#behavioral economics

[thepowerisyouth]

MONEY / FINANCE STRESS CONTENT WARNING, this next line is unfortunately quite stressful about money so this was an important warning for me to add:

This is also less for the random strangers on the internet who have no reason to trust my advice but more for the 10-15 people I know personally who trust my money advice based on prior experience and Ive sent them my blog link in the last month or two

US stock market is about to tank. On a global perspective its stupidly overpriced because markets like China are hitting 5 year lows (as in we've increased our stock market over 2x since "COVID lows", but their market is even lower than it was then.

Timing is hard but it is entirely possible yesterday was the peak of the market. Might also not tank for 6 months.

Market psychology is fucking weird tho so please absolutely dont 'short' anything, which is basically the same as 'buying puts'. Michael Burry nearly bankrupted all his friends, family, and random investors by insisting on 'shorting' things based on knowledge of impending crisis.

Just sell everything. I mean literally everything. Bond etfs might go up but youd have to have eyes glued to the charts to sell in time. Gold wont do, neither will bitcoin. Their negative correlation to stocks isnt really a thing anymore.

Get every etf, stock, whatever into cash in the brokerage account, then move it out of the banks/brokerage firms and into something physically in front of you because we are, in fact, in another 'historical period of bank runs' its just not quite at the peak yet.

Not trying to increase anxiety beyond nessecary-- its just that any, single bank can immediately freeze your money-- leaving it up to the Federal Government to pay you back-- and it might possibly be the case that youd have to rely on whats called a "bank bail in" to see your savings again.

Not a fun situation to be in, even if it wont happen to most people its just safe practice to do this during a "historical period of bank runs"

----------------

This blog is basically my diary of my thoughts (suprise suprise). But Im an open book, privileged (but poor) little white boy with complex societal/generational abuse and very little home problems so lets fucking go theres a whole mormon cargo van to unpack

Definitely recommend tags Im terrible at them.

---

To those reading this, if you have ever met me in real-life or on the internet than you have taught me varying degrees of information which can be randomly retrieved by my brain at any time depending on current CPU performance. Thoughts of my loving husband have occupied my headspace probably 95% of my time since 14 so he has absolutely taught me at least 100x more than anyone else in the world.

When I say "I", oftentimes Im thinking about "me and my husband", or even sometimes "me and my friends/family", or even sometimes "me and society"--- but I am not always 100% aware of the current headspace environment and/or beliefs of the minds of those around me without feedback

---

There are currently over 8 billion individual varieties of the global human language spoken within the mind. Lets start translating them all. Misunderstood words become mean labels.

I fucking hate mean labels

"Math wiz" = racism and/or classism and/or gender shit. Fuck that shit

When a person is niched off into one part of an 8 billion population human society, it becomes impossible to not "live in a bubble". Bubbles change in size constantly even if not visibly observed. Bubbles can be different sizes depending on your current day-to-day thoughts of your own society. Bubbles must pop. Enlightenment implies life only gets better the more times ya pop and lock it

My path away from purely mathematics, logic, and scientific theory began when I met my husband, and for the first time in my life it became important to me not to be an asshole to everyone around me

Ive been told (only after I started dating my traumatized husband tho and helped him heal a lot) that I'm a natural communicator-- and all my life I found myself listening and learning to everything and everyone around me trying to understand both their and my own motivations-- then I like to garble them up and spit 'em out. My memory recall ability is wonky tho and fluctuates highly with nutrient intake-- I'll get into that later

I wish I could have a million years to read every blog on tumblr. I really do. Connecting & communating is extremely important for understanding one another but it takes time

I had an extremely unique childhood (who hasnt lol), enough so to isolate myself quite a lot through sheer dumb luck. My mom is also everyone's favorite school teacher so of course I was learning a lot from a young age. Luckily I glued myself to the first person who wanted to glue themselves to me equally & we grew exponentially closer to eternity

If its still not clear: my husband and I are bored and love chatting with people, but like most internet loving freaks my mouth don't work sometimes well but my fingies do. My ears got fluff a lot but I got eyes for LEDs like a hawk. Wish they werent LED tho

I also have a naturally short sleep cycle (i.e. extra time for this), and I really wont be offended or weirded out by someone reading through and liking 20+ or whatever of my posts at once randomly. Stories are supposed to be read in chunks, and I think of this blog as a story & also workspace for my thoughts that Id love to see which chapters everyone has read through. Also I love (and only respond positively to) positive feedback, yet also suggestions for ways to improve my "theorums". As in, good faith discussions are totally welcome on any post.

For my 50 year old parents reading my blog so lovingly in their limited evening time-- you can sort by tags to see what topics your familiar with, if you play around with the search function while on my page. Mom. Show dad how to do it

In the very, very bottom of my blog I dont even think I managed to tag shit properly-- but its the roughdraft workings of the philosophy, as well as my own logical framework for answering lifes questions. Its 2 months ago so I might not even be writing according to my own works down there anymore idk I change fast sometimes

Last thing for now here is that I was always criticized by teachers for not showing my work, and for not reviewing my tests before turning in, and I pushed back hard because nearly every time I went over and corrected a mistake-- I saw I most often got it right the first fucking time on a pure hunch. I act on impulse when I'm not meditating mostly for efficiency purposes because I believe I'm correct, but remain open to emotionally positive feedback so I can help remove all doubt.

-------

This might turn into my 'life story' post, as its already going there. Heres what I have so far in the way of my knowledge of my family before I was brought into existence, and my "earliest memories":

Family context:

I dont know jack shit. Nobody talks about it at all.

Here's my own observations Ive made using the framework and perceptive filters I was given--

My whole family is white Texans.

Ancestory is slaveowners of course, further back is a very likely direct parent-child descendent line from the most famous inbred british royalty of the 13th century i.e. King John, whose brother was the arab genociding Richard.

I would call my immediate family as upper poverty class. Its more like poverty with extra privileges cause mental health stigma was the only thing holding them back not other shit too.

As children we had a lot of very privileged opportunities because my parents made a lot of sacrifices to try and bring us back up the class ladder. Lets look into that generational trauma issue

My dads parents (born in the early 40s, dont know the year exactly. I think '43 or '44) were more upper middle class, pretty high income. Owned an insurance business that was very successful by the early 2000s at least. My grandpa is described to me as a "monster" and "violently abusive". I have a single memory of him screaming at me as a young child and I was cowering under a desk, so I really believe it. No other stories at all to provide context.

-- I gotta split this section off I realized I wrote the next thing about post-me context Ill need to move this part lower down later--

My grandpa got early onset dementia, my dad didnt notice in time, and my grandpa bankrupted his successful company and lost several million of dollars to "scammers and sexy ladies."

My dad found out around 2015-16 or so. He told me a little bit after telling me my grandparents were getting divorced. My dad managed to scrape together about $200,000 which is being sued for by the IRS actively.

(He split that money in two, and entrusted me tell him how to invest half in safe value stocks that I handpicked as well as a calculated risk allocation to bonds which we sold for 30% profit the second the market crashed. He gave the other half to a brokerage advisor. I never met the advisor but saw the results. Dont get me started on how the other dude did with that money-- we started this endeavor in January 2020.)

Personally I also dont believe that its possible to spend an entire fortune on scammers and strippers, so Id love to see his books and figure out what the hell went wrong with that asshole. I have a hunch I know something more than anyone else ("Enron", guys, we're talking about an insurance company in HOUSTON, in the 2000s) but I will never be sure without the books.

