Perhaps it has nothing to do with the ordering of the list? When I receive an email with a list of topics my email (OUTLOOK) window often cuts-off the entire list and places only the top few with "read further" line at the bottom. I sometimes click the first entry out of curiosity as it is convenient and enticing to do so - blame Facebook and other social media marketing tricksters.
There are lots of other politicians out there who also refuse to buy into right-wing economic nonsense, but who do so without proposing to scour the countryside in search of immigrants to deport, or to rip up our international economic agreements and start a trade war.
Thanks,
http://creditspoint.com/
Thanks,
http://creditspoint.com/
I would be willing to pay $X.99 for this article and not one penny more. I know a deal when I see one.
I really like the comment by the reader merc. Excellent perspective and will definitely shape my thinking on journalism. Although I did not get to any of the other comments, I suspect that they are not nearly as insightful.
In the same vein, does this important observation carry over to what general readers consume from newspapers? Since Craig's List all but put an end to the lucrative revenue flow from daily, weekly, and monthly classified ads, their has been a gradual in-house purge of many, and in some cases most, writers, reporters, editors, and photographers, forcing publications to increase their cherry-picking of more and more stories from just a handful of sources, The New York Times and the Associated Press for example, two of the most familiar names seen and credited, with, and here's the rub, the possibility of their losing, or experiencing an erosion of, impartiality.
The late great Steve Jobs knew that people were biased, hence, Apple, which is listed earlier in the phone book.
1
Why should not economists -- and any other professionals, for that matter -- be less irrational than the grey majority: they are all human. The saying "errare humanum est" has not been proven wrong ...
This is a well-known phenomenon, so well-known that it hardly merits mention here. The solution of randomizing the list is a good one, however.
Now I see why co-authors maneuver so vigorously for first-author position. Three personal ramifications of Mr. Irwin's analysis:
1. I will change my name so it starts with the letters "Aaa"
2. I will repost this comment hourly.
3. I still will not be an economist.
1. I will change my name so it starts with the letters "Aaa"
2. I will repost this comment hourly.
3. I still will not be an economist.
1
When we still used telephone books, there were always a lot of AAA's and Acmes etc used by businesses which wanted to be the first seen in any category. And there had been a lot of ( justified) hoohaw over how Google searches are gamed or arranged because whatever appears first has the most effective exposure. It may be most 'relevant' or not, but we often aren't going to search beyond a certain number (someone could investigate the typical number browsed before we tune out or go back to regular work...).
Randomizing the order of reports is a clever way to avoid creating bias; there is also a question of how a potential readers can effectively search through the haystack of research to focus on the most relevant, significant or useful
Randomizing the order of reports is a clever way to avoid creating bias; there is also a question of how a potential readers can effectively search through the haystack of research to focus on the most relevant, significant or useful
2
Great solution.
1
This phenomenon is precisely why so many Bernie Sanders supporters are upset with the placement of columns about him in the NYTimes -- in addition to the quantity and quality of said columns.... A rational reader assumes that a newspaper has a reason for placing articles on certain pages, and on certain locations on the page. The open question is whether there is more to this than simply an attempt to sell more newspapers?
2
You don't need to invoke irrationality to explain this observation. You just need to consider that people read from top to bottom and that people may not alway read the full list of papers in the email due to distractions or lack of time.
7
“Nothing new here,” indeed: The airlines mastered the process back in the eighties with the advent of computerized bookings through travel agents. The primary goal was placement of the airline’s schedule of a particular booking to appear on the “first screen” of the automated reservations systems programmed to show the most direct flights to destination. Travel agents saw little need to scroll beyond flight information reflected on the first screen page of the CRT.
Looking for a competitive edge, airlines embarked on creative ways for their schedules to appear on the first screen. The most notorious maneuver that exists to this day was the formation of “marketing partnerships” by U.S. airlines superimposing their brand to connecting destinations ultimately served by foreign air carriers that gave the appearance of a “direct” flight. Unfortunately, many an airline passenger does not “recognize there might be a bias” until they make the partnering connection onto an unknown brand.
Looking for a competitive edge, airlines embarked on creative ways for their schedules to appear on the first screen. The most notorious maneuver that exists to this day was the formation of “marketing partnerships” by U.S. airlines superimposing their brand to connecting destinations ultimately served by foreign air carriers that gave the appearance of a “direct” flight. Unfortunately, many an airline passenger does not “recognize there might be a bias” until they make the partnering connection onto an unknown brand.
This probably explains why the first comment to a NYT articles is likely to have more recommendations...
