared differently. And as it turned out within this example, people choose a guaranteed outcome. This was called CERTAINTY EFFECT - can be translated as a "effect of certainty", which suggests that people prefer a guaranteed outcome, even if it in principle allows you to win less than a probabilistic alternative. That is, the tit in the hands is better than the crane in the sky.
The most interesting starts next when the situation turns over and the results become different if we formulate them already in terms of loss. The same numbers, the same probability, just say that either you can be guaranteed to lose 3000 rubles, or there is a probabilistic alternative: if you are not lucky, you will lose 4000 rubles from your wallet, and if you're lucky, you will not lose anything. And here we see that the results are mirrored. And most people already have 90%, choose a risky alternative, which can lead to a highly likely to big losses. Caneman and Tver called this effect "rejection of losses".
Why is this a deviation from standard economic theory? In the first case, we preferred not to risk, and then suddenly there are absolutely the same figures, the same alignment, but we already prefer to risk. That is, the attitude to risk is changing. This should not be. I'm not talking about the fact that the theory of probability also does not correspond to our choice.
These abstract lotteries received in the Caneman article and the vertical name Prospects, which translated from English can be translated as a chance. And in honor of this, the theory itself was named Prospects Theory - the theory of prospects (in the Russian version there was a name). It should be understood that these are not abstract mathematical tasks that are solved by people in the experiment and have nothing to do with life. In fact, parallels can be found with many situations and solutions that we have to take every day. For example, pay for a ticket or try good luck and slip with a hare in some transport. Or, for example, pay the parking space or also try good luck. Or again you buy some insurance product or risk and hope that we will be lucky and nothing bad will happen.
And then this phenomenon rejection loss leads to us deeper in understanding why, for example, in some countries, insurance products are a traditional product that is always bought, and, for example, in our country this is a non-optular product. We see just that the most displacement, those 80-90% of people who say: "I will risk better. Suddenly nothing bad happens, and I will not lose anything. " And it becomes clear that a socio-cultural context plays an important role, that is, traditions. When people in the West have already accustomed to buy insurance products and they don't even have a question, how to behave in this situation, there are no such culture in Russia, and we decide this problem every time. And then, of course, the effect of rejection of losses in complete glory affects our choice.
We see that with the help of a behavioral economy, which is initially not answering the question why we behave so much, why there is one or another deviation from rational behavior, other social sciences, whether sociology or cultural science, biology or neurobiology, evolutionary biology, Connect to the answer to these questions. And one of the achievements of Caneman's research and tvs are just that they allowed to transfer this bridge between the economy, which was always such a separate direction, separately with science with their rules, with its models, approaches, very mathematicized, to other social sciences and Put the beginning of interdisciplinary research.
Of course, this article made the effect of a broken bomb. Because there are no few of these simple experiments of Kaneman and tvtvsky put the bomb under the foundation of the economic standard theory. That is, they literally said that your idea of \u200b\u200bhow a person makes a choice, untenable, it is incorrect. And this theory underlies all models of standard economic theory. That is, this means that all other models do not work either or at least work not always. And this, of course, was a tangible blow into the very heart of economists who collapsed with a wave of criticism on Caneman and Tver.
Evaluating the contribution of Caneman to the development of a new study in the economy at the junction with psychology, it is possible to wonder: no one has not believed that a person is unrecognized that he has emotions that something deflects him from a cold, sober, weighted, prudent thinking ? Of course, such people were. And Adam Smith, and John Meinard Keynes, and Herbert Simon - they all said that a person is not so rational, as it seems, and what needs to be taken into account in models. But besides the transfer of how different factors can affect the adoption of our decision, the matter did not go further. It was not clear how to simulate how to consider how to predict it.
And the achievement of Kaneman and his colleagues tvschsky lies exactly in the fact that they have shown that a person is not just unrecognized, and it is non-degenerate systematically, under certain conditions, in a certain context and in a certain way. And they showed that it is 70-80% of people, that is, a significant amount that definitely deviates from rational behavior. And this does not mean that our brain has no logic and is unknown, as we behave in every situation. The fact of the matter is that the thinking has some kind of special logic. And with the help of experiments we can understand or, at least, to establish reliably, which patterns, samples of this behavior, deviations from rational behavior at all exist, as we behave in certain contexts.
