The Nebulous Kingdom

Homo economicus?

1/4/2010

Comments

 
Picture
Is he a fiction… or just more evolved than we had thought?

Wikipedia describes homo economicus as “rational and broadly self-interested actors who have the ability to make judgments towards their subjectively defined ends.”  Homo economicus is at the core of Chicago’s currently-disgraced efficient market theory (the disgrace of which, by the way, is creating a wave of interest in Chicago’s now-esteemed work in behavioral science, especially Richard Thaler’s research and book on decision architecture, Nudge – adherence to portfolio theory much?).  

The narrow “strong” form of homo economicus has been discredited, and rightfully so.  But is there a more “evolved’ form of homo economicus that still makes sense?

Perhaps rational self-interest is more than the filthy lucre that one can reasonably calculate.  Incentives might also include:
  • Social capital
  • Quality of life benefits, such as human relationships and meaningful lives
  • Long-term benefits (including beyond death, since your DNA lives on in your kids)

The second and third might explain “inequity aversion,” which monkeys and human beings have been shown to exhibit.  In essence, experiments have shown that people will hurt themselves to punish others for being unfair.  Using the narrow definition of rationality, this dynamic seems highly irrational.  However, if you believe that inequity breeds instability and damages human relationships, there may be a rational incentive that underlies “inequity aversion” behaviors.  And obviously, holding out rather than allowing yourself to be taken advantage of is a pattern of behavior that has clear economic advantages for the individual as well.

Also, it’s worthwhile to note that it’s not incentives, per se, that drive human behavior.  It’s perception of incentives, which is variable from person to person.  Note that this does not necessarily mean that some people are right and some people are wrong.  Everyone might still be right, and a “homo economicus,” because we live in a world with the following characteristics:  a)  deep uncertainty, b) differences in individual preference, and c) differences in individual knowledge and understanding.

For instance, some people value personal relationships more than others.  They may still be homo economicus in the broader sense of the term, making rational decisions based on their own incentives (that are very challenging to draw conclusions from in lab experiments – those poor doctoral students..).  Even people who do not opt into a 401(k) when it is financially advantageous may be behaving as homo economicus, if they do not have an intellectual or visceral understanding of the future benefits that will accrue from the investment of their time (and money) today.  People pay attention to the things that are important to them.  As moronically obvious as this sounds, once you think of attention in evolutionary and biological rather than intellectual terms, the import is less obvious.  When I was going to India for 6 months, I developed a laser focus on all things India-related, an almost physical phenomenon.  Procrastination is natural output of this dynamic as well.  

And if you believe all of this, not opting into a 401(k) might be a problem of knowledge and visceral understanding rather than irrationality.  Emotions are biological-driven phenomena that are part of the decision-making framework.  If I am enraged at you, the pleasure it will give me to throw a mug at your head outweighs my perception of the consequences.  If my heart beats faster than yours in a given situation, I may perceive the decision at hand as riskier and assign a higher cost.  I give because I feel good about it.   If I sank into clinical depression every time I did something charitable, I would probably stop.  That’s why people like to give to individuals rather than faceless masses – a phenomenon called “psychic numbing” – they feel better about it.

In my experience, people tend to make sense.  Presuming irrationality has always seemed to me to be a somewhat condescending stance.  Not all people will behave as I will, but I’ve found that their seeming irrationality is usually due to my inability to empathize in a deep way.  

I don't mean to imply that people cannot be manipulated, or that people don't make decisions that are not in their best interests.  Changing the way you frame the exact same question can affect the answer.  The business of marketing is based on this.  But there is an important distinction between viewing people as irrational and viewing people as rational subject to internal and external stimuli.  Our perception of the rationality of others is inextricably linked to the freedom we are willing to allow them, and the standard of accountability to which we hold them up.  I can't think of anything more important than this.
 
Comments
    Picture

    Author

    I'm interested in uncertainty, time, trust, consistency, strategy, economics, empathy, philosophy, education, technology, story-telling, and fractals.
    Contact

    Archives

    May 2016
    October 2015
    September 2015
    June 2015
    January 2015
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    February 2013
    December 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010
    December 2009
    November 2009

    RSS Feed


    My Favorite Curators


    Email newsletters

    Edge.org
    John Mauldin
    STRATFOR
    Futurity.org
    BPS Research Digest
    Domain-B.com
    FORA.tv
    PopTech!
    PIMCO Investment Outlooks
    GMO Client Reports
    Big Think
    Commonwealth Club
    Someecards.com
    MRN Research Papers
    Chicago Booth eNewsletters
    McKinsey Quarterly
    Boldtype / Artkrush
    Singularity University
    Charlie Rose
    The Aspen Institute


    Feeds

    WNYC
    Radiolab

    This American Life
    Freakonomics Radio
    The Moth
    Chicago Booth Podcast
    The Atlantic Council
    The Memory Palace
    TED.com
    Foreign Affairs
    The Ideas Project
    Long Now Foundation
    The School of Life
    Letters of Note

    Periodicals

    The Economist
    The Wall Street Journal
    The New Yorker
    The New York Times
    Wired Magazine
    The Atlantic

    Other Websites

    Oaktree Capital Memos
    LSE Public Lectures
    Bubblegeneration
    Becker-Posner Blog
    Eric Von Hippel
    NetAge
    John Seely Brown
    Malcolm Gladwell
    John Hagel
    HBR – The Big Shift
    LookBook.nu
    Robert Shiller
    Paul Graham
    Frontline PBS
    Royal Society for the Arts
    Blake Masters

    Humor

    Best of Craigslist
    Texts from Last Night
    FMyLIfe
    MyLifeisAverage
    Lamebook
    The Onion


    Categories

    All