3 ms·
There is this idea (I got it from Paul Ormerod's Butterfly Economics, but I suspect it's older) that there are 3 types of (economic) decisions that humans can m
by js8 6y ago
There is this idea (I got it from Paul Ormerod's Butterfly Economics, but I suspect it's older) that there are 3 types of (economic) decisions that humans can make in any given situation:
1. Do whatever you were doing in the past and worked well for you.
2. Copy what other people are doing and it seems to work well for them.
3. Try to figure out what is the best decision yourself.
I think different people (heck, even same people at different situations) have different propensity to choose one of these options. And it makes sense, to save option 3 only for special occasions.
But what if the group orthodoxy is just an illusion created by all the people who choose option 1 and 2? And the contrarian happens ad hoc, by being the person who for whatever reason chooses option 3?
- TechBro8615 6y agoThis seems to presuppose that the human will successfully execute their decision, or that they will even make one. Perhaps there should be a fourth category: flail about without any decision, and then justify their behavior post-hoc to maximize their self-worth.
- js8 6y agoIMHO that's the option 1. Continue what you were doing. Although, maybe you mean things like anxiety, something like fight/flight/freeze response. I guess you could put these sort of human defaults into a separate category.
- zzzcpan 6y agoAll that in-group out-group social identity theory stuff is pseudoscience anyway. But it's not an illusion, it's just a different and just as wrong framework of ideas than what you propose. Although I like yours better, it at least doesn't label people nor puts them in buckets, embracing more complexity of behavior.