ENGLISH: This was the best book I read in 2021. I had some hard time finding it here, since it was released late in 2021, and is a Brazilian book. BetENGLISH: This was the best book I read in 2021. I had some hard time finding it here, since it was released late in 2021, and is a Brazilian book. Better late than never.
I had never thought I would have any interest in Medicine. Two factors attracted me to this book, though: (1) the bizarre clash between Science and magic thought provoked and exposed by this crazy Covid-19 pandemic taking place for millions of people to watch — and participate in — all over the world through news media and especially social media; and (2) my interest in Methodology of Science, which was already underway and growing since I have been studying Behavioral Economics for the last three years, whose “favorite sport” is to slam Neoclassical assumptions (as per Steven Pinker’s funny reference in his 2021 released “Rationality” - my 2nd favorite of 2021).
Still a relatively recent trend, Evidence-Based Science is not just a new branch of science; it's a different way of thinking. It is seeing and interpreting reality in a broader, less emotional and biased, skeptical, investigative, and more nuanced way.
Descending from the Socratic method, going through many scientists of the like of Bayes, Popper, Kahneman & Tversky, and many more, flirting increasingly with data science, the field still seems more adapted to hard and biological sciences.
In Medicine, the Evidence-Based Medicine movement is said to have started in 1981 with a series of articles published by a group of clinical epidemiologists at McMaster University (Hamilton, Ontario, Canada), led by Dr David Sackett. The term “evidence-based medicine” was first coined by Gordon Guyatt, who was one of Sackett's mentees in 1991 (https://academic.oup.com/asj/article/...).
Human sciences such as Economics and Psychology are also trying to adapt themselves to use its methods — but not without a lot of criticism.
I came across this book following some serious doctors and scientists on social media (the co-author and organizer included) and was reluctant to start it since I am a law professional and the book is about medicine. The decision to read it could not have been better. Written by young Brazilian doctors and researches, the book conveys explanations of complicated concepts such as Bayesian reasoning and method with impressive didacticism. The reader leaves it with the impression that Medicine has always been like that, and could never have been different, though oddly enough it is not, and the current times have amplified this shocking difference. Not to mention how esthetically pleasant the book is, which stimulates reading.
If you don't want to disturb your doctor, don't read it!
PORTUGUÊS: Para mim, o melhor livro de 2021. Tive dificuldade em encontrá-lo aqui, pois foi lançado no final de 2021 e é um livro brasileiro. Antes tarde do que nunca.
Nunca pensei que me interessaria por Medicina. No entanto, dois fatores me atraíram para este livro: (1) a bizarra disputa entre Ciência e pensamento mágico provocada e exposta por essa pandemia maluca de Covid-19 que está ocorrendo para milhões de pessoas assistirem — e participarem — em todo o mundo através da mídia e especialmente das redes sociais; e (2) meu interesse em metodologia científica, que já estava em andamento e crescendo, pois eu já estava estudando Economia Comportamental há três anos, cujo “esporte favorito” é atacar os pressupostos neoclássicos (conforme a engraçada referência de Steven Pinker em seu livro "Racionalidade", lançado em 2021 - meu segundo favorito de 2021).
Ainda uma tendência relativamente recente, a Ciência Baseada em Evidências não é apenas um novo ramo científico; é uma maneira diferente de pensar. É ver e interpretar a realidade de uma forma mais ampla, menos emocional e enviesada, cética, investigativa e com mais nuances.
Descendente do método socrático, passando por muitos cientistas como Bayes, Popper, Kahneman e Tversky, entre outros, e flertando cada vez mais com data science, o campo parece ainda mais adaptado às ciências exatas e biológicas.
Na Medicina, diz-se que o movimento da Medicina Baseada em Evidências começou em 1981 com uma série de artigos publicados por um grupo de epidemiologistas clínicos da Universidade McMaster (Hamilton, Ontário, Canadá), liderado pelo Dr. David Sackett. O termo “medicina baseada em evidências” foi cunhado pela primeira vez por Gordon Guyatt, que foi um dos pupilos de Sackett em 1991 (https://academic.oup.com/asj/article/...).
