Not everything should be looked at from an economist's point of view.
If an old lady in front of you drops her purse, there is no economical reason for you to help her out. It is a waste of your time and she can pick it up herself. If she can't pick it up herself, someone else walking the street will help her out. No need to trouble yourself.
However, most people here would help her out because its just the right thing to do.
I was a sweeper at a theme park and I would see people drop things or leave things on benches(cameras, wallets, keys etc) and then run to pick them up. I would say 50% of the time they would thank me and give me a tip. Usually about an hours pay.
Actually, this was the article's point exactly. You would help her out to satisfy a social expectation. What would others think if you didn't?
You might ask how that changes if you and the old lady are alone. You would probably say that you'd still help her out, though I'd say that's just a response trained within a particular environment in which there is a help-old-ladies social expectation.
Not just social expectation (many would do it if there were no observers), but also increasing self satisfaction. Most people, myself included, derive utility from the belief that they are a good person.
I don't think so. I think there are good survival reasons to behave socially for each others' benefit. That is, I believe some of the "helping is the right thing to do" may come from natural selection: social cooperation increases our chances for survival and reproduction.
Please don't forget to include hedonic and psychic utility in your economic models. In other words, even economists realize that people often act for non-monetary reasons.
An economist's point of view is not indifference to human suffering. If you value the old lady's happiness, then you would be willing to trade other things (e.g. several seconds of your life) for it.
Not everything should be looked at from a dumb economist's point of view.
Unless you view the candidates as equal, or have perfect information about the number and direction of all other votes in your electorate, you vote to increase the probability of an outcome you prefer. Votes are only unnecessary after the fact.
The freakonomics guys are proud of their non-technical background but I find this lack of understanding of a game theory in such an important topic absolutely unforgivably stupid.
> "The freakonomics guys are proud of their non-technical background but I find this lack of understanding of a game theory in such an important topic absolutely unforgivably stupid."
The ad hominem attack is unnecessary here. While Dubner is not an economist, Steven Levitt (the other Freakonomics author) is not only an economics PhD, but also a winner of the John Bates Clark medal. In short, he's one of the best economists out there.
It isn't an ad hominem. It may be an insult attached to an argument, but it isn't an argument by attacking a person. In the freakonomics book and the blog they do like to play the bumbling economist who doesn't understand all that maths role.
If an old lady in front of you drops her purse, there is no economical reason for you to help her out. It is a waste of your time and she can pick it up herself. If she can't pick it up herself, someone else walking the street will help her out. No need to trouble yourself.
However, most people here would help her out because its just the right thing to do.