EG 2008
Dan Ariely: Are we in control of our own decisions?
Filmed:
Readability: 3.3
6,706,559 views
Behavioral economist Dan Ariely, the author of Predictably Irrational, uses classic visual illusions and his own counterintuitive (and sometimes shocking) research findings to show how we're not as rational as we think when we make decisions.
Dan Ariely - Behavioral economist
The dismal science of economics is not as firmly grounded in actual behavior as was once supposed. In "Predictably Irrational," Dan Ariely told us why. Full bio
The dismal science of economics is not as firmly grounded in actual behavior as was once supposed. In "Predictably Irrational," Dan Ariely told us why. Full bio
Double-click the English transcript below to play the video.
00:16
I'll tell you a little bit about irrational behavior.
0
0
3000
00:19
Not yours, of course -- other people's.
1
3000
2000
00:21
(Laughter)
2
5000
1000
00:22
So after being at MIT for a few years,
3
6000
4000
00:26
I realized that writing academic papers is not that exciting.
4
10000
4000
00:30
You know, I don't know how many of those you read,
5
14000
2000
00:32
but it's not fun to read and often not fun to write --
6
16000
3000
00:35
even worse to write.
7
19000
2000
00:37
So I decided to try and write something more fun.
8
21000
3000
00:40
And I came up with an idea that I will write a cookbook.
9
24000
4000
00:44
And the title for my cookbook was going to be
10
28000
2000
00:46
"Dining Without Crumbs: The Art of Eating Over the Sink."
11
30000
3000
00:49
(Laughter)
12
33000
2000
00:51
And it was going to be a look at life through the kitchen.
13
35000
3000
00:54
And I was quite excited about this. I was going to talk
14
38000
2000
00:56
a little bit about research, a little bit about the kitchen.
15
40000
3000
00:59
You know, we do so much in the kitchen I thought this would be interesting.
16
43000
3000
01:02
And I wrote a couple of chapters.
17
46000
2000
01:04
And I took it to MIT press and they said,
18
48000
2000
01:06
"Cute, but not for us. Go and find somebody else."
19
50000
4000
01:10
I tried other people and everybody said the same thing,
20
54000
2000
01:12
"Cute. Not for us."
21
56000
3000
01:15
Until somebody said,
22
59000
3000
01:18
"Look, if you're serious about this,
23
62000
2000
01:20
you first have to write a book about your research. You have to publish something,
24
64000
3000
01:23
and then you'll get the opportunity to write something else.
25
67000
2000
01:25
If you really want to do it you have to do it."
26
69000
2000
01:27
So I said, "You know, I really don't want to write about my research.
27
71000
3000
01:30
I do this all day long. I want to write something else.
28
74000
2000
01:32
Something a bit more free, less constrained."
29
76000
3000
01:35
And this person was very forceful and said,
30
79000
3000
01:38
"Look. That's the only way you'll ever do it."
31
82000
2000
01:40
So I said, "Okay, if I have to do it -- "
32
84000
3000
01:43
I had a sabbatical. I said, "I'll write about my research
33
87000
3000
01:46
if there is no other way. And then I'll get to do my cookbook."
34
90000
2000
01:48
So I wrote a book on my research.
35
92000
3000
01:51
And it turned out to be quite fun in two ways.
36
95000
3000
01:54
First of all, I enjoyed writing.
37
98000
3000
01:57
But the more interesting thing was that
38
101000
2000
01:59
I started learning from people.
39
103000
2000
02:01
It's a fantastic time to write,
40
105000
2000
02:03
because there is so much feedback you can get from people.
41
107000
2000
02:05
People write me about their personal experience,
42
109000
3000
02:08
and about their examples, and what they disagree,
43
112000
2000
02:10
and nuances.
44
114000
2000
02:12
And even being here -- I mean the last few days,
45
116000
2000
02:14
I've known really heights of obsessive behavior
46
118000
3000
02:17
I never thought about.
