Which school of economic thought do you prefer?

[ag]

Human behavior cannot be predicted by empirical observation.

If that were the case, then opebo would have been absolutely right in his view of economics As somebody who's actually run lab experiments, I can assure you that human behavior is highly predictable )) There are extremely strong empirical regularities, replicated from lab to lab all over the world, believe it or not ))))))

Sounds like bollocks to me. Evidence?

I'd refer you to any amount of published experimental work. But let me tell you about some first-hand experience.

I recall when I started running pilots for a certain auctions experiment before reading up on the relevant literature (auctions isn't really my field, this was my first foray into them). I discovered what to me seemed like an incredible behavior (people were bidding above value in circumstances where I wouldn't think it reasonable at all). To my surprise, when I actually did read about what others have done, it turned out to be something well-known for over 15 years: in this whole class of auctions people were known to overbid. My bid scatterplots were indistinguishable from what has long been published (literally: if the same software were to be used to produce the graphs, I wouldn't be able to tell which is which by eyeballing). Now, given my previous ignorance, there is no way I could, consciously or unconsciously, make my results conform to what others (many others) have been observing. This, by the way, was the first experimental run of this class of auctions in a Latin American lab, the experimental instructions were produced independently of anybody else, etc., etc., etc.  Oh, yeah - human behavior is predictable. Very predictable.

[opebo]

...To my surprise, when I actually did read about what others have done, it turned out to be something well-known for over 15 years: in this whole class of auctions people were known to overbid. ...

 Oh, yeah - human behavior is predictable. Very predictable.

Ok, firstly, everyone knows people tend to overbid at auctions.  It is literally common knowledge - it is in hollywood films, little children know about it.  How could you not know this?

And secondly, no one has disputed the notion that human behavior is predictable.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Human behavior cannot be predicted by empirical observation.

If that were the case, then opebo would have been absolutely right in his view of economics As somebody who's actually run lab experiments, I can assure you that human behavior is highly predictable )) There are extremely strong empirical regularities, replicated from lab to lab all over the world, believe it or not ))))))

Sounds like bollocks to me. Evidence?

I'd refer you to any amount of published experimental work. But let me tell you about some first-hand experience.

I recall when I started running pilots for a certain auctions experiment before reading up on the relevant literature (auctions isn't really my field, this was my first foray into them). I discovered what to me seemed like an incredible behavior (people were bidding above value in circumstances where I wouldn't think it reasonable at all). To my surprise, when I actually did read about what others have done, it turned out to be something well-known for over 15 years: in this whole class of auctions people were known to overbid. My bid scatterplots were indistinguishable from what has long been published (literally: if the same software were to be used to produce the graphs, I wouldn't be able to tell which is which by eyeballing). Now, given my previous ignorance, there is no way I could, consciously or unconsciously, make my results conform to what others (many others) have been observing. This, by the way, was the first experimental run of this class of auctions in a Latin American lab, the experimental instructions were produced independently of anybody else, etc., etc., etc.  Oh, yeah - human behavior is predictable. Very predictable.

Auctions - with their regularized practices and rules - hardly strike me as a good place to study 'human behaviour' (Oh, and what were the demographics of the people you were studying). Though in saying that I desire details - what were reasons for this overbidding - circumstances?

[ag]

...To my surprise, when I actually did read about what others have done, it turned out to be something well-known for over 15 years: in this whole class of auctions people were known to overbid. ...

 Oh, yeah - human behavior is predictable. Very predictable.

Ok, firstly, everyone knows people tend to overbid at auctions.  It is literally common knowledge - it is in hollywood films, little children know about it.  How could you not know this?

And secondly, no one has disputed the notion that human behavior is predictable.

Your first point might be true about the movies, but not true in practice ) One change in the rules (going, for instance, from the second-price to the first-price auction) and that particular behavior disappears as if by charm ) Same, demographics, same everything )

Your second point is, likewise, not true: Libertas did argue that human behavior is not predictable ) Now, you were brought into that discussion only to make the point that if Libertas were right in his claim, I would have fully agreed w/ you in your conclusion ))

[ag]

Human behavior cannot be predicted by empirical observation.

If that were the case, then opebo would have been absolutely right in his view of economics As somebody who's actually run lab experiments, I can assure you that human behavior is highly predictable )) There are extremely strong empirical regularities, replicated from lab to lab all over the world, believe it or not ))))))

Sounds like bollocks to me. Evidence?

