The role of emotions

The author of the book: Predictable Irrationality was just on the radio. He said that humans are irrational because of emotions. He said that when we're really hungry, then we make the irrational decision to overeat (overspend on food).

Doesn't this position assume rationality to be some sort of a cold and lifeless calculation (like that of a computing robot) so that instances where emotions are felt -- which is basically all of the time -- are automatically considered to be outside the realm of rationality (irrational)? Doesn't that lead to the presumption that what makes man man -- is his "fundamental" irrationality?

If so, then isn't that the same mistake made by pretty much all of the professional economists and lauded scientists studying rational choice theory and game theory?

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 7/29, 11:36am)

Post 1

Tuesday, July 29, 2008 - 11:49am

Hey everyone,

If you click the link above and click on the tab for Demonstrations and scroll down to Test Yourself, then you can choose to play the Door Game.

I played the game ... it predicted that I'd be irrational. Well, I wasn't. I got good scores both times (over 2200). The game was kind of fixed, too -- so that this guy's outcome would be found even if a programmed robot played it. I can't say more without giving it away.

Try it if you like. It should take about 1-2 minutes to do. I'd like to hear comments.

Ed

Post 2

Tuesday, July 29, 2008 - 1:23pm

Hi Ed,

Doesn't this position assume rationality to be some sort of a cold and lifeless calculation (like that of a computing robot) so that instances where emotions are felt -- which is basically all of the time -- are automatically considered to be outside the realm of rationality (irrational)?

Yes. I think Antonio Dimasio provided good empirics to debunk the emotion-free view of rationality in his book Descartes Error.

Doesn't that lead to the presumption that what makes man man -- is his "fundamental" irrationality?

Not necessarily. Other alternatives might include something rather unrelated to the subject of rationality, such as being artistic, having imagination, transfering info from one generation to the next, having a sense of humor, etc.

Anyway, the Door Game failed to impress me. CAUTION: SPOILER! They think switching doors indicates the irrational tendency people have of keeping their options open. That's just silly. We're trying to figure out the game! Maybe switching doors is our attempt to find a pattern that'll generate more points. There's nothing irrational, ceteris paribus, in thinking there might be something better behind another door. And they think keeping the doors the same size triggers less switching? Not sure about that. By the time I'd gotten to the same-size doors, I'd figured out their dumb little game, so I switched less than I did when playing with the shifting-sizes doors.

I don't know much about the author, Dan Ariely, or his book, but Amazon says he has 20 years experience in behavioral economics. Given this background, I suspect he misspoke when he placed such emphasis on emotion. Behavioral economists selcom attribute our irrational tendencies to mere emotion. Instead, they point to inappropriate heuristics as the main culprit.

Jordan

Post 3

Tuesday, July 29, 2008 - 7:06pm

Jordan, thanks for the response.

As to your closing statement about giving the guy the benefit of the doubt (because he's a 20-yr economist), you're being too lenient with him. I mean, on the radio, this guy said that when emotions come over you, then you are not yourself!

What kind of reasoning is that?!

Ed

Post 4

Tuesday, July 29, 2008 - 7:33pm

Most unfortunate. I'll stick with Tversky and Kahneman as my choice behavioral economists.

Jordan

Post 5

Tuesday, July 29, 2008 - 11:28pm

Hi Ed.

I actually purchased this book a month ago, and have read approximately half of it before I ran out of leisure time to read. At the very minimum, the book has been full of interesting observations of human peculiarities. There are some arguments that I found contestable, particularly in Ariely's assessment of behavior being irrational concerning the "Cost of Zero Cost". Given that the utility between item X and item Y is the same, and the price difference is the same, it would be irrational (according to Ariely) to change one's choice from X to Y, simply because Y is now "FREE" -- even though everything else is the same. I haven't articulated and refined my thoughts on this, but I think this behavior can in fact be explained through "conventional economic theory" or "rational choice theory" if you take more factors into consideration.

At any rate, it IS incontestable that "FREE" does have a powerful effect on consumers. I also found Ariely's chapter on the "fallacies" of Supply and Demand alarmingly insightful. Particularly eye-opening was his finding on the human peculiarity of "anchoring", which is a pretty significant oddity of human behavior considering the potential scope of its effect.

It's funny to think: Tim Harford's "The Logic of Life" mentions the rationality of rats, whereas Ariely's book talks about the irrationality of humans. Hmm...

Post 6

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 - 12:08am

"It's funny to think: Tim Harford's "The Logic of Life" mentions the rationality of rats, whereas Ariely's book talks about the irrationality of humans." Too funny!

So many of the arguments about human nature seem to start with an agenda that has nothing to do with who we actually are.

