tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18156735.post7471859611510694145..comments2023-10-29T17:43:27.054+07:00Comments on café salemba: On Psycho-economicsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18156735.post-82741279412823427152007-07-24T12:47:00.000+07:002007-07-24T12:47:00.000+07:00"there's a lot of irrationality and emotion going ..."there's a lot of irrationality and emotion going on in Wall Street " not anymore, there's a "Circuit Breaker" now. any significant drop in one day the system will halt. in long term, irrationality and emotion may disappear. i hope so.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18156735.post-84822098342598513982007-07-24T04:19:00.000+07:002007-07-24T04:19:00.000+07:00tirta, i agree with you.tirta, i agree with you.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03523641844919145486noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18156735.post-70926190318463659982007-07-24T04:02:00.000+07:002007-07-24T04:02:00.000+07:00arya:"...except , of course, if you think that con...arya:<BR/><BR/>"...except , of course, if you think that conventional economics believes only monetary incentives matter."<BR/><BR/>of course not. but i do think that economics is most accomplished in talking about the monetary hypothesis. psychology is far behind in terms of elegant theories and models, despite a century of efforts looking at various non-monetary incentives.<BR/><BR/>as for your over-analyzing remark, i heartily accept the rebuke ;-)<BR/><BR/>john:<BR/><BR/>i have nothing against economists taking emotion and intuition more seriously. the problem for me is the addiction of some in scanning as many brain as possible, without enough thinking about the theoretical basis of the two mental elements.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18156735.post-80904570641563168002007-07-24T02:46:00.000+07:002007-07-24T02:46:00.000+07:00I really like this article, v interesting :)Tirta,...I really like this article, v interesting :)<BR/><BR/>Tirta, I think you hit the nail on the head. If economists had a better way of generally modelling human decisions in a relatively simple manner they'd use it. I don't think homoeconomicus is something economists cling onto for dear life, but as you say, it's the best worst solution available.<BR/><BR/>I think ppl are too focused on emotions and complicated psychological factors when modelling decisions nowadays. What about the influence of personal experience on decisions (information sets)? Something which has been around in economics for years.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03523641844919145486noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18156735.post-89950266876433192252007-07-23T23:54:00.000+07:002007-07-23T23:54:00.000+07:00TirtaSurely you don't think I was extrapolating by...<B>Tirta</B><BR/>Surely you don't think I was extrapolating by my previous comment. I was merely using a study on incentives as to argue that monetary incentives may not always be the most effective means to affect (non-profit) motives.<BR/><BR/>At any rate, I think you over-analyzed my jerk-reaction comment that you quoted in the post. It's a bit far-fetched to take it as signifying my rejection of conventional economics -- except , of course,if you think that conventional economics believes only monetary incentives matter. <BR/><BR/>My initial comment was a hypothesis. I am hoping that Fryer's little 'experiment' would either prove me right or wrong -- and I'm happy either way!Arya Gaduhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04330590627984700100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18156735.post-19651327835805057812007-07-23T20:03:00.000+07:002007-07-23T20:03:00.000+07:00arya:a minor quibble to start with: i have long fo...arya:<BR/><BR/>a minor quibble to start with: i have long found that ariel rubinstein had some reasonable doubts on the nursery study, as outlined here (on pages 6-8):<BR/>http://arielrubinstein.tau.ac.il/papers/behavioral-economics.pdf <BR/><BR/>nonetheless, i think it's a bit far fetched to extrapolate the results of the nursery study in israel (if they are indeed 'true' and replicable) to the learning problems faced by new york schools. the minds of israeli parents and new york teenagers work quite differently, i suspect, with respect to incentives. thus fryer's intervention will shed some direct light on the effectiveness of the monetary hypothesis.tirtasusilohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02419545305780454313noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18156735.post-25575929230138881032007-07-23T19:48:00.000+07:002007-07-23T19:48:00.000+07:00What about parents' motive in investing their kids...What about parents' motive in investing their kids to get some degrees, even for Master or PhD? Or, some scholarship foundations or corporations? Some Masters or PhDs writing books or journals could be for something. Two or three writers in a paper might have different motives among them. What motives might a 30y.o professor have? (better salary than assistant or associate prof?) Etc.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18156735.post-36135201753970129592007-07-23T17:02:00.000+07:002007-07-23T17:02:00.000+07:00Tirta:If you've read Freakonomics, surely you reme...<B>Tirta</B>:<BR/>If you've read <I>Freakonomics</I>, surely you remember the nursery experiment where parents are penalized a small amount of money for picking up their children late from the nursery. The penalty actually increased the number of tardy parents. Why? Because parents substitute monetary penalties for punctuality.<BR/><BR/>The lesson from the experiment was that incentives do matter -- but <I>which</I> one? Are monetary incentives <I>always</I> dominant? <BR/><BR/>More broadly, the real question is: Among the various incentives faced by individuals, statistically which one matters most on aggregate (for a particular problem)? And how does a policy intervention (like the one proposed by Fryer) influence them?<BR/><BR/>So the skepticism of Fryer's proposal is neither about questioning (conventional economic) rationality nor the need to maintain "noble motive of learning-for-the-sake-of-learning". It's about questioning whether money is the most effective tool (read: incentive) for the job (of encouraging learning). As suggested by the nursery experiment, it often isn't.Arya Gaduhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04330590627984700100noreply@blogger.com