Che conseguenze ha per la scienza la razionalità limitata?

See on Scoop.it – Bounded Rationality and Beyond

Anche da una disciplina apparentemente lontana dalle nostre riflessioni ci giungono spunti e sollecitazioni assolutamente pertinenti al nostro progetto. Segnaliamo questa interessantissima intervista – pubblicata da Rescogitans – ad uno dei massimi esperti internazionali di genetica. Forse non rischiamo di morire di fame per non sapere quale sacco di fieno mangiare, ma se la situazione aumenta di complessità dovremmo riuscire a valutare rapidamente e scegliere, che è cosa ben diversa dal tentennare. Gli psicologi ci hanno mostrato come nella nostra vita quotidiana cadiamo spesso nei tranelli della ragione e delle emozioni e rischiamo di prendere decisioni contraddittorie relativamente ai nostri affari. Ci facciamo convincere dalle offerte speciali senza una vera ragione effettiva o perseveriamo negli investimenti sbagliati affidandoci a credenze effimere o improprie. Le nostre scelte, anche quelle che riguardano la spesa di tutti i giorni, sono sempre condizionate dalle emozioni. Questo quadro teorico è ineccepibile. Certo bisogna anche ricordare che se non ci fosse l’emotività non ci sarebbe nemmeno la scelta. Le emozioni non servono soltanto a condizionare i nostri percorsi decisionali, ma fungono anche da molle per riuscire a compiere delle scelte definitive, per evitare i tentennamenti e non cadere nella sindrome dell’asino di Buridano.

See on rescogitans.it

Che conseguenze ha per la scienza la razionalità limitata?

See on Scoop.it – Bounded Rationality and Beyond

Anche da una disciplina apparentemente lontana dalle nostre riflessioni ci giungono spunti e sollecitazioni assolutamente pertinenti al nostro progetto. Segnaliamo questa interessantissima intervista – pubblicata da Rescogitans – ad uno dei massimi esperti internazionali di genetica. Forse non rischiamo di morire di fame per non sapere quale sacco di fieno mangiare, ma se la situazione aumenta di complessità dovremmo riuscire a valutare rapidamente e scegliere, che è cosa ben diversa dal tentennare. Gli psicologi ci hanno mostrato come nella nostra vita quotidiana cadiamo spesso nei tranelli della ragione e delle emozioni e rischiamo di prendere decisioni contraddittorie relativamente ai nostri affari. Ci facciamo convincere dalle offerte speciali senza una vera ragione effettiva o perseveriamo negli investimenti sbagliati affidandoci a credenze effimere o improprie. Le nostre scelte, anche quelle che riguardano la spesa di tutti i giorni, sono sempre condizionate dalle emozioni. Questo quadro teorico è ineccepibile. Certo bisogna anche ricordare che se non ci fosse l’emotività non ci sarebbe nemmeno la scelta. Le emozioni non servono soltanto a condizionare i nostri percorsi decisionali, ma fungono anche da molle per riuscire a compiere delle scelte definitive, per evitare i tentennamenti e non cadere nella sindrome dell’asino di Buridano.

See on www.rescogitans.it

Systemic Risk and the Investment Professional

See on Scoop.it – Bounded Rationality and Beyond

The following is excerpted from a speech delivered byRobert Jenkins, FSIP, to the New York Society of Security Analysts on 1 May 2014. Jenkins is a member of the Board of Governors of CFA Institute and a senior fellow at Better Markets. He recently served on the Financial Policy Committee of the Bank of England.

Is our profession, the investment management industry, a source of systemic risk? Do the investment flows that we intermediate contribute to financial fragility? Might asset management firms, such as banks, be “too big to fail?” Are we part of the problem or part of the solution? What should be the regulatory response?

These are the concerns being raised by the regulators. The US Office of Financial Research (OFR) has penned a report identifying the great ocean of capital flows as a source of systemic risk. The Financial Stability Board (FSB), the Basel-based body that guides the global approach to financial regulation, is conducting a consultation with similar questions in mind. And in a major address titled “The Age of Asset Management?” a Bank of England senior official highlighted investment flows as the “next frontier for macro-prudential policy.” All three of the above query the degree to which the investment firms in which we work might constitute systemically important financial institutions.

See on blogs.cfainstitute.org

Systemic Risk and the Investment Professional

See on Scoop.it – Bounded Rationality and Beyond

The following is excerpted from a speech delivered byRobert Jenkins, FSIP, to the New York Society of Security Analysts on 1 May 2014. Jenkins is a member of the Board of Governors of CFA Institute and a senior fellow at Better Markets. He recently served on the Financial Policy Committee of the Bank of England.

