Comments on: Cass Sunstein: for the Homer Simpson in all of us http://www.radioopensource.org/cass-sunstein-for-the-homer-simpson-in-all-of-us/ Christopher Lydon in conversation on arts, ideas and politics Sun, 12 Feb 2012 19:09:22 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: veritasrox http://www.radioopensource.org/cass-sunstein-for-the-homer-simpson-in-all-of-us/#comment-92702 veritasrox Wed, 03 Sep 2008 17:49:19 +0000 http://www.radioopensource.org/?p=1266#comment-92702 Behavioral economics is a fascinating field of study, with an ever-growing list of "Heydidjaknowthat!?" - style findings. I must admit that I am still waiting for a better synthesis of experimental observations with neoclassical economics' "enlightenment promises," particularly when it comes to theorizing about human agency. Sometimes the mountain of tidbits about our irrationality starts to overshadow our free will, especially in the political sphere. For example, during primary season I encountered many undecided voters who felt trapped by a strange game matrix: they hypothesized that the rest of the electorate would vote "irrationally" based on their primitive instincts or prejudices and therefore felt compelled to select strategically a candidate who could counter this irrationality RATHER than the candidate they themselves favored most. This situation may speak to our need to structurally reform our electoral system to better express authentic voter preferences, but it certainly also shows how we can become a little bit lost when we lack a way to factor our own agency into our provisional models of human behavior. As Chris indicated, the Obama campaign provides a lens for examining the various possible societal responses to the newsflash that we are not simply God's-image robot-rational beings. On the one hand, we can strive to implement benevolent policy that makes government work for us in a user-friendly way (what Cass called "iPod Governement"). While there may be some citizens who want the freedom to calculate their every risk and optimize every expenditure, for most of us this sort of self-interest management is an administrative burden. We would rather buy into a system that reflects our values (like universal health care), and then leave it to well-paid wonks to figure out the details. On the other hand, Obama has tried to inspire his supporters, Kennedy-style, to DO things for the country - to perceive ourselves as, and in doing so BECOME, a different kind of political actor than we have been for the past 8 years. This requires a belief in our own powers to make a difference, a commitment to create and collaborate with our fellow citizens, and trust in each other that we can work together to build a better society. As I see it, behavioral economics still takes a rather skeptical view on this sort of optimism, and I would like to see the irrational-actor models evolve to the point where they can better explain and interpret this sort of inspirational-agency phenomenon. A final note on the legal system: <<a href="http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2007/10.11/13-bias.html" rel="nofollow">Mahzarin Banaji</a> has done fascinating work on our implicitly-held biases against certain identity categories. Among other things, her research leads us to question our reverence of certain socio-legal practices, such as reliance on eye-witness testimony during criminal trials, that tend to exhibit more irrational cognition than is morally or ethically justifiable. Behavioral economics is a fascinating field of study, with an ever-growing list of “Heydidjaknowthat!?” – style findings. I must admit that I am still waiting for a better synthesis of experimental observations with neoclassical economics’ “enlightenment promises,” particularly when it comes to theorizing about human agency. Sometimes the mountain of tidbits about our irrationality starts to overshadow our free will, especially in the political sphere. For example, during primary season I encountered many undecided voters who felt trapped by a strange game matrix: they hypothesized that the rest of the electorate would vote “irrationally” based on their primitive instincts or prejudices and therefore felt compelled to select strategically a candidate who could counter this irrationality RATHER than the candidate they themselves favored most. This situation may speak to our need to structurally reform our electoral system to better express authentic voter preferences, but it certainly also shows how we can become a little bit lost when we lack a way to factor our own agency into our provisional models of human behavior.