----

Back to other family--

I do not know a single thing about my grandma on my dads side. She raised me quite a lot, but yeah I literally have only heard her life described to me as "she was a housewife"

On my moms side, my Mimi (also born 1940s but slightly younger so I think 1946 or 1947) came from a divorced, upper middle class family. In 1964-65, She and her step mom both got knocked up the same year so she watched her divorced dad remarry to said step mom when she was 18-19 and getting a shotgun marriage herself, so you can imagine what that was like. The "biological" of the two moms was a very good mom and very queer from what I hear. She died when I was a baby, from lung cancer. Thats all I know. My mimi raised me quite a lot, nearly equally as much as my mom did

My mom's dad, my Papa, came from a rural farming family in East Texas. Dont know much else of anything, but he and his siblings were named "Billy, Bobby, and Betty". As in, they are what everyone likes to call "hicks"

--

Moving onto my direct parents now. I know a little more about them of course, but since we're getting closer in age to the present-- I think itll be easier to describe my understanding as common stereotypes. If its unclear what I mean definitely feel free to ask, but I'll probably say "I dont really know"

Not much else is relevant other than knowing that my moms family was the mormon one, but that as soon as my dad was love-bombed by the church he joined to. Mormons were also different in the 90s I'm told.

My dad struggled with being one of the "crazy schizos" of the 90s. As in, very traumatized, upset, and gaslit by the government and his parents. Must have done a damn good job dealing with it by the time he was in his late 20s and I popped out cause he was never a "bad dad" to me at all. Definitely yelled and was more angry at times, but less than any other friends parents Ive ever met, and from what I remember he came into my room at night and apologized to me literally every single time within like 5-10 minutes. I know pretty much nothing about him pre-me. He was a tradesman my whole life and specialized in remodeling kitchens & bathrooms (the 'dirty work of construction'). All his initial clientele were the rich people my grandma lived near and was friends with.

My mom would have been extremely queer-presenting and posting on tumblr if born in the year 2000, but was born in early 70s, and was a raegan teen in high-school in Texas during the satanic panic-- she presents completely cis, straight, but has body dysmorphia issues. Thats about you need to know about those issues I'm sure my tumblr folks can assume the rest and be perfectly correct. Cause thats about all I know too and I'm assuming the rest about my own mother

--- Earliest memories

I think a lot of people face doubt about their own earliest memories, maybe hearing the way I connect the images of these events in my head to my emotions I felt will help others do the same.

----

Two disclosers about me & my current healthcare discoveries before moving on

1) My only "major" childhood trauma is loneliness. I have a partner now (started dating early high school, nearing 10 years together now) who was just as lonely and we are glued to each others side constantly, and have made our life work great that way. So don't feel too bad reading this, I'm only able to write it down because Ive healed that trauma and can dig this stuff up with no issues to validate the emotions I felt even as a child

1) I believe I have a genetic trait that is only just getting discovered. There are something like 6 discovered mutations that hold this similar trait so far, and its just basically chronic insomia.

It being a genetic trait tracks with how my mom describes me as never settling into a normal sleep pattern at 6 months old, having absurd amounts of nightmares and death anxiety keeping me up at night as a child, and I still dont sleep at any given time. I average 2 hours less sleep than my husband, who averages 7-8 now that he isnt actively being abused at home.

Going to get sequenced but even if negative I'd probably just be a 7th mutation, as they only found the other 6 genes via case study.

The scientists whove discovered it call it "Familial Natural Short Sleeper", if you desire to look it up. They describe the trait like its the best possible thing in the world. Well... terminally chronic insomia is not the best thing in THIS world thats for sure.

---------

My "earliest memories"

These arent ranked by time accurately of course. Took enough effort digging through my brain to turn them up, not like Ive got a 2003 calendar stuffed in here as well.

I did do my best to sort by first memory but it also might be sorted by the order at which I recovered the memories as being one of my "earliest" when I was a child and asked such things

1. Pure emptiness. I can only describe it as dissociation. I can remember nothing about the environment around me, except feeling suddenly sucked out of it, seeing only darkness, feeling almost a ringing in my ears and the deepest dread possible. This same feeling followed me in life for a little while, but started to take more visual shape when I was an adolescent, until at some point I would see myself sitting in a chair alone in a room that is infinitely sized but that slowly gets darker the further out you go. I cant remember what exact "real-world" event caused this feeling to ever happen each time it did. I just can remember having it happen occasionally when I was awake and doing things. Definitely dissociation. (If you are willing to believe me further I think its just probably "lights out" and being scared of that)

1. Riding a mattress down the stairs. I kind of remember two images, one is the tunnel vision of going high speed down the stairs and the other would be from looking back up at the stairs when I was done going down. Totally fun, probably my first rollar coaster ride. I might remember my siblings laughing too but it wouldnt be because I can remember the actual laughing-- but I can remember feeling the joy of being in a group of people laughing. At the time, my parents were selling the house so thats why I also remember it being a completely empty carpeted room that we were riding down into

2. My brother smashing his head repeatedly into the refrigerator for 'fun' and someone saying "wow he has a hard head" or something along those lines. I was learning english I cant remember exactly what they said but that was definitely the meaning I took from their words. I think this memory is strong, because I was truly very curious as to why my brother was just running at full speed, head down, and headbutting a hard surface. The words someone said after that must have been one of my first 'answers'

3. Watching my siblings play in rare Houston snow. Not much remembering there actually. Probably just thought it was mezmorizing to watch as I just really remember a picture and feeling peace

4. Will add more later.

[omegaphilosophia]

The Relationship Between Temporal Discounting and Ethics

Temporal discounting is a cognitive phenomenon where people tend to value immediate rewards more highly than future ones. This tendency to devalue rewards as they move further into the future has significant implications for decision-making, especially in the context of ethical behavior and moral reasoning. Understanding how temporal discounting influences ethical choices can shed light on why individuals might prioritize short-term gains over long-term ethical principles and the broader impact on society.

Understanding Temporal Discounting

Temporal discounting is the preference for smaller, immediate rewards over larger, delayed ones. It is a well-documented phenomenon in psychology and behavioral economics, reflecting how individuals often struggle with self-control and long-term planning. The degree to which individuals discount future rewards can vary, with some showing a stronger preference for immediacy than others.

Ethics and Temporal Discounting

Immediate Gratification vs. Long-term Consequences: Ethical decisions often involve weighing immediate benefits against long-term consequences. For instance, cheating on a test may provide immediate academic success but can undermine personal integrity and trust in the long run. Temporal discounting can lead individuals to prioritize immediate gratification, ignoring the ethical implications of their actions over time.

Environmental Ethics: Temporal discounting significantly impacts environmental ethics. Decisions that favor short-term economic benefits, such as overfishing or deforestation, can have devastating long-term environmental consequences. Ethical considerations require valuing the future health of the planet and the well-being of future generations, which temporal discounting can undermine.

Financial Ethics: In financial contexts, temporal discounting can explain why individuals might engage in unethical behaviors like fraud or embezzlement to gain immediate financial rewards. These actions can lead to severe long-term repercussions, including legal consequences and damaged reputations, highlighting the ethical tension between short-term gains and long-term integrity.

Health and Well-being: Health-related decisions are also influenced by temporal discounting. For example, indulging in unhealthy behaviors for immediate pleasure can lead to long-term health problems. Ethical decision-making in this context involves recognizing and valuing the future health consequences of present actions.

Public Policy and Governance: Policymakers often face ethical dilemmas where short-term political gains are weighed against long-term societal benefits. Temporal discounting can lead to policies that favor immediate results, such as tax cuts or deregulation, while neglecting the long-term ethical considerations of economic stability and social welfare.

Addressing Temporal Discounting in Ethical Decision-Making

Education and Awareness: Increasing awareness about the effects of temporal discounting can help individuals recognize their biases and make more informed ethical decisions. Education programs that highlight the long-term consequences of actions can encourage a more future-oriented perspective.

Incentive Structures: Designing incentive structures that reward long-term ethical behavior can counteract the effects of temporal discounting. For example, offering financial incentives for sustainable practices or long-term health goals can align immediate rewards with ethical principles.

Cognitive Behavioral Strategies: Techniques such as mindfulness and cognitive behavioral strategies can help individuals manage impulsive tendencies and consider long-term consequences more effectively. These strategies can support ethical decision-making by reducing the impact of temporal discounting.

