Bryan Caplan wrote:
People talk a lot about various irrationalities
that they might fall into and ways they try to compensate for that.
People talk about realizing that each person tends to think highly of
him/herself, and trying to compensate for that.
People "talk a lot" about this?!
h to give them means to commit to future choices.
If people can neglect possible ways a contract can go bad, but realize
this fact, they can give arbitrators discretion to deal with this when
settling contract disputes.
In contrast, those who see large policy implications from imperfect
reas
this fact, they can give arbitrators discretion to deal with this when
settling contract disputes.
In contrast, those who see large policy implications from imperfect
reasoning tend to assume that people are not meta-rational. This may
be true, but most of the evidence presented just show cognitive
Bryan Caplan wrote:
... If people have time-inconsistent preferences, but realize this fact,
then it can be enough to give them means to commit to future choices.
If people can neglect possible ways a contract can go bad, but realize
this fact, they can give arbitrators discretion to deal
Robin Hanson wrote:
People talk a lot about their difficulty in committing to long term plans.
They choose savings plans that they can't get out of. They take efforts to
avoid being around tempting candy bars.
These look more like conflicting preferences to me than
"meta-rationality."
