Showing posts with label cognitive-affective bias. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cognitive-affective bias. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 16, 2019

Why we are wrong — Chris Dillow


Cognitive-affective bias. Short post but really a long one considering the links, which are useful in gaining understanding as well as justifying claims.

Stumbling and Mumbling
Why we are wrong
Chris Dillow | Investors Chronicle

Sunday, July 14, 2019

Gigerenzer: “The Bias Bias in Behavioral Economics,” including discussion of political implications — Andrew Gelman


Gerd Gigerenzer takes aim at Daniel Kahneman, Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein for being uncritical and going too far. While not endorsing rational choice theory, he stresses that the truth lies between the extremes of rationality and irrationality and claims behavioral economics tends to over emphasize irrationality consequent on cognitive-effective bias. It's neither reason or all bias, either all or mostly, but a combination of rationality and irrationality.

Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science
Gigerenzer: “The Bias Bias in Behavioral Economics,” including discussion of political implications
Andrew Gelman | Professor of Statistics and Political Science and Director of the Applied Statistics Center, Columbia University

See also by Andrew Gelman

The butterfly effect: It’s not what you think it is.

The piranha problem in social psychology / behavioral economics: The “take a pill” model of science eats itself

Tuesday, November 20, 2018

Matthew Davis — Who believes fake news? Study identifies 3 groups of people

The results showed that people prone to delusional thinking, religious fundamentalists, and dogmatists tended to believe all news, regardless of plausibility.
Big Think
Who believes fake news? Study identifies 3 groups of people
Matthew Davis

Saturday, August 5, 2017

Branko Milanovic — English language and American solipsism


This is true also of economics, which is dominated by Anglo-American conventional economics and British and American economists only read English. Add (un)professional solipsism to cultural. This is not only true of economics but other disciplines as well. The result is a biased view of Anglo-Americans, both the public and elites, including the political leadership.

Group think is related to this. It results from concentration on in-group discourse and ignoring out-group discourse. Conventional economics is another example of this type of biased approach.

Global Inequality
English language and American solipsism
Branko Milanovic | Visiting Presidential Professor at City University of New York Graduate Center and senior scholar at the Luxembourg Income Study (LIS), and formerly lead economist in the World Bank's research department and senior associate at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Wednesday, May 7, 2014

Ian Welsh — Human Nature for Ideology

All ideologies, including all economic ideologies like the modern discipline of economics, are theories of human nature in drag.
This is an especially good post that makes many significant points, and I suggest reading the whole thing. But if you chose not to, at least remember this quote.

Human Nature for Ideology
Ian Welsh