Policy Interventions: Governments and organizations can implement policies that promote long-term ethical behavior. For example, regulations that enforce environmental protections or corporate governance standards can help mitigate the influence of temporal discounting on unethical practices.

The relationship between temporal discounting and ethics underscores the challenges individuals face in balancing immediate desires with long-term ethical principles. By understanding this cognitive bias and its implications, we can develop strategies to promote ethical decision-making that values future consequences. Whether through education, incentive structures, cognitive strategies, or policy interventions, addressing temporal discounting is crucial for fostering a more ethically responsible society.

[as-told-by-sura]

[tmarshconnors]

Game Theory and Probability Theory

In mathematics and economics, there is a fascinating crossroads where strategic decision-making meets uncertainty. This intersection is where Game Theory and Probability Theory converge, offering insights into the dynamics of human interaction, strategic behaviour, and the unpredictability of outcomes. Join me as we delve into this captivating domain, exploring how these two fields intertwine and shape our understanding of complex systems.

Understanding Game Theory

At its core, Game Theory is the study of strategic decision-making among multiple interacting agents, aptly referred to as "players." Think of it as the science of strategy, where individuals or entities make choices with the aim of maximizing their own gains while considering the actions of others. Whether it's in economics, political science, biology, or beyond, Game Theory provides a framework for analyzing various scenarios of conflict, cooperation, and competition.

The Elements of Games

To grasp the essence of Game Theory, we need to understand its building blocks. Games are characterized by players, strategies, payoffs, information, and rationality. Each player has a set of strategies to choose from, leading to different outcomes with associated payoffs. Information asymmetry and rational decision-making further complicate the dynamics, making Game Theory a rich field for exploration.

Probability Theory's Role

Enter Probability Theory, the study of random phenomena and uncertainty. In the context of Game Theory, probability comes into play when outcomes are uncertain or stochastic. Whether it's the roll of a dice in a board game or the unpredictability of market fluctuations in economics, probability theory provides the tools to quantify and analyze uncertainty.

Where They Meet

So, how do Game Theory and Probability Theory intertwine? Consider a game like poker, where players must make decisions based on incomplete information and uncertain outcomes. Probability theory allows us to calculate the likelihood of different hands and anticipate opponents' actions, thereby informing strategic choices. In more complex games involving multiple players and intricate strategies, probability theory helps us model the uncertainty inherent in the decision-making process.

Applications and Insights

The applications of this marriage between Game Theory and Probability Theory are vast. From designing optimal auction mechanisms to analyzing voting behavior in elections, the insights gained from this interdisciplinary approach are invaluable. Moreover, in the age of artificial intelligence and machine learning, understanding strategic interactions and uncertain environments is crucial for developing intelligent systems capable of making informed decisions.

Conclusion

In the landscape of mathematical sciences, the synergy between Game Theory and Probability Theory offers a lens through which we can understand and navigate the complexities of strategic decision-making and uncertainty. As we continue to explore this dynamic intersection, we unlock new perspectives and tools for addressing real-world challenges across various domains. So, the next time you find yourself pondering a strategic dilemma or contemplating uncertain outcomes, remember the profound insights that emerge when Game Theory meets Probability Theory.

[convivialdave]

[wat3rm370n]

Value-based care is a red flag that a healthcare CEO was not thinking things through.

Everyone else notices how this “value-based care” idea will lead to grotesquely perverse incentives, right? Physicians for a National Health Program at least recognized the problem.

People - Wife of Murdered UnitedHealth CEO Brian Thompson Says He Received Threats and She's 'Trying to Console' Their Children - the wife of slain CEO Brian Thompson, said her husband did not alter his travel plans in spite of the threats. By Liam Quinn Published on December 4, 2024, 12:38 PM EST. Part of the text is highlighted with a marker, the part highlighted is “did not alter his travel plans in spite of the threats”.

I’m sorry if this seems like victim blaming, but I do think this demonstrates that people who become CEOs of giant healthcare corporations should definitely not be assumed to be particularly clever or insightful, I also think they shouldn’t be trusted with responses to disasters or “innovations” to any systems for that matter. It does seem like common sense that the CEO of a health insurance company that spends all its time and resources to avoid paying for people’s healthcare should’ve shown a little less hubris. (Of course elites always panic about the wrong things, even if it hurts their own interests, this is a known pattern.) I would’ve assumed that a person in that situation would be aware that the company is likely on the shitlist of any number of wronged and angry patients. But wait, there’s more - while some major media outlets have repeated the idea that this guy kept a “low profile” (do better, AP and PBS!), in fact in a newsletter from Payday Report, Mike Elk reported that this guy was being sued by Hollywood Firefighters union, saying “The union sued Thompson for failing to reveal that United Healthcare was under DOJ investigation. As a result, the pension fund lost $25 billion in value. Meanwhile, Thompson had cashed out over $15 million in stock while selling the stock to pension funds like those of the Hollywood Firefighters union.” and pointing to Ken Klippenstein’s report. So the list of people with axes to grind is numerous. Not what I’d describe as a low profile, but whatever.

The lack of judgement that stood out to me though was in another article which mentioned that: “At an investor meeting last year, he outlined UnitedHealth's shift to "value-based care," paying doctors and other caregivers to keep patients healthy, rather than focusing on treating them when they get sick.”

Who is Brian Thompson, the UnitedHealthcare CEO shot dead in Manhattan? By Megan Cerullo Edited By Anne Marie Lee Updated on: December 4, 2024 / 8:22 PM EST / CBS News For a top executive at a $562 billion company that affects how millions of Americans get health care, Thompson kept a relatively low profile. At an investor meeting last year, he outlined UnitedHealth's shift to "value-based care," paying doctors and other caregivers to keep patients healthy, rather than focusing on treating them when they get sick.

This “value based care” sounds quite obviously like a recipe to get doctors to fail to notice or even note any signs of serious disease. It sounds like an incentive to not document anything well, and to deliberately not notice any problems. Instead of being paid to cure and treat illness and relieve suffering, they would be incentivized to have patients with no sickness documented. Just sweep it under the rug! And if the patient dies, so be it because then they’re not a patient anymore and not covered by health insurance anymore, so they wouldn’t count in the metrics. And try to recruit mostly healthy people into your patient pools, and avoid taking on patients with chronic illness or any serious condition. Similar to the madness of “high risk pools” in privatized insurance. And already we have this problem with networks where some providers that are in-network are begrudging about it, and have their clerical staff make it as hard as possible to make an appointment if they have the “undesirable” insurance. I can’t prove this happens but it sure seems like it does since I’m not the only person who’s talked about running into this type of treatment and runaround when a specialist seems like they don’t want you as a patient even though they’re accepting new patients and supposedly are in-network.

Obviously an optimistic person might think that there would be an incentive just because not all patients die outright, and surely to mitigate downturns would be desirable. But that’s where loss aversion comes in, and also that market incentives are known for absolutely stinking at long-term goals, seemingly always favoring the short term. Andt if the patient takes a huge downturn and becomes disabled because of a preventable condition doctors failed to document, report, or treat, the patient will likely be shoved off the private healthcare insurance when they lose their job, and into Medicaid and maybe eventually Medicare, so then, again, not the problem of the private health insurance company. It’s all about socializing the losses and privatized profits.

I was astonished that this concept could be taken seriously given this glaringly obvious flaw. It’s so obvious that this would NOT be an improvement. Especially in the system we have that’s rife with perverse incentives already. I was relieved to find that Physicians for a National Health Program recognize the problem, and that there’s a published article from 2016 on the “countervailing incentives” and behavioral economics involved, and it articulates how the cognitive bias of loss aversion works so that people are more motivated to avoid loss than to seek gain. They didn’t articulate the gruesome corruption that I just envisioned. But anyone who’s worked in or adjacent to any kind of healthcare or health insurance in the trenches will know how the violence of the system plays out. It’s quite obvious this scheme would benefit the most lurid and ruthless of healthcare providers, and it would force even decent caring doctors into morally injurious situations as they would be pressured by employers to hide disease more than to prevent it or maintain health in patients. We already see how this works in these bureaucracies. If they’re looking for a solution to “upcoding”, which is a legitimate problem in the current payment system, then I suggest better oversight by patient advocacy oriented regulation makes sense. There’s no market solution here that would “naturally” benefit patients with the “invisible hand” they set up.

