Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
Is behavioral economics blind to its blindness?
Is behavioral economics blind to its blindness?
Mar 18, 2025 7:58 PM

I find some of the work of behavioral economists, especially that of Daniel Kahneman to be very interesting and important. Thinking Fast and Slow is essential reading. His distinctions between what he calls Type I and Type II thinking is very insightful, and the broad critique that human beings don’t always act like rational maximizers is a correct. Jennifer Roback Morse deals with this issue well in her excellent book, Love and Economics.

Yet despite many good elements of behavioral economics, some of the leading voices including Richard Thaler and Dan Ariely seem to identify the limited, empiricist rationality that they critique in the idea of homo economicus with rationality itself. That is, they appear equate a constricted notion of reason with rationality and then assert that people don’t always act rationally. Of course it is true that people don’t always act rationally. We make mistakes of intuition all the time as Kahneman points out.

But we have to be also consider that if we had a broader notion of reason that was not limited to empiricism or to rational maximization, some of those so called mistakes could be perfectly rational. I also worry that behavioral economists can fall into the trap of not applying their theory to their own conclusions. Perhaps they are just a bit blind to the obvious…

Are we blind about our blindness?

Related to the this, here is an interesting piece on Aeon by Oxford Management professor, Teppo Felinon The Fallacy of Obviousness. This is a wide ranging piece that addresses some the limited view of rationality and some of the underlying materialism of behavioral economics, cognitive sciences, and artificial intelligence. One of the questions Fellin addresses is the notion that humans are blind to the obvious which underlies much of the work of Kahneman and the behavioral economists.

Felin uses the example of the famous gorilla test by psychologists Daniel Simons and Christopher Charbis. (Spoiler alert–if you haven’t taken this test and want to, stop and take it and then continue reading)

Did you see the gorilla? If not, you are not alone. Many people missed it.

In case you didn’t watch it here’s how the test goes: The Gorilla Test is a test about our attention and how we can miss very obvious things. Test takers watch a video of people passing a ball and told to count how many times they pass the ball. During the middle of the video a person dressed in a gorilla suit walks into view, pounds his chest, and walks off. You can’t miss it. Except or course, people do. This test has been used to demonstrate that we make many errors in perception. Behavioral economists like Daniel Kahneman have pointed to this experiment as an example of how human beings are “blind to the obvious, and that we also are blind to our blindness.”

True as far as it goes, but as Felin points out, we don’t only miss the gorilla, we miss lots of things. We miss the color of people’s shoes, the color of the paint on the wall, how many of the players were men or women. We miss these things not only because we miss the obvious, but because we were specifically told to focus on a certain thing—counting the balls. If we were told to focus on the color of each person’s shoes, we would not have known how many times they passed the ball.

Missing the gorilla may we we are blind to the obvious. But what else does it mean? Felin argues there is another interpretation:

The alternative interpretation says that what people are lookingfor– rather than what people are merely lookingat– determines what is obvious. Obviousness is not self-evident. Or as Sherlock Holmes said: ‘There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact.’ This isn’t an argument against facts or for ‘alternative facts’, or anything of the sort. It’s an argument about what qualifies as obvious, why and how. See, obviousness depends on what is deemed to be relevant for a particular question or task at hand. Rather than passively accounting for or recording everything directly in front of us, humans – and other organisms for that matter – instead actively lookforthings. The implication (contrary to psychophysics) is that mind-to-world processes drive perception rather than world-to-mind processes. The gorilla experiment itself can be reinterpreted to support this view of perception, showing that what we see depends on our expectations and questions – what we are looking for, what question we are trying to answer.

As Felin and others have pointed out, what we are told to focus on, and equally important, our underlying assumptions, values, and beliefs shape how we see the world. This is an underlying problem with the dominant approach to the social sciences in general and related to the point that Benedict XVI made in the famous Regensburg Address, that our concept of rationality is constricted and incoherent.

None of this implies that humans don’t make mistakes or are always rational even under a broad concept of rationality. Using right reason is not easy and we make mistakes all the time. The point here is that what we focus on, and the frameworks that we use to look at a problem, the assumptions and beliefs we have, what Durkheim calls a “social fact” shape the way we see the world and what es obvious or not. I am not suggesting that everything is therefor relative, but one’s perspective does influence our understanding and what we see or do not see

Felin writes:

The biologist Jakob von Uexküll (1864-1944) argued that all species, humans included, have a unique ‘Suchbild’ – German for a seek- or search-image – of what they are looking for. In the case of humans, this search-image includes the questions, expectations, problems, hunches or theories that we have in mind, which in turn structure and direct our awareness and attention. The important point is that humans do not observe scenes passively or neutrally. In 1966, the philosopher Karl Popper conducted an informal experiment to make this point. During a lecture at the University of Oxford, he turned to his audience and said: ‘My experiment consists of asking you to observe, here and now. I hope you are all cooperating and observing! However, I feel that at least some of you, instead of observing, will feel a strong urge to ask: “Whatdo you want me to observe?”’ Then Popper delivered his insight about observation: ‘For what I am trying to illustrate is that, in order to observe, we must have in mind a definite question, which we might be able to decide by observation.’

