Comments on: Why People Believe Weird Things About Money

By: Share Filtration

Share Filtration — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 05:20:07 +0000

Ha! What a coincidence! Frankee’s comment was not present when I typed mine… how interesting that we would make the same point at about the same time!

By: Fillo

Fillo — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 23:49:11 +0000

Without being 64-comments thorough, it seems, no one backs the concept that $100k in a $250k world is better than $50k in a $25K world. Me either; relative rules. Has MS run out of topical, inviting wisdom? Has the need for feed-the-beast volume diluted his center stage lighting and surgical logical/mental dexterity? Like MS says …..he wants what Mulder (X-files) had on his office door…..”I want to believe.” Me too. p.s. to MS: Change your position or defend it. I wonder too, how much the grow-or-die phenomena has a grip on MS and his empire. I’m sure it was tidier in the begining; poor guy has had to repeat himself to death.

By: Eddie

Eddie — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 08:42:34 +0000

It’s called prospect theory.. Tversky proved it in 1979..

By: We Just Don't Know

We Just Don't Know — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 07:36:53 +0000

The problem with examining every human action within the sexual sphere, is that it blatantly ignores the existence of monogamous human relationships that are often entered into for the security that can be offered personally, and when rearing offspring. In these instances, more is at work than the simple notion of persistent “seed spreading.” Of course, sexual privilege plays a prominent role in human societies, but the complexity of the human emotional world allows for, and frequently involves other motivations.

Many people simply want to live a fairly peaceful life, raise a set number of offspring, enjoy themselves and die. I don’t see how these narrow descriptions of status motivations effectively address the motivations of the average person.

To assume that status seeking amongst human primates is derived solely from an instinct toward securing sexual privilege, is to promote a naive characterization of human evolution.

By: Dragantraces

Dragantraces — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 07:12:18 +0000

A quick note:
I find it curious that when these kinds of problems are dissected, the idea that the greatest reproductive success is a primary consideration in economic/financial decision making and that that kind of success can be equated with the greatest number of sexual partners. This completely ignores that for more than half of the human population this is utter crap. This is the same blinkered approach to humanity that looks at the treatment of cardiac disease as if it were a no more a disease of concern to women than is prostate cancer.
I think it would be of value to know whether there is a significant diference in the way men and women respond to these set ups.

By: heche

heche — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 18:12:22 +0000

Just a thought, according to our way of life we live in fixed reality,it’s nature is transient. Industry, commerce, the aquisition of money to buy survival,comfort,convenience,status. To indulge in the paradigms of culture, perhaps as a matter of privelage?
The politics of fitting in weaving it’s way through all of it. And isn’t it nice the economics is and always will be theory. Feels good to indulge in speculation though. Are we more driven today by association or suggestion.

By: More on Irrationality « auto insurance quote

More on Irrationality « auto insurance quote — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 08:06:17 +0000

[...] people are so emotional and irrational when it comes to money and business decisions. Here’s an essay from his site regarding the book. Looks pretty [...]

By: Memed Bengul

Memed Bengul — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 20:06:22 +0000

Some remarks:
1)i don’t like personal insults, but..anyone who suggest to make the assumption “that prices of goods and services will stay the same” is an idiot, skeptic or not. he has almost no understanding of the most fundamental aspect of economics. that majority which preferred $50k may be just as ignorant of econ theory, but at least they were smart (intuitively, at least). there is no such thing as an absolute dollar income; figures are all relative and merely dependen on the amount of money and amount of goods available. Shermer should then accept a $1000 per annum job today, since if you go back far enough even the richest people made much less. preferring to earn twice as much as the majority does not mean you want to crush everybody, it simply means you would rather be rich than poor.
2)experiments with monkeys -or men, for that matter – mean nothing in the social sciences. i’ve even come to doubt this in the medical professions -to a degree, that is). economics can only exist in the realm of pure theory, based on a priori reasoning, along with a few axioms. a monkey trading for raisins means squat.
3)another person wisely pointed out the Austrian approach. most people assume that economics is about money or material gain, when in reality it is about satisfying your wants, according to YOUR value judgements, utility schedule, etc. who ever said anything about money? preferring a material/fiancial loss in order to show off to a girl/to feeling more ethical, heroic, altruistic/to seeing someone else lose even more, etc. can indeed be more rational. living a religious life can be more rational. overdosing on heroin can be more rational (say, than drinking green tea). it all boils down to personal utility.

By: Neuroeconomics Overview: Understanding “The Mind of the Market” « Experience Mind

Sun, 07 Dec 2008 16:16:42 +0000

[...] For a short teaser, read Shermer’s recent essay: Why People Believe Weird Things About Money [...]

By: The Ultimatum Game of Banking Bailouts « Perspicacity

The Ultimatum Game of Banking Bailouts « Perspicacity — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 14:57:14 +0000

[...] arises from an innate sense of social relativism as noted by Michael Shermer in his article, “Why People Believe Weird Things About Money“ Would you rather earn $50,000 a year while other people make $25,000, or would you rather [...]