I'd refer you to any amount of published experimental work. But let me tell you about some first-hand experience.

I recall when I started running pilots for a certain auctions experiment before reading up on the relevant literature (auctions isn't really my field, this was my first foray into them). I discovered what to me seemed like an incredible behavior (people were bidding above value in circumstances where I wouldn't think it reasonable at all). To my surprise, when I actually did read about what others have done, it turned out to be something well-known for over 15 years: in this whole class of auctions people were known to overbid. My bid scatterplots were indistinguishable from what has long been published (literally: if the same software were to be used to produce the graphs, I wouldn't be able to tell which is which by eyeballing). Now, given my previous ignorance, there is no way I could, consciously or unconsciously, make my results conform to what others (many others) have been observing. This, by the way, was the first experimental run of this class of auctions in a Latin American lab, the experimental instructions were produced independently of anybody else, etc., etc., etc.  Oh, yeah - human behavior is predictable. Very predictable.

Auctions - with their regularized practices and rules - hardly strike me as a good place to study 'human behaviour' (Oh, and what were the demographics of the people you were studying). Though in saying that I desire details - what were reasons for this overbidding - circumstances?

To make the long story short, overbidding, defined as bidding above the resale value of the object with no sentimental value (e.g., for a dollar bill), occurs nearly always when subjects participate in sealed-bid second-price auctions (and their analogs). It does not occur either in first-price auctions nor in the ascending-bid English auctions. The result is extremely robust . My subjects have been first-year undergraduates, but others have done it in different pools (though, I am sure, if I were to run it among the Natives in a jungle, it would change - that would be a job for an anthropologist, not for an economist). I've almost literally been selling 5 dollar bills for 5 dollars and a quarter, on average (though, having tried various things I also know what to do to "teach" people to stop doing it). I have a theory why that happens, but the issue is, actually, a subject of debate among the researchers.

If you don't like auctions, I've run voting experiments, I've run bargaining experiments - you want first-hand accounts from those? I nearly always run, as a control, and experiment others had run in a different lab. Whenever there's been substantial body of evidence accumulated on such experiments, I tend to get results that are fairly similar to others. Admittedly, lab experiments are a structured environment by definition - like, say, physics lab experiments, where they take pains to eliminate effects that would confound their observation, even though those effects are present in real life. I don't see what's the difference here.

[opebo]

Your first point might be true about the movies, but not true in practice

No, my point was that people know that it is commonplace to overbid at auctions.   I never mentioned anything about 'rules changes'.  I was talking about actual auctions as they exist in practice.

Your second point is, likewise, not true: Libertas did argue that human behavior is not predictable ) Now, you were brought into that discussion only to make the point that if Libertas were right in his claim, I would have fully agreed w/ you in your conclusion ))

Oh I see.  I was considering my conversation with you, not your conversation with Libertas.  My conclusion regarding economics was based more on a skepticism about the underlying motivations behind it than the predictability of behavior.   

[ag]

quote]

No, my point was that people know that it is commonplace to overbid at auctions.   I never mentioned anything about 'rules changes'.  I was talking about actual auctions as they exist in practice.

And I was talking about the actual auctions that exist in practice There are just many types of these. In fact, I believe that the auctions that you have in mind (most likely you are thinking about the ascending bid English auction) do not result in the particular kind of overbidding I've been talking about )

[ag]

Oh I see.  I was considering my conversation with you, not your conversation with Libertas.  My conclusion regarding economics was based more on a skepticism about the underlying motivations behind it than the predictability of behavior.   

I know ) On the other hand, I sense I should be getting offended by you clearly impugning my motivations )) As far as I am concerned, I only care about understanding human behavior (and that's where, for once, I am serious).

[opebo]

And I was talking about the actual auctions that exist in practice There are just many types of these. In fact, I believe that the auctions that you have in mind (most likely you are thinking about the ascending bid English auction) do not result in the particular kind of overbidding I've been talking about )

Well we're talking at cross purposes, then. 

I was thinking of the sort of auction one saw in The Magic Christian.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Human behavior cannot be predicted by empirical observation.

If that were the case, then opebo would have been absolutely right in his view of economics As somebody who's actually run lab experiments, I can assure you that human behavior is highly predictable )) There are extremely strong empirical regularities, replicated from lab to lab all over the world, believe it or not ))))))

Sounds like bollocks to me. Evidence?

I'd refer you to any amount of published experimental work. But let me tell you about some first-hand experience.

