Thank you, Arthur. That about sums it up, and should do so even for economists. ----- Original Message ----- From: Arthur Cordell To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION,EDUCATION' Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 8:35 PM Subject: Re: [Futurework] [Ottawadissenters] Whywe cannot bereasonable(Kristof)
Richard Feynman: I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything and there are many things I don't know anything about... -- Richard Feynman (1918-1988)(Nobel Physicist) From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Harry Pollard Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 3:37 PM To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION' Subject: Re: [Futurework] [Ottawadissenters] Why we cannot bereasonable(Kristof) I don’t think the real world is irrational, Ed. In fact the two assumptions that precede all science are: “There is an order in the universe.” “The mind of Man can discover that order.” There can be no science without acceptance of these assumptions. The important word in the “least exertion” principle (on which all progress is based) is ‘seeks’. We don’t like exertion and if we can avoid it we will – but that doesn’t mean we have found the least. I fear economists – perhaps because of mathematics – set up perfect scenarios, then show how imperfect things are. In fact human activity is imperfect but that’s the way it is – that’s real life. Harry ****************************** Henry George School of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91043 Tel: 818 352-4141 ****************************** From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ed Weick Sent: Sunday, July 05, 2009 5:50 AM To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION Subject: Re: [Futurework] [Ottawadissenters] Why we cannot bereasonable(Kristof) I would agree up to a point, Harry. Out of whatever belief system they come, and no matter how strongly they believe, people do assume they are behaving rationally while others, because they do not adhere to the same fundamental beliefs, are behaving irrationally. Economists, for a very long time, have seen peoples' desires as unlimited and people seeking to fulfill those desires with the least exertion as rational behaviour. But in the real and essentially irrational world do people really behave that way? Ed ----- Original Message ----- From: Harry Pollard To: [email protected] Cc: 'futurework' Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2009 8:58 PM Subject: Re: [Futurework] [Ottawadissenters] Why we cannot bereasonable(Kristof) Ed, The mistake made by those who declare that human beings are irrational is to view them from the point of view of the observers. Something that may seem irrational to the observer may seem quite rational to the subject – who works with different information and a different background from the economists. There again people may not be good at rational thinking. In the past, if you behaved irrationally, you would probably die. Now, you survive to continue making inadequate decisions. If we aren’t too good at making decisions, we may well give over the job to someone we think is better. This hasn’t proven too good an idea in many cases. Yet it may be the most rational thing we can do – given the circumstances. The two Classical assumptions still apply: “Man’s desires are unlimited” and “ Man seeks to satisfy his desires with the least exertion.” Harry ****************************** Henry George School of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91043 Tel: 818 352-4141 ****************************** From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ed Weick Sent: Friday, July 03, 2009 5:58 AM To: [email protected] Cc: futurework Subject: Re: [Ottawadissenters] Why we cannot be reasonable(Kristof) About the only people who still see people as rational are (some) economists. Akerlof's and Shiller's "Animal Spirits" deals with irrationality in the market economy. I could only read about half of it after concluding, many times, that they were telling us things that most of us already knew. Ed ----- Original Message ----- From: Arthur Cordell To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 9:44 PM Subject: FW: [Ottawadissenters] Why we cannot be reasonable(Kristof) From: Arthur Cordell [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 9:44 PM To: '[email protected]'; 'undisclosed-recipients:' Subject: RE: [Ottawadissenters] Why we cannot be reasonable(Kristof) And there is the illusion that people are rational. Not. We rationalize our irrational decisions and call ourselves rational. Hmmm. Arthur From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Harry Pollard Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 8:03 PM To: [email protected]; 'undisclosed-recipients:' Subject: RE: [Ottawadissenters] Why we cannot be reasonable(Kristof) Perhaps people think that Anthropogenic Global Warming is a scam and not to be trusted. Harry ****************************** Henry George School of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91043 Tel: 818 352-4141 ****************************** From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steve Kurtz Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 1:21 PM To: undisclosed-recipients: Subject: [Ottawadissenters] Why we cannot be reasonable(Kristof) Thanks to Nicole M. July 2, 2009 Op-Ed Columnist When Our Brains Short-Circuit