This is the most important thing that I showed Caneman. And on the basis of these ideas actually it became possible to build the next floor in the building of the behavioral economy, which has already shown how to apply to real life, to the real economy, to reforms, to forecasting all these effects and finds who received Kaneman and Tver in their works. And how to implement how to apply the knowledge of the behavioral economy to socio-economic policies and to all areas of the economy, Richard Taler and his co-author of Cass Sunstain in his book "Nudge", for which, actually, Richard Talera and Dali Nobel Prize in 2017.
Now Daniel Kaneman is engaged in several other things, namely, the studies of happiness - the category, it would seem completely uneconomical. But in fact, many questions arise as pleasure from life is associated with income, or location, or even the landscaping of the country, with such economic categories as GDP, for example. And it turns out that everything is not so obvious and trivially in this matter. And moreover, people themselves do not know that it brings them the very satisfaction of life. On the way, fortunately lies cognitive distortion, cognitive traps. And I must say that the study of this residence and experience, let it be a residence and a feeling of service, for example, in some bank, or feeling during a tourist trip, or feeling throughout our life, are now trend. So we can say that Caneman is again at the forefront of science.
Summing up and looking back by the scientific path of Daniel Caneman, I would say that this is such a beautiful, noble trajectory: you begin to study the imperfection of a person, its features that lead to his vulnerability to manipulate them, but at the same time remain on the side of good and Do not create some instructions how to use it to harm the person, earn more on it, but, on the contrary, you think about how to make it happier. This, of course, causes respect and sincere sympathy for this person. And we can say that Daniel Caneman really became the hero of economic science.
The man is unreasonable"The mind serves us usually only in order
To boldly do nonsense "
Francois de Larochefuky
In 2002, the Nobel Prize in the field of economy received a psychologist Daniel Kaneman. This is at least surprising that the highest award in economics is not economist, but a psychologist. Such was only twice when the premium in economics was received by Mathematics Leonid Kantorovich (in 1974) and John Nash (1994).
Stupidity - Progress Engine
Caneman came to an interesting conclusion. It turns out human actions (consequently, economic trends, and, therefore, and the entire history of mankind) leads not only and not so much the mind of people as their nonsense, since the great many actions performed by people are irrational. In short, the nonsense is fooling on the balm of life.
Of course, thought is not Nova. The fact that people - with Honor and Avenue were known at all times, but Caneman experimentally proved that the irrelevant behavior of people is natural and showed that its scale is unrelated. The Nobel Committee acknowledged that this psychological law is directly reflected in the economy. According to the Nobel Committee, Kaneman "with a sufficient basis questioned the practical use of the fundamental postulates of economic theory."
The economists agreed that the highest reward on the economy was awarded a psychologist fairly fairly, and thus found courage to admit that since the time of Smith and Ricardo, they batted the brains to each other and all mankind, because they were somewhat simplified and idealized our life, believing that People in their commodity deeds act intelligently and weighed.
Economic forecasts before the beginning of the 21st century were akin to weather forecasts of the XIX century in the sense that there were practically no factor in human nonsense - the impact of passions and emotions for decision-making is the same as the weather forecasters have not taken into account the powerful factor in the weather in cyclones and anticyclones visible from space. And the fact that people finally recognized the advisory voice of their own nonsense in making business decisions, is a serious breakthrough of their mind.
Whether you came across the exam in the economy (if you had to pass it) approximately such questions:
- How did the sexy addiction of Clinton affect the US State Budget deficit?
- How does conjectures and prejudices in the problems of trading participants on the stock exchange affect the stock prices?
- How many panickers of the world foreign exchange market Forex thoughtlessly rush to convert dollars to pounds sterling if collapses The White house (Note - not all of America, but only a white house)?
I also did not come across. And you know why? Because such questions, until recently, were considered to be extremely frozen - as if the above factors of influence were not at all.
So, the merit of Caneman is that he forced serious husbands to seriously think about the influence of such "non-serious", but significant factors.
Experiments of Professor Caneman
In their works: "Prediction Psychology" (1973), "Decisions in the Conditions of Uncertainty" (1974), "Perspective Theory: Analysis of decision-making in risk" (1979), "Decision making and psychology" (1981) and other , Daniel Caneman and his late colleague Amos Tvers described simple witty experiments that shed light on human inadequacy of perception. Here is some of them:
Task about Linda
Students of the Mathematical Faculty were offered to solve approximately such a task:
Linda is a mature woman, which thirty, and energy from it and rushing. At leisure, she wraps his beautiful toasts no worse than the satuled Georgian toasters and at the same time may not blinking with the eye, knock over the moonshine glass. In addition, it is raised by any manifestations of discrimination and initiate demonstrations in defense of African rhinos.
