
An evolutionary take on behavioral economics - axplusb
http://evonomics.com/please-not-another-bias-the-problem-with-behavioral-economics/
======
astazangasta
As usual I think this is nonsense. You can't reason based on evolution because
we don't know anything about the evolutionary environment, and even if we did
it is difficult to know what is adaptive from first principles. Anyone who
thinks behavior must proceed from adaptive consequence should spend some time
watching panda bear videos.

Furthermore this post is riddled with flawed assumptions. Just two examples:
its posited that differential investment must have a consequence in
psychology. Well, why? Not all organisms have the same reproductive
strategies. The mantis tells us nothing about human reproduction. Furthermore
the effects of culture can swamp any evolutionary inference we might make.
Genghis is a counterexample, not a proof: his success was only the product of
culture, not biology, and would be impossible in the evolutionary background.

Second, all of the stuff about conspicuous consumption is hogwash. Sexual
selection does not mean that you can start dragging a huge millstone around
and suddenly people will find you attractive; it presumes that a particular
feature has evolved to be preferred. There were no Patek watches in the Rift
Valley; evolution cannot be operating on them. Also, as pointed out this is a
controversial theory, hardly one to hang your head on.

In sum, the notion that you can proceed beyond ecological rationalism is bunk.
We have no idea what is or was really adaptive behavior. To pretend we do is
certainly sexy. But it is bullshit.

------
Artistry121
Has Alan Kirman ever read Hayek?

Here's a quote from the Road to Serfdom:

"The state should confine itself to establishing rules applying to general
types of situations and should allow the individuals freedom in everything
which depends on the circumstances of time and place, because only the
individuals concerned in each instance can fully know these circumstances and
adapt their actions to them. If the individuals are able to use their
knowledge effectively in making plans, they must be able to predict actions of
the state which may affect these plans. But if the actions of the state are to
be predictable, they must be determined by rules fixed independently of the
concrete circumstances which can be neither foreseen nor taken into account
beforehand; and the particular effects of such actions will be unpredictable.
If, on the other hand, the state were to direct the individual’s actions so as
the achieve particular ends, its actions would have to be decided on the basis
of the full circumstances of the moment and would therefore be unpredictable.
Hence the familiar fact that the more the state “plans”, the more difficult
planning becomes for the individual.”

Hayek's entire argument in that book is that central planning allows for
strong favoritism towards those in power and with access to those in power. He
specifically mentions that some industries need heavy regulation and
moderation - but under set rules with choice being supreme as much as
possible.

Kirman focusing on the fact Hayek is "horrid" is telling at a time when half
of Europe was engaged in genocide and mass colonialism.

That said - Kirman benefits from saying these things in his career and so he
will say them. It fits with behavioral economics models.

------
hugh4
Interesting talk. But I wonder, can evolutionary economics tell us anything we
don't already know?

For instance, the theory that guys buy fancy cars to get chicks is not, in
most circles, particularly controversial or enlightening. Can we make useful
predictions?

