Publication Date:May 1, 2010 Availability:Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Features:
•
ISBN13: 9780061353246
•
Condition: New
•
Notes: BUY WITH CONFIDENCE, Over one million books sold! 98% Positive feedback. Compare our books, prices and service to the competition. 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed
Why do our headaches persist after we take a one-cent aspirin but disappear when we take a fifty-cent aspirin?
Why do we splurge on a lavish meal but cut coupons to save twenty-five cents on a can of soup?
When it comes to making decisions in our lives, we think we're making smart, rational choices. But are we?
In this newly revised and expanded edition of the groundbreaking New York Times bestseller, Dan Ariely refutes the common assumption that we behave in fundamentally rational ways. From drinking coffee to losing weight, from buying a car to choosing a romantic partner, we consistently overpay, underestimate, and procrastinate. Yet these misguided behaviors are neither random nor senseless. They're systematic and predictable—making us predictably irrational.
Beyond FreakonomicsSeptember 2, 2010 Jose Sanchez Alarcos(Madrid Spain) Freakonomics tried to show how some decisions could be sound, even if they did not appear as that for an external observer.
Predictably Irrational goes one step beyond: Sometimes, we do not behave rationally. However, the irrational behavior follows some principles that make it predictable. The whole book is devoted to those principles. The message should be: Ok, Freakonomics; you show that rationality is far beyond the appearance and this is a good starting point. What if there are fields of our behavior where irrationality is prevalent?
Some of the principles, like the decoy as a way to help changing a decision, are shown with amazing examples and experiments. It is especially interesting the example of nursery because it is shared by Freakonomics and the reader can see the differences in the approach by both books. Other principles seem more driven by the requirement to fill space but, even though, the book is worth.
At the moment of writing this review, I did not read any other book by Ariely. However, it is going to be hard keeping the level of this one. The success could invite the author to write more books with the same subject. However, the fact that some of the shown principles appear as minor invite the reader to think that the "cream" is already extracted in this book.
Title Should Be 'Predictably Irresponsible'August 28, 2010 Eric Robert Morse This book is a thorough survey of various experiments that the author conducted in hopes of finding out more about why people do the seemingly irrational things they do. It is a theme on the very intriguing new science of Behavioral Economics (a mix between economics and social science) and offers the reader a fascinating collection of stories and scenarios that compel thought and encourage further study. It is a lot like the work of Malcolm Gladwell, Daniel Gilbert, and Tim Hartford. And like the work of those noted authors, `Predictably Irrational' is also a victim of the abstractions the author describes and ends up feeling awfully irrational, itself.
To begin, the title is misleading. The author claims that humans are irrational, using all kinds of examples of wacky human decision-making to prove this, but he never really defines what `rational' is or thence what `irrational' is. At the start, we are to assume that `rational' means `based on some sort of easily calculable monetary gain', and when we make decisions that are based on some other criteria, we are supposedly being irrational. For example, in a study explained in chapter 6, the author assumes that saving money is good (saying that the Japanese are "much better" in that department because they save so much more than Americans do). Given that assumption, all Americans would rightly want to save money and the fact that we don't (our savings rate is actually negative) means that we're irrational.
The author then explains why we make the decisions we do make, giving us very useful information on the concepts of the Decoy Effect, Herding, Anchors, Hidden Costs, and Social Influences. By doing this, however, he ends up showing us good reasons for doing the things we do. They might not add up to the goal that he assumes and they might not be good reasons, but they are still based on good rationale.
Many of the ulterior motives, however rational they are, are rather disagreeable and the author is right to disparage them. But the fact that we continually succumb to these motives does not mean that we're irrational, it only means that we're irresponsible or weak-willed. This is a crucial point of distinction because it affects the practical effect of this thesis. While the solution should be more responsibility or stronger will, the author gets diverted and leads the readers in a dangerous direction.
In fact, the author claims throughout the book that responsibility is impossible, that we are helpless in defeating our baser motives and that we should just figure out ways to trick ourselves into doing what is right. When people are irrational, they must be manipulated somehow. As it turns out, Mr. Ariely is a very tricky guy.
In chapter 5, for example, he says that we simply cannot count on young people to do the right thing with respect to sex when in the heat of the moment. So we should make condoms readily available and focus sex ed, not on the physiological aspects of reproduction, but the emotions that accompany arousal so as to give students the impulse to walk away before the temptation strikes. While these suggestions might have merit, they assume that the young people involved in the fooling around ought to have no accountability in the matter.
Many of the solutions suggested in this book tend toward socialism, which is actually the rational answer to a society of irrational people. He attempts to debunk "the fallacy of supply and demand" and encourages government involvement in many cases. The idea is to control the mindless masses by regulations, rules, and safeguards, because it is clear that they cannot take care of themselves.
The conclusion is especially striking coming from someone associated with the field of economics, where libertarian ideals flourish quite naturally. On the other hand, the social sciences beget as much socialist thought as they dare. It is no wonder, then that the combination of the two fields creates such an inconsistent, fascinating, and often self-defeating book. Caveat emptor.
SpectacularAugust 24, 2010 Dustin Rotbart His writing is both imaginative and easily understood.
I highly recommend this book!
Too little science; too much opinionAugust 23, 2010 american bandersnatch 3 out of 3 found this review helpful
This is an intellectually lazy book that buries a few mildly interesing studies under endless anecdotes, opinion and speculation. He gives very little detail of the studies (e.g. number of participants, mean vs median results) so it's hard to determine if the results he has are statistically significant or their precise meaning. For example, when given an opportunity to cheat, the average score of a group of students goes up - it would have been good to know if this was the result of one or two students cheating a lot or most of the students cheating a little (his opinion). Many of the studies' results could have other equally reasonable explanations and, rather than explore each of them, the author simply picks the explanation that fits with his rather tranparent social and political views. For example, he cites a study where his students who he asked to pay to listen to him read poetry offered to pay him when he asked again whereas when he offered to pay students to listen to his poerty they wanted to be paid to listen again. He attributes this to subconcious anchoring but another explanation is these students are conciously attempting to meet what they think their teacher's expectations are.
His thought process is also sloppy, Because humans are not entirely rational in determining their needs he concludes that the free market cannot be trusted and therefore the government must play a significant regulatory role. He cites the water and electricity industries as examples which seems silly - the need for regulation in these industries is because they are natural monopolies of an essential service, not because people are too irrational to decide how much electricity they need.
The author is also astonishly full of himself - he belives he's discovered the proper way for a group to order dinner, for companies to offer credit cards, how to lose weight, how to control lobbyists or how to solve the subprime mortgage problem. Each of his proposals raises a number of obvious questions which he makes no effort to present or answer. He suffers from an arrogance common to university professors who think they can run the world better based on studies that ask 18 year old volunteers to answer questions for a dime apiece.
An eye-opener on our livesAugust 20, 2010 M. Ordman Roger - made me take a second look at the reasons for many of my decisions - asked my wife to read it too!