Attention, question:
Which of the two options is likely: 1 is that Linda is a cashier in a bank or 2 - that Linda is a cashier in a bank and feminist?
Over 70% of the experiment participants chose a second option, because the preliminary description of the Linda corresponded to their ideas about feminists, although this description was not related to the case and looked diverting character like a silver brillium with an inconspicuous crochet for pike. Students who studied the theory of probability knew that the likelihood of the occurrence of a simple event is higher than the probability of the onset of the composite - that is, the total number of cashiers is greater than the number of cashiers-feminist. But they were peeled and fell on the hook. (As you understand, the correct answer is 1).
Hence the conclusion: stereotypes that take over people easily overshadow a sober mind.
Cup law
Imagine:
A visitor who is included in the cafe meets the waitress about such asks: Oh, the type is cool, came true! - Finally, a thousandth visitor granted us! - And here you are for this solemn prize - a cup with a blue burden! The visitor takes a gift with a stretched smile without clearly pronounced signs of delight (and why do I need a cup? - He thinks). Bifstex is ordered and silently chews, stupidly looking at an unnecessary gift and thinking about himself where to attach it. But, before he time to calm Kislie, the same waitress in the apron speaks to him and the apologety tone says that, they say, sorry, they were cheated - it turned out that you are from us - the 999th, and the thousandth - won the included disabled with The stick - grabs a cup and runs away with screams: whom I see! etc. Seeing such a turn, the visitor begins to worry: uh!, Uh !!, uh !!! Where are you going?! Here, infection! - His irritation increases to the level of rabies, even though the cup is needed to him no more than the paddle.
Output: the degree of satisfaction from the acquisition (cups, spoons, cooks, wives and other property) is less than the degree of grief from adequate losses. People are ready to fight for their pocket penny and less tend to bend bending.
Or if, let's say, no one has pull you out during the negotiations, and you promised an additional discount on joys, then the expense, as a rule, no - otherwise, negotiations can go to a dead end or collapse at all. After all, the person is such that she usually perceives concessions as proper, and if you draw, want to replay and return "everything, as it was," he will perceive it as a shameless attempt to theft of his legitimate property. Therefore, planning the upcoming negotiations - clearly know what you want from them with how much. You can, with minimal costs, make the opponent be satisfied, like an elephant (there is a psychology of communication), and you can spend a lot of time, nerves and money and eventually remain the last asshole in his eyes. Be mild to the identity of the opponent and tough to the subject of negotiations.
Emotional distortion of the laws of probability
Caneman and Tver, again, the mathematicians were offered to consider such a situation:
Suppose the American aircraft carrier with 600 sailors on board (though, in the original condition of the task, the situation with hostages is considered unparalleled in our day). You received the SOS signal, and you have only two options for salvation. If you choose the first option, it means that you will swim to the rescue at the near, but a devoid cruiser "Varyag" and save exactly 200 sailors. And if the second one swims on the squadron of the Duke Potemkin-Tavrician "(in the people - the Potemkin battleship), which is low-speed, but spacious, therefore, with a probability of 1/2, the entire crew of the aircraft carrier either can be in the abyss, or everyone will drink Champagne, in general - 50 to 50. The fuel you only have enough to refuel one ship. What is the option of salvation of drowning from these two preferably - "Varyag" or "Potemkin"?
Approximately 2/3 of the participants of the experiment (72%) chose the option with the Varyag cruiser. When asked why they chose him, the students answered that if they sail on the "Varyag", 200 people are guaranteed, and in the case of "Potemkin", perhaps everything will die - I can not risk all sailors!
Then, already another group of the same students, the same task was formulated somewhat differently:
You again have two options to save the aforementioned sailors. If you choose the cruiser "Varyag", then exactly 400 of them will die, and if the battleship "Potemkin" is again 50 to 50, i.e, all or nobody.
With such a wording, 78% of students have already chosen the battleship "Potemkin". When asked why they did it, such an answer was usually given: most of the people die with the "Varyag", and the "Potemkin" there are a good chance of salvation of everyone.
As you can see, the condition of the task is essentially not changed, simply in the first case focused on 200 surviving sailors, and in the second - for 400 dead - that the same thing (remember? - what we are silent about, for the listener, no matter how - Take a look).