We need not just to let go of that idea, but to call it out, and reject it outright.

Lawsuit Against Murdered CEO - Firefighters pension accused UnitedHealthcare CEO of fraud, insider trading Ken Klippenstein Dec 04, 2024 In May, the Hollywood Firefighters’ Pension Fund had filed a lawsuit against Thompson, alleging he had sold over $15 million of UnitedHealth stock despite being aware of an active Justice Department antitrust investigation into the health insurance company that he did not disclose to investors or the public. Though UnitedHealth, the lawsuit alleges, was aware of the Justice Department investigation since at least October 2023, the public would only learn of the case when the Wall Street Journal published a story about it on February 27, 2024. When news of the investigation broke, it erased almost $25 billion in shareholder value. But by that time, Thompson had already cashed out, selling over $15 million in personally held UnitedHealth shares, per the suit. If true, the account affirms the countless internet memes’ depiction of Thompson as a rapacious health insurance executive fat cat. Literally none of the news media coverage I’ve seen about the murder has included this context, instead tugging at heart strings about the two sons he’ll be leaving behind. Members of Congress have likewise issued anguished statements about the tragic loss of life, remarks that decline to mention the allegations against him or the vast sums of money the company he oversaw has contributed to them and other politicians.

Behavioral economics and countervailing incentives in value-based payment - By Daniel R. Arnold Healthcare, May 17, 2016 But there is mounting evidence that extrinsic rewards can undermine intrinsic motivation. Of the numerous findings that relate to the crowd-out of intrinsic motivation, two seem particularly relevant to physicians: (1) negative effects of monetary rewards are strongest for complex cognitive tasks and (2) motivational crowd-out spreads to work that is not directly incentivized. With respect to complex cognitive tasks, even very large financial incentives undermine performance. For example, rural villagers in India offered half their annual money income experienced worsened performance on complex memory and puzzle-solving tasks. The spread of motivational crowd-out to work not directly incentivized has been observed in England. In 2004, the U.K. government introduced a pay-for-performance scheme with 136 indicators for family practices. By 2007, improvement for incentivized measures had plateaued, and quality deteriorated for two measures that were not incentivized.

PBS - Hacking Your Mind - Weapons of Influence Episode 102 | Marketers and politicians hack into your autopilot system — learn how to fight back. Aired 08/05/2020 | Expired 09/10/2024 | (transcript) One of the field's key insights is that gut feelings like loss aversion lead consumers to make predictable mistakes, and companies in a market economy make a lot of money by encouraging us to make those mistakes. Until then, the widely accepted view had been that markets actually protect consumers from their mistakes. “And so I would often hear something like the following -- "Yes, yes. I understand that the people in your experiments and some of the people I know do foolish things, but in markets, then -- and then I claim..." They could never quite finish this sentence without literally waving their hands, and the argument is somehow if you choose the wrong career or fail to save for retirement, that the market will somehow push you back toward being rational. There's a reason why no one can make this argument without waving their hands, and that's because the argument is just silly. You know, if you don't save enough for retirement, what happens to you? You're poor when you're old. The market doesn't discipline you. Suppose people have a weakness for gambling. What's going to happen? Will people build casinos, or will they offer programs to help people curb their gambling addiction? Well, people have made a lot more money on casinos than on programs to stop gambling.”

[calicojack1718]

Cognitive Biases and Polling: Navigating the Illusion of Certainty

Reading time: 5 minutes Human beings hate uncertainty, so we go to almost any length to rid ourselves of the discomfort it causes. Our cognitive tendencies get badly abused and used by polling to skew our perception of elections.

SUMMARY: This post explores how polling exploits our psychological biases, distorting our understanding of electoral dynamics. We struggle with uncertainty and probabilities, leading to cognitive gymnastics that reinforce our preferences. Key biases—confirmation bias, motivated reasoning, and cognitive dissonance—form the “Sword and Shield of Self-Righteousness,” enabling us to dismiss…

[procurement-insights]

Procurement Strategy And The Human Element

Are you accounting for the human element in your procurement strategies?

EDITOR’S NOTE: The following is the discussion stream resulting from a thought-provoking interview between Shaun Syversten and David Loseby which illustrates perfectly why the agent-based model is critical to ProcureTech initiative success. Shaun Syversten: “Economics, unfortunately, as originally conceived” – “many others probably before”How much do you rely on logic when making decisions in…

[mostlysignssomeportents]

The paradox of choice screens

I'm coming to BURNING MAN! On TUESDAY (Aug 27) at 1PM, I'm giving a talk called "DISENSHITTIFY OR DIE!" at PALENQUE NORTE (7&E). On WEDNESDAY (Aug 28) at NOON, I'm doing a "Talking Caterpillar" Q&A at LIMINAL LABS (830&C).

It's official: the DOJ has won its case, and Google is a convicted monopolist. Over the next six months, we're gonna move into the "remedy" phase, where we figure out what the court is going to order Google to do to address its illegal monopoly power:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/08/07/revealed-preferences/#extinguish-v-improve

That's just the beginning, of course. Even if the court orders some big, muscular remedies, we can expect Google to appeal (they've already said they would) and that could drag out the case for years. But that can be a feature, not a bug: a years-long appeal will see Google on its very best behavior, with massive, attendant culture changes inside the company. A Google that's fighting for its life in the appeals court isn't going to be the kind of company that promotes a guy whose strategy for increasing revenue is to make Google Search deliberately worse, so that you will have to do more searches (and see more ads) to get the info you're seeking:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/04/24/naming-names/#prabhakar-raghavan

It's hard to overstate how much good stuff can emerge from a company that's mired itself in antitrust hell with extended appeals. In 1982, IBM wriggled off the antitrust hook after a 12-year fight that completely transformed the company's approach to business. After more than a decade of being micromanaged by lawyers who wanted to be sure that the company didn't screw up its appeal and anger antitrust enforcers, IBM's executives were totally transformed. When the company made its first PC, it decided to use commodity components (meaning anyone could build a similar PC by buying the same parts), and to buy its OS from an outside vendor called Micros-Soft (meaning competing PCs could use the same OS), and it turned a blind eye to the company that cloned the PC ROM, enabling companies like Dell, Compaq and Gateway to enter the market with "PC clones" that cost less and did more than the official IBM PC:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/08/ibm-pc-compatible-how-adversarial-interoperability-saved-pcs-monopolization

The big question, of course, is whether the court will order Google to break up, say, by selling off Android, its ad-tech stack, and Chrome. That's a question I'll address on another day. For today, I want to think about how to de-monopolize browsers, the key portal to the internet. The world has two extremely dominant browsers, Safari and Chrome, and each of them are owned by an operating system vendor that pre-installs their own browser on their devices and pre-selects them as the default.

Defaults matter. That's a huge part of Judge Mehta's finding in the Google case, where the court saw evidence from Google's own internal research suggesting that people rarely change defaults, meaning that whatever the gadget does out of the box it will likely do forever. This puts a lie to Google's longstanding defense of its monopoly power: "choice is just a click away." Sure, it's just a click away – a click, you're pretty sure no one is ever going to make.

This means that any remedy to Google's browser dominance is going to involve a lot of wrangling about defaults. That's not a new wrangle, either. For many years, regulators and tech companies have tinkered with "choice screens" that were nominally designed to encourage users to try out different browsers and brake the inertia of the big two browsers that came bundled with OSes.