I recall when I started running pilots for a certain auctions experiment before reading up on the relevant literature (auctions isn't really my field, this was my first foray into them). I discovered what to me seemed like an incredible behavior (people were bidding above value in circumstances where I wouldn't think it reasonable at all). To my surprise, when I actually did read about what others have done, it turned out to be something well-known for over 15 years: in this whole class of auctions people were known to overbid. My bid scatterplots were indistinguishable from what has long been published (literally: if the same software were to be used to produce the graphs, I wouldn't be able to tell which is which by eyeballing). Now, given my previous ignorance, there is no way I could, consciously or unconsciously, make my results conform to what others (many others) have been observing. This, by the way, was the first experimental run of this class of auctions in a Latin American lab, the experimental instructions were produced independently of anybody else, etc., etc., etc.  Oh, yeah - human behavior is predictable. Very predictable.

Auctions - with their regularized practices and rules - hardly strike me as a good place to study 'human behaviour' (Oh, and what were the demographics of the people you were studying). Though in saying that I desire details - what were reasons for this overbidding - circumstances?

To make the long story short, overbidding, defined as bidding above the resale value of the object with no sentimental value (e.g., for a dollar bill), occurs nearly always when subjects participate in sealed-bid second-price auctions (and their analogs). It does not occur either in first-price auctions nor in the ascending-bid English auctions. The result is extremely robust . My subjects have been first-year undergraduates, but others have done it in different pools (though, I am sure, if I were to run it among the Natives in a jungle, it would change - that would be a job for an anthropologist, not for an economist). I've almost literally been selling 5 dollar bills for 5 dollars and a quarter, on average (though, having tried various things I also know what to do to "teach" people to stop doing it). I have a theory why that happens, but the issue is, actually, a subject of debate among the researchers.

If you don't like auctions, I've run voting experiments, I've run bargaining experiments - you want first-hand accounts from those? I nearly always run, as a control, and experiment others had run in a different lab. Whenever there's been substantial body of evidence accumulated on such experiments, I tend to get results that are fairly similar to others. Admittedly, lab experiments are a structured environment by definition - like, say, physics lab experiments, where they take pains to eliminate effects that would confound their observation, even though those effects are present in real life. I don't see what's the difference here.

So therefore not 'human behaviour' then. Glad we cleared that up.

[ag]

Human behavior cannot be predicted by empirical observation.

If that were the case, then opebo would have been absolutely right in his view of economics As somebody who's actually run lab experiments, I can assure you that human behavior is highly predictable )) There are extremely strong empirical regularities, replicated from lab to lab all over the world, believe it or not ))))))

Sounds like bollocks to me. Evidence?

I'd refer you to any amount of published experimental work. But let me tell you about some first-hand experience.

I recall when I started running pilots for a certain auctions experiment before reading up on the relevant literature (auctions isn't really my field, this was my first foray into them). I discovered what to me seemed like an incredible behavior (people were bidding above value in circumstances where I wouldn't think it reasonable at all). To my surprise, when I actually did read about what others have done, it turned out to be something well-known for over 15 years: in this whole class of auctions people were known to overbid. My bid scatterplots were indistinguishable from what has long been published (literally: if the same software were to be used to produce the graphs, I wouldn't be able to tell which is which by eyeballing). Now, given my previous ignorance, there is no way I could, consciously or unconsciously, make my results conform to what others (many others) have been observing. This, by the way, was the first experimental run of this class of auctions in a Latin American lab, the experimental instructions were produced independently of anybody else, etc., etc., etc.  Oh, yeah - human behavior is predictable. Very predictable.

Auctions - with their regularized practices and rules - hardly strike me as a good place to study 'human behaviour' (Oh, and what were the demographics of the people you were studying). Though in saying that I desire details - what were reasons for this overbidding - circumstances?

To make the long story short, overbidding, defined as bidding above the resale value of the object with no sentimental value (e.g., for a dollar bill), occurs nearly always when subjects participate in sealed-bid second-price auctions (and their analogs). It does not occur either in first-price auctions nor in the ascending-bid English auctions. The result is extremely robust . My subjects have been first-year undergraduates, but others have done it in different pools (though, I am sure, if I were to run it among the Natives in a jungle, it would change - that would be a job for an anthropologist, not for an economist). I've almost literally been selling 5 dollar bills for 5 dollars and a quarter, on average (though, having tried various things I also know what to do to "teach" people to stop doing it). I have a theory why that happens, but the issue is, actually, a subject of debate among the researchers.