The correct solution of the task is such. The probability of 0.5 (which in the variant with the "Potemkin") multiply by 600 sailors and we obtain a probable number of saved equal to 300 (and, accordingly, the same probable number of drowned). As you can see, the likely number of saved sailors in the variant with the battleship "Potemkin" is greater (and the likely amount of drowned, respectively, less) than in the version with the Varyag cruiser (300\u003e 200 and 300 in general, as you can see, most of the participants in this experiment He made a decision based on emotions - and this is despite the fact that they all dealt with the laws of probability better than the streets from the street.
Conclusions: Challenge, learn to swim and attend spectrary art courses. Well, and if serious, then it seems that more than two thirds of mankind are potential patients of Professor Caneman, because people alone know a lot, but they know how to use knowledge in practice. And, again, a person is more impressive losses than achievements. And one more: understand the theory of probabilities, sometimes much more useful than to own foreign languages and accounting principles.
When making decisions, the choice of people is not always dictated by a sober mind, but often instincts, emotions, or what is customary to be called intuition (with insufficient grounds). As a rule, when people in life take intuitive decisions on insufficient grounds, if you guess - they remember them and put themselves in merit, and if they are mistaken - they are walled on the circumstances and forget. And then they say: I always rely on intuition, and she never brings me!
Although people can integrate theoretically on paper and operate with catangents, in almost the same way in life only to fold and deduct and usually do not go on multiplication-division.
Former excellent students in school often - duals in life. Professors and academics know Bohr's postulates, the laws of Mendel and the theory of quantum fields, and in fact they can be bankrupt in ordinary enterprises full of profanities in the elementary psychology of communication unhappy in marriage and some of them at the international conference are dripped by droaching on the minutes of the meeting.
On the other hand, some clairvoyant grandmother with a claim in age-old wisdom is always ready to explain to you that your failures by the law of karma took your sinful great-grandfather on you, who in his youth thruged it and threw, although herself, of course, has no idea As, for example, a sailboat can move against the wind or why in the southern pole is colder than on the northern (as it can be ranting about difficult, without understanding simple?).
The irrationality of people is such that they will be sure to believe that they know the answers to any unrecognizable questions and refuse to recognize the evidence that they do not actually see on their own nose (as a rule, the argument happens one thing: "This is my faith!").
(to be continued)Reprinting materials it is possible only with binding links to the site. (on the Internet - hyperlink) and by the author
In 2002, Daniel Kahneman received the Nobel Prize in the economy. Nothing special, only one fact - Daniel all his life is engaged in psychology. In particular, it is one of two researchers who at the beginning of the 70s tried to destroy the fundamental paradigm of economic sciences of the time: a myth of a person who accepts arch-rational solutions known as "Economic Man".
Unfortunately, the associate of Daniel, Amos Tvers, died in 1996 at the age of 59. If the tv was alive, he would undoubtedly divided the Nobel Prize with Kaneman, his long-standing colleague and an expensive friend.
Human irrationality is the central point of all the works of Caneman. Essentially, his entire research path can be divided into three stages, at each of which the "man irrational" reveals himself from the new side.
At the first stage, Kaneman and Tver conducted a number of brilliant experiments, which revealed about twenty "cognitive distortions" - unconscious arguments that distort our judgments about the world. The most typical "": a tendency to dependence on insignificant numbers. For example, in one experiment, experienced German judges showed a higher tendency to make a long term of concluding for the store thief, in the event of a large number of cubes.
At the second stage, Kaneman and Tvers proved that people who make decisions in conditions of uncertainty do not behave themselves as prescribed by economic models; They do not "maximize utility." Later they developed an alternative concept about a process, closer to real human behavior, called the "Perspective theory". It was for this achievement Caneman received the Nobel Prize.
At the third stage of his career, after death, Tverski, Caneman deepened in "hedonistic psychology":, its nature and causes. The discoveries in this area were very extravagant - and not only because one of the key experiments included a colonoscopy deliberately tightened by researchers (this is an unpleasant medical procedure, during which an endoscopypiece examines and assesses the state of the inner surface of the colon using a special probe).