These choice screens have a mixed record. Google's 2019 Android setup choice screen for the European Mobile Application Distribution Agreement somehow managed to result in the vast majority of users sticking with Chrome. Microsoft had a similar experience in 2010 with BrowserChoice.eu, its response to the EU's 2000s-era antitrust action:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrowserChoice.eu

Does this mean that choice screens don't work? Maybe. The idea of choice screens comes to us from the "choice architecture" world of "nudging," a technocratic pseudoscience that grew to prominence by offering the promise that regulators could make big changes without having to do any real regulating:

https://verfassungsblog.de/nudging-after-the-replication-crisis/

Nudge research is mired in the "replication crisis" (where foundational research findings turn out to be nonreplicable, due to bad research methodology, sloppy analysis, etc) and nudge researchers keep getting caught committing academic fraud:

https://www.ft.com/content/846cc7a5-12ee-4a44-830e-11ad00f224f9

When the first nudgers were caught committing fraud, more than a decade ago, they were assumed to be outliers in an otherwise honest and exciting field:

https://www.npr.org/2016/10/01/496093672/power-poses-co-author-i-do-not-believe-the-effects-are-real

Today, it's hard to find much to salvage from the field. To the extent the field is taken seriously today, it's often due to its critics repeating the claims of its boosters, a process Lee Vinsel calls "criti-hype":

https://sts-news.medium.com/youre-doing-it-wrong-notes-on-criticism-and-technology-hype-18b08b4307e5

For example, the term "dark patterns" lumps together really sneaky tactics with blunt acts of fraud. When you click an "opt out of cookies" button and get a screen that says "Success!" but which has a tiny little "confirm" button on it that you have to click to actually opt out, that's not a "dark pattern," it's just a scam:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/03/27/beware-of-the-leopard/#relentless

By ascribing widespread negative effects to subtle psychological manipulation ("dark patterns") rather than obvious and blatant fraud, we inadvertently elevate "nudging" to a real science, rather than a cult led by scammy fake scientists.

All this raises some empirical questions about choice screens: do they work (in the sense of getting people to break away from defaults), and if so, what's the best way to make them work?

This is an area with a pretty good literature, as it turns out, thanks in part due to some natural experiments, like when Russia forced Google to offer choice screens for Android in 2017, but didn't let Google design that screen. The Russian policy produced a significant switch away from Google's own apps to Russian versions, primarily made by Yandex:

https://cepr.org/publications/dp17779

In 2023, Mozilla Research published a detailed study in which 12,000 people from Germany, Spain and Poland set up simulated mobile and desktop devices with different kinds of choice screens, a project spurred on by the EU's Digital Markets Act, which is going to mandate choice screens starting this year:

https://research.mozilla.org/browser-competition/choicescreen/

I'm spending this week reviewing choice screen literature, and I've just read the Mozilla paper, which I found very interesting, albeit limited. The biggest limitation is that the researchers are getting users to simulate setting up a new device and then asking them how satisfied they are with the experience. That's certainly a question worth researching, but a far more important question is "How do users feel about the setup choices they made later, after living with them on the devices they use every day?" Unfortunately, that's a much more expensive and difficult question to answer, and beyond the scope of this paper.

With that limitation in mind, I'm going to break down the paper's findings here and draw some conclusions about what we should be looking for in any kind of choice screen remedy that comes out of the DOJ antitrust victory over Google.

The first thing note is that people report liking choice screens. When users get to choose their browsers, they expect to be happy with that choice; by contrast, users are skeptical that they'll like the default browser the vendor chose for them. Users don't consider choice screens to be burdensome, and adding a choice screen doesn't appreciably increase setup time.

There are some nuances to this. Users like choice screens during device setup but they don't like choice screens that pop up the first time they use a browser. That makes total sense: "choosing a browser" is colorably part of the "setting up your gadget" task. By contrast, the first time you open a browser on a new device, it's probably to get something else done (e.g. look up how to install a piece of software you used on your old device) and being interrupted with a choice screen at that moment is an unwelcome interruption. This is the psychology behind those obnoxious cookie-consent pop-ups that website bombard you with when you first visit them: you've clicked to that website because you need something it has, and being stuck with a privacy opt-out screen at that moment is predictably frustrating (which is why companies do it, and also why the DMA is going to punish companies that do).

The researchers experimented with different kinds of choice screens, varying the number of browsers on offer and the amount of information given on each. Again, users report that they prefer more choices and more information, and indeed, more choice and more info is correlated with choosing indie, non-default browsers, but this effect size is small (<10%), and no matter what kind of choice screen users get, most of them come away from the experience without absorbing any knowledge about indie browsers.

The order in which browsers are presented has a much larger effect than how many browsers or how much detail is present. People say they want lots of choices, but they usually choose one of the first four options. That said, users who get choice screens say it changes which browser they'd choose as a default.

Some of these contradictions appear to stem from users' fuzziness on what "default browser" means. For an OS vendor, "default browser" is the browser that pops up when you click a link in an email or social media. For most users, "default browser" means "the browser pinned to my home screen."

Where does all this leave us? I think it cashes out to this: choice screens will probably make a appreciable, but not massive, difference in browser dominance. They're cheap to implement, have no major downsides, and are easy to monitor. Choice screens might be needed to address Chrome's dominance even if the court orders Google to break off Chrome and stand it up as a separate business (we don't want any browser monopolies, even if they're not owned by a search monopolist!). So yeah, we should probably make a lot of noise to the effect that the court should order a choice screen, as part of a remedy.

That choice screen should be presented during device setup, with the choices presented in random order – with this caveat: Chrome should never appear in the top four choices.

All of that would help address the browser duopoly, even if it doesn't solve it. I would love to see more market-share for Firefox, which is the browser I've used every day for more than a decade, on my laptop and my phone. Of course, Mozilla has a role to play here. The company says it's going to refocus on browser quality, at the expense of the various side-hustles it's tried, which have ranged from uninteresting to catastrophically flawed:

https://www.fastcompany.com/91167564/mozilla-wants-you-to-love-firefox-again

For example, there was the tool to automatically remove your information from scummy data brokers, that they outsourced to a scummy data-broker:

https://www.theverge.com/2024/3/22/24109116/mozilla-ends-onerep-data-removal-partnership

And there's the "Privacy Preserving Attribution" tracking system that helps advertisers target you with surveillance advertising (in a way that's less invasive than existing techniques). Mozilla rolled this into Firefox on an opt out basis, and made opting out absurdly complicated, suggesting that it knew that it was imposing something on its users that they wouldn't freely choose:

https://blog.privacyguides.org/2024/07/14/mozilla-disappoints-us-yet-again-2/

They've been committing these kinds of unforced errors for more than a decade, seeking some kind of balance between monopolistic web companies and its users' desire to have a browser that protects them from invasive and unfair practices:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/may/14/firefox-closed-source-drm-video-browser-cory-doctorow

These compromises represent the fallacy that Mozilla's future depends on keeping bullying entertainment companies and Big Tech happy, so it can go on serving its users. At the same time, these compromises have alienated Mozilla's core users, the technical people who were its fiercest evangelists. Those core users are the authority on technical questions for the normies in their life, and they know exactly how cursed it is for Moz to be making these awful compromises.

Moz has hemorrhaged users over the past decade, meaning they have even less leverage over the corporations demanding that they make more compromises. This sets up a doom loop: make a bad compromise, lose users, become more vulnerable to demands for even worse compromises. "This capitulation puts us in a great position to make a stand in some hypothetical future where we don't instantly capitulate again" is a pretty unconvincing proposition.

After the past decade's heartbreaks, seeing Moz under new leadership makes me cautiously hopeful. Like I say, I am dependent on Firefox and want an independent, principled browser vendor that sees their role as producing a "user agent" that is faithful to its users' interests above all else:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/05/07/treacherous-computing/#rewilding-the-internet

Of course, Moz depends on Google's payment for default search placement for 90% of its revenue. If Google can't pay for this in the future, the org is going to have to find another source of revenue. Perhaps that will be the EU, or foundations, or users. In any of these cases, the org will find it much easier to raise funds if it is standing up for its users – not compromising on their interests.