Algumas ciências humanas, como a Economia e a Psicologia, também estão tentando se adaptar para usar seus métodos, porém, com muitas críticas.
Eu encontrei este livro seguindo alguns médicos e cientistas sérios nas redes sociais (incluindo o próprio autor e organizador) e estava relutante em iniciá-lo, já que sou um operador do Direito e o livro é sobre Medicina. A decisão de lê-lo não poderia ter sido melhor, no entanto. Escrito por jovens médicos e pesquisadores brasileiros, o livro traz explicações de conceitos complicados, como raciocínio e método Bayesiano, com didatismo impressionante. O leitor sai com a impressão de que a Medicina sempre foi assim e nunca poderia ter sido diferente, embora estranhamente não seja, e os tempos atuais têm escancarado essa diferença chocante. Tudo isso sem mencionar como o livro é esteticamente agradável de ler, o que estimula a leitura.
Se você não quiser perturbar seu médico, não leia!...more
Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s “The Social Contract” posits some enduring Western republican principles, like the condemnation of absolutist power and the suJean-Jacques Rousseau’s “The Social Contract” posits some enduring Western republican principles, like the condemnation of absolutist power and the support of individual freedom. Reading old philosophers hardly accounts for a pleasant experience, though.
Rousseau is famous for his more positive approach to human nature than other contractualists such as Thomas Hobbes. He does not focus on his famous “good savage” theory in “The Social Contract”, though it is an important concept as it precedes his political thinking developed in this book.
Long before the formation of the first social groups, humans were “good savages”, innocent, independent, and free. This was until a first person drove a stake into the ground proclaiming that that piece of land was his, and others did not impede him. This proclamation of private property was the origin of the human nature corruption. However, as this happened and societies started to form, humans needed to organize their lives together to avoid insecurity and count on the benefits of living in larger social groups.
That’s where choosing among the various forms of possible political systems is important, since it can give humans freedom back, though this type of freedom is completely different from the one they enjoyed during the “good savage” state. The new aimed freedom presupposes humans benefitting from living in society. Rousseau considers that the primitive freedom was more like an independence, while the new aimed one would be more appropriately freedom in its essence, filtered by the general will, which is the base and north of a society. Going through all Rousseau’s broad — and confusing — theoretical and historical considerations about the forms and institutions of government or passages on ancient Roman History is useless here, since most of them have only historical value.
The book has undeniable historical importance in Political Science, though it is more historical than important today in my opinion. Three stars due to such historical value, which inspired the heads of the French Revolution....more
It is a pleasant read this clearly written, very well structured book on History of Economic Thought.
Similarly to other books on the matter (https://It is a pleasant read this clearly written, very well structured book on History of Economic Thought.
Similarly to other books on the matter (https://www.goodreads.com/review/show... and https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...), this one covers the main ideas of the all-time greatest economists, gives context of time and place of when and where they lived, and tells some anecdotes of their lives. The difference is that this book’s main idea is to evoke those economists to explain contemporary facts and hot topics of Macroeconomics, such as the 2008 crisis, the rise of China, the current state of the international commerce, gains and losses due to globalization, effects of technology on employment, etc.
On the one side, it is interesting to assess these more recent facts in light of the great thinkers’ lessons, trying to get what in their intellectual production transcends their times and could be applied today. On the other, sometimes it feels a bit awkward someone affirming without caveats, as Linda Yueh does, that economists X and Y would conclude this and that about facts occurred many years or centuries after their deaths, since the way they think was evidently product of their times and contexts. It is an interesting intellectual exercise nonetheless.
This book is for everyone interested in Economics without need of specialized background, as Linda Yueh writes pretty clearly and didactically....more
Having read this book soon after Roger Backhouse’s The Penguin History of Economics (História do Pensamento Econômico), it is impossible not to comparHaving read this book soon after Roger Backhouse’s The Penguin History of Economics (História do Pensamento Econômico), it is impossible not to compare them.