5
Some of them probably felt a little obligated to read at least one of the papers so they just clicked the first one and then that ended up being relevant to their research some of the time so they cited it. Nice solution. Case closed.
1
Nothing new here. When I was a junior litigation associate I was told emphatically when submitting papers to judges to be sure to put the most important arguments first. Judges and economist are first people,.
3
Traditional journalism always puts the most important information in the first few paragraphs because they know many, if not all, people will stop reading before the end of the article. That is, that is done unless they don't really want the most important facts to be noticed, in which case it's called "burying the lede" and the thing that should get wide attention is put as far down in the article as can possibly be managed.
I graduated Wharton undergrad at Penn. In 1989, when I was at Shearson, I cold called and spoke with about a dozen associate and assistant professors in the Accounting, Economics, and Finance departments at Wharton.
None of them traded in the stock or bond or futures markets. In fact, every one of them had their paychecks directly deposited into a joint account controlled and managed by their spouse. Each junior professor I spoke to received a cash allowance of $50 to $100 a week from their spouse, walked around with one or two credit cards, but did NOT carry a debit card against the joint account.
The behavior of those junior professors supports Neil Irwin's contention that economists can be just as irrational as the rest of us.
None of them traded in the stock or bond or futures markets. In fact, every one of them had their paychecks directly deposited into a joint account controlled and managed by their spouse. Each junior professor I spoke to received a cash allowance of $50 to $100 a week from their spouse, walked around with one or two credit cards, but did NOT carry a debit card against the joint account.
The behavior of those junior professors supports Neil Irwin's contention that economists can be just as irrational as the rest of us.
2
I don't get Big Guy's argument. Those assistant professors seemed pretty rational to me. They adopted a simple algorithm (let spouse do it; don't fork over money to high-cost broker) to save time and used their time trying to publish stuff that would get them lifetime tenure. A junior professor in my department who did otherwise would seem less than rational.
2
Well, just look at the stats in the NYT comments. Although many of the most recommended comments are penned by insightful, articulate people, they are usually posted early in the sequence and continue to accrue rewards based partly upon that fact.
18
Maybe that's why the NYT changed to posting Newest on top instead of having the comments appear in chronological order.
That and the NY Times picks also get outsize exposure because the default view eventually switches to them (I'm sure this is intended). Plus they often accept comments from people without green checks in large blocks with low frequency so being one of the last accepted comments can yield a lot of readers (and thus recommends since there is no down vote possibility).
You can choose whether to have newest on top or comments in chronological order. Either way has its frustrations.
1
"How Economists Can Be Just as Lazy as the Rest of Us" may have been a more appropriate headline here.
6
Many economists do not seem to understand that the law of supply and demand applies to labor as it does to goods and that an oversupply of labor cannot be fixed by importing more labor.
For one example, our misguided H1B visa program has decimated the STEM field, so that engineering students cannot get jobs out of college.
But perhaps if 650,000 H1B visa English-speaking and educated economists were allowed into the country and American economists were forced to train them to do their jobs, after which those economists would be put out to pasture at age 50, they might see the issue a bit differently.
Sure, it would not be a zero sum game if wages had kept up with inflation over the past four decades, as workers would have the disposable income to spend on services and goods, the basis of 70% of our economy, and the economy would grow and grow.
But alas...
For one example, our misguided H1B visa program has decimated the STEM field, so that engineering students cannot get jobs out of college.
But perhaps if 650,000 H1B visa English-speaking and educated economists were allowed into the country and American economists were forced to train them to do their jobs, after which those economists would be put out to pasture at age 50, they might see the issue a bit differently.
Sure, it would not be a zero sum game if wages had kept up with inflation over the past four decades, as workers would have the disposable income to spend on services and goods, the basis of 70% of our economy, and the economy would grow and grow.
But alas...
10
I don't think it's the economists who are pushing for the use of H1B visas.
Well. more than a quarter-century after behavioural economics was introduced, a major economic research institution accepts that "rationality" isn't what economists continue to assume it is. Perhaps by mid-century, economic models will incorporate this reality.
8
Most economists agree that a full 67 - 83 percent of their fellows will revise their latest pronosticasions in a reverse downward motion which may need to be amended positively on an ongoing basis as true facts as opposed to untrue facts emerge from research and of course taking into account the latest hokum theory of actual numbers. Most economists that is....
2
This change will increase the search costs for economists who are aware of the random assignment mechanism, and will increase their time on the NBER website, which can be monetized now with display ads.
I propose that NBER auction off the top spots on the list.
I propose that NBER auction off the top spots on the list.