47
121000
2000
02:19
(Laughter)
48
123000
1000
02:20
Which I think is just fascinating.
49
124000
2000
02:22
I will tell you a little bit about irrational behavior.
50
126000
3000
02:25
And I want to start by giving you some examples of visual illusion
51
129000
3000
02:28
as a metaphor for rationality.
52
132000
2000
02:30
So think about these two tables.
53
134000
2000
02:32
And you must have seen this illusion.
54
136000
2000
02:34
If I asked you what's longer, the vertical line on the table on the left,
55
138000
3000
02:37
or the horizontal line on the table on the right?
56
141000
3000
02:40
Which one seems longer?
57
144000
3000
02:43
Can anybody see anything but the left one being longer?
58
147000
3000
02:46
No, right? It's impossible.
59
150000
2000
02:48
But the nice thing about visual illusion is we can easily demonstrate mistakes.
60
152000
3000
02:51
So I can put some lines on; it doesn't help.
61
155000
3000
02:54
I can animate the lines.
62
158000
2000
02:56
And to the extent you believe I didn't shrink the lines,
63
160000
2000
02:58
which I didn't, I've proven to you that your eyes were deceiving you.
64
162000
5000
03:03
Now, the interesting thing about this
65
167000
2000
03:05
is when I take the lines away,
66
169000
2000
03:07
it's as if you haven't learned anything in the last minute.
67
171000
2000
03:09
(Laughter)
68
173000
3000
03:12
You can't look at this and say, "Okay now I see reality as it is."
69
176000
3000
03:15
Right? It's impossible to overcome this
70
179000
2000
03:17
sense that this is indeed longer.
71
181000
3000
03:20
Our intuition is really fooling us in a repeatable, predictable, consistent way.
72
184000
3000
03:23
And there is almost nothing we can do about it,
73
187000
3000
03:26
aside from taking a ruler and starting to measure it.
74
190000
3000
03:29
Here is another one -- this is one of my favorite illusions.
75
193000
3000
03:32
What do you see the color that top arrow is pointing to?
76
196000
3000
03:35
Brown. Thank you.
77
199000
2000
03:37
The bottom one? Yellow.
78
201000
2000
03:39
Turns out they're identical.
79
203000
2000
03:41
Can anybody see them as identical?
80
205000
2000
03:43
Very very hard.
81
207000
2000
03:45
I can cover the rest of the cube up.
82
209000
2000
03:47
And if I cover the rest of the cube you can see that they are identical.
83
211000
3000
03:50
And if you don't believe me you can get the slide later
84
214000
2000
03:52
and do some arts and crafts and see that they're identical.
85
216000
3000
03:55
But again it's the same story
86
219000
2000
03:57
that if we take the background away,
87
221000
2000
03:59
the illusion comes back. Right.
88
223000
2000
04:01
There is no way for us not to see this illusion.
89
225000
3000
04:04
I guess maybe if you're colorblind I don't think you can see that.
90
228000
3000
04:07
I want you to think about illusion as a metaphor.
91
231000
3000
04:10
Vision is one of the best things we do.
92
234000
2000
04:12
We have a huge part of our brain dedicated to vision --
93
236000
2000
04:14
bigger than dedicated to anything else.
94
238000
2000
04:16
We do more vision more hours of the day than we do anything else.
95
240000
4000
04:20
And we are evolutionarily designed to do vision.
96
244000
2000
04:22
And if we have these predictable repeatable mistakes in vision,
97
246000
3000
04:25
which we're so good at,
98
249000
2000
04:27
what's the chance that we don't make even more mistakes
99
251000
2000
04:29
in something we're not as good at --
100
253000
2000
04:31
for example, financial decision making:
101
255000
2000
04:33
(Laughter)
102
257000
2000
04:35
something we don't have an evolutionary reason to do,
103
259000
2000
04:37
we don't have a specialized part of the brain,
104
261000
2000
04:39
and we don't do that many hours of the day.
