Behavioral Economics: The Errors Point the Same Way
If people departed randomly from rational choice, the departures would cancel out. They lean consistently in the same directions — which is what makes them worth studying, and worth worrying about.
If people departed randomly from rational choice, the departures would cancel out. They lean consistently in the same directions — which is what makes them worth studying, and worth worrying about.
When what you did clashes with what you think, one has to give. The action already happened and the belief is private — so people end up sincerely believing whatever justifies what they did.
Most attention goes to choosing investments — the part you control least and that matters least. Saving rate, time, and costs decide the outcome, and all three are dull.
Two children share one cake and one child's gain is the other's loss. Two neighbours swap mangoes for apples and both end up better off, with no new fruit. Telling these apart changes what you should do.
Money spent arrives with a bill. The alternative you silently rejected never does — which is why we count one half of every decision carefully and the other half not at all.
A fair coin flip for equal stakes feels like a bad bet to almost everyone. The asymmetry behind that instinct quietly governs pricing, negotiation, investing, and why reform is so hard.
When evidence agrees with us we ask what it shows. When it disagrees we ask what's wrong with it. Apply that second question to one side only and you can dismantle half the evidence without noticing.
Before the cloud you bought servers for your busiest hour and let them idle the rest of the year. The change was financial rather than technical — and that is why it mattered so much.
A company posts record profits and the share price falls. That stops looking irrational once you see that a price already contains what everyone expected — and moves only on the difference.