criticism on BE - arcturus9/useful-link GitHub Wiki

• heuristic is not bias. it's better rational approach(by Gerd Gigerenzer)
  http://www.economicsonline.co.uk/Behavioural_economics/Criticisms_of_behavioural_economics.html

• the idea that most people are stupid ==> 어리석음 볼 수 있는 전문가 http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2016/01/behavioral_econ_1.html
  if your entire career is built around the idea that most people are stupid,
  and you're one of the select few to see through their stupidity,
  then you better be pretty sure that you have your facts right, or else have a thick skin.
  당신은 그들의 어리 석음을 통해 볼 수있는 몇 안되는 선수 ​​중 하나입니다. 그렇다면 당신은 당신의 사실이 옳은지, 그렇지 않으면 두꺼운 피부를 가지고 있는지 더 잘 확신 할 수 있습니다

• p29 "some preferences are rational" ==> into the realm of philosophy. (합리성 판단은 철학의 영역으로 넘긴다)
  https://web.stanford.edu/~hammond/ratEcon.pdf
  Full rationality is much more than mere structural consistency.
  This is especially true if one believes that full rationality also requires suitable attention to ethical values and respect for other people, as well as animals, etc. Such considerations, and the judgement that some preferences are rational while others are not, goes beyond traditional economics and into the realm of philosophy

• tanstaafl 등 좋은 comment 많은 질문 싸이트 https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=197678
  Kahneman's and Tversky's general thoughts on decision making: people have rapid intuitive/emotional judgments (system 1) that can systematically bias decisions, and slower deliberative judgments (system 2) that can help overcome these wrong "gut" reactions. Kahneman acknowledges that these gut reactions are often correct - he suggests that we wouldn't have evolved such processes if they always led us astray. However, he supports interventions that slow our thinking down to take advantage of system 2's deliberative approach, and stresses that people be encouraged to take full advantage of deliberative judgment.

Gigerenzer's view: Like K&T, he acknowledges that people rely often on heuristics in decision making. Unlike (sort of) K&T, he places more value on system 1 than system 2 because in his view, system 2 is limited by working memory and so may often struggle to actually help make better decisions, particularly for complex choices. He seems to place more trust in system 1 thinking, and argues that people should be better educated about statistical decision making and that through this familiarity with probability we will make better heuristic choices (he calls this the adaptive toolbox - basically suggesting that training is all that is needed to make better choices).

• Gigerenzer's normative critique of Kahneman and Tversky
  https://philpapers.org/archive/VRAGNC.pdf

• Why We Do What We Do (Behavioral economics under attack.)
  http://www.slate.com/articles/life/ft/2011/01/why_we_do_what_we_do.html

• Criticism from Wikipedia
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_economics

(1) 응답자에 일회성 의사 결정 문제에만 적용됨. 설문조사와 실제 market은 다르다는 주장.

• 일반화 된 경제 행위가 아닌 의사 결정의 모델이며 실험 참여자 나 설문 응답자에게 일회성 의사 결정 문제에 대해서만 적용될 수 있다고 지적

(2) 일관된 이론이 없어 관찰의 모음일 뿐

• 많은 수사학에도 불구하고 실제로 일관된 행동 이론이 없다는 것. 느슨하게 관련되거나 관련이없는 관찰의 모음.

(3) 설문 조사 기법에 회의적.

• 전통적인 경제학자들은 행동 경제학이 광범위하게 사용하는 실험 및 설문 조사 기법에 회의적. 경제학자들은 일반적으로 경제적 가치의 결정에서 명시된 선호도 (설문 조사)보다 선호도를 강조. 실험 및 설문 조사는 체계적 편향, 전략적 행동 및 인센티브 호환성의 위험이 있음.
  Traditional economists are also skeptical of the experimental and survey-based techniques which behavioral economics uses extensively. Economists typically stress revealed preferences over stated preferences (from surveys) in the determination of economic value. Experiments and surveys are at risk of systemic biases, strategic behavior and lack of incentive compatibility