105
263000
2000
04:41
And the argument is in those cases
106
265000
3000
04:44
it might be the issue that we actually make many more mistakes
107
268000
4000
04:48
and, worse, not have an easy way to see them.
108
272000
3000
04:51
Because in visual illusions we can easily demonstrate the mistakes;
109
275000
3000
04:54
in cognitive illusion it's much, much harder
110
278000
2000
04:56
to demonstrate to people the mistakes.
111
280000
2000
04:58
So I want to show you some cognitive illusions,
112
282000
3000
05:01
or decision-making illusions, in the same way.
113
285000
3000
05:04
And this is one of my favorite plots in social sciences.
114
288000
3000
05:07
It's from a paper by Johnson and Goldstein.
115
291000
4000
05:11
And it basically shows
116
295000
2000
05:13
the percentage of people who indicated
117
297000
2000
05:15
they would be interested in giving their organs to donation.
118
299000
4000
05:19
And these are different countries in Europe. And you basically
119
303000
2000
05:21
see two types of countries:
120
305000
2000
05:23
countries on the right, that seem to be giving a lot;
121
307000
2000
05:25
and countries on the left that seem to giving very little,
122
309000
3000
05:28
or much less.
123
312000
2000
05:30
The question is, why? Why do some countries give a lot
124
314000
2000
05:32
and some countries give a little?
125
316000
2000
05:34
When you ask people this question,
126
318000
2000
05:36
they usually think that it has to be something about culture.
127
320000
2000
05:38
Right? How much do you care about people?
128
322000
2000
05:40
Giving your organs to somebody else
129
324000
2000
05:42
is probably about how much you care about society, how linked you are.
130
326000
3000
05:45
Or maybe it is about religion.
131
329000
2000
05:47
But, if you look at this plot,
132
331000
2000
05:49
you can see that countries that we think about as very similar
133
333000
3000
05:52
actually exhibit very different behavior.
134
336000
3000
05:55
For example, Sweden is all the way on the right,
135
339000
2000
05:57
and Denmark, that we think is culturally very similar,
136
341000
3000
06:00
is all the way on the left.
137
344000
2000
06:02
Germany is on the left. And Austria is on the right.
138
346000
4000
06:06
The Netherlands is on the left. And Belgium is on the right.
139
350000
3000
06:09
And finally, depending on your particular version
140
353000
3000
06:12
of European similarity,
141
356000
2000
06:14
you can think about the U.K and France as either similar culturally or not.
142
358000
5000
06:19
But it turns out that from organ donation they are very different.
143
363000
4000
06:23
By the way, the Netherlands is an interesting story.
144
367000
2000
06:25
You see the Netherlands is kind of the biggest of the small group.
145
369000
5000
06:30
Turns out that they got to 28 percent
146
374000
3000
06:33
after mailing every household in the country a letter
147
377000
3000
06:36
begging people to join this organ donation program.
148
380000
3000
06:39
You know the expression, "Begging only gets you so far"?
149
383000
3000
06:42
It's 28 percent in organ donation.
150
386000
3000
06:45
(Laughter)
151
389000
2000
06:47
But whatever the countries on the right are doing
152
391000
2000
06:49
they are doing a much better job than begging.
153
393000
2000
06:51
So what are they doing?
154
395000
2000
06:53
Turns out the secret has to do with a form at the DMV.
155
397000
3000
06:56
And here is the story.
156
400000
2000
06:58
The countries on the left have a form at the DMV
157
402000
2000
07:00
that looks something like this.
158
404000
2000
07:02
Check the box below if you want to participate
159
406000
2000
07:04
in the organ donor program.
160
408000
2000
07:06
And what happens?
161
410000
2000
07:08
People don't check, and they don't join.
162
412000
3000
07:11
The countries on the right, the ones that give a lot,
163
415000
2000
07:13
have a slightly different form.
164
417000
2000
07:15
It says check the box below if you don't want to participate.
165
419000
3000
07:18
Interestingly enough, when people get this,
166
422000
2000
07:20
they again don't check -- but now they join.