All the same impressions on the difficulty of summarizing thousands of years of human economic history, and selecting the “most important” authors and schools of thought and describing them satisfactorily apply here (https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...).
Some additional criticism of Heilbroner’s work may come from the lack of coverage of important characters and schools of thought from the late 19th and also the 20th century. Differently from Backhouse, Heilbroner presents a much narrower yet more focused selection of the greatest characters of all time who tried to explain the economic phenomenon. Backhouse, on the contrary, tries to give a more complete view by covering not only the greatest authors, but also other relevant and most recent tendencies and schools of thought — at the expense of the reading fluidity. Heilbroner basically concentrates his attention on Smith, Ricardo, Mill, Utopian Socialists, Marx, Veblen, Keynes, and Schumpeter.
I read a Brazilian edition of this book from the early 90s, thus many of the criticisms I have may come from the fact that a lot has happened since then. Notwithstanding, questions such as why so much about Utopian Socialists or Thorsten Veblen while Alfred Marshall appears in just a few paragraphs, or the absence of mentioning the importance of the Chicago School, or even any mention of the Austrian School, come to mind. The authors’ option of covering only the greatest Economists of all time and concentrating on them is valid nonetheless.
Three aspects make this a very enjoyable read: (i) the clarity of Heilbroner’s style makes the explanation of Keynes’s and Schumpeter’s complex points of view incredibly easy, for instance; (ii) the presence of many anecdotes of the authors’ biographies make the reader sometimes think the book is a pleasant narrative prose; and (iii) the author’s opinions and criticism, especially in the final chapter, close the book almost perfectly....more
Steven Pinker is one of the best Science communicators/popularizers today.
In this book, he summarizes the modern scientific theories and research on rSteven Pinker is one of the best Science communicators/popularizers today.
In this book, he summarizes the modern scientific theories and research on rationality with superb didacticism and good humor. It covers mainstream economics’ rational choice theory, the behavioral economics postulates dedicated to slam the former (pointing out the flaws in human judgment such as heuristics and biases), Bayesian reasoning, correlation v. causation, and human beliefs in mythology and fake news. Despite the extreme complexities in each of these topics, Pinker is successful in conveying the main contents and messages very lightly and objectively.
I couldn't help but think, though, that a complete work on the subject matter should first include a bit of historical perspective on how human rationality appeared and evolved, going through some neuroscience, and offering a prospect on where it may go. I am sure that such a work would have more than 1,000 pages, though. Perhaps the advice for the reader who wants to get a good summary and overview of all that would be to start with Yuval Noah Harari's “Sapiens”, then read this one, and then go back to Harari with his “Homo Deus”. It would still be a summary, though very comprehensive. The reader should take into account each authors' points of view: Harari is pessimistic in laying out a future where humans should be replaced by AI; Pinker is optimistic: he looks to the past and present and always recognizes how societies spectacularly evolved materially and in terms of quality of life, thanks to human rationality.
There could be no better book for me to close 3 years of readings on human choice and judgment!...more
In this conceptual book, Cass Sunstein unveils another “hidden” — although omnipresent — social phenomenon: sludge.
Using clean, straightforward languIn this conceptual book, Cass Sunstein unveils another “hidden” — although omnipresent — social phenomenon: sludge.
Using clean, straightforward language, and citing only the main ideas and results of a few relevant pieces of research to support arguments, this short, well-structured book presents: (i) the author’s definition of the term and the importance of identifying it; (ii) its foundations in human behavioral and cognitive flaws; (iii) its harmful effects on society; (iv) its (exceptional) positive effects and legitimate justifications; and (v) how to reduce or eliminate it by means of “Sludge Audits”.
Following his previous groundbreaking book Nudge (co-authored with Richard Thaler), Sunstein posits that sludge is a phenomenon similar to nudge, though instead of inducing people to act in a predetermined beneficial way without removing options, sludge discourages people from acting to access what would be good for them. It is not an evil nudge, as it does not steer people to choose a predetermined option; the result of sludge is rather on halting people, making them give up.
