Thinking, Fast and Slow: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 93:
🪙 '''27 – The Endowment Effect.''' In a series of markets reported by Daniel Kahneman, Jack Knetsch, and Richard Thaler, an advanced undergraduate economics class at Cornell University traded goods after first succeeding in “induced value” token markets that verified a clean supply–demand mechanism. When the same procedure turned to Cornell‑branded coffee mugs priced at $6 in the bookstore (22 mugs in circulation), the predicted 11 trades failed to appear: across four mug markets, only 4, 1, 2, and 2 trades cleared. Reservation prices revealed the gap: median sellers would not part with a mug for less than about $5.25, while median buyers would pay only about $2.25–$2.75, with market prices between $4.25 and $4.75. Replications, including one with 77 students at Simon Fraser University using mugs and boxed pens, showed the same two‑to‑one ratio between willingness to accept and willingness to pay, even with chances to learn. A neutral “chooser” condition—deciding between a mug and money without initial ownership—behaved like buyers, implicating ownership itself rather than budgets or transaction costs. The asymmetry carried into field and survey evidence about fairness and status quo bias, where foregone gains are treated more lightly than out‑of‑pocket losses. The mechanism is reference dependence plus loss aversion: acquiring feels like a gain, but giving up a possession feels like a loss that weighs more. In the book’s architecture, a fast attachment to “mine” inflates value unless a slower, statistical view corrects for how ownership shifts the baseline.
💥 '''28 – Bad Events.''' In a 2011 American Economic Review paper, economists Devin G. Pope and Maurice E. Schweitzer analyzed more than 2.5 million PGA Tour putts captured by ShotLink lasers and found that pros were reliably more accurate on par putts than on birdie putts of the same length—evidence that avoiding a bogey (a loss relative to par) draws extra effort. Their field data echoed a broader pattern long cataloged in psychology: bad outcomes and threats command attention and action more than equally sized gains. Roy Baumeister and colleagues, reviewing results across relationships, feedback, learning, and memory, called this asymmetry “bad is stronger than good,” a theme that shows up whenever setbacks, penalties, or criticism weigh more heavily than comparable rewards. In negotiations and policy disputes, the same tilt stabilizes the status quo because potential losers mobilize more intensely than potential winners. Even when stakes are modest, people pass up favorable bets that involve any chance of loss, or they pay for warranties to fend off small hazards they would otherwise ignore. The mechanism is not mere caution but reference dependence: outcomes are coded as gains or losses around a current baseline, and the loss side is steeper. Negative cues also spread through the associative machinery—threat words, angry faces, and warnings prime vigilance and tighten standards. Within the book’s larger argument, a fast system that prioritizes danger and loss helps people survive, yet it also bends choices toward undue caution unless a slower system reframes the stakes and checks the baseline being used.
🧮 '''29 – The Fourfold Pattern.''' Maurice Allais’s 1953 paradox first spotlighted a “certainty effect,” where people pay a premium for outcomes that are guaranteed, even when a near‑sure alternative is economically superior. Building on many such choices, Kahneman and Tversky’s experiments reveal a systematic fourfold pattern of risk attitudes: with high‑probability gains people are risk‑averse (preferring a sure win to a slightly larger gamble), with low‑probability gains they become risk‑seeking (lotteries), with high‑probability losses they become risk‑seeking (gambling to avoid a near‑certain hit), and with low‑probability losses they are risk‑averse (insurance). The same results emerge whether payoffs are hypothetical or real and whether problems use money, time, or health outcomes. Two forces drive the pattern: a value function that is concave for gains and convex for losses (losses loom larger), and decision weights that underweight near‑certainties but overweight mere possibilities. Fear of disappointment pushes people to lock in likely gains; hope of relief tempts them to gamble against likely losses; faint chances of jackpots are enticing; tiny chances of disaster feel intolerable. Because attention focuses on salient outcomes rather than on complete probability distributions, minor changes near 0% or 100% feel bigger than equal changes in the middle. The fourfold pattern ties everyday behaviors—buying lottery tickets and insurance at once, accepting extended warranties, doubling down on bad projects—into one map. In the book’s frame, a fast system reacts to the felt possibility or certainty of outcomes, while a slower system must translate feelings into calibrated trade‑offs.
🦄 '''30 – Rare Events.''' When rare hazards dominate the news, as with suicide bombings in Israel in the early 2000s, many people shun buses or public places despite tiny absolute risks—a social amplification Kuran and Sunstein describe as an “availability cascade.” Laboratory studies show the same psychological signature: when asked separately about many unlikely outcomes, people overestimate each and give the set a total probability far above 100%; when asked to choose, they also overweight those slim odds in decisions. Vivid descriptions, striking images, and repeated coverage make the unlikely feel more plausible, while the “non‑occurrence” of the event has no equally gripping story to tell. Prospect theory separates two steps that move in the same direction: the judged probability of a rare event is inflated, and the decision weight assigned to it is amplified even more. People are also insensitive to gradations among tiny risks—differences between 0.001% and 0.00001% barely register—so campaigns that highlight any small chance can trigger big protective responses. This mix explains why jackpots sell tickets and why very low deductibles and extended warranties remain popular even when they are poor value. Ignoring rare dangers is also common when they are hard to imagine or not made salient, producing a flip from exaggeration to neglect. In the book’s terms, the fast system locks onto concrete, imaginable bad outcomes and treats their mere possibility as decisive; the slow system must force side‑by‑side comparisons, specify the alternatives, and check whether a vivid story is standing in for arithmetic.
🛡️ '''31 – Risk Policies.'''
| |||