167
424000
3000
07:23
(Laughter)
168
427000
3000
07:26
Now think about what this means.
169
430000
3000
07:29
We wake up in the morning and we feel we make decisions.
170
433000
4000
07:33
We wake up in the morning and we open the closet
171
437000
2000
07:35
and we feel that we decide what to wear.
172
439000
2000
07:37
And we open the refrigerator and we feel that we decide what to eat.
173
441000
3000
07:40
What this is actually saying is that
174
444000
2000
07:42
much of these decisions are not residing within us.
175
446000
2000
07:44
They are residing in the person who is designing that form.
176
448000
3000
07:47
When you walk into the DMV,
177
451000
3000
07:50
the person who designed the form will have a huge influence
178
454000
2000
07:52
on what you'll end up doing.
179
456000
2000
07:54
Now it's also very hard to intuit these results. Think about it for yourself.
180
458000
4000
07:58
How many of you believe
181
462000
2000
08:00
that if you went to renew your license tomorrow,
182
464000
2000
08:02
and you went to the DMV,
183
466000
2000
08:04
and you would encounter one of these forms,
184
468000
2000
08:06
that it would actually change your own behavior?
185
470000
3000
08:09
Very, very hard to think that you will influence us.
186
473000
2000
08:11
We can say, "Oh, these funny Europeans, of course it would influence them."
187
475000
2000
08:13
But when it comes to us,
188
477000
3000
08:16
we have such a feeling that we are at the driver's seat,
189
480000
2000
08:18
we have such a feeling that we are in control,
190
482000
2000
08:20
and we are making the decision,
191
484000
2000
08:22
that it's very hard to even accept
192
486000
2000
08:24
the idea that we actually have
193
488000
2000
08:26
an illusion of making a decision, rather than an actual decision.
194
490000
4000
08:30
Now, you might say,
195
494000
2000
08:32
"These are decisions we don't care about."
196
496000
3000
08:35
In fact, by definition, these are decisions
197
499000
2000
08:37
about something that will happen to us after we die.
198
501000
2000
08:39
How could we care about something less
199
503000
3000
08:42
than something that happens after we die?
200
506000
2000
08:44
So a standard economist, someone who believes in rationality,
201
508000
3000
08:47
would say, "You know what? The cost of lifting the pencil
202
511000
3000
08:50
and marking a V is higher than the possible
203
514000
2000
08:52
benefit of the decision,
204
516000
2000
08:54
so that's why we get this effect."
205
518000
2000
08:56
But, in fact, it's not because it's easy.
206
520000
3000
08:59
It's not because it's trivial. It's not because we don't care.
207
523000
3000
09:02
It's the opposite. It's because we care.
208
526000
3000
09:05
It's difficult and it's complex.
209
529000
2000
09:07
And it's so complex that we don't know what to do.
210
531000
2000
09:09
And because we have no idea what to do
211
533000
2000
09:11
we just pick whatever it was that was chosen for us.
212
535000
4000
09:15
I'll give you one more example for this.
213
539000
2000
09:17
This is from a paper by Redelmeier and Schaefer.
214
541000
3000
09:20
And they said, "Well, this effect also happens to experts,
215
544000
3000
09:23
people who are well-paid, experts in their decisions,
216
547000
3000
09:26
do it a lot."
217
550000
2000
09:28
And they basically took a group of physicians.
218
552000
2000
09:30
And they presented to them a case study of a patient.
219
554000
2000
09:32
Here is a patient. He is a 67-year-old farmer.
220
556000
4000
09:36
He's been suffering from a right hip pain for a while.
221
560000
2000
09:38
And then they said to the physician,
222
562000
2000
09:40
"You decided a few weeks ago
223
564000
2000
09:42
that nothing is working for this patient.
224
566000
2000
09:44
All these medications, nothing seems to be working.
225
568000
2000
09:46
So you refer the patient to hip replacement therapy.
226
570000
3000
09:49
Hip replacement. Okay?"
