Great video man. I just found your channel through reddit, I really like smaller channels like this, Digital marketers wet dream I must say. Keep up the great work!
Hi Pete. I've just discovered your channel. I too am v v interested in Behavioural Economics and I have read all the book you recommend here. I would like to take the opportunity to recommend a few more (apologies if you know them already). • ‘Why Everyone (else!) is a Hypocrite’ (Robert Kurzban). This is similar to ‘The Elephant in the Brain’. A true eye-opener! • ‘Inside the Nudge Unit’ (David Halpern). Practical applications of insights from Behavioural Economics in the UK. • ‘Messengers’ (Martin & Marks). This looks at eight key factors which make messages more or less persuasive. I could recommend more, but I wouldn’t like to make this message too long. Keep up the good work! 😊
Based on my life's experiences, the Elephant in the Brain seems on the mark with everything stated. I'm going to read that one - thanks. I too have found Lisa Feldman Barrett's work really insightful, fascinating.
Thanks for a good suggesting. I read Think Again when it came, and like it very much. The Elephant in our Brain and Lessons about the Brain is on my readinglist (have read the others 🙂)
I would love it if you would post your whole books list of books that you think are good reads. I've got about 40 books on the topic in my bookcase and I would love to see if there are gems I'm still missing :) I got two already that appear in this video and one on my wish list. So I'll check out the other two; talking to strangers and lessons about the brain.
I enjoy your videos and I'm a subscriber. So I have a question that's been on my mind for many years...' In your synopsis of "The Elephant in the Brain," you said, "We tend to act first and then justify to ourselves later why we just did the thing we just did." My question would be, "Is that true of everyone to the same extent? (Seems unlikely) Or exactly who is that more true of, and who is it less true of, and what do those people know or do that the rest of us don't." I ran across this same type of question years ago when reading Martin Seligman's book "What You Can Change, and What You Can't." He stated a statistic that 96% of people who lose a significant amount of weight end up gaining it back within 4 years. My question was, "OK, so what are those 4% doing that the rest of us aren't, and is that teachable?" Same thing with statements like, "Most people who take piano lessons as children can't play the piano as adults." Again, perhaps true - but some do end up learning how to play. So how - as a parent, student, or teacher - can I facilitate that result? This isn't an idle question. I'm a math educator, and I'm well aware that most adults don't remember much of the math they learned in school - but they sure do remember that they hated it! So my question isn't so much, "What's true?" (as in the analogous observation that "Gravity exists"), but rather, "What's possible?" (as in, "How do we design elevators, planes, and rockets to account for and counter that gravity?")
I'm struck by how often findings in behavioral science studies are interpreted in implausible ways. for instance, the idea that post hoc rationalization is all about saving face seems to me to be wildly implausible. the brain has many more functions than just trying to save face among ones peers, and if post hoc rationalization is really as pervasive as the studies make it seem, it's implausible that "saving face" or "ego protection" could explain it. a much more plausible explanation is that it's about aligning ones beliefs. there are theories which imply that conscious thoughts get redistributed to subconscious processes, the global workspace model of consciousness being a big one. the function of Post hoc rationalizations, under such a theory, could be to send signals to subconscious processes to continue to produce recommendations to consciousness that align with the newly assented-to rationalization. rationalization. The effect over time would be a psychological system that has more beliefs aligned with each other into a coherent whole, and is more principled in it's actions and beliefs. so under this hypothesis post hoc rationalization would be a highly rational process, not the irrational. it's a forward facing process, rather than a purely backward facing process. behavioral scientists tend to interpret their findings in a way that implies that people are irrational... there's something very oedipal about them in this regard, i must say. behavioral scientists are trying to always rebel against the old economics, which haf a highly rationalistic view of human nature, that preceeded them
You should really consider reading two landmark economics papers. One of them is from 1950 called "Uncertainty, Evolution, and Economic Theory" by Armen Alchian, and the other is called "Irrational Behavior and Economic Theory" by Gary Becker. Taken together, and the latter was inspired directly by the former, they effectively prebunk behavioral economics my friend. And these are obviously not two lightweight economists, one was a nobel prize winner and the other had one of the top 20 articles in the American Economic Review in the 20th century!
Oh great, more books to add to my reading list....ha ha only joking. Lessons about the brain sounds really intriguing, I'll probably check it out after I finish Predictably Irrational. Thanks for the recommendations 👍
Hi Pete, I wanted to write a comment about the 'switching answer' phenomenon. To me, I think you would need a much higher sample size to come to a causal conclusion on this topic. Did the papers you talked about provide any insight as to why this was the case that there is a higher likelihood of being right?
In Adam Grants book, he basically argues that thinking longer generally gives your brain more opportunity to come to better conclusions as you consider the intricacies of the decision. What the papers argues specifically I can’t remember. You’ll have to read them yourself
What has happened to the depreciation of durable consumer since Sputnik? The Net Domestic Product equation only subtracts the depreciation of Capital Goods like industrial robots and 18-wheel trucks. All of the cars that American consumers have trashed have been ignored. The Laws of Physics do not care about economics or people so how does planned obsolescence fit into this? Is the entire economics profession dishonest. A book about planned obsolescence and the Depression just turned up in Project Gutenberg.
Hi Pete, I've recently come across your channel and thanks a lot for these useful contents. I'm currently considering about taking Masters in this field but also having a bit of second thoughts whether I actually need it. I would love to hear your experience studying Masters in behavioral science and how it helps you with you career. Thanks a lot.
If 'The Elephant in the Room' is correct, doesn't it invalidate the core concepts of not only traditional 'rational' economics theory, but also _any_ behaviorist paper (most of them) based on survey data?
Behavioural sciences is the most boring subject or degree ever..... How people manage it is surprising.... But you can read the book called Behave, it is good..... Or Outliers by Gladwell.....
Hi Pete, I am hoping to forge a career in behavioral economics but I am not very good at coding (R, Python, etc.), is such a career achievable without these skills?
It is! Though you will have to apply for non-technical positions only. Many positions in consulting don’t require these skills. Some positions offer to train you in it if you’re willing
Elephant in the Brain: Evolutionary rationale only works when you are young and procreating, I'm old and DONE procreating. I must have no reason, then..... maybe the author should ask someone else other than sophomore college students.
These things all seem like obvious common sense. I love your content, so I’m not ragging on you. Just saying I don’t understand what information can fill so many pages in a book. Is it some kind of groundbreaking realization that people are selfish and irrational?
I call these kind of popular books by academics midwit factories. They’re pretty much always just filled with common sense, common knowledge and half truths dressed up as something deeper to make people who aren’t terribly clever feel like they are. Like, no offense, but everything you said in this video would already be well known to a relatively well educated, intelligent adolescent.
Video didn't age well. It's about your first recommendation. I really liked this one: Opening Skinner's Box: Great Psychological Experiments for the Twentieth Century.
So how does the evolutionary psychology rationalisation explain the behaviour of people who are happily monogamous or gay people, who are not reasonably motivated by reproduction? Seems like a shallow argument.
Wait, let me get this straight, you're recommending Ariely's book about honesty when he's engaged (allegedley) in data fraud? Surely, you should give at least some attention to these accusations.
