I love Dan Ariely - his razor sharp intellect mixed with excellent values, integrity & world class communication skills......makes him No.1 Behaviourial Economics/Social Scientists in today's world
8:28 - I believe he’s alluding to the 1st generation Honda Insight, which had only 2 seats. In contrast, the Prius had 5 seats. So, not a great comparison.
Dear Sir all your video are meaningful, knowledgeable, generate thinking how i am / was presume to other and how other presume / perception to me and whether it is either balancing or indifferent in our relationship / socialization process but cooperation and coordination is a big room for socialization because i belongs to society / societies as per my movements.
The guy's a genius, so I probably shouldn't comment on this but... there were some parts where I disagreed with him. I sort of have my own definition of rationality, which maybe is skewed compared to normal standards. At roughly 26:37 - For me, being rational doesn't necessarily mean being selfish. Actually, it may well be highly irrational and shallow to be selfish. A society where everyone would, without hesitation, give half the sum back in gratitude would be a better society! It would be a society where you can trust people. It would be a society with a higher standard of life, because there would be less stress, more evenly distributed resources etc. A better society. It seems to me very rational to want a better society. Whereas being selfish is short term gain and long term pain. I strongly disagree with being rational=being selfish. It just doesn't make sense. Selfishness is the epitomy of short term gain, long term problems, which is also the problem with irrationality. So how can being rational mean being selfish? As for the millions of people suffering across the world.... I disagree strongly with charities. I agree with those economy students that don't give money, but for different reasons. Obviously, 1 million people suffering IS MORE IMPORTANT than 1 person. But it is irrational to try and ... save people, think of yourself as a hero or something. When you are dealing with 2 million children in starvation in Malawi, or indeed with many of the more serious global issues, especially when you think of the management of several overlapping or even possibility contracting problems, like economic development+environmental protection... it becomes clear that you need a change in SYSTEM. A different global economic system, or a different global industrial infrastructure etc. No charity is enough for that. It's up to the "big boys" like the UN and intergovernmental treaties between Malawi and, say, the EU to deal with those problems. Also, it's not just a problem with charity not being strong enough. Charity, generally, is stupid. Charity is not what starving children in Malawi or any other place like that in the world needs. They need investment. They need a means to make their own living. It's like that expression "give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach him to fish and he'll eat for a life time", charity= 1 fish, investment=fishing. Based on that logic, it actually does result in a better world to make people more rational. He was trying to make the point that being rational means a meaner world, and that there is a need for irrationality. But based on my interpretation of his examples it would seem a completely rational world would be a good thing.
RoScFan I agree with a lot of your points, though I personally think it's better to have selfishness treated as a spectrum. On the one hand, it's best to invest in others and to develop generous values. On the other hand, it's best to know when (especially in toxic relationships or when it comes to personal health) selfishness would be acceptable and a way of self-preservation out of a bad situation. It'd probably depend on a case-by-case scenario. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
"Human beings are irrational," said Dan Ariely. We human thought (mostly unconscious) that we are objective, rational and logical. We take pride in the ‘fact' that we make decisions based on reason. When we decide to invest our money, buy a home or books, choose restaurants for dinner, or pick a medical treatment, we usually assume that the choices we make are the right ones. Ariely observes, "We are all susceptible to a formidable array of decision biases. There are more of them than we realize, and they come to visit us more often than we like to admit." This book attempts to show us the many ways in which we act irrationally while thinking what we're doing makes perfect sense, and how these irrational behaviors can actually be beneficial as long as we use it the right way. To read my review of Dan Ariely's The Upside of Irrationality: The Unexpected Benefits of Defying Logic at Work and at Home (2010), CLICK HERE: www.richardangelus.me/2018/10/the-upside-of-irrationality-2010-by-dan.html?m=1
I love how Dan manipulates experimental datasets so that he's get ridiculously low p-values to support his silly hypotheses. It's also pretty cool how he lies to and tricks his co-authors so they are get implicated too.
![[ ออกกอง ] วัยหนุ่ม 2544 โลกหลังลูกกรง..ทัวร์กองถ่ายหนังใน "คุกของจริง" | JUSTดูIT.](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vB--aOkZCpw/mqdefault.jpg)
I've watched thousands of videos but Dan captures your interest and explains life like no other . Thank you ❤️
I love Dan Ariely - his razor sharp intellect mixed with excellent values, integrity & world class communication skills......makes him No.1 Behaviourial Economics/Social Scientists in today's world
He's my new favorite speaker. Gotta get his books.