If you don't like auctions, I've run voting experiments, I've run bargaining experiments - you want first-hand accounts from those? I nearly always run, as a control, and experiment others had run in a different lab. Whenever there's been substantial body of evidence accumulated on such experiments, I tend to get results that are fairly similar to others. Admittedly, lab experiments are a structured environment by definition - like, say, physics lab experiments, where they take pains to eliminate effects that would confound their observation, even though those effects are present in real life. I don't see what's the difference here.

So therefore not 'human behaviour' then. Glad we cleared that up.

Your confession that you are not human puzzles me: I thought that most dogs try to avoid confessing to that fact on the internet ))

Seriously, though, it would be ridiculous to argue that culture doesn't matter for human choices. There are also many, many other things that do matter and matter a lot. Change the environment and you will change the outcomes. Only an Austrian can be so uninterested in human beings to think otherwise )

[Beet]

Of course I prefer the Keynesian, but no school of thought is complete. Past schools tend to be developed from past experiences, and often miss new developments.

[Gustaf]

Human behavior cannot be predicted by empirical observation.

If that were the case, then opebo would have been absolutely right in his view of economics As somebody who's actually run lab experiments, I can assure you that human behavior is highly predictable )) There are extremely strong empirical regularities, replicated from lab to lab all over the world, believe it or not ))))))

Sounds like bollocks to me. Evidence?

I'd refer you to any amount of published experimental work. But let me tell you about some first-hand experience.

I recall when I started running pilots for a certain auctions experiment before reading up on the relevant literature (auctions isn't really my field, this was my first foray into them). I discovered what to me seemed like an incredible behavior (people were bidding above value in circumstances where I wouldn't think it reasonable at all). To my surprise, when I actually did read about what others have done, it turned out to be something well-known for over 15 years: in this whole class of auctions people were known to overbid. My bid scatterplots were indistinguishable from what has long been published (literally: if the same software were to be used to produce the graphs, I wouldn't be able to tell which is which by eyeballing). Now, given my previous ignorance, there is no way I could, consciously or unconsciously, make my results conform to what others (many others) have been observing. This, by the way, was the first experimental run of this class of auctions in a Latin American lab, the experimental instructions were produced independently of anybody else, etc., etc., etc.  Oh, yeah - human behavior is predictable. Very predictable.

Auctions - with their regularized practices and rules - hardly strike me as a good place to study 'human behaviour' (Oh, and what were the demographics of the people you were studying). Though in saying that I desire details - what were reasons for this overbidding - circumstances?

To make the long story short, overbidding, defined as bidding above the resale value of the object with no sentimental value (e.g., for a dollar bill), occurs nearly always when subjects participate in sealed-bid second-price auctions (and their analogs). It does not occur either in first-price auctions nor in the ascending-bid English auctions. The result is extremely robust . My subjects have been first-year undergraduates, but others have done it in different pools (though, I am sure, if I were to run it among the Natives in a jungle, it would change - that would be a job for an anthropologist, not for an economist). I've almost literally been selling 5 dollar bills for 5 dollars and a quarter, on average (though, having tried various things I also know what to do to "teach" people to stop doing it). I have a theory why that happens, but the issue is, actually, a subject of debate among the researchers.

If you don't like auctions, I've run voting experiments, I've run bargaining experiments - you want first-hand accounts from those? I nearly always run, as a control, and experiment others had run in a different lab. Whenever there's been substantial body of evidence accumulated on such experiments, I tend to get results that are fairly similar to others. Admittedly, lab experiments are a structured environment by definition - like, say, physics lab experiments, where they take pains to eliminate effects that would confound their observation, even though those effects are present in real life. I don't see what's the difference here.

So therefore not 'human behaviour' then. Glad we cleared that up.

Human behaviour that isn't natives in a jungle isn't human behaviour?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Human behavior cannot be predicted by empirical observation.

If that were the case, then opebo would have been absolutely right in his view of economics As somebody who's actually run lab experiments, I can assure you that human behavior is highly predictable )) There are extremely strong empirical regularities, replicated from lab to lab all over the world, believe it or not ))))))

Sounds like bollocks to me. Evidence?

I'd refer you to any amount of published experimental work. But let me tell you about some first-hand experience.