Community voting for SXSW is live! If you wanna hear RIDA QADRI and me talk about how GIG WORKERS can DISENSHITTIFY their jobs with INTEROPERABILITY, VOTE FOR THIS ONE!

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/08/12/defaults-matter/#make-up-your-mind-already

Image: ICMA Photos (modified) https://www.flickr.com/photos/icma/3635981474/

CC BY-SA 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/

[jcmarchi]

Playing a new tune

New Post has been published on https://thedigitalinsider.com/playing-a-new-tune/

Playing a new tune

For generations, Andrew Sutherland’s family had the same calling: bagpipes. Growing up in Halifax, Nova Scotia, in a family with Scottish roots, Sutherland’s father, grandfather, and great-grandfather all played the bagpipes competitively, criss-crossing North America. Sutherland’s aunts and uncles were pipers too.

But Sutherland did not take to the instrument. He liked math, went to college, entered a PhD program, and emerged as a professor at the MIT Sloan School of Management. Sutherland is an enterprising scholar whose work delves into issues around the financing and auditing of private firms, the effects of financial technology, and even detecting business fraud.

“I was actually the first male in my family to not play the bagpipes, and the first to go to university,” Sutherland explains. “The joke is that I’m the shame of the family, since I never picked up the pipes and continued the tradition.”

The family bagpiping loss is MIT’s gain. While Sutherland’s area of specialty is nominally accounting, his work has illuminated business practices more broadly.

“A lot of what we know about the financial system and how companies perform, and about financial statements, comes from big public companies,” Sutherland says. “But we have a lot of entrepreneurs come through Sloan looking to found startups, and in the U.S., private firms generate more than half of employment and investment. Until recently, we haven’t known a lot about how they get capital, how they make decisions.”

For his research and teaching, Sutherland was awarded tenure at MIT last year.

Piper at the gates of college

Sutherland is proud of his family history; his grandfather and great-grandfather have taught generations of bagpipe players in Nova Scotia, with many of their students becoming successful pipers around the world. But Sutherland took to math and business studies, receiving his undergraduate degree in commerce, with honors in accounting, from York University in Toronto. Then he received an MBA from Carnegie Mellon University, with concentrations in finance and quantitative analysis.

Sutherland still wanted to research financial markets, though. How did banks evaluate the private businesses they were lending to? How much were those firms disclosing to investors? How much just comes down to trust? He entered the PhD program at the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business and found scholars encouraging him to pursue those questions.

That included Sutherland’s advisor, Christian Leuz; the long-time Chicago professor Douglas Diamond, now a Nobel Prize winner, whom Sutherland calls “one of the most generous researchers I’ve met” in academia; and a then-assistant professor, Michael Minnis, who shared Sutherland’s interest in studying private firms and entrepreneurs.

Sutherland earned his PhD from Chicago in 2015, with a dissertation about the changing nature of banker-to-business relationships, published in 2018. That research studied the effects of transparency-improving technologies on how small businesses obtained credit.

“Twenty years ago, banking was very relationship-based,” Sutherland says. “You might play golf with your loan officer once a year and they knew your business and maybe your employees, and they would sponsor the local softball team. Whereas now banking has been really influenced by technology. A lot of companies provide credit through online applications, and the days where you had to supply audited financial statements has gone away.” As a result of the expansion in technology-based lending, credit markets have shifted from a relationship basis to a transactional focus.

Sutherland, who is currently an associate professor at MIT, joined the faculty in 2015 and has remained at the Institute ever since. A fan of modern art, his office at MIT Sloan includes an Andy Warhol print, which is part of MIT’s art-lending program, as well as reproductions of some of Harold “Doc” Edgerton’s famous high-speed photographs.

Sutherland has since written five papers with Minnis (now a deputy dean at Chicago Booth), and other co-authors. Many of their findings highlight the variation in lending and contracting practices in the small business sector. In a 2017 study, they found that banks collected fewer verified financial statements from construction companies during the pre-2008 housing bubble than afterward; before 2008, lending had become lax, similar to what happened in the mortgage markets, and this contributed to the crisis. In another study from that year, they showed how banks with extensive industry and geographic expertise rely more on soft than hard information in lending.

“We’re trying to understand the ‘Wild West’ in accounting and finance more broadly,” Sutherland says. “For firms like entrepreneurs and privately held companies, largely unfettered by regulation, what choices do they make, and why? And how can we use economic theory to understand these choices?”

Business, trust, and fraud

Indeed, Sutherland has often homed in on issues around trust, rules, and financial misconduct, something students care about greatly.

“Students are always interested in talking about fraud,” Sutherland says. “Our financial system is based on trust. So many of us invest on an entirely anonymous basis — we don’t personally know our fund manager or closely watch what they do with our money.” And while regulations and a functioning justice system protect against problems, Sutherland notes, finance works partly because “people have some trust in the financial system. But that’s a fragile thing. Once people are swindled, they just keep their money in the bank or under the mattress. Often we’ll have students from countries with weak institutions or corruption, and they’ll say, ‘You would never do the things you can do in the U.S., in terms of investing your money.’ Without trust, it becomes harder for entrepreneurs to raise capital and undermines the whole vibrant economic system we have.”

Some measures can make a big difference. In a 2020 paper published in the Journal of Financial Economics, Sutherland and two co-authors found that a 2010 change to the investment adviser qualification exam, which reduced its focus on ethics, had significant effects: People who passed the exam when it featured more rules and ethics material are one-fourth less likely to commit misconduct. They are also more likely to depart employers during or even before scandals.

“It does seem to matter,” Sutherland says. “The person who has had less ethics training is more likely to get in trouble with the industry. You can predict future fraud in a firm by who is quitting. Those with more ethics training are more likely to leave before a scandal breaks.”

In the classroom

Sutherland also believes his interests are well-suited to the MIT Sloan School of Management, since many students are looking to found startups.

“One thing that really stands out about Sloan is that we attract a lot of entrepreneurs,” Sutherland says. “They’re curious about all this stuff: How do I get financing? Should I go to a bank? Should I raise equity? How do I compare myself to competitors? It’s striking to me that if that person wanted to work for a big public firm, I could hand them a textbook that answers many of these questions. But when it comes to private firms, a lot of that is unknown. And it motivates me to find answers.”

And while Sutherland is a prolific researcher, he views classroom time as being just as important. 

“What I hope with every project I work on is that I could take the findings to the classroom, and the students would find it relevant and interesting,” Sutherland says.

As much as Sutherland made a big departure from the family business, he still gets to teach, and in a sense perform for an audience. Ask Sutherland about his students, and he sounds an emphatically upbeat note.

“One of the best things about teaching at MIT,” Sutherland says, “is that the students are smart enough that you can explain how you did the study, and someone will put up a hand and say: ‘What about this, or that?’ You can bring research findings to the classroom and they absorb them and challenge you on them. It’s the best place in the world to teach, because the students are just so curious and so smart.”

[omegaphilosophia]

Theories of the Philosophy of Microeconomics

The philosophy of microeconomics encompasses various theories and approaches that seek to understand the principles, assumptions, and implications of individual decision-making within the context of markets and economic systems. Some key theories in the philosophy of microeconomics include:

Rational Choice Theory: Rational choice theory posits that individuals make decisions by maximizing utility or satisfaction given their preferences, constraints, and available information. It assumes that individuals act in their self-interest and make choices that maximize their well-being.

Marginalism: Marginalism examines how individuals make decisions at the margin, weighing the benefits and costs of small changes or incremental units of goods and services. It emphasizes the importance of marginal analysis in determining optimal decision-making and resource allocation.

Utility Theory: Utility theory explores the concept of utility as a measure of satisfaction or happiness derived from consuming goods and services. It investigates how individuals allocate their limited resources to maximize utility, subject to budget constraints and preferences.

