People aren't rational

[Michael]

This exerpt from an article I found online is all about consumer marketing of energy saving products. However, that's not the point I'm interested in. What is of considerable interest is the comments from the behaviorial analysists that is mentioned in the article. This seems quite relevant to several thread discussions going on at this forum.

Thinking does not equal doing

The example illustrates a basic principle in social psychology: that people's attitudes do not translate into action. But most environmental activism remains centered around the assumption that changing behavior starts with changing attitudes and knowledge.

"Social psychologists have now known for four decades that the relationship between people's attitudes and knowledge and behavior is scant at best," said McKenzie-Mohr. Yet campaigns remain heavily focused on brochures, flyers and other means of disseminating information. "I could just as easily call this presentation 'beyond brochures,'" he said.

In the marketing world, one way this issue manifests itself is in the "say-do problem," which says that what people actually buy does not necessarily correspond to what they say they will buy. That complicates the efforts of those who seek to predict consumer response to a product, for example.

"The say-do problem isn't something just in the marketing world," said Art Barnard, president of a Madison, Wis.-based market research firm, GKA Research. "Why do people constantly say they're going to meet you on a Friday night, meet their friends, and never show up?"

Source (http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/11/19/19climatewire-how-understanding-the-human-mind-might-save-16335.html)

Basically these studies are just confirming the argument that I've been making quite consistently in various philosophy threads here. That is to say, humans are bloody poor judges/reporters of their own intentions. Asserting a rational decision-making process to average human beings is a fool's game.

[Donkey]

I also think it's just another thing that leaves classical economics hanging out to dry.

[partofme]

I agree completely.

[Michael]

I also think it's just another thing that leaves classical economics hanging out to dry.
Really? I don't see that at all.

I think it causes huge problems for the rational actor hypothesis upon which most neoclassical economic theory is built on, but I don't see the failure of that particular hypothesis as critical, necessary or elemental to classical economic theory - especially when it is married to liberal political theory as it always has been.

Indeed, I'm particularly pleased to attack the rational actor hypothesis as it is the lynchpin of most of the advanced mathematical modeling madness that underscores most of the recent market crashes. And I've been pounding this theme in discussions here at this forum for the last year or so, in arguments first with Dominick and then with Daktoria - and defending classical economic theory at the same time.

[Donkey]

Really? I don't see that at all.

I think it causes huge problems for the rational actor hypothesis upon which most neoclassical economic theory is built on, but I don't see the failure of that particular hypothesis as critical, necessary or elemental to classical economic theory - especially when it is married to liberal political theory as it always has been.

Indeed, I'm particularly pleased to attack the rational actor hypothesis as it is the lynchpin of most of the advanced mathematical modeling madness that underscores most of the recent market crashes. And I've been pounding this theme in discussions here at this forum for the last year or so, in arguments first with Dominick and then with Daktoria - and defending classical economic theory at the same time.
Fair enough. Terminology is not my strong suite.

[Michael]

Fair enough. Terminology is not my strong suite.
Fair enough. The distinction between 'classical economic theory' and 'neoclassical economic theory' is very slight and mostly opaque to most people who are not economists.

And that is the reason the neocons have been able to sneak into power and positions of authority - most people don't realize the fundamental difference between the two theories.

And that's part of why I push this issue. I think we are in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater here. The flaws of neoclassical economic theory are manifold and dangerous to society. We need to exorcize this theory from public policy. But the same flaws are not an integral part of classical economic theory.

And we have NO other substantive economic theory that is functional to replace it if we move against classical economic theory.

I'm not saying that classical economic theory is the best, only that it is better or more functional than any other known theory.

To put the (theoretical) difference between the two in a nutshell, neoclassical theory tends to apply classical theories that were developed to apply to larger scale aggregates and applies them with mathematical precision upon individual actors, and then makes conclusions based on that aggregate projection (this is how they convinced themselves that the US housing market couldn't possible become a bubble - bubbles are theoretically impossible with the 'strong' interpretation of the rational actor hypothesis).

According to traditional classical economics, bubbles can and do happen because information markets can get jumbled up with human emotions and/or propaganda (disinformation).

I'm simplifying enormously, but I'm trying to draw a general distinction, not a rule of definition.