Emotions have some awesome functions - they fuel us, they reward and warn us, and they allow us to automate critical motivations.

This last allows us to act without repeating complex chains of reasoning. In software it like the coding key values along with the processes related to them so that they can be instantly called upon, as existing processes, without having to recreate them, from scratch, each time they come up.

When I want to talk to a friend, I can pick up a phone and call. I don't have to engage in some strange, linear process of abstractly measuring values against available time, resources and current circumstances - just to move forward with making a call.

The whole reason for living is in the experience of life - an emotional state! Joy, excitement, exhilaration, love, laughter - contrast those with a computer or robot's existence.

Storing our values (and dis-values) in an hierarchical system with a 'routine' that monitors their access, gives us automatic warnings (to the degree we are aware and introspective) of dangers in the real world, dangers of unethical behavior, dangers in how we are using our awareness - fear, guilt, anger, sadness, shame - all are telling us something as we experience them. And we can't have an existence that is all passionate attachments without some necessary loses.

The philosophical problem is usually found to be the absence of a theory of agency or choice. Without that the intelligible link between emotion and reason is lost.

It is a massive loss of context to deny emotion because of reason, or reason because of emotion, or to ignore or deny that we choose how we navigate between these vital, essential, integrated elements of one and the same thing: being human.

Post 7

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 - 12:54am

Steve, I agree: Emotions are an integral part of being a human -- whether a rational human or an irrational human. The most direct verification of this reality is the irrefutable fact that motivations are inextricably essential for the purposes of volition. No motivation is possible without emotions, and no living human will be without motivations.

Post 8

Thursday, July 31, 2008 - 2:08pm

Warren,

It sounds like you can learn yourself out of the situations -- such as "anchoring" -- that Ariely showboats in his book. You can definitely learn yourself out of the negative outcomes of the Door Game (I did it, I learned, on my very first try). I'm also pretty sure that -- if asked -- Ariely would say that these situations are essential to being a human being, rather than something that each and every one of us, in principle, could learn ourselves past.

Having read more of his work than I have I would like to ask you: Am I right about his view of humans -- as having inherent irrationality (rather than having merely a learning curve)?

Ed

Post 9

Thursday, July 31, 2008 - 11:31pm

It sounds like you can learn yourself out of the situations -- such as "anchoring" -- that Ariely showboats in his book. You can definitely learn yourself out of the negative outcomes of the Door Game (I did it, I learned, on my very first try). I'm also pretty sure that -- if asked -- Ariely would say that these situations are essential to being a human being, rather than something that each and every one of us, in principle, could learn ourselves past.

Having read more of his work than I have I would like to ask you: Am I right about his view of humans -- as having inherent irrationality (rather than having merely a learning curve)?

Eddie T,

I agree that we can "learn ourselves" out of behaviors that previously ran amuck in the absence of our awareness of them (or to their causes and therefore solutions). If this weren't true, then Dr. Hurd would not exist, nor would Rational-Emotive therapy, nor would any other form of reason-based methodologies of self-improvement.

As far as what Ariely thinks regarding this issue, I'll let his book do the talking:

"From drinking coffee to losing weight, from buying a car to choosing a romantic partner, Ariely explains how to break through these systematic patterns of thought to make better decisions."

This is an excerpt from the inside of the book jacket. At the end of the introduction, Ariely also advises the reader to pause at the end of each chapter, to reflect on the material covered and how it can improve one's own thinking and decision making -- or one's "heuristics".

Ariely also strongly emphasizes that our irrationality is not "random or senseless", but rather they are methodical and systematic, hence predictable. As you may notice, the title of the book is indeed an intentional oxymoron: "Predictably Irrational". The implication, I think, is that "irrationality" is actually misguided rationality; misguided to the extent that one either does not achieve the task at hand or achieves it inefficiently. But this, as I'm sure Ariely would agree, is a kind of error that is at root based on either too much or too little information, and thus is not beyond a measure of control. Indeed, I think Ariely would agree that such misguided behaviors are exactly that: misguided. This implies that irrationality as such, is not intrinsic (and therefore inescapable) to human existence -- but getting exposed to the kind of information given in Ariely's book (and all those similar to it) is important in becoming cognizant of such behaviors.

Post 10

Saturday, August 2, 2008 - 8:56am

Warren, thanks for that enlightening reply.

Ed

Post 11

Saturday, August 2, 2008 - 10:55am

Part of what ye have to keep in mind is that this a layered development from earlier evolved mentalities, so the issue of the place of emotions MUST conform to its viability in lower animals, as well as in humans - and THEN the overlaying of reasoning powers to refine the usage in the more complex methodology of dealing successfully with the environment around the living human organism...

Post 12

Monday, September 29, 2008 - 1:46pm