I recall when I started running pilots for a certain auctions experiment before reading up on the relevant literature (auctions isn't really my field, this was my first foray into them). I discovered what to me seemed like an incredible behavior (people were bidding above value in circumstances where I wouldn't think it reasonable at all). To my surprise, when I actually did read about what others have done, it turned out to be something well-known for over 15 years: in this whole class of auctions people were known to overbid. My bid scatterplots were indistinguishable from what has long been published (literally: if the same software were to be used to produce the graphs, I wouldn't be able to tell which is which by eyeballing). Now, given my previous ignorance, there is no way I could, consciously or unconsciously, make my results conform to what others (many others) have been observing. This, by the way, was the first experimental run of this class of auctions in a Latin American lab, the experimental instructions were produced independently of anybody else, etc., etc., etc.  Oh, yeah - human behavior is predictable. Very predictable.

Auctions - with their regularized practices and rules - hardly strike me as a good place to study 'human behaviour' (Oh, and what were the demographics of the people you were studying). Though in saying that I desire details - what were reasons for this overbidding - circumstances?

To make the long story short, overbidding, defined as bidding above the resale value of the object with no sentimental value (e.g., for a dollar bill), occurs nearly always when subjects participate in sealed-bid second-price auctions (and their analogs). It does not occur either in first-price auctions nor in the ascending-bid English auctions. The result is extremely robust . My subjects have been first-year undergraduates, but others have done it in different pools (though, I am sure, if I were to run it among the Natives in a jungle, it would change - that would be a job for an anthropologist, not for an economist). I've almost literally been selling 5 dollar bills for 5 dollars and a quarter, on average (though, having tried various things I also know what to do to "teach" people to stop doing it). I have a theory why that happens, but the issue is, actually, a subject of debate among the researchers.

If you don't like auctions, I've run voting experiments, I've run bargaining experiments - you want first-hand accounts from those? I nearly always run, as a control, and experiment others had run in a different lab. Whenever there's been substantial body of evidence accumulated on such experiments, I tend to get results that are fairly similar to others. Admittedly, lab experiments are a structured environment by definition - like, say, physics lab experiments, where they take pains to eliminate effects that would confound their observation, even though those effects are present in real life. I don't see what's the difference here.

So therefore not 'human behaviour' then. Glad we cleared that up.

Human behaviour that isn't natives in a jungle isn't human behaviour?

Errr. .. No. If you are claiming that something is 'human behaviour' then you might want to make sure it applies to all humans.

[Gustaf]

Human behavior cannot be predicted by empirical observation.

If that were the case, then opebo would have been absolutely right in his view of economics As somebody who's actually run lab experiments, I can assure you that human behavior is highly predictable )) There are extremely strong empirical regularities, replicated from lab to lab all over the world, believe it or not ))))))

Sounds like bollocks to me. Evidence?

I'd refer you to any amount of published experimental work. But let me tell you about some first-hand experience.

I recall when I started running pilots for a certain auctions experiment before reading up on the relevant literature (auctions isn't really my field, this was my first foray into them). I discovered what to me seemed like an incredible behavior (people were bidding above value in circumstances where I wouldn't think it reasonable at all). To my surprise, when I actually did read about what others have done, it turned out to be something well-known for over 15 years: in this whole class of auctions people were known to overbid. My bid scatterplots were indistinguishable from what has long been published (literally: if the same software were to be used to produce the graphs, I wouldn't be able to tell which is which by eyeballing). Now, given my previous ignorance, there is no way I could, consciously or unconsciously, make my results conform to what others (many others) have been observing. This, by the way, was the first experimental run of this class of auctions in a Latin American lab, the experimental instructions were produced independently of anybody else, etc., etc., etc.  Oh, yeah - human behavior is predictable. Very predictable.

Auctions - with their regularized practices and rules - hardly strike me as a good place to study 'human behaviour' (Oh, and what were the demographics of the people you were studying). Though in saying that I desire details - what were reasons for this overbidding - circumstances?

To make the long story short, overbidding, defined as bidding above the resale value of the object with no sentimental value (e.g., for a dollar bill), occurs nearly always when subjects participate in sealed-bid second-price auctions (and their analogs). It does not occur either in first-price auctions nor in the ascending-bid English auctions. The result is extremely robust . My subjects have been first-year undergraduates, but others have done it in different pools (though, I am sure, if I were to run it among the Natives in a jungle, it would change - that would be a job for an anthropologist, not for an economist). I've almost literally been selling 5 dollar bills for 5 dollars and a quarter, on average (though, having tried various things I also know what to do to "teach" people to stop doing it). I have a theory why that happens, but the issue is, actually, a subject of debate among the researchers.

