{"id":94984,"date":"2019-02-13T13:15:45","date_gmt":"2019-02-13T12:15:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.erasmusmagazine.nl\/en\/?p=94984"},"modified":"2025-12-19T11:23:12","modified_gmt":"2025-12-19T10:23:12","slug":"be-sceptical-and-be-careful","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.erasmusmagazine.nl\/en\/2019\/02\/13\/be-sceptical-and-be-careful\/","title":{"rendered":"\u2018Be sceptical and be careful\u2019"},"content":{"rendered":"

Four years of research on how decisions are made have only made his own decision-making more complex. Last week, James Grayot defended his PhD thesis Agency & choice: on the cognitive and conceptual foundations of agency in economics and behavioral decision research.<\/p>\n

\"\"

\n\t\n\n<\/svg>\n<\/span>\n\tImage by:<\/span>\n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tLevien Willemse<\/a>\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t<\/p>\n<\/figcaption><\/figure>

You\u2019re at a birthday party; how would you describe your research?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cI do research on how people make decisions and referee how different disciplines have approached the study of decision-making. My thesis is a series of papers on philosophical questions on the intersection of economics, psychology and cognitive science. Basically, it\u2019s about economic models of decision-making. Economists use mathematical models to represent how people reason and make decisions. These days, economics is interacting with psychology and cognitive science quite a bit to make their models more realistic. They try to understand why people often make irrational decisions, and study how different contexts can lead to good or bad decision-making.\u201d<\/p>\n

Could you give an example of one of these models?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cOne modelling technique that is very popular is called a \u2018dual-self\u2019 model. It builds on important research in psychology: it takes a person and divides them into two separate decision agents. One agent is the \u2018planner\u2019, the other is the \u2018doer\u2019. The planner has long-term goals, whereas the doer consumes, spends and acts impulsively. Economists have taken this basic framework and formalised it with rigorous mathematical tools. There is an intuitive appeal to this because in the history of philosophy and psychology, going back as far as Plato, you\u2019ve always had this idea of the divided self. It\u2019s a metaphor that everyone can relate to. Over the last 25 years or so, research in psychology and neuroscience have helped to legitimize the idea of the dual-self by identifying dualistic processes and systems in the brain. Economists now say: \u2018That\u2019s what we meant all along, taking the intuitive model and adopting new evidence.\u2019 But I\u2019m sceptical about some of this evidence.\u201d<\/p>\n

Why are you sceptical?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cI think it\u2019s a useful narrative or metaphor but I think it oversimplifies things dramatically. That is one of the most important conclusions of my thesis. There are both philosophical and scientific reasons to think that this metaphor may distort rather than illuminate what happens when people make decisions. For every argument in support of dualistic processes or systems, you could ask: \u2018Why not call it one massive system composed of separate specialized mechanisms or modules?\u2019 Or: \u2018Why not propose a third system which deliberates between the two?\u2019 There is much evidence to support both alternatives.<\/p>\n

\u201cFurthermore, new research into nudging <\/em>\u2013 a technique to influence how people make decisions \u2013 relies heavily on the same psychological research as dual-self models. But if dual process and dual system research oversimplifies how people reason and decide, nudge policies could be wrong, or at least much improved. Simplicity may be good for lobbying policymakers, but it could lead to important problems in application.\u201d<\/p>\n

How is your thesis making the world a better place?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cThere is all this \u2018economics-made-fun-stuff\u2019 coming out these days like Freakonomics<\/em>, Thinking: Fast and Slow,<\/em> and Predictably Irrational<\/em>. Bestseller economics and psychology books for the general public that are well-written and fascinating, but I think there\u2019s too much of a focus on simple metaphors, while this stuff is not easy. My hope is that philosophers, scientists and non-academics will think more carefully about these topics. Be sceptical and be careful.\u201d<\/p>\n

Have you become better at making decisions yourself?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cBeing a philosopher and a total headcase in general, I\u2019ve always been wrapped up by the question \u2018how do I choose?\u2019 That\u2019s what has led to this thesis in a way. But I have no easier time making decisions, it\u2019s only become more complex. The benefit is that while I still make bad decisions, I now know a bit more about why I make them. A lot of how I make decisions is based on what\u2019s good for me at a certain point, but without a global plan. Moving from Los Angeles to Europe, for instance, was entirely unplanned. There\u2019s a famous quote by Kierkegaard, the existentialist philosopher, saying: \u2018We live forward, but we understand backward.\u2019 I guess this encapsulates my experiences.\u201d<\/p>\n

What\u2019s on the cover?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cI wanted something purposely abstract, because a lot of the thesis is conceptual analysis. One could see the image as a complex structure: as you get closer to the centre its shape and colour become homogenous, but as you move away it appears disordered. This is the case with a lot of concept analysis. Another explanation is that it just looks cool.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t

De redactie<\/h2>\n\t\t\n\t\t
\n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t