Irrationality and the stolen pencil

I've just read for review an interesting book called Predictably Irrational (you can read my review here). It points out the flaw in the fundamental basis of economics, which assumes that human beings act rationally, and in such a way to maximize their benefit. The reality is very different. The book is full of experiments done to confirm this - showing, for instance, how we can't resist the pull of a discount even when we know it's rigged. But there is one thought experiment that I thought was a very powerful demonstration of the lack of logical consistency in our approach to honesty.

Picture this situation, says the author. Your child asks you to bring a pencil home. Would you have significant pangs of conscience about bringing one home from work? Most people say 'No.' Now imagine you don't have any pencils in the office, but there's a pencil stall selling them in the foyer of the office block. Would you have significant pangs of conscience about taking the money from petty cash and using it to buy a pencil to take home to your child? Most people say 'Yes.'

I'm with most people on this. I wouldn't take the money, but I would take the pencil. Of course, you can easily start to justify this. To buy the pencil you would steal the retail cost, but when you just take a pencil the company only loses the wholesale cost. But that's splitting hairs. The fact is that there's something very different about taking money and taking a low value item in the same circumstances, even though rationally they are the same thing.

Aren't people interesting?

Comments

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor...

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense...

Search This Blog