In other words, there is no neutral observation. The world doesn’t tell us what is relevant. Instead, it responds to questions. When looking and observing, we are usually directedtowardsomething, toward answering specific questions or satisfying some curiosities or problems

There could be some debate about neutral observation. There could be an occasion when a person could be observing without a specific focus and discover something he had not previously noticed. But even then it is a specific, unique individual in a specific context that is doing the observation.And the general point holds that our decisions about what to analyze, what data to collect, and puter algorithms to write are all shaped by previous ideas. Technology is not neutral.

This is an important topic that has broad implications for the social sciences and for how we understand artificial intelligence and consciousness. Ultimately much of es down to fundamental questions about philosophical anthropology and the nature of reason.Definitely worth reading the whole thing.

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
The miracle apple: Co-creative lessons from the fall of the Red Delicious
In the Age of Information, much of our work now takes place in the realm of the “intangible”—creating and trading products and services that can feel somewhat obscure or abstract. Even still, in our technological, data-driven world, we should remember that we are cooperating withnatureandco-creating with our Creator. From the social-media giants to the sawmills, from the blockchain banks to the barbershops, we are using our God-given intellect and creativity to transform a mix of matter and information into something...
Church and politics: Necessary definitions and distinctions
A few weeks ago The Gospel Coalition ran a review of Jonathan Leeman’s book, Why Nations Rage: Rethinking Faith and Politics in a Divided Age. A snip: Leeman’s analysis is guided by a few central convictions. One is represented in Psalm 2 and the title itself. He explains, “History’s greatest political rivalry, it would seem, is between the nations of the earth and the Messiah.” Another guiding insight is that all of life is religious, including politics. This is true...
How geography affects economic growth
Note: This is post #78 in a weekly video series on basic economics. You could fit most of the U.S., China, India, and a lot of Europe, into Africa. But if pare Africa to Europe, Europe has two to three times the length of coastline that Africa. Why does this matter? As this video by Marginal Revolution University explains, geography can have profound effects on a nation’s economic growth. (If you find the pace of the videos too slow, I’d...
Bernie Sanders is not a socialist. Socialism is dead.
I recently gave a presentation to students about foreign aid in the developing world. I tried to explain that many ing to the conclusion that what is really necessary is to establish conditions suitable for a market-based society. In other words, there must be a transparent administration of justice, the predictable rule of law, private property rights, ease in doing business, a real lack of arbitrariness, etc. Both as I prepared and as I spoke, however, I realized that some...
Socialism is dead (Part 2): What’s wrong with the market-based evolution of socialism?
I spent my previous postexplaining that orthodox socialism is effectively dead and what remains is really different variations on societies that effectively accept the market as the standard frame. Here, I would like to explain, in part, why the Bernie Sanders approach to market-based socialism (after the death of socialism) is not the right way forward. As I stated in the previous post, this Americanized “socialism” is definitely of the half-hearted variety. Strong socialism would mean government ownership of the...
Dalio’s animated adventure in common grace-infused wisdom
Ray Dalio is a fascinating character. Founder of the“world’s richest and strangest hedge fund,”he’s been dubbed the “Steve Jobs of investing” and “Wall Street’s oddest duck.” He’s currently #26 on Forbes list ofrichest people in Americaand Time magazine once included him on their list of the world’s 100 most influential people. In 2011, Dalio outlined his personal philosophy on life and business in a self-published 123-page PDF called “Principles.” (It was re-released as a book in 2017 and e the#1Amazon...
What can economics teach us about moral ecology?
In exploring the various connections between morality, theology, and economics, we routinely long for philosophers and theologians who understand economics, just as we crave economists who understand the bigger picture of self-interest and human destiny. That sort cross-disciplinary dialogue and mutual understanding can be beneficial, but for economist Peter Boettke, it can also serve as a distraction. In an article for Faith and Economics, Boettke argues that economics as a scienceoffers plenty of tools for “moral assessment,” and that economists...
The (just) price of salt (and cancer drugs)
A recent episode of the very fine podcast EconTalk reminded me of one of the more remarkable episodes during my time here at the Acton Institute involving our internship program. The EconTalk episode is about the price of cancer drugs, and the various factors that go into the often astronomical prices of the latest cancer-fighting drugs. These can run up to an in excess of $300,000 per year. A question implicit in the discussion is whether such high costs are...
Justice Scalia explains why the ‘living Constitution’ is a threat to America
A majority of Americans—55 percent—now say the U.S. Supreme Court should base its rulings on what the Constitution “means in current times,” while only 41 percent say rulings should be based on what it “meant as originally written,” according to a recent survey by the Pew Research Center. Not surprisingly, the divide is mostly along partisan lines. According to Pew, nearly eight-in-ten Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (78 percent) now say rulings should be based on the Constitution’s meaning in current...
Liberalism needs natural law
The great British political thinker Edmund Burke regarded what some call “liberalism” today as prehensible, unworkable and unjust in the absence of mitment to natural law.A similar argument can be made in our own time, says Acton research director Samuel Gregg: Without natural law foundations, for instance, how can we determine what is and isn’t a right other than appeals to raw power or utility, neither of which can provide a principled case for rights? Or, on what other basis...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2025 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved