Over The Counter Culture

The mere presence of salads on a McDonalds menu makes people more likely to consume the unhealthier food, according to a new paper published last month. Here’s the abstract:

This research examines how consumers’ food choices differ when healthy items are included in a choice set compared with when they are not available. Results demonstrate that individuals are, ironically, more likely to make indulgent food choices when a healthy item is available compared to when it is not available. The influence of the healthy item on indulgent choice is stronger for those with higher levels of self?control. Support is found for a goal?activation?based explanation for these findings, whereby the mere presence of the healthy food option vicariously fulfills nutrition?related goals and provides consumers with a license to indulge

One thing to consider, though – true or not, there’s a rumour floating around that the salads are unhealthier due to the oily dressing. Shouldn’t this have been controlled for in the study?

Original paper; Initial coverage (Matt Yglesias); More

How I wish that instead of dull sermons from the chaplain or stern slobbers from the headmaster, assembly at school had been a TED video (or better yet, a live speaker of that caliber).

What a way to start the day.

Here’s a particularly interesting one I just watched, prompting further reading and me seeking to reconnect with an entrepreneur in the electric car industry:

Shai Agassi discusses the economics of mass electric car adoption in a scheme involving removable electric batteries and universal charge points that completely rethinks the economics of running a car. You get paid if you have to change your battery more than x times a year.

I hate talking about global warming - its boring, cliche, and largely depressing, because any careful thinking about it invariably leads to the conclusion that the only true solution, if climate change models based on CO2 are correct, is a mass human extinction event, or exodus (to other planets); your child is a much greater environmental nightmare than your Hummer H2 is.

If our primary objective as a species is a global reduction in happiness and development inequalities, allowing global population growth to continue apace is totally counterproductive. And that’s a sad thought, and one that may motivate a global terrorism movement far worse than Al Qaeda.

But take a look at this graph (source: McKinsey). It estimates the cost and effectiveness of the various proposed things society can do to bring emissions down. On the left, the negative y axis values show that we save a lot of money and abate CO2 emissions, with certain strategies like insulating our houses and offices. To the right, expensive strategies. It’s clear from the graph that the real gains to be made (measured as progress along the x axis) are in this economically costly zone.

The worst part: even with all known strategies pursued, we still hit the dangerously (*according to current climate models) high levels of 450ppm by 2030.

I’d like to be able to play with the graph and generate data based on different population and oil price forecasts. Their assumptions aren’t clearly stated, disappointingly. This link offers a modest amount of skepticism regarding this graph, and highlights some further insights it gives us, alongside some auxiliary information about the bang-for-buck of different climate change prevention schemes.

Just came across an interesting behavioural economics paper by Stutzer & Frey. Behavioural science is an extremely ‘hot’ field of academia at the moment, hitting the mainstream with books such as Freakonomics (Dubner & Levitt), Predictably Irrational (Ariely), Blink (Gladwell), Nudge (Thaler), etc), and with increasing influence in politics, notably within the Conservative Party here in the UK.

The key finding is this:

Our main  result  indicates [...] that people with  long  journeys  to  and  from work  are systematically worse off and report significantly lower subjective well-being

So you make yourself systematically worse off,  and much unhappier, by buying a large suburban house (with long commute) with an extra bedroom for the rare occasions when your parents come to visit, instead of a short-haul townhouse - even though at the time of purchase, going for the larger suburban house seemed like a totally rational decision.

Same deal with getting a highly paid city job in Canary Wharf or on Wall Street or Madison Avenue even though it dramatically extends commute time - when we would lead a happier job working a ‘worse’ job locally. 

The conclusion is not totally unexpected, but it’s an interesting example that makes you think about how irrational human existence can be - pretty depressing really. It highlights the importance of behavioural economics: we may be able to achieve a much happier society if it can succeed in revealing these paradoxical lifestyle choices and thus helping us to avoid them.

We don’t understand, long term, the relative contributions to our happiness and well-being of different factors in our lifestyle. Behavioural science in the 21st century could have a similar ‘enlightenment’ effect to nutritional/dietary science in the 20th.

I’d be interested to know what other examples there are, from your life, where you now think/suspect a decision you took at some point in life *thinking* it was totally rational has led to you being worse off overall?

(hat tip)