227
573000
2000
09:51
So the patient is on a path to have his hip replaced.
228
575000
3000
09:54
And then they said to half the physicians, they said,
229
578000
2000
09:56
"Yesterday you reviewed the patient's case
230
580000
2000
09:58
and you realized that you forgot to try one medication.
231
582000
3000
10:01
You did not try ibuprofen.
232
585000
3000
10:04
What do you do? Do you pull the patient back and try ibuprofen?
233
588000
3000
10:07
Or do you let them go and have hip replacement?"
234
591000
3000
10:10
Well the good news is that most physicians in this case
235
594000
2000
10:12
decided to pull the patient and try the ibuprofen.
236
596000
3000
10:15
Very good for the physicians.
237
599000
2000
10:17
The other group of the physicians, they said,
238
601000
2000
10:19
"Yesterday when you reviewed the case
239
603000
2000
10:21
you discovered there were two medications you didn't try out yet,
240
605000
2000
10:23
ibuprofen and piroxicam."
241
607000
3000
10:26
And they said, "You have two medications you didn't try out yet. What do you do?
242
610000
3000
10:29
You let them go. Or you pull them back.
243
613000
2000
10:31
And if you pull them back do you try ibuprofen or piroxicam? Which one?"
244
615000
3000
10:34
Now think of it. This decision
245
618000
2000
10:36
makes it as easy to let the patient continue with hip replacement.
246
620000
3000
10:39
But pulling them back, all of the sudden becomes more complex.
247
623000
3000
10:42
There is one more decision.
248
626000
2000
10:44
What happens now?
249
628000
2000
10:46
Majority of the physicians now choose to let the patient go
250
630000
3000
10:49
to hip replacement.
251
633000
2000
10:51
I hope this worries you, by the way --
252
635000
2000
10:53
(Laughter)
253
637000
1000
10:54
when you go to see your physician.
254
638000
2000
10:56
The thing is is that no physician would ever say,
255
640000
3000
10:59
"Piroxicam, ibuprofen, hip replacement.
256
643000
2000
11:01
Let's go for hip replacement."
257
645000
2000
11:03
But the moment you set this as the default
258
647000
3000
11:06
it has a huge power over whatever people end up doing.
259
650000
4000
11:10
I'll give you a couple of more examples on irrational decision-making.
260
654000
3000
11:13
Imagine I give you a choice.
261
657000
2000
11:15
Do you want to go for a weekend to Rome?
262
659000
2000
11:17
All expenses paid:
263
661000
2000
11:19
hotel, transportation, food, breakfast,
264
663000
2000
11:21
a continental breakfast, everything.
265
665000
2000
11:23
Or a weekend in Paris?
266
667000
2000
11:25
Now, a weekend in Paris, a weekend in Rome, these are different things;
267
669000
3000
11:28
they have different food, different culture, different art.
268
672000
2000
11:30
Now imagine I added a choice to the set
269
674000
2000
11:32
that nobody wanted.
270
676000
2000
11:34
Imagine I said, "A weekend in Rome,
271
678000
2000
11:36
a weekend in Paris, or having your car stolen?"
272
680000
3000
11:39
(Laughter)
273
683000
3000
11:42
It's a funny idea, because why would having your car stolen,
274
686000
3000
11:45
in this set, influence anything?
275
689000
2000
11:47
(Laughter)
276
691000
2000
11:49
But what if the option to have your car stolen
277
693000
3000
11:52
was not exactly like this.
278
696000
2000
11:54
What if it was a trip to Rome, all expenses paid,
279
698000
2000
11:56
transportation, breakfast,
280
700000
2000
11:58
but doesn't include coffee in the morning.
281
702000
3000
12:01
If you want coffee you have to pay for it yourself. It's two euros 50.
282
705000
3000
12:04
Now in some ways,
283
708000
3000
12:07
given that you can have Rome with coffee,
284
711000
2000
12:09
why would you possibly want Rome without coffee?