[Daktoria]

Like I've said in our previous conversations, this article and position assumes that mental organization isn't something that involves rational decision making in itself since regulation and diagnostics do take effort to perform; goals and mental language are structures in themselves that take time to be completely realized beyond weak intuitions. In particular, the article doesn't consider laziness and intuitive cost-benefit analysis of effort regarding the installation of environmental devices, nor does it consider skepticism and attention deficit neglect regarding the acknowledgment of humanly caused climate change.

In other words, there's no test on if people aren't "behaving rationally" because people don't want to behave rationally (since observers always assume subject goals), and if people want (or don't want) to behave a certain way, isn't that still rationalization? Furthermore, it's impossible to totally test for rationalization because of how mental processes can be subdivided ad infinitum as a matter of goal orientation, so it isn't responsible to treat rational behavior as a positive consideration. Rather we can only treat it as a normative consideration with respect to human identity, essence, and rights.

A better argument is the one regarding instincts and how cerebral activity in conscious areas of the brain sometimes takes place after certain actions despite how subconscious areas of the brain are active prior of certain actions. If we're finicky about the definition of rationality, this could imply that certain actions are predetermined since subconscious areas of the brain are beyond conscious control (regardless of if it's possible to counter-manage them holistically through discipline).

[The Drunk Guy]

Wasn't it Nietzsche that said one of man's primal pleasures was destruction?

Well, I think shopping binges fits right into the pleasure of destruction. Buying stupid shit you don't need gives you the same release of endorphins that punching a hole in the wall does.

[Michael]

Wasn't it Nietzsche that said one of man's primal pleasures was destruction?
I'm not sure, though the idea is often attributed to him. It sounds like the kind of thing that one could take from Nietzsche, though Nietzsche never really made that argument.

What you speak of is what I call the idea of "Mac the Knife" - a song popular in cabaret clubs in Weimar Germany. Many would argue that this is not natural human behavior but pathological.

Well, I think shopping binges fits right into the pleasure of destruction. Buying stupid shit you don't need gives you the same release of endorphins that punching a hole in the wall does.
I'd be very surprised if this was true since the acts are very different in character.

Shopping is all about chasing social status (other-directed). Punching walls is all about expressing raw emotion (self-directed). The two don't seem connected at all.

[SMadsen]

I'd be very surprised if this was true since the acts are very different in character.

Shopping is all about chasing social status (other-directed). Punching walls is all about expressing raw emotion (self-directed). The two don't seem connected at all.
I agree.

However, the directions are switched. Chasing status is always directed towards the ego. Punching a hole in the wall is a submissive act, meaning that it's a symbolic act of what would come to pass (i.e. happen to other people) without restraints.

[The Drunk Guy]

Shopping is all about chasing social status (other-directed). Punching walls is all about expressing raw emotion (self-directed). The two don't seem connected at all.
Both of these results are generated by external motivators and are, ultimately, detrimental to the person. (You have to remember that I'm quite a bit lower on the socio-economic ladder than you. ;) )

[bug]

I'm on the rung with you, and I agree totally. Might not be the same for everyone, but I think both things can be about exerting some sort of power over something you don't feel you can control. When you get really stressed about money and have been pinching pennies 'till it hurts, it results in the inevitable binge--and you feel like you've said "I sure showed you, finances!! See, I can do whatever I want, you're not in charge!!!" The feeling of freedom you get from buying superfluous nonsense makes you feel like you're in control again (until you dare to look at your account or balance your checkbook, of course). When I've been angry enough to destroy things, it was because of feeling powerless, too. If you punch a wall, you feel like you've hurt something and therefore ruled over it, in a sense. I know how paradoxical and retarded that sounds, but after all, the thread is about how people make no sense.

[wphelan]

It could be related to the rush people get from gambling. A person spending money he or she may not be able to afford on some item and risking that money at the blackjack table involve similar risks.

[Michael]

It could be related to the rush people get from gambling. A person spending money he or she may not be able to afford on some item and risking that money at the blackjack table involve similar risks.

That is very much correct when it comes to shopping - according to most studies I've read on that topic.

It all fits in with my favorite Hegelian theory about how people 'create' their identities through spending money on consumer goods.

That's why poverty is so depressing for people - they feel like they don't exist. People need to buy stuff to feel like real people.