Book "Think slowly, decide quickly" ( THINKING, FAST AND SLOW) covers these three stages. This is an amazingly rich job: bright, deep, complete intellectual surprises and valuable for self-improvement. It is entertaining and in many points in touching, especially in those where Kaneman talks about his cooperation with Tver ("The pleasure that we received from working together, made us extremely tolerant; much easier to strive for perfection when you do not miss a minute") . His vision of the shortcomings of the human mind is so impressive that the Columnist New York Times David Brooks (David Brooks) recently stated: the work of Kaneman and Tver "will remember hundreds of years later" and that "this is an important point of support in self-knowledge of man himself."
The leitmotif of the entire book is human self-confidence. All people, and especially experts, tend to exaggerate the importance of their understanding of the world - this is one of the key postulates of Kalemsman. Despite everything, delusions and illusions that he and vest (along with other researchers) found over the past few decades over the past few decades, the author is not in a hurry to argue about the absolute irrationality of human perception and behavior.
"Most of the time we are healthy, and our actions and judgments are mainly consistent with the situation," writes Caneman in the introduction. Nevertheless, after a few pages, he notes that the results of their work challenged the idea common in academic circles, which "people are usually rational." Researchers discovered "systematic errors in thinking normal people": Errors that arise not from excessive exposure to emotions, but embedded in the established mechanisms of knowledge.
Although Caneman describes only modest political consequences (for example, contracts must be set forth with a clearer language), others (perhaps more self-confident researchers) went much further. Brooks, for example, argues that the works of Kanaman and Tver illustrate the "social policy limitations", in particular, the stupidity of the actions of the government to combat unemployment and to restore the economy.
Fast or logical
Such radical data causes disapproval, even if they are not supported by the author. And the disapproval generates skepticism: called Kalethan "System 2" (System 2). In the Caneman scheme, the system 2 is our slow, deliberate, analytical and consciously targeted way of reasoning about the world. "System 1" (System 1), on the contrary, our fast, automatic, intuitive and largely unconscious regime.
It is "System 1" detects hostility in his voice and easily completes the phrase "black and ...". And "System 2" instantly proceeds when we need to fill out a tax form or park the car on a narrow site. Kaneman and others found a simple way to explain how the person is turned on "System 2" during the task: just look at his eyes and notice how pupils expanded.
In turn, "System 1" uses associations and metaphors to implement the rapid and superficial representation of the reality, to which System 2 is based on clear beliefs and reasonable elections. "System 1" offers, "System 2" has. It turns out, "System 2" dominates? I guess, yes. But besides its selectivity and rationality, she is also lazy. She quickly tired (to designate it there is a fashionable term "exhaustion of the ego").
Too often, instead of slowing the work and analyzing things, "System 2" is content with a light, but inaccurate vision, which feeds it "System 1".
The skeptical reader can ask how seriously it is worth regarding all these conversations about the first and second systems. Is they really a couple of small "agents" in our head, each with its distinctive personality? Not quite, Kaneman says, rather they are "useful fictions" - useful because they help to explain the fads of the human mind.
Problems not at Linda
Consider the "the most famous and most controversial" experiment, according to Kaneman, who he and tv conducted together: "Linda's problem." Experiment participants told about the fictional young woman named Linda, lonely, frank and very bright, which, being a student, was deeply concerned about the issues of discrimination and social justice. Next, the experiment participants asked - what option is likely? The one that Linda is a cashier in a bank, or that it is a bank cashier and an active participant of the feminist movement. The overwhelming majority of respondents called the second option more likely. In other words, the "feminist banking cashier" was more likely than just a "banking cashier". This is, of course, a clear violation of the laws of probability, because each subscription feminist is a bank employee; Adding details can only reduce the likelihood. Nevertheless, even among the graduate students of the Stanford Business University, passing enhanced training on the theory of probability, 85% failed the "Lind problem". One student noted that she made elementary logical misses, since "I thought you just asked my opinion."
What went wrong here? A simple question (how much is the narrative?) Replaced with a more complex (how likely it is?). And this, according to Caneman, is the source of many prejudices infecting our thinking. System 1 jumps on an intuitive conclusion based on "Heuristics" - an easy, but imperfect way to answer complex questions - and system 2 approves this, without bothering himself unnecessary work if it looks logical.
Kaneman describes dozens of similar experiments that demonstrate malfunction in rationality - "basic mounted neglect", "accessibility cascades", "illusion of confidence" and so on.
Are we so hopeless? Think again about the "Linda Problem". Even the Great Biologist-Evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould (Stephen Jay Gould) was concerned about this. In the course of the experiment described above, he knew the correct answer, but wrote that "the monkey in my head continues to ride up and down, shouting:" She can't be just a bank cashier; Read the description! ".