285
713000
3000
12:12
It's like having your car stolen. It's an inferior option.
286
716000
3000
12:15
But guess what happened. The moment you add Rome without coffee,
287
719000
2000
12:17
Rome with coffee becomes more popular. And people choose it.
288
721000
5000
12:22
The fact that you have Rome without coffee
289
726000
3000
12:25
makes Rome with coffee look superior,
290
729000
2000
12:27
and not just to Rome without coffee -- even superior to Paris.
291
731000
3000
12:30
(Laughter)
292
734000
4000
12:34
Here are two examples of this principle.
293
738000
2000
12:36
This was an ad from The Economist a few years ago
294
740000
3000
12:39
that gave us three choices.
295
743000
2000
12:41
An online subscription for 59 dollars.
296
745000
3000
12:44
A print subscription for 125.
297
748000
4000
12:48
Or you could get both for 125.
298
752000
2000
12:50
(Laughter)
299
754000
2000
12:52
Now I looked at this and I called up The Economist.
300
756000
2000
12:54
And I tried to figure out what were they thinking.
301
758000
3000
12:57
And they passed me from one person to another to another,
302
761000
3000
13:00
until eventually I got to a person who was in charge of the website.
303
764000
4000
13:04
And I called them up. And they went to check what was going on.
304
768000
3000
13:07
The next thing I know, the ad is gone. And no explanation.
305
771000
4000
13:11
So I decided to do the experiment
306
775000
2000
13:13
that I would have loved The Economist to do with me.
307
777000
3000
13:16
I took this and I gave it to 100 MIT students.
308
780000
2000
13:18
I said, "What would you choose?"
309
782000
2000
13:20
These are the market share. Most people wanted the combo deal.
310
784000
4000
13:24
Thankfully nobody wanted the dominated option.
311
788000
2000
13:26
That means our students can read.
312
790000
2000
13:28
(Laughter)
313
792000
1000
13:29
But now if you have an option that nobody wants,
314
793000
3000
13:32
you can take it off. Right?
315
796000
2000
13:34
So I printed another version of this,
316
798000
2000
13:36
where I eliminated the middle option.
317
800000
2000
13:38
I gave it to another 100 students. Here is what happens.
318
802000
3000
13:41
Now the most popular option became the least popular.
319
805000
3000
13:44
And the least popular became the most popular.
320
808000
3000
13:47
What was happening was the option that was useless,
321
811000
4000
13:51
in the middle, was useless in the sense that nobody wanted it.
322
815000
4000
13:55
But it wasn't useless in the sense that it helped people figure out
323
819000
2000
13:57
what they wanted.
324
821000
2000
13:59
In fact, relative to the option in the middle,
325
823000
3000
14:02
which was get only the print for 125,
326
826000
4000
14:06
the print and web for 125 looked like a fantastic deal.
327
830000
4000
14:10
And as a consequence, people chose it.
328
834000
2000
14:12
The general idea here, by the way,
329
836000
2000
14:14
is that we actually don't know our preferences that well.
330
838000
2000
14:16
And because we don't know our preferences that well
331
840000
2000
14:18
we're susceptible to all of these influences from the external forces:
332
842000
4000
14:22
the defaults, the particular options that are presented to us, and so on.
333
846000
4000
14:26
One more example of this.
334
850000
2000
14:28
People believe that when we deal with physical attraction,
335
852000
3000
14:31
we see somebody, and we know immediately whether we like them or not,
336
855000
3000
14:34
attracted or not.
337
858000
2000
14:36
Which is why we have these four-minute dates.
338
860000
2000
14:38
So I decided to do this experiment with people.
339
862000
3000
14:41
I'll show you graphic images of people -- not real people.
340
865000
2000
14:43
The experiment was with people.
341
867000
2000
14:45
I showed some people a picture of Tom, and a picture of Jerry.
342
869000
3000
14:48
I said "Who do you want to date? Tom or Jerry?"
343
872000
3000
14:51
But for half the people I added an ugly version of Jerry.