Consumer Choice Theory: Consumer choice theory analyzes how consumers make decisions about what goods and services to purchase based on their preferences, budget constraints, and the prices of goods in the market. It explores consumer behavior, demand curves, and the determinants of consumer choice.

Production Theory: Production theory examines the behavior of firms and producers in allocating resources to produce goods and services. It analyzes the relationship between inputs (such as labor and capital) and outputs, the concept of production functions, and the factors influencing production decisions.

Market Equilibrium: Market equilibrium theory explores the interaction of supply and demand in determining prices and quantities exchanged in markets. It examines how markets reach equilibrium through the adjustment of prices and quantities to balance supply and demand.

Game Theory: Game theory studies strategic interactions between rational decision-makers, such as individuals, firms, or governments, in competitive or cooperative settings. It analyzes the outcomes of strategic interactions, including the Nash equilibrium, cooperation, and competition.

Information Economics: Information economics investigates the role of information and uncertainty in economic decision-making. It examines how individuals gather, process, and act on information in markets, the impact of asymmetric information on market outcomes, and the role of signaling and screening mechanisms.

Behavioral Economics: Behavioral economics integrates insights from psychology and economics to study how cognitive biases, heuristics, and social factors influence economic behavior. It challenges the assumptions of rationality and explores deviations from standard economic models.

Welfare Economics: Welfare economics evaluates the efficiency and equity of resource allocation in economic systems. It assesses the welfare implications of market outcomes, including market failures, externalities, income distribution, and the role of government intervention.

These theories and approaches in the philosophy of microeconomics provide frameworks for understanding individual decision-making, market dynamics, and the allocation of resources in economic systems.

[isubhamdas]

How to Effectively Apply Behavioral Economics for Consumer Engagement?

I never thought behavioral economics would revolutionize my marketing strategy.

But here I am, telling you how it changed everything.

It all started when our company's engagement rates plummeted. We were losing customers faster than we could acquire them.

That's when I stumbled upon behavioral economics.

I began by implementing subtle changes. We reframed our pricing strategy using the decoy effect.

Suddenly, our premium package became more attractive. Sales increased by 15% in the first month.

Next, we tapped into loss aversion. Our email campaigns highlighted what customers might miss out on. Open rates soared from 22% to 37%.

But the real game-changer was social proof. We showcased user testimonials prominently on our website. Conversion rates jumped by 28%.

As we delved deeper, we encountered challenges. Some team members worried about ethical implications.

Were we manipulating consumers?

We addressed this by prioritizing transparency.

Every nudge we implemented was designed to benefit both the customer and our business.

This approach not only eased internal concerns but also built trust with our audience.

The results spoke for themselves. Overall engagement increased by 45% within six months. Customer retention improved by 30%.

But it wasn't just about numbers. We were creating meaningful connections. Customers felt understood and valued.

Looking back, I realize behavioral economics isn't about tricks or gimmicks. It's about understanding human behavior and using that knowledge to create win-win situations.

So, how can you improve your consumer engagement using behavioral economics?

Start by observing your customers' behaviors. What motivates them? What holds them back?

Use these insights to craft strategies that resonate.

Remember, the goal is to guide, not manipulate.

How are you applying behavioral economics in your business?

Get Tips, Suggestions, & Workarounds, in 2-3 mins, on How to Effectively Apply Behavioral Economics for Consumer Engagement?

[pebblegalaxy]

Thinking, Fast and Slow: A Deep Dive into Daniel Kahneman's Revolutionary Insights on Decision-Making and Cognitive Bias #BookReview #bookchatter #TBRChallenge @Blogchatter @PenguinBooks

“Thinking, Fast and Slow” by Daniel Kahneman is a groundbreaking work that synthesizes decades of research in psychology and behavioral economics. Published in 2011, this book represents the culmination of Kahneman’s illustrious career, for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences in 2002. Kahneman, a renowned psychologist and economist, presents a compelling exploration of the…

[darrenwalleyconsultancy]

Carrot and Stick

Defence Images The Carrot and Stick feature image for this post is “Europe 1916” by Boardman Robinson. Anti-war cartoon depicting Death enticing an emaciated donkey towards a precipice with a carrot labelled “Victory.” The whole “carrot and stick” narrative is intergenerational and will never end. We have all heard our grandparents talk about “the youth of today” and “in my day”. Your parents…

[bwhitex]

Human Sex Ratio Impact: Unraveling the Patterns of Behavior

Introduction

When social groups experience major gender imbalances causing two million more women than men societal consequences go beyond simple numbers; fundamental social institutions change forever; economic actions alter; mental wellness becomes affected too and even policies suffer adjustments. A surplus of girls over boys brings about distinctive conditions which might modify social expectations and interactions among members of a given society. These discrepancies also impact individual decisions and general norms through the lens of behavioral economics which helps in unveiling how personal choices are influenced by such imbalances as well as their wider implications within the context of marriage markets or employment relations vis-à-vis other spheres of human activity. Therefore, this synthesis views any gender imbalance from psychological angle intertwined with economic theory in order to elucidate various impacts ranging from labour dynamics through marriage market and much more even at personal level which could lead to significant changes both individually and collectively. By adopting behavioural economics approach one may comprehend macro-level social shifts resulting from micro-level choices arising due to male-female disparities that infects societies.

Marriage Market

The dating market also experiences complexities when there exists great differences between males and females population wise; females being more than twice men in numbers. In such a scenario, women tend to compete intensively for few available men who can be potential spouses. This means that they will have to work harder on their beauty or other qualities considered attractive traditionally thus altering normalities in going out together behaviors (Becker, 1981). Since these rare creatures called boys know very well that they are scarce; therefore may become choosier than before by raising bars high up besides revising criteria used during mate selection process. Consequently, many ladies will remain single because finding suitable partners becomes difficult while guys take longer getting married since they now have wider range from which to choose according to Guttentag & Secord (1983). Moreover, this kind of a situation forces people into rethinking about what matters most in relationships leading them into dissatisfaction with partners who fail to meet new standards set as per Guttentag and Secord (1983); hence not only does it change personal behavior but cultural expectations too regarding love affairs among others thus having far reaching implications on society as whole for instance modifying attitudes towards courtship period lengths etcetera.

Social Norms And Gender Roles

Another area where large imbalances between the sexes can cause seismic shifts is social norms setting sphere where men and women interact based on certain expectations about one another’s behavior patterns. When society has more females than males, what might be expected to happen next involves a power shift towards girls as they begin taking up male dominated positions thereby increasing their numbers in various professions or decision making levels (Buss, 1989). Conversely, scarcity of boys may lead to reinforcement traditional gender roles with attendant consequences like; higher socioeconomic status accorded to menfolk leading increased patriarchy within communities. These transformations affect intra household power relations; change family dynamics vis-à-vis who has say over what within marriages plus other partnerships alongside altering decision making processes relating to homes and care work allocations (Eagly & Wood, 1999). Such adjustments can shake foundations of society thereby affecting everything from laws governing marriage dissolution procedures across workplace policies concerning parental leave periods among others as highlighted by Eagly & Wood (1999) who investigated these issues in relation gender role changes due imbalanced sex ratios.But it is worth noting that if there are fewer options left for people looking for life partners because everyone else got married or decided cohabit without formal commitment then this creates excess savings among singles unable find mates which leads banks lowering interest rates on loans since less credit will be demanded by newly formed households influenced desire companionship arising limited choices spouses etcetera (Becker, 1981).

Economic Effects

The economic effects of gender imbalances are various. Labour markets might adjust themselves to respond to changes in the number of people caused by birth rates; this could affect jobs, wages and sectors dominated by men or women (Angrist, 2002). If women form the majority at work, they can change their spending habits which mean that different products and services will be demanded. Consequently, when people get married later on or remain single for longer periods because there are more singles than before due to imbalance ratios in marriageable persons; this may have an impact on housing markets as well retirement savings plans among other things since households change too(Becker ,1991). So businesses and policy makers must adapt their policies and strategies so as to meet changing needs of the population. Moreover, these demographic shifts could necessitate new ways for economic development or social welfare programs according Becker(1991)’s analysis.

