Over The Counter Culture

I completely agree that behavioural economics is a really interesting field – moving beyond rational choice and beyond indicators like GDP per capita, when what is actually relevant is happiness/utility/satisfaction has to be the long term way forward….

…but I also think it's way too easy to get carried away with this kind of thing. For example, might not commuting time be correlated with age (young people more likely to live in towns rather than the commuter belt) or wealth (houses in prime locations), or some other underlying driver of happiness?

I'm probably doing the authors a disservice here, as they almost certainly made allowances for other variables, but my point is that as academically interesting as papers like this are for pointing out macro trends, they are a long way from being able to inform the micro decisions I make in my own life.

if you really care about the methodology, which upon a quick scan seems sound, here's the direct download link: http://www.iew.unizh.ch/wp/iewwp151.pdf

Ultimately the utility of these findings, and of the field itself, is in providing us with an awareness of inherent decision making biases, such that we can rationally address/redress the biases and make better decisions. Scientifically elucidated, codified and distilled wisdom. The above finding is an example of empirically-derived wisdom – but I agree with you about the dangers of correlation and causation – its like any science in that only when you go deeper (more micro) can you get really useful knowledge, and thus technology, out of it. Just like Mendel's “discovery” of inheritance in biology, it took more precise “wisdom” – e.g. DNA (i.e. molecular genetics) before it became a truly useful tool in the lab.

There's clear and present danger of abuse as it gets more advanced (more 'micro') – it could dramatically enhance propaganda, giving it precise and powerful rules/techniques for how to frame issues/prime audiences to be more receptive/accepting of a statement/policy. As behavioural science attains the advanced level (and thus increased utility) of other sciences such as physics, chemistry or medicine, with their highly informative precision tools giving their users ever clearer pictures of cause & effect in the systems they observe, we get uncomfortably close to informing – and thus empowering – brainwashing.

Behavioural science will lead to behavioural technology (in the true sense of the word – I don't mean gadgets, I mean largely immaterial 'tools' – like framing [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(economics) ]), with potential for good and bad use, like any other technology. It'll be interesting to spot the development of that technology; most other technology you can put in your hands, or at least put under a microscope, and examine. We may not yet realise just how important humanities will be in the 21st century. And this is coming from a biochemist!

I completely agree that behavioural economics is a really interesting field – moving beyond rational choice and beyond indicators like GDP per capita, when what is actually relevant is happiness/utility/satisfaction has to be the long term way forward….

…but I also think it's way too easy to get carried away with this kind of thing. For example, might not commuting time be correlated with age (young people more likely to live in towns rather than the commuter belt) or wealth (houses in prime locations), or some other underlying driver of happiness?

I'm probably doing the authors a disservice here, as they almost certainly made allowances for other variables, but my point is that as academically interesting as papers like this are for pointing out macro trends, they are a long way from being able to inform the micro decisions I make in my own life.

if you really care about the methodology, which upon a quick scan seems sound, here's the direct download link: http://www.iew.unizh.ch/wp/iewwp151.pdf

Ultimately the utility of these findings, and of the field itself, is in providing us with an awareness of inherent decision making biases, such that we can rationally address/redress the biases and make better decisions. Scientifically elucidated, codified and distilled wisdom. The above finding is an example of empirically-derived wisdom – but I agree with you about the dangers of correlation and causation – its like any science in that only when you go deeper (more micro) can you get really useful knowledge, and thus technology, out of it. Just like Mendel's “discovery” of inheritance in biology, it took more precise “wisdom” – e.g. DNA (i.e. molecular genetics) before it became a truly useful tool in the lab.

There's clear and present danger of abuse as it gets more advanced (more 'micro') – it could dramatically enhance propaganda, giving it precise and powerful rules/techniques for how to frame issues/prime audiences to be more receptive/accepting of a statement/policy. As behavioural science attains the advanced level (and thus increased utility) of other sciences such as physics, chemistry or medicine, with their highly informative precision tools giving their users ever clearer pictures of cause & effect in the systems they observe, we get uncomfortably close to informing – and thus empowering – brainwashing.

Behavioural science will lead to behavioural technology (in the true sense of the word – I don't mean gadgets, I mean largely immaterial 'tools' – like framing [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(economics) ]), with potential for good and bad use, like any other technology. It'll be interesting to spot the development of that technology; most other technology you can put in your hands, or at least put under a microscope, and examine. We may not yet realise just how important humanities will be in the 21st century. And this is coming from a biochemist!