Has Schwartz done any studies about the errors that unelected government bureaucrats and their advisors are prone to? Do NIH and NSF provide grant funding for such studies?

In any event…

According to the article in the Guardian that Dan cites, focus groups in Britain don’t want to have to choose among health providers. Would Schwartz conclude from this that young Americans would be subject to less stress if monopoly districts were defined around every state univesity, so that only prospective students who met a requirement of long-term residency in the district could be admitted? Think of burdens that would be lifted from them and their families…

Robert Campbell

Actual psychology research looks at the possibility of fixing or getting around people’s biases. People are bad with probabilities, but if you teach them to use frequencies instead then they become less bad. Students tend to do worse work because they procrastinate, but they can improve their work if they set binding deadlines for themselves. Doctors show the same bias as everyone else at attending to sunk costs, except when asked about questions relating to medicine, in which case they tend to respond rationally. So people can act more rationally by learning how to think with less bias, by making “meta-decisions” to put themselves in a situation where their bias will be less harmful, or simply by gaining expertise in the relevant subject matter.

Thus, the forms of bias particular to government do not unfailingly mirror the biases in the population that could potentially make government action useful. It’s at least conceivable that the government could actually function rationally enough for it to create policies that compensate for people’s irrationality and improve their welfare.

So, why isn’t Barry Schwartz writing about the question of whether policy-makers will know enough about the psychology of well-being and act rationally enough to make good policy? Maybe it’s because his expertise is in psychology, not politics. Maybe it’s because he doesn’t want to create a self-fulfilling prophecy about the un-implementability of the improvements to government policy that he is advocating. Or maybe he’s just too busy explaining the latest developments in the psychology of well-being to the British government.

In any event, good to see you and Julian (for once?) going after lefties. How refreshing.

In any event, good to see you and Julian (for once?) going after lefties. How refreshing.

Actual psychology research looks at the possibility of fixing or getting around people’s biases. People are bad with probabilities, but if you teach them to use frequencies instead then they become less bad. Students tend to do worse work because they procrastinate, but they can improve their work if they set binding deadlines for themselves. Doctors show the same bias as everyone else at attending to sunk costs, except when asked about questions relating to medicine, in which case they tend to respond rationally. So people can act more rationally by learning how to think with less bias, by making “meta-decisions” to put themselves in a situation where their bias will be less harmful, or simply by gaining expertise in the relevant subject matter.

Thus, the forms of bias particular to government do not unfailingly mirror the biases in the population that could potentially make government action useful. It’s at least conceivable that the government could actually function rationally enough for it to create policies that compensate for people’s irrationality and improve their welfare.

So, why isn’t Barry Schwartz writing about the question of whether policy-makers will know enough about the psychology of well-being and act rationally enough to make good policy? Maybe it’s because his expertise is in psychology, not politics. Maybe it’s because he doesn’t want to create a self-fulfilling prophecy about the un-implementability of the improvements to government policy that he is advocating. Or maybe he’s just too busy explaining the latest developments in the psychology of well-being to the British government.

Has Schwartz done any studies about the errors that unelected government bureaucrats and their advisors are prone to? Do NIH and NSF provide grant funding for such studies?

In any event…

According to the article in the Guardian that Dan cites, focus groups in Britain don’t want to have to choose among health providers. Would Schwartz conclude from this that young Americans would be subject to less stress if monopoly districts were defined around every state univesity, so that only prospective students who met a requirement of long-term residency in the district could be admitted? Think of burdens that would be lifted from them and their families…

Robert Campbell

The libertarian ‘sphere is buzzing with condemnation for Barry Schwartz and like-minded doom and gloomers (see here, here, here, here,…

I’ve only just now gotten around to reading this TNR article by Barry Schwartz wherein he argues that the rich would be made better off by having their marginal tax rates jacked up to 90%. (He doesn’t actually say what…

Matthew Yglesias recites the Condorcet Jury Theorem: If you have a situation where the average person has a 51 percent chance of making the right decision, then letting every American make up there own mind is going to lead well…

Our blog of the week goes to The Fly Bottle, written by PhD candidate Will Wilkinson. The blog has recently been enjoying a renaissance, with some very good posts. My favourite is this one on the delusions of happiness economics….

Some interesting critiques of happiness research: Can Money Buy Happiness? The Happiness Police To rich for our own good…