The approximation of the concept with the good old “bureaucracy” is inevitable, since Sunstein focuses to a great extent on sludge imposed by governments on citizens (obligations to fill out forms, waiting in lines, etc.). But the author makes it clear that sludge is also present in the private sector (ordeals to cancel subscriptions, need to mail companies forms to get cash backs, etc.).
Sunstein compellingly makes the case of combating sludge, since it steals people’s productive time, undermines exercise of rights, harms mostly poor people in need of easier access to social welfare programs, and even favors discrimination against groups.
It is another call for optimization of decisions with promising positive effects on society. It’s interesting to note though, how authors from behavioral economics avoid mentioning that their proposals increase efficiency. Out of the tons of books and papers I’ve read on the matter, not a single one emphasizes or even mentions that the solutions their authors propose could contribute to efficiency. Whether this is a way for them to differentiate themselves from mainstream economists, especially Chicagoans, who seem obsessed by it, or not, it’s an issue for further study…
This is another great book on social sciences that promises to spread a new concept around, and possibly make people aware of the phenomenon and hopefully encourage them to do something about it....more
I read around 75% of this one. I came across this book after starting to listen to some professionals of evidence-based medicine, which is a fascinatiI read around 75% of this one. I came across this book after starting to listen to some professionals of evidence-based medicine, which is a fascinating field using advanced scientific methods. Concepts such as Bayesian analysis, among others, represent a challenge to someone like me who deals with areas of knowledge (mostly Law and Economics) which are still far from using them. The prospect of understanding more deeply the constantly repeated phrase “correlation is not causation”, which has extensive application in many different areas (including Law and Economics), made me take courage and venture into it. Another motivation was my experience in noticing that scientific methods, language and concepts born in one field have been increasingly borrowed by others, signaling possible ambitious unifications.
However, I must acknowledge that this is too deep a trip into advanced notions of statistics and mathematics. The authors try their best to make the covered issues readable even to some greater public, but they weren’t successful in my opinion. The book requires the reader to have solid background in those fields, and even ones holding such knowledge would need to thoroughly concentrate and study what’s being read (which means reading some passages over and over). I have no doubt that this is a master piece on an absolutely relevant issue - it seems even like a solid framework for technology evolution. Unfortunately it is out of reach to those not into Exact Sciences. It would be unfair if I rated it.
Never mind. I may come back to it in the future if my studies drive me again to the issue....more
**spoiler alert** The authors identify and name another “hidden” social phenomenon present in decision-making: noise.
The term has already been utiliz**spoiler alert** The authors identify and name another “hidden” social phenomenon present in decision-making: noise.
The term has already been utilized in communication to designate those misunderstandings when the talker’s speech is unclear, ambiguous or vague, and/or the listener does not pay much attention or already has preconceptions about what’s been listened to.
To put it simply, noise refers to disparity in predictions or decisions, made by different people or even the same person repeatedly, in situations in which more uniformity would be expected or desired.
Differently from bias, which designates decisions going all in the same (incorrect) direction, noise designates scattered decisions, even when there is no objective predetermined referential decision to be made.
The authors exemplify it with: variance in insurance premiums depending on the underwriter analyzing the same case, disparities in severity of criminal sentences (or even acquittals) for the same criminal fact, hiring of employees, case handlers deciding on immigration or child care, diagnostic of diseases, reviews of school essays by teachers, etc.
As in many social phenomena, noise is hardly perceived by single individuals immersed in broad decision-making processes, but from a cold overview of statistics. That is why statistic-based decisions or forecasts are often counterintuitive, and sometimes even upset people, who refuse to accept them and cling fiercely to their (myopic) beliefs.
The authors address the frequent “romantic” criticism that decisions based on statistics and averages are often perceived as unfair — a cost-benefit analysis usually shows that the benefits by far outweigh the costs collectively (yes, pretty much utilitarian, I must acknowledge).
