11–20 of 115 posts
Hmm... So here is an interesting thought experiment. Suppose you take a person with some appreciable intelligence (at least average) but no particular knowledge about a certain topic. In this instance, we'll let that topic be psycology. Now we present this person with an unfortunate dilemma. For a particular hypothesis, they observe a significant amount of peer reviewed literature asserting empirical evidence in the…
However, this is just a couple of researcher's opinions, and tomorrow a response article may come out saying that loss aversion IS supported by evidence.
To me, this is the sign of a healthy science.
Hmm... So here is an interesting thought experiment. Suppose you take a person with some appreciable intelligence (at least average) but no particular knowledge about a certain topic. In this instance, we'll let that topic be psycology. Now we present this person with an unfortunate dilemma. For a particular hypothesis, they observe a significant amount of peer reviewed literature asserting empirical evidence in the…
Hmm... So here is an interesting thought experiment. Suppose you take a person with some appreciable intelligence (at least average) but no particular knowledge about a certain topic. In this instance, we'll let that topic be psycology. Now we present this person with an unfortunate dilemma. For a particular hypothesis, they observe a significant amount of peer reviewed literature asserting empirical evidence in the…
In your thoughts experiment, make your refuting paper a slick Netflix documentary and you have the state we live in now.
Documentaries providing new narratives to cleanly refute the old ones - all the while promoting social awareness - seem to be very "in" these days.
"A bird in hand is worth two in the bush" is a popular saying with its equivalent in almost every culture.
Diversification which is studied, recommended and practiced by almost every investor, CEO, child... Is related to loss aversion.
There are many more real life examples of loss aversion.
Hmm... So here is an interesting thought experiment. Suppose you take a person with some appreciable intelligence (at least average) but no particular knowledge about a certain topic. In this instance, we'll let that topic be psycology. Now we present this person with an unfortunate dilemma. For a particular hypothesis, they observe a significant amount of peer reviewed literature asserting empirical evidence in the…
The reproducibility "crisis" is not a crisis, it is a fundamental limitation of the scientific method for things that depend on a greater number of variables, on which a lot are unobservable and/or not known.
Hmm... So here is an interesting thought experiment. Suppose you take a person with some appreciable intelligence (at least average) but no particular knowledge about a certain topic. In this instance, we'll let that topic be psycology. Now we present this person with an unfortunate dilemma. For a particular hypothesis, they observe a significant amount of peer reviewed literature asserting empirical evidence in the…
You either have to follow consensus of the experts, or, to go contrary to consensus, you must understand the consensus well enough to be one of the experts.
Down any other road lies pop-sci nonsense. It's incredibly easy to be a wrong contrarian, when you don't actually understand what you are attacking.
The Ikea effect is a form of loss aversion. This alone shows that someone hasnt done their homework. "A bird in hand is worth two in the bush" is a popular saying with its equivalent in almost every culture. Diversification which is studied, recommended and practiced by almost every investor, CEO, child... Is related to loss aversion. There are many more real life examples of loss aversion.
psychology as a discipline is not looking so hot these days
Loss aversion, and risk aversion as well, are themselves the economic pseudoscience that are based on the psychology of compulsive habits.
This article doesn’t really depict the research paper though. The author isn’t saying loss aversion isn’t real, just that it’s been over popularized in a way that isn’t founded in evidence. It also doesn’t address the other economic pseudoscience on the field, so you could quite literally write the opposite article as well.
Ironically when it was likey the media representation of “loss aversion” that broke the term to begin with.
psychology as a discipline is not looking so hot these days