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.
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.
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.
A lily pad covering a pond on day thirty covered half of it on day twenty-nine. Nothing about its growth changed — only the base it grew from. Human intuition fails at this reliably and expensively.
A bridge expecting ten tonnes is built to hold fifty. The extra capacity will likely never be used — and it is not there for unusual lorries. It is there because the calculations might be wrong.
The case for passive investing was settled by the data decades ago. The harder problem was never the math — it was sitting still.
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.