Naturally, the authors defend that algorithmic decisions are always superior than human-made ones, as they tend to eliminate noise. Nevertheless, they are also aware of recent discussions on algorithmic biases which sometimes commit scandalous mistakes such as discrimination against people. For the authors, it is just a matter of being attentive to those mistakes and adjust the algorithms properly, so human intervention tends to remain required.
There are also propositions of interesting methods to eliminate noise and reach more accurate decisions (decision hygiene), such as (i) the use of external observers to identify biases, (ii) more judges to assess the same case and then one judge takes the average and finally decides, and (iii) division of complex decisions (where people often hastily jump into overall, holistic conclusions about the target of assessment) into minor — and rigid — thematic decision environments.
Noise is one of those concepts which appears simple to understand once it is explained. Of course, such an insight supposes the hard work and sensitivity of some geniuses to identify and systematize it in the first place! Still, 400 pages seem too much and one can feel bored on and off. Yet when the phenomenon is put in context and perspective it is clear that it carries a lot of complexity....more
This book concerns a collection of short opinions from two of the most prominent names of the Chicago School on several issues posted on the blog theyThis book concerns a collection of short opinions from two of the most prominent names of the Chicago School on several issues posted on the blog they maintained together. Two of the brightest stars of Law & Economics swimming free-style in a demonstration of the essence of the mainstream economics’ way of thinking.
The opinions range from 2-3 pages maximum on very broad, complex and often polemic issues, so of course one cannot expect academic rigor - though there are clever arguments and a few interesting references for deepening arguments or data. The authors’ conclusions in each issue are not necessarily what matters, but the argumentative tools, and the reasoning method itself - which in fact constitute a great deal of what a school of thought normally proposes.
I can’t help noticing though that after reading a lot of materials on Behavioral Economics, the old mainstream method and style read too simplistic in many aspects, giving thus the impression that conclusions can indeed be impaired by the adoption of a simplistic model of utility maximization and perfect rationality, which is so dear to mainstream economics....more
I had known about the existence of this book, as I have been reading lots and lots of books and papers on behavioral economics for the last two years,I had known about the existence of this book, as I have been reading lots and lots of books and papers on behavioral economics for the last two years, but was not planning on reading it. Not reading this book, written by two Nobel Prize laureates, in the field I’ve been studying for so long, was a tough call to make.
“The time for changing subject has finally come”, said I after reading my 33rd paper — all of them between January and February 2021. In fact, the intention was to read just 4 papers relating Behavioral Science to Antitrust, and then “call it a day”. I hardly knew how deluded I was! Once you start reading these papers you may never stop if you don’t have some self control, as the number of references that pique your curiosity seem only to grow. That was how 4 became 33 (I also read Oren Bar-Gill’s excellent book “Seduction by Contract”, half of Herbert Simon’s groundbreaking book “Administrative Behavior”, and the first chapter of Paul Glimcher et al’s “Neuroeconomics” in this period).
At least I could see the light at the end of the tunnel when I was reading Cass Sunstein’s papers on “sludge” near the end of my list. Sunstein explicitly mentioned this book when he brought his concept of “sludge” together with the authors’ concept of “phishing for phools”. Done. This was the last straw — I definitely could not change subject before reading this last (I promise!) work on the matter.
Sludge, according to Sunstein, is basically the nudge for the bad; a factor in the environment, created with bad intent or not, that exploits a decision-maker’s cognitive failures by persuading him/her to do what is not necessarily good for him/her. Sunstein mainly exemplifies sludge as the excessive time wasted by the American public filling out forms with plenty of useless information, though he does not restrict the concept only to this type of situation.
In “Phishing for Phools”, Akerlof and Shiller not only give good and actual examples of cognitive failures exploited by companies, with some of them leading to bad economic results (notably the 2008 crisis), but scale their importance since they are part of the functioning of the economy - the authors include “phishing for phools” as a necessary and recognizable phenomenon in traditional economists’ so dear notion of “market equilibrium”. Market equilibrium is a reality, but it is achieved including or due to such exploitation, to which economists should start paying more attention.
