I don't post everything I write on BlueSky, but I think this piece may resonate with a few of you. It is for those interested in the backstory of the debate, why it matters, and whether it is even a scientific question to ask whether people are rational.
Occasionally, and also slowly building up to it! Thanks for sharing
Rational Choice Theory has been a short-cut to nowhere for the field. We need to re-think the ‘drosophila of decision science’
jtpeterson.substack.com/p/the-drosop...
The paper changed significantly in the re-write. 6-pages as conversation starter for the NDM conference. I'd still love to get your take if you are not too busy with your new book :). Especially since you introduced me to the Bordalo et al. paper which makes an appearance.
Got a nice honorable mention from Experimental History🐐
That may have been the intention. But at some point the medium became the message, and it seems biases became more important than heuristics. I'm not entirely sure how Kahneman felt about that shift.
New article on context and the psychological paradigm, arguing that the boundaries we have put around "psychology" are in the wrong place. What we have dismissed as context is actually content.
jtpeterson.substack.com/p/rethinking...
The behaviors, problems, and outcomes that impact your customers most usually don't happen inside your product. Listen to @jaredpeterson.bsky.social describe how #UX and #prodmgmt often neglect what happens outside the product.
www.productcoalition.com/p/behavioura...
Which is why John always emphasizes that there is no single correct answer when he does TDGs. The only thing that matters is that you bring good ideas to the table.
I've been getting more into military doctrine. My boss is John Schmitt who wrote War fighting, which is tactical doctrine for the Marines. I'm increasingly concerned there will be a need to know this stuff
To those interested in the science of decision-making, here is a primer on the main schools of thought, the personalities behind them, and some resources for learning more.
substack.com/home/post/p-...
So we're not mapping the non-ethical side. In some sense, what we're interested in is our ability to predict someone's ethical choices. But to do that, we have to know what ethical factors they consider. eg whether they are the perpetrator or the victim, long term quality of life, etc.
Not naive. It means something like "how much variance can we explain on the ethical side." But the problem is circular. We can explain the majority of the variance for the probes we've written. But are our probes comprehensively testing the reasons medics choose one patient over another?
Thanks for sharing. I follow some bioethicists, so am hoping one might chime in.
We've already done a first pass on the ethical factors, but now were being asked about whether we have sufficiently mapped the decision space. And that is a hard question that I don't really know how to answer
Has anyone done a comprehensive analysis of factors that people think are, or think should be, ethically relevant when doing triage? eg likelihood of survival is relevant, some think "woman and children first", most think race is irrelevant, etc.
I read somewhere that one hamburger is about 10,000 queries worth of water and electricity. But I'm not sure how many queries are worth one unit of Jared
These price comparisons are getting out of control
It's one of the best subtitles of all time. And given that I've worked in both traditions, it seemed appropriate
In fact, here's a thread from @aleximas.bsky.social where he talks a bit about it. There was also a recent paper on Loss Aversion that has people asking whether it is dead (Decisions under risk are decisions under complexity), which is part of the Cognitive Turn, as I understand it.
There's a paper called "The Cognitive Turn in Behavioral Economics" which is the only reference I really know of. Outside of that, it's mostly stuff I just pick up on BlueSky here and there
Cognitive Turn people. Are any of you reading about Naturalistic Decision Making? Started reading *A Cognitive Theory of Reasoning and Choice* and thought, "this is just a math-y version of Dataframe Theory of Sensemaking, and Recognition Primed Decision-Making.
Newly published follow-up article to the #BehavioralScience framework tier list series I've been doing the past few months. Curious to hear your thoughts!
open.substack.com/pub/jtpeters...
Cool to see lots of ppl getting excited about “Science Goodreads”! (x.com/sanjehorah/s...)
Why it doesn’t exist yet is an interesting rabbit hole I went down a few years ago (which also resulted in me joining the @asterainstitute.bsky.social Open Science fellowship) >
Kahneman would resist so long as he can't see it because wysiati
Thaler would resist so long as it is stored with the cashews
Zimbardo would write up how he resisted, but it would be fake
Freud would be torn, but Id would win
Mischel would pretend it was a picture of a ring, but would give in
Anyways, merry Christmas. Make sure to get in your annual LoTR marathon in before the end of the year. It embodies the spirit of Christmas in a way few other works do.
6/
Many non LOTR characters could have resisted the ring for minutes or even years. But I have yet to see anyone mention someone who could toss it in the fire. Only someone who knows true redeeming love could have succeeded at the quest, and only then by losing their life for the one they love
5/
If Sam had been able to see and accept the change in Smeagol, Smeagol may have been redeemed.
And at the end, pulled between the ring and his love for Frodo, unable to give up the ring, but compelled by love, Smeagol may have "voluntarily cast himself into the fire" in a final act of love
4/
From very early on you as the reader know Frodo can't fulfill his quest. You know from the start of the book that divine intervention will be needed.
However, Tolkien did think there was an individual who might have been capable of fulfilling the quest voluntarily; Smeagol.
3/
Hobbits don't have main character energy, which is why a hobbit had to be the one to carry the ring.
But while Frodo got far, he never stood a chance. Gandalf told Frodo to throw the One Ring into the fire at Bag End, and he couldn't do it even then.
2/
