In an article that was epoch , Becker and Stigler set a standard of human sciences: the explanation that occurs to the preferences of the subjects is always spoiled by tautology.
In other words, since it is possible to explain everything through your preferences, then we conclude that we can not explain anything.
Too easy to argue that things are in a certain way just because the parties involved prefer things to go well. Not true! So you can 'explain everything. Only by starting from 'environment, the social sciences provide an explanation plausible.
Corollary: the preferences of all are right or wrong good or bad homogeneous and stable, even if that were the 'environment, we see a great convergence .
Today, this "gold standard" assumption can 'be dropped, personality psychologists have shown that preferences are stable, but all' but homogeneous.
We are "different" - rassegnamoci - and this diversity depends not only on 'environment.
We are "different" because we have different personalities, for example, depend on how we are mixed in the big 5 :
Opening / Depth
scrupulosity / Spontaneity
Extraversion / Sobriety
Empathy / Emotional Coldness
/ Stability
Each of us can 'be described by a recipe by way' of ingredients, dosing and mixing in a different way the polarity of the above. Then he adds' intelligence, and the dish is served.
This could have practical relevance in several practical issues. Some examples:
EDUCATION: School performance, as well as work performance, are related to the care rather than to 'intelligence. If the opposite were true, the school may be replaced by rapid and less expensive tests in which you can not cheat. In contrast, a false diligence is always simulated in tests that measure, this is when a selective school becomes necessary as a guarantee.
CRIME ': Who lacks thoroughness and empathy the way of crime becomes attractive regardless of "how much pay.
DISCRIMINATION AT WORK: Women show greater empathy, it is therefore normal that privilege some jobs (teaching, nursing ...) than others (science, management ...) even in the absence of discrimination.
INSURANCE: Economists have never understood why life insurance and those who could not. Now we can say that for certain extremely scrupulous personalities can 'be reasonable to do so in the presence of low risk.
DISEASES: Now we know better that psychiatric disorders are just extreme cases of the normal distribution of possible personality. Eccentric tastes, in short, due mostly to a strong element of emotion. The request for help can 'then be interpreted as a way to forfeit the benefits (financial assistance, non-attribution ...).
RATIONALITY ': Keep irrational behavior can' be nice for someone. Example: A manager with a strong empathy can 'be disturbed by the dismissal of employees, and renounces although it would be reasonable for him to do so. Economists are puzzled and unable to comprehend such behavior. It 's normal to be so because they have secretly vowed not to resort to explanations that never tirassero dance in the "Preferences".
TROLLEY PROBLEM : throw the fat man under a train would be the ethics tells me the 'itrospezione; Except that: As a kind gesture and empathy disgusts me just to satisfy my need me "buy the 'error' in the ethical evaluation request.
details here.
0 comments:
Post a Comment