The book was clearly written with the intention of being readable by the greater public and the authors achieved this goal with variable success throughout the book. It’s both a pleasant and instructional read....more
Humans are not perfect just like any product of human activity. Science itself has no ambition of being so — constant evolution from self correction iHumans are not perfect just like any product of human activity. Science itself has no ambition of being so — constant evolution from self correction is what matters.
That said, the broader the theme covered by a book, the harder to please every reader. Even though we know humans are not perfect, we tend to judge the things they do as if perfection existed — we disqualify things we consider far from perfection and praise others we consider close to it.
History of Economic Thought is one of those fields with a very ambitious though necessarily ungrateful task: to put together thousands of years of human economic activity, select what is “important”, give them a “fair” description and explanation, and in the end be quickly considered old as History goes on. “Important” and “fair” are inaccurate and open terms. That is where the biases and partiality of the historians — themselves a product of their time — take hold. So it is almost impossible for economic facts or ideas to be described by completely neutral or impartial historians.
In fact, summarizing thousands of years of History of Economics is a colossal challenge not only methodologically, in terms of selection of the relevant facts and schools of thought, but also analytically, as the historian must explain them “satisfactorily” — also a subjective term designating satisfaction from most of the readers with the descriptions and explanations given.
Despite all these challenges, Roger Backhouse does a good job in this very synthetic almost 400-page book. As mentioned, it is obviously impossible to cover everything and explain them with an omnipresent profundity in a single book. Though he shows great ability in uniting concision and some profundity. Backhouse can also be acknowledged as reasonably impartial and fair. His strong power of synthesis counts in his favor most of the times, though at others the reader may feel lost since some theories covered are very dry and difficult (not for nothing Economics was called the dismal science).
As mentioned, of course one could criticize the book for weak selection of Historical facts from bygone eras — which did not bother me at all, since I’m currently not interested in those ancient times —, or the lack of explanation about David Ricardo’s theory on comparative advantages in the foreign trade (about which the author explicitly mentions he is not covering), for instance. In my experience, the final parts covering the most modern economic theories and authors are where the book gets more stimulating. The “guided” bibliography at the end is very useful as readers interested in deepening the study can get good references from it.
This book is a good starting point as it stimulates curiosity and gives elements for further study. Far from perfect, as any other human work is, but very informative....more
**spoiler alert** Very well argued thesis on the role that behavioral failures play on some consumer contracts. Oren Bar-Gill analyses credit card, mo**spoiler alert** Very well argued thesis on the role that behavioral failures play on some consumer contracts. Oren Bar-Gill analyses credit card, mortgage, and cell phone contracts pointing out how traditional rational-choice, efficiency-based theory, and behavioral economics play out in explaining how they are designed.
The work is methodologically impeccable, identifying resemblances in such contracts, and proposing a rational-choice approach first, and then a behavioral economics one when the former is insufficient to explain. The only downside of such methodological rigor in this case is the presence of some repetition of arguments, since there are many common features and patterns in those three markets, but the author dedicates one chapter to each one of them.
In a nutshell, the author argues that consumers are variably affected by myopia and optimism, so providers respond by designing complex and multidimensional contracts.
The strategy is to look more competitive by making salient prices low (or zero), while increasing non-salient prices, a dimension that tends to be more protected from competition and where providers really earn money. The aggregate result is consumers choosing contracts that would not best fit their interests and providers profiting as quasi-monopolistic players even when facing competition. In other words, a massive failure in the demand matching the best provider - with distortion of competition, appropriation of consumer surplus, and inefficiency.
The author then proposes more disclosure mandates; not only regarding product-attributes, but mainly use-attributes. The solutions proposed seem uncertain and not easy though, as usage-disclosures may never be enough or adequate in matching the consumers’ needs. They may also be subject to the already known critiques of those who don’t like behavioral economics-based interventions, especially the paternalistic aspect of it.
