Very interesting Prof. Page. I am a 3rd year PhD student in Economics, interested in behavioral topics and have been struggling to deal with some of the points you write about in this post. I can't help but feel discouraged that some of behavioral economics has devolved into clever hair splitting, e.g. identifying a new bias in a new context, and that there are few policy implications that can be drawn from the research. As I start to narrow in on a dissertation topic (I am interested especially in the intersection of behavioral and environmental economics) do you have any advice as to how to avoid this trap?
It is common for a successful scientific field to eventually overdo what was initially appealingly novel in its approach. Standard behavioral economics results are still intriguing, and if you are interested in environmental economics, there are a few books on the interplay between the two fields that you might find interesting. Beyond specific applications, the future of behavioral economics will likely not involve merely chasing biases. In future posts, I will highlight several directions in which research is advancing at the frontier. You will also find a comprehensive overview of behavioral economics from that perspective in my book "Optimally Irrational."
I am a 4th-year Applied Psychology PhD student specializing in behavioral economics and Optimally Irrational is a book I wish existed at the start of my doctorate. My advisor is a hardcore Skinnerian and his approach to behavioral economics downplays cognitive biases while placing more emphasis on how behavior is selected by consequences in the environment. In other words, behavior is neither rational or irrational but adaptive to the context. Because of my training, I'd consider myself relatively immune from "bias bias". I have purchased the book and subscribed to the blog and I look forward to learning more from you.
Very interesting Prof. Page. I am a 3rd year PhD student in Economics, interested in behavioral topics and have been struggling to deal with some of the points you write about in this post. I can't help but feel discouraged that some of behavioral economics has devolved into clever hair splitting, e.g. identifying a new bias in a new context, and that there are few policy implications that can be drawn from the research. As I start to narrow in on a dissertation topic (I am interested especially in the intersection of behavioral and environmental economics) do you have any advice as to how to avoid this trap?
It is common for a successful scientific field to eventually overdo what was initially appealingly novel in its approach. Standard behavioral economics results are still intriguing, and if you are interested in environmental economics, there are a few books on the interplay between the two fields that you might find interesting. Beyond specific applications, the future of behavioral economics will likely not involve merely chasing biases. In future posts, I will highlight several directions in which research is advancing at the frontier. You will also find a comprehensive overview of behavioral economics from that perspective in my book "Optimally Irrational."
I am a 4th-year Applied Psychology PhD student specializing in behavioral economics and Optimally Irrational is a book I wish existed at the start of my doctorate. My advisor is a hardcore Skinnerian and his approach to behavioral economics downplays cognitive biases while placing more emphasis on how behavior is selected by consequences in the environment. In other words, behavior is neither rational or irrational but adaptive to the context. Because of my training, I'd consider myself relatively immune from "bias bias". I have purchased the book and subscribed to the blog and I look forward to learning more from you.
Thanks. Indeed I wrote it in large part for the next generation of behavioural scientists. I hope you like it!