If you don't like auctions, I've run voting experiments, I've run bargaining experiments - you want first-hand accounts from those? I nearly always run, as a control, and experiment others had run in a different lab. Whenever there's been substantial body of evidence accumulated on such experiments, I tend to get results that are fairly similar to others. Admittedly, lab experiments are a structured environment by definition - like, say, physics lab experiments, where they take pains to eliminate effects that would confound their observation, even though those effects are present in real life. I don't see what's the difference here.

So therefore not 'human behaviour' then. Glad we cleared that up.

Human behaviour that isn't natives in a jungle isn't human behaviour?

Errr. .. No. If you are claiming that something is 'human behaviour' then you might want to make sure it applies to all humans.

So every action made by a human that isn't made by all other humans is not human behaviour? I really don't get what you mean. Just because a behaviour isn't copied by all humans doesn't make it non-human to me.

But several economic studies are extremely robust across cultures and nations around the world. Some apply even to monkeys.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Human behavior is usually used in a generic sense; like 'human nature' and so on. As something that is typical and applicable to all of us at least in theory, rather than 'behavior that some humans do'.

[ag]

Human behavior cannot be predicted by empirical observation.

If that were the case, then opebo would have been absolutely right in his view of economics As somebody who's actually run lab experiments, I can assure you that human behavior is highly predictable )) There are extremely strong empirical regularities, replicated from lab to lab all over the world, believe it or not ))))))

Sounds like bollocks to me. Evidence?

I'd refer you to any amount of published experimental work. But let me tell you about some first-hand experience.

I recall when I started running pilots for a certain auctions experiment before reading up on the relevant literature (auctions isn't really my field, this was my first foray into them). I discovered what to me seemed like an incredible behavior (people were bidding above value in circumstances where I wouldn't think it reasonable at all). To my surprise, when I actually did read about what others have done, it turned out to be something well-known for over 15 years: in this whole class of auctions people were known to overbid. My bid scatterplots were indistinguishable from what has long been published (literally: if the same software were to be used to produce the graphs, I wouldn't be able to tell which is which by eyeballing). Now, given my previous ignorance, there is no way I could, consciously or unconsciously, make my results conform to what others (many others) have been observing. This, by the way, was the first experimental run of this class of auctions in a Latin American lab, the experimental instructions were produced independently of anybody else, etc., etc., etc.  Oh, yeah - human behavior is predictable. Very predictable.

Auctions - with their regularized practices and rules - hardly strike me as a good place to study 'human behaviour' (Oh, and what were the demographics of the people you were studying). Though in saying that I desire details - what were reasons for this overbidding - circumstances?

To make the long story short, overbidding, defined as bidding above the resale value of the object with no sentimental value (e.g., for a dollar bill), occurs nearly always when subjects participate in sealed-bid second-price auctions (and their analogs). It does not occur either in first-price auctions nor in the ascending-bid English auctions. The result is extremely robust . My subjects have been first-year undergraduates, but others have done it in different pools (though, I am sure, if I were to run it among the Natives in a jungle, it would change - that would be a job for an anthropologist, not for an economist). I've almost literally been selling 5 dollar bills for 5 dollars and a quarter, on average (though, having tried various things I also know what to do to "teach" people to stop doing it). I have a theory why that happens, but the issue is, actually, a subject of debate among the researchers.

If you don't like auctions, I've run voting experiments, I've run bargaining experiments - you want first-hand accounts from those? I nearly always run, as a control, and experiment others had run in a different lab. Whenever there's been substantial body of evidence accumulated on such experiments, I tend to get results that are fairly similar to others. Admittedly, lab experiments are a structured environment by definition - like, say, physics lab experiments, where they take pains to eliminate effects that would confound their observation, even though those effects are present in real life. I don't see what's the difference here.

So therefore not 'human behaviour' then. Glad we cleared that up.

Human behaviour that isn't natives in a jungle isn't human behaviour?

Errr. .. No. If you are claiming that something is 'human behaviour' then you might want to make sure it applies to all humans.