1
Sequence order is am implied endorsement, even if
by an invisible, nameless authority. Assuming some
percentage of readers, users, or consumers are either
ambiguous about a subject or else lack confidence in
their own judgment, they select the top-listed article,
service offering, or product as having that implicit
endorsement from an unseen, nameless source.
This is not a new phenomenon. Machine politicians have
always believed strongly that capturing Row A on an
electoral ballot adds significantly to a candidate's vote
totals. The "random" selection of who got which Row
on a ballot regularly and predictably awarded Row A to
the machine candidate in Hudson County, New Jersey,
and in Cook County, Illinois, for several decades, as just
two examples.
by an invisible, nameless authority. Assuming some
percentage of readers, users, or consumers are either
ambiguous about a subject or else lack confidence in
their own judgment, they select the top-listed article,
service offering, or product as having that implicit
endorsement from an unseen, nameless source.
This is not a new phenomenon. Machine politicians have
always believed strongly that capturing Row A on an
electoral ballot adds significantly to a candidate's vote
totals. The "random" selection of who got which Row
on a ballot regularly and predictably awarded Row A to
the machine candidate in Hudson County, New Jersey,
and in Cook County, Illinois, for several decades, as just
two examples.
9
Irrationality hides right behind pragmatism.
1
Economists have known since the 60s that "full optimality" is irrational and that a unique optimum that accounts for decision costs is not well-defined. Therefore arbitrary decision rules are inevitable (Sidney Winter).
2
The Fed should be a bit circumspect with their Interest rate hike plans, especially since it will adversely impact many economies, particularly those in the developing world. Many of whom are suffering due to major shocks in the commodity prices globally.
In my blog post below, i outlined in great detail, how it will adversely affect economies such as the Ghanaian economy.
http://www.economist.com/news/21631955-worrying-build-up-borrowing-comin...
In my blog post below, i outlined in great detail, how it will adversely affect economies such as the Ghanaian economy.
http://www.economist.com/news/21631955-worrying-build-up-borrowing-comin...
Until the recent advent of behavioral economics, economists assumed that humans act rationally. This made them rational??
12
Even paranoid schizophrenics can act rationally on their hallucinations.
The information overload is a challenge, but hopefully the NBER's authors and readers will find ways to get relevant information to the right audience, better than sending one undifferentiated list of papers to everybody.
In the meantime, note that rationality has objective support that goes beyond subjective thoughts like "People ought to be rational" or "Irrational people are dumb," etc.
"Irrational" economic acts like circular preferences and failure to maximize profits risk confronting Darwinian dynamics. A person with circular preferences can become a "money pump" (look it up) and run out of money. So demand curves that are valid for any length of time probably mainly represent buyers who don't have circular preferences. Similarly, a firm that doesn't adopt cost-reducing opportunities is at risk of not being represented in the supply curve before long, if the competition does cut costs.
In the meantime, note that rationality has objective support that goes beyond subjective thoughts like "People ought to be rational" or "Irrational people are dumb," etc.
"Irrational" economic acts like circular preferences and failure to maximize profits risk confronting Darwinian dynamics. A person with circular preferences can become a "money pump" (look it up) and run out of money. So demand curves that are valid for any length of time probably mainly represent buyers who don't have circular preferences. Similarly, a firm that doesn't adopt cost-reducing opportunities is at risk of not being represented in the supply curve before long, if the competition does cut costs.
1
The on-going ignorance of economists as to how humans make choices and decisions is always stunning. The rationality assumptions that are still the most "economic" models have been under attack since the 1940s. Herbert Simon was the most prominent critic of the earlier era (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/simon/work.html); he even won a Nobel Memorial Prize for the work among his many other awards. This line of criticism was augmented by decades of research by psychologists including the behavioral decision-making strand initiated by Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman.
Alas, the rationality assumptions live on to build models that explain everything and predict nothing. The society continues to assume that the "experts" who are "economists" have something useful to say about how to solve the many important, practical problems in the real world. We all pay for this delusion. Think austerity.
The NBER sieve for judging papers should take strong account of how well the author(s) know the history of their topic. It is embarrassing that order effects would surprise any respectable scholar of decision-making. Did the authors of this paper delivering the surprise know anything about the long history of the topic? If not, why not?
Alas, the rationality assumptions live on to build models that explain everything and predict nothing. The society continues to assume that the "experts" who are "economists" have something useful to say about how to solve the many important, practical problems in the real world. We all pay for this delusion. Think austerity.
The NBER sieve for judging papers should take strong account of how well the author(s) know the history of their topic. It is embarrassing that order effects would surprise any respectable scholar of decision-making. Did the authors of this paper delivering the surprise know anything about the long history of the topic? If not, why not?