Is our profession, the investment management industry, a source of systemic risk? Do the investment flows that we intermediate contribute to financial fragility? Might asset management firms, such as banks, be “too big to fail?” Are we part of the problem or part of the solution? What should be the regulatory response?

These are the concerns being raised by the regulators. The US Office of Financial Research (OFR) has penned a report identifying the great ocean of capital flows as a source of systemic risk. The Financial Stability Board (FSB), the Basel-based body that guides the global approach to financial regulation, is conducting a consultation with similar questions in mind. And in a major address titled “The Age of Asset Management?” a Bank of England senior official highlighted investment flows as the “next frontier for macro-prudential policy.” All three of the above query the degree to which the investment firms in which we work might constitute systemically important financial institutions.

See on blogs.cfainstitute.org

Gender Differences in Risk Aversion: Do Single-Sex Environments Affect their Development?

See on Scoop.it – Bounded Rationality and Beyond

Abstract: Single-sex classes within coeducational environments are likely to modify students’ risktaking attitudes in economically important ways. To test this, we designed a controlled experiment using first year college students who made choices over real-stakes lotteries at two distinct dates. Students were randomly assigned to weekly classes of three types: all female, all male, and coeducational. They were not allowed to change group subsequently. We found that women are less likely to make risky choices than men at both dates. However, after eight weeks in a single-sex class environment, women were significantly more likely to choose the lottery than their counterparts in coeducational groups. These results are robust to the inclusion of controls for IQ and for personality type, as well as to a number of sensitivity tests. Our findings suggest that observed gender differences in behaviour under uncertainty found in previous studies might partly reflect social learning rather than inherent gender traits.

See on econpapers.repec.org

Gender Differences in Risk Aversion: Do Single-Sex Environments Affect their Development?

See on Scoop.it – Bounded Rationality and Beyond

Abstract: Single-sex classes within coeducational environments are likely to modify students’ risktaking attitudes in economically important ways. To test this, we designed a controlled experiment using first year college students who made choices over real-stakes lotteries at two distinct dates. Students were randomly assigned to weekly classes of three types: all female, all male, and coeducational. They were not allowed to change group subsequently. We found that women are less likely to make risky choices than men at both dates. However, after eight weeks in a single-sex class environment, women were significantly more likely to choose the lottery than their counterparts in coeducational groups. These results are robust to the inclusion of controls for IQ and for personality type, as well as to a number of sensitivity tests. Our findings suggest that observed gender differences in behaviour under uncertainty found in previous studies might partly reflect social learning rather than inherent gender traits.

See on econpapers.repec.org

Mechanical Versus Clinical Data Combination in Selection and Admission Decisions: A Meta-Analysis

See on Scoop.it – Bounded Rationality and Beyond

MECHANICAL VERSUS CLINICAL DATA COMBINATION IN SELECTION AND ADMISSIONS DECISIONS: A META-ANALYSIS

The pink plastic alligator at Erasmus University Rotterdam says “Interview-based impressions belong in the trash can behind me.”

Is there something you’ve learned in your job that you wish you could tell everyone? We have something that’s well known for decades by decision-making researchers, and all but unknown in the outside world.

Here’s the deal. When hiring or making admissions decisions, impressions of a person from an interview are close to worthless. Hire on the most objective data you have. Even when people try to combine their impressions with data, they make worse decisions than by just following the data alone.

Don’t feel swayed by an interview. It’s not fair to the other candidates who are better on paper. They will most likely be better in practice.

See on www.decisionsciencenews.com

Mechanical Versus Clinical Data Combination in Selection and Admission Decisions: A Meta-Analysis

See on Scoop.it – Bounded Rationality and Beyond

MECHANICAL VERSUS CLINICAL DATA COMBINATION IN SELECTION AND ADMISSIONS DECISIONS: A META-ANALYSIS

The pink plastic alligator at Erasmus University Rotterdam says “Interview-based impressions belong in the trash can behind me.”

Is there something you’ve learned in your job that you wish you could tell everyone? We have something that’s well known for decades by decision-making researchers, and all but unknown in the outside world.

Here’s the deal. When hiring or making admissions decisions, impressions of a person from an interview are close to worthless. Hire on the most objective data you have. Even when people try to combine their impressions with data, they make worse decisions than by just following the data alone.

Don’t feel swayed by an interview. It’s not fair to the other candidates who are better on paper. They will most likely be better in practice.

See on decisionsciencenews.com