Caneman is convinced that it was the 1 Gulda system that suggested him the wrong answer. But, perhaps, something less is happening. Our everyday conversation occurs on a rich background of unidentified expectations - that linguists are called "implicitu." Such implicitations can leak into psychological experiments. Given the expectations that promote communications may have been reasonably for the participants of the experiment, who had chosen the option "Linda - bank clerk", imply that she was not a feminist. If so, then their responses cannot be considered truly erroneous.
"Unnecessary" optimism
In more natural conditions - when we detect the fact of fraud; When we argue about things instead of symbols; When we estimate dry numbers, and not a share - people are more likely to make similar mistakes. At least, the majority of further research speaks about it. Perhaps we are not so irrational in the end.
Some cognitive prejudices, of course, rudely look even in the most natural conditions. For example, the fact that Caneman calls "erroneous planning": a tendency to revaluation of advantages and underestimation of costs. So in 2002, reconstructing the kitchen, the Americans were expected to work on average cost $ 18,658, and eventually paid $ 38,769.
Error planning is "only one of the manifestations of total-optimistic bias", which "may well be the most significant of cognitive prejudices." It turns out in some sense, the bias towards optimism is obviously bad, because He gives rise to false beliefs - such as confidence that everything is under your control, and not just a successful confluence. But without this "illusion of control" would we be able to climb from the bed every morning?
Optimists are psychologically more stable, have a strong immune system And they live on average longer than their peers-realists. In addition, as Kaneman notes, exaggerated optimism is protected from the paralyzing effect of another prejudice: "fear of loss": we tend to be afraid of losses more than appreciation.
Remembering happiness
Even if we could get rid of prejudices and illusions, it is not a fact that it would make our life better. And then there is a fundamental question: what is a point of rationality? Our daily ability to argue evolved to effectively cope with complex and dynamic environmental. Thus, they are likely to be flexible to this environment, even if they turn off in several artificial experiments of psychologists.
Kaneman never entered the philosophical fights with the nature of rationality. He, however, put forward a breathtaking proposal that it could be its goal: happiness. What does it mean to be happy? When Kaneman first raised this question in the mid-90s, most of the research happiness relied on people's polls about how much they were satisfied with their lives in general. But such retrospective assessments depend on the memory, which is an extremely unreliable variable. And what if instead take a pleasant and painful experience from the case towards the case and summarize it over time?
Caneman calls it a "experiencing" well-being, as opposition to the "memorizing" well-being, which researchers are based on. And he discovered that these two measures of happiness diverge in unexpected directions. "Testing I" does not the same as "memorizing me." In particular, I do not care about the duration - how long the pleasant or unpleasant experience lasts. Rather, it retrospectively estimates the experience at the maximum level of pain or pleasure.
In one of the most terrifying experiments, Kanahn were shown by two fads memorizing I - "Long neglect" and "Rule of the last impression". Two groups of patients were to pass a painful colonoscopy. Patients from the group and passed the usual procedure. Group B patients also passed this procedure with the exception of several added discomfort, which colonoscope was immobile. What group has suffered more? The group B survived all the pain, tested by the group A, and a lot more. But since the prolongation of colonoscopy in the group b was less painful than the main procedure, the patients of this group were worried less, and repeated colonoscopy almost did not cause them objections.
Both with colonoscopy and life. Not "experiencing", and "I remember" gives orders. I remembering, I carry out the "tyranny" above the experiencing Ya. "No matter how strange it may seem," Kanahn writes, "I am simultaneously a" memorizing I "and" Testing I ", making my life to me unfamiliar."
The radical conclusion of Caneman is not so far from. "Testing I" may not exist at all. For example, the scanning brain experiments from Rafael Malach (Rafael Malach) and his colleagues from the Wezman Institute in Israel showed that when items are absorbed in experience, for example, when watching the film "Good, bad, evil", parts of the brain associated with self-awareness, closed ( Inhibited) the rest of the brain. Personality seems to just disappear. Then who enjoys the film? And why should such impersonal pleasures go to the zone of responsibility of the "memorizing I"?
Obviously, in hedonistic psychology, much more should be open. But conceptual innovation Kaneman laid the basis for many empirical studies outlined in his work: that headaches are hedonically harder in the poor; that women living alone will average as many women who have a life satellite; and that family income of $ 75,000 in expensive regions And countries are enough to maximize pleasure from life.