No. I am not saying anything about behaviors characteristic of all humans - in fact, establishing such behavioral patterns, if they exist, has little to do w/ economics at all, this is biology, probably. All I am saying is, I can predict behavior of humans if I get relevant information. Their background is relevant information, as is their behavior in other experiments. If I were to make a point of studying natives in the jungle, within a few years I'd get pretty well predicting that. It so happens, this study is not very interesting for an economist, but is done by antropologists. They run their experiments in the rainforest and are pretty good at that. Normally, cultural issues are not very interesting to economists - we look at variations in different variables, trying to keep culture constant.

[ag]

Human behavior is usually used in a generic sense; like 'human nature' and so on. As something that is typical and applicable to all of us at least in theory, rather than 'behavior that some humans do'.

Where did you take such "usual" usage from? Would you mind a citation? It surely isn't a common usage among economists: such study wouldn't be of interest to almost any of them.

[Gustaf]

Human behavior is usually used in a generic sense; like 'human nature' and so on. As something that is typical and applicable to all of us at least in theory, rather than 'behavior that some humans do'.

So, studying human behaviour would mean studying only acts committed by all humans? That strikes me as pretty odd. Most human behaviour isn't the same for every individual so it would seem a bit pointless.

Most economic studies in these fields tend to be of the type "People with attribute X tends to do Y in situation Z" which is basically what I would expect.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Human behavior is usually used in a generic sense; like 'human nature' and so on. As something that is typical and applicable to all of us at least in theory, rather than 'behavior that some humans do'.

So, studying human behaviour would mean studying only acts committed by all humans? That strikes me as pretty odd. Most human behaviour isn't the same for every individual so it would seem a bit pointless.

Most economic studies in these fields tend to be of the type "People with attribute X tends to do Y in situation Z" which is basically what I would expect.

Yes, but it makes useless any claim that the models of economics represent 'human nature'. In short, can the whole structure modern economics represent the economic behaviours of our generic natives-in-the-forest. If not, then the whole of edifice of economics is automatically called into question (if not falsified completely) as it can only empirically one particular form of humanity (if that) and that form exists because of historical, cultural and sociological factors and thus is not universal in any shape.

This is not a new argument.

In the real world of course it is economists who decide on 'development' issues - thus effecting the lives of our generic natives in the jungle much more so than any other ideology academic disclipine.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Human behavior is usually used in a generic sense; like 'human nature' and so on. As something that is typical and applicable to all of us at least in theory, rather than 'behavior that some humans do'.

Where did you take such "usual" usage from? Would you mind a citation? It surely isn't a common usage among economists: such study wouldn't be of interest to almost any of them.

I take it from the fact that I've never really seen it used in a different way before; and because that is what I take that term to mean when I see it used. The behavior of humans at an extreme basic level (the level at which we are all 'the same' rather than at the social) in other words. As it happens, I also think that it is a completely useless term as you can't separate humans from the societies in which they live in.

[ag]

Human behavior is usually used in a generic sense; like 'human nature' and so on. As something that is typical and applicable to all of us at least in theory, rather than 'behavior that some humans do'.

So, studying human behaviour would mean studying only acts committed by all humans? That strikes me as pretty odd. Most human behaviour isn't the same for every individual so it would seem a bit pointless.

Most economic studies in these fields tend to be of the type "People with attribute X tends to do Y in situation Z" which is basically what I would expect.

Yes, but it makes useless any claim that the models of economics represent 'human nature'.

Note, that this claim has been made by nobody but yourself here ) In fact, having spent many years in this profession, I think I've never heard it made (I am not going to argue that there is no economist that would make it - I just never met one). So, it can hardly be at the foundation of modern economics )

It is always easy to destroy the paper tiger of your imagination. Having made a ridiculous argument, it is easy to laugh at it. It is a bit harder if you have to argue with the real, not an imaginary, opponent. I this case, for instance, you'd have to learn something about economics: something that you, obviously, never bothered to do ))

[ag]

Human behavior is usually used in a generic sense; like 'human nature' and so on. As something that is typical and applicable to all of us at least in theory, rather than 'behavior that some humans do'.

Where did you take such "usual" usage from? Would you mind a citation? It surely isn't a common usage among economists: such study wouldn't be of interest to almost any of them.

I take it from the fact that I've never really seen it used in a different way before; and because that is what I take that term to mean when I see it used. The behavior of humans at an extreme basic level (the level at which we are all 'the same' rather than at the social) in other words. As it happens, I also think that it is a completely useless term as you can't separate humans from the societies in which they live in.