This book is great and convincing, especially on the assessment and diagnosis of the phenomena identified....more
An interesting - and very fluent and didactic - tour through a bit of history and theories about randomness. The author alternates explanations of basAn interesting - and very fluent and didactic - tour through a bit of history and theories about randomness. The author alternates explanations of basic statistical concepts with important practical examples to illustrate the points. The book also enters into the applicability of randomness in the social sciences, running through some of the recent experimental behavioral research. Another good Science popularization book that encourages further study of the topics covered or just entertains....more
A very good science communication/promotion book about recent research on neuropsychology. The author takes the reader through interesting experimentsA very good science communication/promotion book about recent research on neuropsychology. The author takes the reader through interesting experiments on how complex our brains are when processing information and emotion, which areas in the brain are responsible for which kind of information, and on the strategies our brains use to believe, decide and make us act.
Most of all, Leonard Mlodinow, with easy and humorous narrative, gives cerebral context to some of our biases. Particularly interesting are data and experiments proving that an “unconscious” mind, whose existence had always been affirmed by ancient psychologists, really exists, interacts with the “conscious” mind, and influences us all the time.
This is another book that shows how psychology, neuroscience and even economics are getting closer to each other, possibly in a way that they will all merge soon.
Inevitable is the approximation of this brain double system theory (“conscious” and “unconscious”), which Mlodinow extensively discusses, with Daniel Kahneman’s System 1 (fast reactions and decisions) and System 2 (slow and thoughtful decisions).
However, there seems to be some discrete difference between both. D. Kahneman makes it clear that his theory is an abstract construct based on experiments and exterior observation, and has no intention to be correspondent to cerebral anatomy. Thus, there would be no use in trying to find specific areas in the brain responsible for each System, according to him.
The “conscious” and “unconscious” theory, on the other hand, is based on evidence found with the use of modern brain scan techniques (fMRI) along and concomitantly with behavioral experiments. Therefore, it is not that Kahneman’s System 1 would correspond 100% to the “unconscious”, but we can say that it is certainly influenced by it, or is how it often manifests itself in our irrational behavior. Kahneman emphasizes the type of decision and not where it was originated, while the description of the “unconscious” made by the neuroscience is more complex and tries to be more anatomically accurate. In the same way, System 2 would not be our “conscious”, but how we rationalize information we receive and act....more
Partially read. I was only interested in the “bounded rationality”-related parts of this book (Chapters I, IV, and V, and especially his 1997 commentaPartially read. I was only interested in the “bounded rationality”-related parts of this book (Chapters I, IV, and V, and especially his 1997 commentaries to each one of these). In fact, Herbert Simon makes his criticism clear against the notion of rational-choice, efficiency-based decisions, and “economic man” from traditional economics in this groundbreaking work. It seems almost natural that such an idea came from a social scientist with such a wide and diversified educational background in the study of the theory of Administration. It seems there is no better place than companies and organizations for the study of uncertainty and limited rationality when making decisions....more
Unlike other books on History of Economic Thought I have read, which select a group of famous economists and dedicate a chapter to each at a time (httUnlike other books on History of Economic Thought I have read, which select a group of famous economists and dedicate a chapter to each at a time (https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...), “The Marginal Revolutionaries” tells the history of the “Austrian School of Economics” in chronological order.
The result is an impressive historical research on the School and its contribution to liberalism, with plenty of details on facts, characters, and intellectual production. One can notice the difficulty in trying to summarize a school of thought as complex as the Austrian one, especially when so many of its authors had different degrees of relevance in the public debate throughout time with some different lines of thought. At risk of being superficial, some main characteristics could be listed, though: superiority of capitalism over socialism, heterodoxy, utility maximization, business cycles, international free trade, and aversion to State intervention. The book has little to say on the authors’ personal lives. It rather exposes and explains the School’s authors’ main ideas, though in fact it gives much more space to events that marked the history of the School’s authors - i.e., author A wrote book B, founded group C, moved to country D, etc., which sometimes can be boring, especially for those more interested in the School’s intellectual production.
