Behavioral economics is, basically, social psychology (which has the worst replication rate in the behavioral sciences). It shouldn't be lumped in with econ.
1. I would distinguish between behavioral economics and experimental economics
2. The problems seem to arise mostly in behavioral economics (BE)
3. The deeper problem seems to be that BE is presented as a research program, but it is a political project. More precisely, as I have been trying to argue for a while, BE has an exoteric program (provide an empirical foundation to the study of human economic and strategic behavior) and an esoteric one (destroy the foundation of rational choice and thus of economics as a science).
Yes, I think. It’s fair to say that the “heuristics and biases” school was built in opposition to the then highly influential rational model of decision-making. The pendulum is now swinging back towards an interest into rational/adaptive explanations. I discuss this here (https://open.substack.com/pub/lionelpage/p/not-another-bias), and extensively in my book Optimally Irrational.
I wouldn't use "questionable research practice" to refer to data changing and thus lump it in with problems like using underpowered samples. There's nothing questionable about outright fraud.
Behavioral economics is, basically, social psychology (which has the worst replication rate in the behavioral sciences). It shouldn't be lumped in with econ.
1. I would distinguish between behavioral economics and experimental economics
2. The problems seem to arise mostly in behavioral economics (BE)
3. The deeper problem seems to be that BE is presented as a research program, but it is a political project. More precisely, as I have been trying to argue for a while, BE has an exoteric program (provide an empirical foundation to the study of human economic and strategic behavior) and an esoteric one (destroy the foundation of rational choice and thus of economics as a science).
I can elaborate….
Aldo Rustichini
Yes, I think. It’s fair to say that the “heuristics and biases” school was built in opposition to the then highly influential rational model of decision-making. The pendulum is now swinging back towards an interest into rational/adaptive explanations. I discuss this here (https://open.substack.com/pub/lionelpage/p/not-another-bias), and extensively in my book Optimally Irrational.
I wouldn't use "questionable research practice" to refer to data changing and thus lump it in with problems like using underpowered samples. There's nothing questionable about outright fraud.
Good point. I amended the sentence for clarity.