The economic implications of a skewed sex ratio are profound. For instance, places with more women than men may experience an increase in female workforce participation rates as well as the proportion of women working in managerial positions (Buss, 1989). This is because women will feel empowered to take on traditionally male jobs and roles when there is a shortage of men. Consequently, they may gain more representation in higher-paying careers such as engineering or politics. On the other hand, if males become scarce relative to females, then their labor market value could rise significantly which might lead them into dominating lucrative industries like technology where they can earn higher salaries compared to other sectors like service industry jobs that attract lower wages due to being predominantly staffed by females (Eagly & Wood, 1999). Additionally, it has been found that imbalanced marriage markets can influence savings rates within societies. In particular, when there are fewer potential partners available for people to marry or enter long-term relationships with because they are already married or have chosen alternative lifestyles such as cohabitation without formal commitment etc., this creates an excess supply of savings among singles who cannot find suitable mates thereby driving down interest rates on loans and mortgages since banks would not need hefty returns from loanable funds given the reduced demand for credit facilities resulting from low levels of new home purchases caused by individuals failing to form couples due to unsatisfied desires for companionship arising from limited choices concerning potential spouses (Becker, 1981).

    Effects On Mental Health

Gender imbalances also have deep psychological impacts on individuals. More competitiveness within dating pools leads to increased stress levels especially among ladies who feel compelled find partners (Festinger et al., 1954). Such pressures worsen mental health conditions thereby affecting overall quality of life even further. Apart from that when there is a numerical shortage; Social identity becomes affected where some groups might end up being isolated while others develop stronger in-group loyalties such as self-esteem based on relationship status(Tajfel & Turner ,1979). These dynamics require a more profound understanding as well comprehensive support system interventions targeting those most affected by them.The theories put forward by Festinger(1954)and Tajfel & Turner(1979) shows how social comparison processes alongside group identification processes would be challenged under such conditions hence resulting into significant psychological adjustments .

   Policy Approaches

Governments and policymakers should recognize what they can do about this problem since it poses several difficulties for countries worldwide. One approach may involve introducing incentives which encourage people to have children equally among both sexes or shifting population balance through immigration policies change. This would mean that welfare programs are also equipped in terms of socializing individuals who face mental health challenges stemming from societal adjustments arising out gender imbalances. Additionally, ethical considerations need not be overlooked during policy making so as not violate peoples’ rights further widen already existing inequalities(Sen ,1990). Therefore, any intervention designed at addressing demographic imbalances must take cognizance of fairness across gender divides

Social and Sexual Behaviour

We can only understand human mating strategies if we look at them from an evolutionary perspective; this is because these patterns do not just come about due cultural factors but are deeply rooted within our biological history as well. Sexual Strategies Theory according to Buss & Schmitt indicates that males should be willing to engage in multiple short term relationships since minimum investment needed for men’s reproduction process involves production sperms only so they might try many women before settling down with one. In other words, their reproductive success will increase when they fertilize eggs belonging different partners thus spreading genes farther wide. The theory is consistent with Trivers’ concept of Parental Investment where he states that whichever sex invests less on offspring will be more promiscuous sexually and this case it applies to human beings too.

To make the conversation longer, Trivers’ theory explains why females are more selective in their choice of mates when they have greater biological investment through pregnancy and taking care of children. This preference makes males compete for mating opportunities with much aggression where they do things that may reduce the cost of sex. According to Gangestad and Simpson’s study on strategic pluralism in human mating, this means people do not have one strategy but rather use different ones depending on their situation including those related to ecology or weathering.

On the other hand, Baumeister and Vohs complicate matters even further by regarding sexual encounters as business transactions within a market system where traditionally women hold control over sex as a “commodity.” In light of this model, men may frequently try to minimize input unless it maximizes output in terms of reproductive achievements or social status. Also from an economic point of view, this approach demonstrates that social norms and economic conditions can affect personal relationships while emphasizing them as such.

All together these theories offer us a subtle understanding into human sexual behavior indicating that genetic predispositions along with socio-economic factors contribute towards our mating strategies. As pointed out by Gangestad & Simpson there is flexibility shown by these strategies which suggests adaptation to changes in environment including alterations brought about by population growth rates; variations across societies due to shifts caused by political systems etcetera.

In essence what these evolutionary hypotheses imply for us is that no matter how hard we might try there will always be some men who aggressively seek short term partners during times when they feel like doing so would give them more offspring. It can thus be seen why people act this way as maximizing number of babies born alive becomes important under certain conditions where getting married forever may seem dangerous or useless at least from male perspective given his limited time earth among other reasons too which cannot all fit into one sentence.

Moreover apart from just being purely academic exercises these explanations also find practical applications within various cultural contexts. For instance it helps explain why in some cultures men are expected to seek many wives while others view this as unacceptable probably due lack of resources. Hence according to these theories it is possible that what we take for granted about ourselves could shape our behaviors depending on where and when one was raised or lives through during their lifetime.

This has implications not only on individual level but even at societal level because they can influence fields like psychology, sociology and even public policy where understanding motives behind relationships between people may assist development programs aimed towards improving health standards within communities. Thus integration such complex provide wider view explaining all different behaviors seen across different global societies with respect to courtship rituals among other practices related marriage institution which serve reproductive functions primarily.

In concluding there is much more than meets the eye when it comes to studying human sexual behavior from an evolutionary perspective. It would therefore be wise if policy makers took into account these considerations while designing interventions aimed at enhancing social welfare through public health measures. Additionally interdisciplinary approach should also be embraced by economists, psychologists, sociologists and policymakers so as realize meaningful outcomes in addressing impacts caused by gender imbalances due demographic shifts especially those arising out rapid industrialization coupled with urbanization processes currently experienced in most parts of Africa including Nigeria

Buss, D. M. (1989). Sexual differences in the predilections of human mates: 37 cultures tested against evolutionary theories. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(1), 1-49.

Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54(6), 408-423.

Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes.Human Relations, 7(2), pp.117-140.

Guttentage, M., & Secord, P.F.(1983).Too many women? The sex ratio question.Sage Publications.

Sen,A.(1990). Gender and cooperative conflicts.In Persistent inequalities: Women and world development(pp.123-149) by I.Tinker,Oxford University Press.

Tajfel,H.& Turner,J.C.(1979).An integrative theory of intergroup conflict.In The social psychology of intergroup relations(pp33-47) edited by W.G.Austin&S.Worchel.Brooks/Cole.

Angrist,J.D.(2002).How do sex ratios affect marriage and labor markets?Evidence from America’s second generation.The Quarterly Journal of Economics,117(3),997–1038

Buss,D.M.&Schmitt,D.P.(1993).Sexual Strategies Theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating.Psychological Review,100(2),204–232

Trivers,R.L.(1972) Parental investment and sexual selection.In Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man 1871–1971(pp136–179) edited by B.Campbell.Aldine Transaction

Gangestad,S.W.&Simpson,J.A.(2000).The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism.Behavioral and Brain Sciences,23(4),573–644

Baumeister,R.F.&Vohs,K.D.(2004).Sexual economics: Sex as female resource for social exchange in heterosexual interactions.Personality and Social Psychology Review,8(4),339-363.

[ashtonderoy]

Explaining my Feud with my brother Kyle Deroy Unequal Equals.

Written by Ashton Deroy If you went off just this image. You might think ‘Kyle Deroy is a truth teller.” An objective voice being picked for argument by an unfair bully of a sibling. You would be wrong. What Kyle Deroy is to people around him? More often than not. Is unexplainably absent. Now if you ask him about it you will get ranges of explanations. ‘I’m a Nurse. I am always busy.” Ashton…