344
875000
4000
14:55
I took Photoshop and I made Jerry slightly less attractive.
345
879000
5000
15:00
(Laughter)
346
884000
1000
15:01
The other people, I added an ugly version of Tom.
347
885000
4000
15:05
And the question was, will ugly Jerry and ugly Tom
348
889000
3000
15:08
help their respective, more attractive brothers?
349
892000
4000
15:12
The answer was absolutely yes.
350
896000
2000
15:14
When ugly Jerry was around, Jerry was popular.
351
898000
2000
15:16
When ugly Tom was around, Tom was popular.
352
900000
2000
15:18
(Laughter)
353
902000
2000
15:20
This of course has two very clear implications
354
904000
2000
15:22
for life in general.
355
906000
4000
15:26
If you ever go bar hopping, who do you want to take with you?
356
910000
3000
15:29
(Laughter)
357
913000
6000
15:35
You want a slightly uglier version of yourself.
358
919000
3000
15:38
(Laughter)
359
922000
2000
15:40
Similar. Similar ... but slightly uglier.
360
924000
2000
15:42
(Laughter)
361
926000
2000
15:44
The second point, or course, is that
362
928000
2000
15:46
if somebody else invites you, you know how they think about you.
363
930000
3000
15:49
(Laughter)
364
933000
3000
15:52
Now you're getting it.
365
936000
2000
15:54
What is the general point?
366
938000
2000
15:56
The general point is that when we think about economics we have
367
940000
2000
15:58
this beautiful view of human nature.
368
942000
3000
16:01
"What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason!"
369
945000
2000
16:03
We have this view of ourselves, of others.
370
947000
3000
16:06
The behavioral economics perspective
371
950000
2000
16:08
is slightly less generous to people.
372
952000
3000
16:11
In fact in medical terms, that's our view.
373
955000
3000
16:14
(Laughter)
374
958000
6000
16:20
But there is a silver lining.
375
964000
2000
16:22
The silver lining is, I think,
376
966000
2000
16:24
kind of the reason that behavioral economics is interesting and exciting.
377
968000
4000
16:28
Are we Superman? Or are we Homer Simpson?
378
972000
2000
16:30
When it comes to building the physical world,
379
974000
4000
16:34
we kind of understand our limitations.
380
978000
2000
16:36
We build steps. And we build these things
381
980000
2000
16:38
that not everybody can use obviously.
382
982000
3000
16:41
(Laughter)
383
985000
1000
16:42
We understand our limitations,
384
986000
2000
16:44
and we build around it.
385
988000
2000
16:46
But for some reason when it comes to the mental world,
386
990000
2000
16:48
when we design things like healthcare and retirement and stockmarkets,
387
992000
4000
16:52
we somehow forget the idea that we are limited.
388
996000
2000
16:54
I think that if we understood our cognitive limitations
389
998000
3000
16:57
in the same way that we understand our physical limitations,
390
1001000
2000
16:59
even though they don't stare us in the face in the same way,
391
1003000
2000
17:01
we could design a better world.
392
1005000
3000
17:04
And that, I think, is the hope of this thing.
393
1008000
2000
17:06
Thank you very much.
394
1010000
2000
17:08
(Applause)
395
1012000
8000
ABOUT THE SPEAKER
Dan Ariely - Behavioral economistThe dismal science of economics is not as firmly grounded in actual behavior as was once supposed. In "Predictably Irrational," Dan Ariely told us why.
Why you should listen
Dan Ariely is a professor of psychology and behavioral economics at Duke University and a founding member of the Center for Advanced Hindsight. He is the author of the bestsellers Predictably Irrational, The Upside of Irrationality, and The Honest Truth About Dishonesty -- as well as the TED Book Payoff: The Hidden Logic that Shapes Our Motivations.
Through his research and his (often amusing and unorthodox) experiments, he questions the forces that influence human behavior and the irrational ways in which we often all behave.
Dan Ariely | Speaker | TED.com