By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF Our political system sometimes produces such skewed results that it’s difficult not to blame bloviating politicians. But maybe the deeper problem lies in our brains. Evidence is accumulating that the human brain systematically misjudges certain kinds of risks. In effect, evolution has programmed us to be alert for snakes and enemies with clubs, but we aren’t well prepared to respond to dangers that require forethought. If you come across a garter snake, nearly all of your brain will light up with activity as you process the “threat.” Yet if somebody tells you that carbon emissions will eventually destroy Earth as we know it, only the small part of the brain that focuses on the future — a portion of the prefrontal cortex — will glimmer. “We humans do strange things, perhaps because vestiges of our ancient brain still guide us in the modern world,” notes Paul Slovic, a psychology professor at the University of Oregon and author of a book on how our minds assess risks. Consider America’s political response to these two recent challenges: 1. President Obama proposes moving some inmates from Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to supermax prisons from which no one has ever escaped. This is the “enemy with club” threat that we have evolved to be alert to, so Democrats and Republicans alike erupt in outrage and kill the plan. 2. The climate warms, ice sheets melt and seas rise. The House scrounges a narrow majority to pass a feeble cap-and-trade system, but Senate passage is uncertain. The issue is complex, full of trade-offs and more cerebral than visceral — and so it doesn’t activate our warning systems. “What’s important is the threats that were dominant in our evolutionary history,” notes Daniel Gilbert, a professor of psychology at Harvard University. In contrast, he says, the kinds of dangers that are most serious today — such as climate change — sneak in under the brain’s radar. Professor Gilbert argues that the threats that get our attention tend to have four features. First, they are personalized and intentional. The human brain is highly evolved for social behavior (“that’s why we see faces in clouds, not clouds in faces,” says Mr. Gilbert), and, like gazelles, we are instinctively and obsessively on the lookout for predators and enemies. Second, we respond to threats that we deem disgusting or immoral — characteristics more associated with sex, betrayal or spoiled food than with atmospheric chemistry. “That’s why people are incensed about flag burning, or about what kind of sex people have in private, even though that doesn’t really affect the rest of us,” Professor Gilbert said. “Yet where we have a real threat to our well-being, like global warming, it doesn’t ring alarm bells.” Third, threats get our attention when they are imminent, while our brain circuitry is often cavalier about the future. That’s why we are so bad at saving for retirement. Economists tear their hair out at a puzzlingly irrational behavior called hyperbolic discounting: people’s preference for money now rather than much larger payments later. For example, in studies, most Americans prefer $50 now to $100 in six months, even though that represents a 100 percent return. Fourth, we’re far more sensitive to changes that are instantaneous than those that are gradual. We yawn at a slow melting of the glaciers, while if they shrank overnight we might take to the streets. In short, we’re brilliantly programmed to act on the risks that confronted us in the Pleistocene Age. We’re less adept with 21st-century challenges. At the University of Virginia, Professor Jonathan Haidt shows his Psychology 101 students how evolution has prepared us to fear some things: He asks how many students would be afraid to stand within 10 feet of a friend carrying a pet boa constrictor. Many hands go up, although almost none of the students have been bitten by a snake. “The objects of our phobias, and the things that are actually dangerous to us, are almost unrelated in the modern world, but they were related in our ancient environment,” Mr. Haidt said. “We have no ‘preparedness’ to fear a gradual rise in the Earth’s temperature.” This short-circuitry in our brains explains many of our policy priorities. We Americans spend nearly $700 billion a year on the military and less than $3 billion on the F.D.A., even though food-poisoning kills more Americans than foreign armies and terrorists. We’re just lucky we don’t have a cabinet-level Department of Snake Extermination. Still, all is not lost, particularly if we understand and acknowledge our neurological shortcomings — and try to compensate with rational analysis. When we work at it, we are indeed capable of foresight: If we can floss today to prevent tooth decay in later years, then perhaps we can also drive less to save the planet. • I invite you to visit my blog, On the Ground. Please also join me on Facebook, watch my YouTube videos and follow me on Twitter. __._,_.___ Messages in this topic (4) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic Messages | Files | Photos | Links | Polls | Members | Calendar Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe RECENT ACTIVITY Visit Your Group Give Back Yahoo! for Good Get inspired by a good cause. Y! Toolbar Get it Free! easy 1-click access to your groups. Yahoo! Groups Start a group in 3 easy steps. Connect with others. . __,_._,___ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