It is nevertheless a very good introductory piece for contextualization and guidance for those interested in reading further on the famous and still relevant intellectual movement, which should of course imply reading the original authors: Menger, Böhm-Bawerk, Wieser, Mises, Schumpeter, Hayek, Machlup, Haberler, Morgerstern, and so on. Another upside is the author’s relative impartiality; writing in an elegant style, he really does not seem to have fallen in love with his object of study, which might be surprising considering the amount of work he certainly dedicated to it, yet it gives him credibility since Austrian School is almost always linked with ideological infatuation and polarization....more
A vast, mysterious, and fascinating theme addressed by probably one of the greatest masters of neuroscience. The book covers the interaction between hA vast, mysterious, and fascinating theme addressed by probably one of the greatest masters of neuroscience. The book covers the interaction between human rationality and feelings, how they are processed in our brains, how our bodies influence the whole process, and the resulting behaviors. An issue until not so long ago relegated mainly to philosophers (hence the reference to Descartes — cogito ergo sum, I think therefore I am), it has been increasingly elucidated by neuroscience, as detailed by the author.
Damásio’s premise is clear: the cliché which separates reason and emotion is simply wrong. Even though this seems obvious, the fact is that areas of knowledge (such as Economics, with its model of “Rational Man”) or even common sense (“listen to you heart”) have been affirming such separation, either just for methodological purposes or simply ignorance.
The book starts captivating, with an exciting narrative of a famous case of personality shift after an accident in a specific part of a person’s brain, even though all rational and organic functions were kept unaltered.
It is an outstanding read until about a third of the way through as the author refers to similar clinical cases and draws the differences in behavior depending on the part of the brain affected. Then, the author practically abandons anecdotes, and starts using dry, technical language to focus on his abstract theses describing how human brains work in processing different stimuli, the chains of reactions inside the brain and body involved, and the types of behavior produced. There are references to interesting research in the field here and there, though the book turns out to be mainly theoretical.
The book reflects the extreme difficulty in speaking to the greater public about neuroscience without counting on them holding prior knowledge of brain anatomy and human biology. If it weren’t for the general broad theme and thesis of the book and the anecdotal examples, mainly in the beginning and in one or another part in the middle, the book would be solely a technical book.
The general ideas and theses defended are inspiring anyway, making the read worthwhile for those interested in neuroscience....more
Fantastic book about the factors that influence and persuade people into doing and acting. Cialdini uses clear and fluid language to condense importanFantastic book about the factors that influence and persuade people into doing and acting. Cialdini uses clear and fluid language to condense important conclusions of serious experiments in social and behavioral science to extract straightforward, objective lessons. The factors mentioned are: reciprocation, commitment and consistency, social proof, liking, authority, and scarcity. Rich with a lot of practical examples, including anecdotes from his students in each of its chapters, and lessons for us to avoid being unduly exploited based on our reasoning failures and flaws, this book both instructs and entertains. It is not for any other reason that it strongly influenced serious work of the British Government on implementing nudges with positive results — see David Halpern’s Inside the Nudge Unit. The author also advised Barack Obama in his then campaign for the presidency, along with other social science giants....more
In this classic of World literature, George Orwell makes a clear allegory of the Russian Revolution, narrating how a political system supposedly promoIn this classic of World literature, George Orwell makes a clear allegory of the Russian Revolution, narrating how a political system supposedly promoted by the people themselves and arguably motivated by good intentions degenerates into the same or even worse problems than those of the previous system. All the typical features are there: declarations of principles of liberation from tyranny, of promotion of unrestricted equality, labor and dignity, and then internal power struggles, persecution and elimination of opponents, creation of an authoritarian elite, arbitrary change of rules, manipulation, propaganda, historical reinterpretation, spreading of fear of external threat, people’s ignorance and propensity to believe in fake news, etc. The story is very simple and short, but full of content, and has its historical importance. A nice read to close 2021!...more
Loading...
