במאמר The death of behavioral economics (אליו הגעתי מהבלוג המצויין הזה) מגיע המחבר למסקנה:
"It turns out that loss aversion does exist, but only for large losses. This makes sense. We *should* be particularly wary of decisions that can wipe us out. That's not a so-called "cognitive bias". It's not irrational. In fact, it's completely sensical. If a decision can destroy you and/or your family, it's sane to be cautious." שאם היא נכונה הרי שהיא פותרת את התמיהה שהעליתי.
אגב כך, מסתבר שהמחבר (Jason Hreha) לא ממש נמנה עם מעריצי טברסקי-כהנמן (וגם סבור, בטעות, שטברסקי היה שותף לפרס נובל):
Well, actually, it looks like Kahneman and Tversky, winners of the Nobel Prize in Economics, knew about this unfortunate fact when they were developing Prospect Theory—their grand theory"
with loss aversion at its center. Unfortunately, the findings rebutting their view of loss aversion were carefully omitted from their papers, and other findings that went against their modelwere misrepresented so that they would instead support their pet theory. In short: any data that didn't fit Prospect Theory was dismissed or distorted."
האשמות חמורות למדי, ומעניין אם כהנמן יגיב/הגיב עליהן.
|
RSS מאמרים |
כתבו למערכת |
אודות האתר |
טרם התעדכנת |
ארכיון |
חיפוש |
עזרה |
תנאי שימוש