Economists readily acknowledge that the concept of economic man (
homo economicus), which is necessary for building their models, is a simplification of reality; human beings do not always behave rationally!
But attributing irrational behavior to "cognitive biases" is equally simplistic, according to
economist Richard Robb. There are other explanations for behavior besides
purposefully acting in the pursuit of rational or irrational goals. [bold added]
“Certain actions,” he says, “are undertaken by people not for any tangible benefit, but for their own sake.” These actions belong to “a second realm of human behavior” that is neither rational nor irrational. Mr. Robb calls these “for itself” actions, which he defines as “unproblematic, intrinsically human impulses” undertaken “without regard to whether they’re better than some alternative.”
Dr. Robb uses the
parable of the Good Samaritan to illustrate:
 |
| (From ancient-origins.net) |
“He lavishes all this attention on one random man,” Mr. Robb says. “It’s an act of mercy that’s not optimal in any way. If he cared about humankind in some sort of coherent way, he’d get this one guy up and on his way and then go find somebody else who was also robbed on the side of the road.”
Mr. Robb next tests the behavioral-economics explanation. Are we going to say that the Samaritan is subject to a cognitive bias—a salience bias in response to the one person right in front of him—so he makes the wrong choices? “I don’t think so,” he says. “It doesn’t feel right to say that the Samaritan is irrational, or that he’s got a cognitive defect he needs to correct, and that somebody needs to point out to him that he’s reached the point of diminishing marginal returns with this one man and should therefore go on and find a different man.”
Rather, the Samaritan’s actions lift his behavior into a realm beyond rational choice. “If he’d lavished that degree of care on every beat-up person he’d found, he’d never have made his way out of Jerusalem,” Mr. Robb says. His was an act of for-itself mercy.
Economists can explain why some people give nothing to charity while others devote their lives to it. They have difficulty explaining why a significant number are willing to help one or a few strangers but no more. The dismal science has a long way to go.
Love reckons by itself—alone—
"As large as I"—relate the Sun
To One who never felt it blaze—
Itself is all the like it has—
----Emily Dickinson
No comments:
Post a Comment