12
As an economist, I can say that this is pure non-sens. there is cost associated with reading. A cognitive cost. Reading can be tiresome. Its perfectly rational for an individual to limit his reading to the first result of a google search or read the papers that are listed first. Reading take time and energy and these are limited resources. If there is not indication that what is on the bottom of the list will offset the cost of reading the whole listing a rational individual will marrow his reading to the first paper listed.
6
So naturally you married the first person you dated? Nothing like rationality, a.k.a. rationalizing.
12
A lot of people do marry the first and only person they have ever dated. Before the dating website era, there used to be a significant cost associated with finding the right mate. Some people don't want to waste their time finding "the right one" they just want to settle for what is available now. There is nothing irrational there. Same thing for a Job search, some people just settle for the first job that is offered to them especially after a long bout of unemployment.
2
But the article didn't say that it's irrational to read the first article. The irrational part is that the first articles received are assumed to be the most valuable (that is, read and cited most), whereas actually they were merely sent out in the order in which the organization received them. It's irrational because an accident of timing is applied as if it were an indication of value.
What's the pure nonsense?
What's the pure nonsense?
6
The oft maligned economists get a bad rep because the most prominently cited economists are influenced by their own political bias. Krugman may be brilliant but with a true leftward leaning bias. Economists that let data tell a story with a multi-variable regression analysis will be without bias (hopefully). The rest are mostly hired hands for mainstream media which means polar left or polar right.
7
What proof do you have that Krugman's analyses are based on a "true leftward leaning bias" rather than on looking at the numbers, perhaps not with a multi-variable regression analysis but with some other form of statistical study? Seems to me your own bias is showing.
You have to love the assumption trotted out here that economists are, for the most part, much more rational than many of the rest of us. Economists are responsible for quite a bit of the scaffolding that props up the ongoing catastrophe that is global techno-industrial capitalism.
29
Economists "Just as irrational" as the rest of us? Frequently, they are more irrational than the rest of us.
23
Order effects were frequently studied and taught by psychologists specializing in verbal learning in the sixties.
5
Fifties.
This is why everyone wants a say in how Google ranks its search results, especially Google's competitors...
15
not for the first time, economists "discover" something that business people have been exploiting for decades. Ever see the Yellow Page? AAAA-1 Swimming Pool Care. etc. In the 1950s Max Corden and others developed the concept of "effective tariffs, " i.e. that a producer of a product with tariffs that were higher than those on his inputs enjoyed super-high protection; guess what, the pattern of tariffs in almost every country was low in inputs and high on final products. General Motors got more protection than US Steel.
There's a lot of economic content in common sense.
There's a lot of economic content in common sense.
16
Case in Point
In the mass news media, the three economic demons - the budget deficit, national debt and government spending - are typically top line stories and the unanimous opinion among politicians is always that they must be reduced.
Yet there is no evidence that reducing any of the demons would have a positive effect on the economy or job creation. In fact, there is substantial evidence that increasing all three would be highly beneficial. Given the prominence of the three demons in the MSM, however, there is little chance of changing policies. We are simply locked into delusional thinking by the prominence of the reporting. Rational policy making is impossible because of perception, not truth.
In the mass news media, the three economic demons - the budget deficit, national debt and government spending - are typically top line stories and the unanimous opinion among politicians is always that they must be reduced.
Yet there is no evidence that reducing any of the demons would have a positive effect on the economy or job creation. In fact, there is substantial evidence that increasing all three would be highly beneficial. Given the prominence of the three demons in the MSM, however, there is little chance of changing policies. We are simply locked into delusional thinking by the prominence of the reporting. Rational policy making is impossible because of perception, not truth.
22
The debt is irrelevant, the deficit only matters as the US approaches full utilization of all the idle resources in the economy and government spending is nearly always a more is better proposition. The MSM and neoliberal economics are stuck in gold standard thinking and the economy is suffering for it.
10
Even Herbert Hoover Increased the Deficit from FY1930-33.
And he got the Hoover Dam built - the largest construction project in history at that time.
What has this generation built by comparison? All we have to show for the trillions of dollars spent are the wasted wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And he got the Hoover Dam built - the largest construction project in history at that time.
What has this generation built by comparison? All we have to show for the trillions of dollars spent are the wasted wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
17
Have to agree in general with the facts and the spirit of the comment. But I'm not sure what it has to do with the on-going ignorance of economists as to how real humans and organizations make decisions and what non-economists have learned over the years.
1