As Chris indicated, the Obama campaign provides a lens for examining the various possible societal responses to the newsflash that we are not simply God’s-image robot-rational beings. On the one hand, we can strive to implement benevolent policy that makes government work for us in a user-friendly way (what Cass called “iPod Governement”). While there may be some citizens who want the freedom to calculate their every risk and optimize every expenditure, for most of us this sort of self-interest management is an administrative burden. We would rather buy into a system that reflects our values (like universal health care), and then leave it to well-paid wonks to figure out the details. On the other hand, Obama has tried to inspire his supporters, Kennedy-style, to DO things for the country – to perceive ourselves as, and in doing so BECOME, a different kind of political actor than we have been for the past 8 years. This requires a belief in our own powers to make a difference, a commitment to create and collaborate with our fellow citizens, and trust in each other that we can work together to build a better society. As I see it, behavioral economics still takes a rather skeptical view on this sort of optimism, and I would like to see the irrational-actor models evolve to the point where they can better explain and interpret this sort of inspirational-agency phenomenon.

A final note on the legal system: <Mahzarin Banaji has done fascinating work on our implicitly-held biases against certain identity categories. Among other things, her research leads us to question our reverence of certain socio-legal practices, such as reliance on eye-witness testimony during criminal trials, that tend to exhibit more irrational cognition than is morally or ethically justifiable.

]]> By: hurley http://www.radioopensource.org/cass-sunstein-for-the-homer-simpson-in-all-of-us/#comment-92701 hurley Wed, 27 Aug 2008 18:03:30 +0000 http://www.radioopensource.org/?p=1266#comment-92701 I agree with pimm...insofar as I understand what I see as the confusions within the conversation. Chris correct to explore this pop wisdom, the better to debunk it. I find it-- behavioral economics -- a weird fusion of tedium and beige, a boring, even dangerous idea clothed as science, neuroscience, no less, that Barbie of currently received opinion...The notion of someone X-raying my brain -- yours, too -- for any but homely diagnostic purposes..Need I finish the sentence?.I hope not. There are novels and poems and plays that might tell you what you already know, or what you might want to know. etc.. I agree with pimm…insofar as I understand what I see as the confusions within the conversation. Chris correct to explore this pop wisdom, the better to debunk it. I find it– behavioral economics — a weird fusion of tedium and beige, a boring, even dangerous idea clothed as science, neuroscience, no less, that Barbie of currently received opinion…The notion of someone X-raying my brain — yours, too — for any but homely diagnostic purposes..Need I finish the sentence?.I hope not. There are novels and poems and plays that might tell you what you already know, or what you might want to know. etc..

]]> By: piminnowcheez http://www.radioopensource.org/cass-sunstein-for-the-homer-simpson-in-all-of-us/#comment-92700 piminnowcheez Mon, 25 Aug 2008 01:51:46 +0000 http://www.radioopensource.org/?p=1266#comment-92700 Professor Sunstein expresses a misunderstanding about what cognitive science is. Cognitive SCIENCE has been around much longer than cognitive NEUROscience, which does depend on technologies for imaging brain activity, like fMRI or ERP. Professors Kahneman and Tversky were practitioners of cognitive psychology, which, along with artificial intelligence, was one of the early disciplines to be described collectively as "cognitive science." So behavioral economics, to the extent that it traces its roots to Kahneman & Tversky's groundbreaking descriptions of actual, rather than idealized, human decision-making behavior, certainly qualify as cognitive science. Cognitive neuroscience, fwiw, was originally conceived of less as a way not of understanding how the brain works, than of using knowledge about brain activity to understand how cognition works. For example, if you know the amygdala is activated during a particular cognitive process, does its association with fear or stimulus salience tell you anything about the cognitive process in question? Professor Sunstein expresses a misunderstanding about what cognitive science is. Cognitive SCIENCE has been around much longer than cognitive NEUROscience, which does depend on technologies for imaging brain activity, like fMRI or ERP. Professors Kahneman and Tversky were practitioners of cognitive psychology, which, along with artificial intelligence, was one of the early disciplines to be described collectively as “cognitive science.” So behavioral economics, to the extent that it traces its roots to Kahneman & Tversky’s groundbreaking descriptions of actual, rather than idealized, human decision-making behavior, certainly qualify as cognitive science.

Cognitive neuroscience, fwiw, was originally conceived of less as a way not of understanding how the brain works, than of using knowledge about brain activity to understand how cognition works. For example, if you know the amygdala is activated during a particular cognitive process, does its association with fear or stimulus salience tell you anything about the cognitive process in question?

]]>