Yaaay he's so awesome I found myself obsessively watching his videos drunk at 4 am yesterday :o
this is acceptably irrational
Excellent talk. Psychology and cognitive biases definitely deserve more attention in mainstream economics
Watching Dan speak is always interesting
He is fascinating. I would love to have coffee and discussion with him.
8:28 - I believe he’s alluding to the 1st generation Honda Insight, which had only 2 seats. In contrast, the Prius had 5 seats. So, not a great comparison.
Dear Sir all your video are meaningful, knowledgeable, generate thinking how i am / was presume to other and how other presume / perception to me and whether it is either balancing or indifferent in our relationship / socialization process but cooperation and coordination is a big room for socialization because i belongs to society / societies as per my movements.
The guy's a genius, so I probably shouldn't comment on this but... there were some parts where I disagreed with him. I sort of have my own definition of rationality, which maybe is skewed compared to normal standards.
At roughly 26:37 - For me, being rational doesn't necessarily mean being selfish. Actually, it may well be highly irrational and shallow to be selfish. A society where everyone would, without hesitation, give half the sum back in gratitude would be a better society! It would be a society where you can trust people. It would be a society with a higher standard of life, because there would be less stress, more evenly distributed resources etc. A better society. It seems to me very rational to want a better society. Whereas being selfish is short term gain and long term pain.
I strongly disagree with being rational=being selfish. It just doesn't make sense. Selfishness is the epitomy of short term gain, long term problems, which is also the problem with irrationality. So how can being rational mean being selfish?
As for the millions of people suffering across the world.... I disagree strongly with charities. I agree with those economy students that don't give money, but for different reasons. Obviously, 1 million people suffering IS MORE IMPORTANT than 1 person. But it is irrational to try and ... save people, think of yourself as a hero or something. When you are dealing with 2 million children in starvation in Malawi, or indeed with many of the more serious global issues, especially when you think of the management of several overlapping or even possibility contracting problems, like economic development+environmental protection... it becomes clear that you need a change in SYSTEM. A different global economic system, or a different global industrial infrastructure etc. No charity is enough for that. It's up to the "big boys" like the UN and intergovernmental treaties between Malawi and, say, the EU to deal with those problems. Also, it's not just a problem with charity not being strong enough. Charity, generally, is stupid. Charity is not what starving children in Malawi or any other place like that in the world needs. They need investment. They need a means to make their own living. It's like that expression "give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach him to fish and he'll eat for a life time", charity= 1 fish, investment=fishing. Based on that logic, it actually does result in a better world to make people more rational. He was trying to make the point that being rational means a meaner world, and that there is a need for irrationality. But based on my interpretation of his examples it would seem a completely rational world would be a good thing.
RoScFan I agree with a lot of your points, though I personally think it's better to have selfishness treated as a spectrum. On the one hand, it's best to invest in others and to develop generous values. On the other hand, it's best to know when (especially in toxic relationships or when it comes to personal health) selfishness would be acceptable and a way of self-preservation out of a bad situation.
It'd probably depend on a case-by-case scenario. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
"Human beings are irrational," said Dan Ariely. We human thought (mostly unconscious) that we are objective, rational and logical. We take pride in the ‘fact' that we make decisions based on reason. When we decide to invest our money, buy a home or books, choose restaurants for dinner, or pick a medical treatment, we usually assume that the choices we make are the right ones.
Ariely observes, "We are all susceptible to a formidable array of decision biases. There are more of them than we realize, and they come to visit us more often than we like to admit." This book attempts to show us the many ways in which we act irrationally while thinking what we're doing makes perfect sense, and how these irrational behaviors can actually be beneficial as long as we use it the right way.
To read my review of Dan Ariely's The Upside of Irrationality: The Unexpected Benefits of Defying Logic at Work and at Home (2010), CLICK HERE: www.richardangelus.me/2018/10/the-upside-of-irrationality-2010-by-dan.html?m=1
never take Dan's mango
I love how Dan manipulates experimental datasets so that he's get ridiculously low p-values to support his silly hypotheses. It's also pretty cool how he lies to and tricks his co-authors so they are get implicated too.