我64岁时:折扣、时间偏好和个人身份When I’m 64: Discounting, Time Preference, and Personal Identity |
|
课程网址: | http://videolectures.net/mitworld_frederick_dtppi/ |
主讲教师: | Shane Frederick |
开课单位: | 耶鲁大学 |
开课时间: | 2014-06-06 |
课程语种: | 英语 |
中文简介: | 哲学家和经济学家都无法令人满意地解释决策过程中的一些古怪方面,比如为什么大多数人选择在未来两周接受30分钟的按摩,而不是几个月后接受45分钟的按摩。谢恩·弗雷德里克(shanefrederick)从不同的角度对这些偏好进行了梳理,并提出了理性思维在多大程度上推动人类选择的问题。 弗雷德里克的演讲着眼于人们在做出选择时如何权衡未来。弗雷德里克说,一些研究表明,“人们对未来的重视程度较低,他们对未来效用的贴现就像银行家对未来收入流的贴现一样。”。但弗雷德里克引用的其他研究表明,人们喜欢把最好的留到最后。在排序过程中,研究参与者选择吃草莓,甘草,然后果冻豆——坚持“以后更好”,在这种情况下,是最甜的食物。在另一个喜欢“改进顺序”的例子中,受试者选择先在普通的希腊烤肉架用餐,然后是一家高档的法国餐厅。但在一个“奇怪的偏好逆转”中,人们选择了为“下降序列”支付更多的钱,他们会先在昂贵的法国餐厅就餐,然后在希腊烤肉店用餐。人们的偏好存在不一致性,这一直困扰着不同学科的思想家。 根据弗雷德里克的观点,经济学家们认为品味是没有争议的,而哲学家们更倾向于认为理性需要对未来有所关注。弗雷德里克指出,在这样的辩论中,我们都有利害关系。在现实世界中,个人会对当前的行为做出决定,这些行为会对未来产生影响,比如喝酒、锻炼身体和晒黑。社会决定接种疫苗和开发影响气候的能源。人类是否重视或低估未来生命?弗雷德里克指出,一项研究要求人们在方案a中做出选择,即在你这一代人中拯救300人的生命,但在你的子孙后代时代却没有生命;或者方案B,在你这一代人中,以及在以后的每一代人中,都能挽救100人的生命。80%的参与者更喜欢B计划,因为它看起来更公平。但弗雷德里克警告说,人们是否清楚地把自己的未来,或他人的未来,仍然是一个持续的争议,很大程度上取决于研究人员如何界定他们的研究和问题。 |
课程简介: | Neither philosophers nor economists can satisfactorily explain some quirky aspects of decision-making, such as why most people elect to receive a 30-minute massage in the next two weeks, as opposed to a 45-minute massage a few months down the road. Shane Frederick teases apart preferences like these, coming at them from different perspectives, and raises questions about the degree to which rational thinking drives human choices. Frederick’s talk looks at how people weigh the future when making choices. Some studies have shown that “people give less weight to the future – they discount future utility the way bankers discount future streams of income,” says Frederick. But other research Frederick cites demonstrates that people like to save the best for last. In ordering a sequence, study participants chose to eat strawberries, then liquorice, and then jelly beans -- holding out for “the better thing later,” in this case, the sweetest treat. In another example of people preferring “improving sequences,” subjects chose to dine at a quotidian Greek grill first, followed by a fancy French restaurant. But in a “weird preference reversal,” people chose to pay more for a “declining sequence,” where they would eat first at the expensive French restaurant, and then at the Greek grill. There is incoherence in people’s preferences, which has long puzzled thinkers from different disciplines. According to Frederick, economists say there’s no arguing with tastes, while philosophers prefer to think that rationality requires some concern for the future. We all have a stake in such debates, points out Frederick. In the real world, individuals make decisions about current behaviors that have future impacts, such as drinking, exercising, and tanning. Societies make decisions about vaccinations and tapping energy resources that impact the climate. Do humans value or discount future life? Frederick notes a study that asked people to choose between Program A, which saves 300 lives in your generation, but no lives in your children’s and grandchildren’s time; or Program B, which saves 100 lives in your generation, and in each of the succeeding generations. 80% of participants preferred Program B, because it seemed fairer. But Frederick cautioned that whether people clearly place a value on their future selves, or the future of others remains a continuing controversy, with much depending on how researchers frame their studies and questions. |
关 键 词: | 偏好; 品味; 理性思维 |
课程来源: | 视频讲座网 |
数据采集: | 2020-11-30:yxd |
最后编审: | 2020-11-30:yxd |
阅读次数: | 73 |