Wow! You've never understood human behavior to simply mean "behavior of humans", not "behavior of all humans"? Yeah, we have to work harder ))

Now, all economics is about behavior. Nevertheless, I've never seen an economics text that would make any claim about any behavior characterizing all humans. Nobody is even thinking in these categories. Even if we assume rationality (which economists do frequently, but not, by any means, always), rationality means only completeness and transitivity of preferences. It says exactly nothing about what preferences should anyone have. That we can only get from empirical observation. Clearly, cultural (and not only cultural) determinants would be important here. Those who are interested in these things do all sorts of interdisciplinary research. The bulk of economists study something else, but nearly everybody would view this point as obvious - not even worth discussing.

I wonder, where all these idiotic claims about what modern economics is about come from?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Human behavior is usually used in a generic sense; like 'human nature' and so on. As something that is typical and applicable to all of us at least in theory, rather than 'behavior that some humans do'.

Where did you take such "usual" usage from? Would you mind a citation? It surely isn't a common usage among economists: such study wouldn't be of interest to almost any of them.

I take it from the fact that I've never really seen it used in a different way before; and because that is what I take that term to mean when I see it used. The behavior of humans at an extreme basic level (the level at which we are all 'the same' rather than at the social) in other words. As it happens, I also think that it is a completely useless term as you can't separate humans from the societies in which they live in.

Wow! You've never understood human behavior to simply mean "behavior of humans, not "behavior of all humans"? Yeah, we have to work harder ))

Now, all economics is about behavior. Nevertheless, I've never seen an economics text that would make any claim about any behavior characterizing all humans. Nobody is even thinking in these categories. Even if we assume rationality (which economists do frequently, but not, by any means, always), rationality means only completeness and transitivity of preferences. It says exactly nothing about what preferences should anyone have. That we can only get from empirical observation.

But a cornerstone of all modern economics as far as I understand it is that humans behave rationally (whatever that means) so that is claiming an empirically testable idea about 'humans'. After all, what else are your experiments meant to prove in the first place?

[ag]

Human behavior is usually used in a generic sense; like 'human nature' and so on. As something that is typical and applicable to all of us at least in theory, rather than 'behavior that some humans do'.

Where did you take such "usual" usage from? Would you mind a citation? It surely isn't a common usage among economists: such study wouldn't be of interest to almost any of them.

I take it from the fact that I've never really seen it used in a different way before; and because that is what I take that term to mean when I see it used. The behavior of humans at an extreme basic level (the level at which we are all 'the same' rather than at the social) in other words. As it happens, I also think that it is a completely useless term as you can't separate humans from the societies in which they live in.

Wow! You've never understood human behavior to simply mean "behavior of humans, not "behavior of all humans"? Yeah, we have to work harder ))

Now, all economics is about behavior. Nevertheless, I've never seen an economics text that would make any claim about any behavior characterizing all humans. Nobody is even thinking in these categories. Even if we assume rationality (which economists do frequently, but not, by any means, always), rationality means only completeness and transitivity of preferences. It says exactly nothing about what preferences should anyone have. That we can only get from empirical observation.

But a cornerstone of all modern economics as far as I understand it is that humans behave rationally (whatever that means) so that is claiming an empirically testable idea about 'humans'. After all, what else are your experiments meant to prove in the first place?

Even that is an exaggeration: these days there are zillions of models that are not based on rationality. However, rationality itself is not really implying anything at all about behavior. It's rationality together with the model of what is important for decisions (i.e., what economists call the "consumption space") that gives testable restrictions on behavior.

In any case, rationality is just completeness and transitivity of prefernces. Its only testable restriction is what is known as the Strong Axiom of Revealed Preference. It says nothing whatsoever about what an individual should do in any situation, but merely imposes a restriction on which observations would be mutually consistent (assuming we know the consumption space, that is). The fact that a Macheguenga Indian in Peruvian jungle isn't, say, reacting to monetary payoffs in the same manner as a Michigan State undergrad is entirely consistent with modern economists' views of the world. In fact, it would have been an extraordinary phenomenon if there were no difference in actual choices in this example, that would have been inexplicable within economics as such (in this case we'd have to go to biologists and ask them to tell us what the hell is going on).

The hypotheses that we actually test (in the lab or with real life data) are, 99% of the time, not rationality per se, but something with a lot more structure. This structure, of course, we, in turn, get from observation: we build models  that explain existing facts and then subject them to tests w/ new data.  That's the normal process of scientific research. Yes, most of the models use the language of rationality, but rationality per se is not generating the predictions we are normally testing.