Agnostic.com

7 3

LINK Is "loss aversion" a Fallacy ? - Scientific American

For many years, the concept of "loss aversion" was a cornerstone of behavioral economics. Now I have to read that it is based on a fallacy, that it is "not supported by the evidence" for it. How on earth is this possible?

As an explanation, the author writes:
"An idealized view of science is that theories are accepted or rejected based solely on empirical evidence. In fact, science is not simply an objective search for truth, but also a social process, in which proponents of a theory must convince other scientists, through logic and argumentation, of how evidence should be interpreted.

However, this process advantages incumbent theories over challengers for a number of reasons, including confirmation bias, social proof, ideological complacency, and the vested interests of scientists whose reputations and even sense of self are tied to existing theories. A consequence is scientific inertia, where weak or ill-founded theories take on a life of their own, sometimes even gaining momentum despite evidence that puts their veracity in doubt."

If the author is right, we can doubt everything the so-called social sciences have been teaching us.

Matias 8 Aug 12
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

7 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

Scientific American is not a peer reviewed scientific journal. In the past I've run across a few articles from Scientific American that misrepresented established scientific consensus on a few different topics. I did not study this topic so I have no opinion on "Loss Aversion"

1

We can doubt everything the so-called social sciences have been teaching us.

We can doubt everything all sciences teach us.

We can doubt anything we choose.

Science gives us evidence, ideas and plausible explanations. It gives us electric cars and smart phones. It also gave us lobotomies and spontaneous generation. Sometimes science is wrong.

The best thing about science is it points out it's own faults. Both Psychology and Social Science are dealing with issues of repeatable results, so yeah many things they tell us should be doubted and studied further.

This is more an issue with how funding for studies is acquired and less about the value of the field. Sadly science often gets funded by corporations with vested interests, political endowments or religious organizations. This is something we should focus more on.

0

I think "loss aversion" is a fallacy. A simple understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics will support that notion.

But to generalize to the point that all of "social science" is wrong would be the fallacy of over generalization IMHO.

1

Authors are seldom right to that extent.

I think it was Penn Jillette that so aptly pointed out, any time an article’s headline is in the form of a question, the answer is no. Otherwise they would have rephrased it to be declarative.

@Wurlitzer I.... will try to remember that. Good point.

The same goes for conspiracy theorist questions, as in "Did the government pay Lee Harvey Oswald and 7 Cubans to kill JFK?" (I just pulled "7 Cubans" out of thin air, but that's how conspiracy theories work too.)

1

As a poker player, and in game theory/economics in general, I don’t have any doubts about loss aversion being real. I’ve observed it in myself and others first hand. It’s perhaps something that, by being aware of it, one can train themselves out of. Once you learn about it in the context of poker for example, you realize you can never consider yourself “pot commited” if the odds aren’t with your hand and you learn to know better when to fold ‘em. Throwing good money after bad isn’t gonna bring any of those former bad bets back, and just because it keeps you in the hand doesn’t improve your odds of winning. Yet people still play “on tilt” and commonly keep doing it.

So perhaps an increasing societal awareness of the phenomenon is making us generally less susceptible to it, but I highly doubt it’s fallacious in every way. I mean it is a fallacy in that it’s an illogical thought process for us to act on, but I believe people still do just that, and stopping that fallacious behavior is the point of making oneself aware of it. I’ll try to remember to check out the whole article when I get off work and see what they’re basing this claim on, but I’m highly skeptical that it doesn’t impact most of us and our decision making.

1

From the article:

“In sum, our critical review of loss aversion highlights that, even in contemporary times, wrong ideas can persist for a long time despite contrary evidence, and therefore, that there is a need to critically assess accepted beliefs and to be wary of institutional consensus in science and otherwise.”

Maybe we should doubt science in general, not just the social sciences. A lot of what is presented in the name of science is nothing but politics.

@Matias I hear you. Full disclosure: I'm in therapy and have been for a while. But I still have my share of skepticism toward the social sciences. I remember reading an article years ago that claimed that smokers are more likely to be depressed than nonsmokers, and I couldn't help but wonder if depressed people were just more likely to smoke. Interpretation is everything.

2

I've an MS in clinical psychology. Got it in the late 70s while still on active duty as a form of acceptable "therapy" for what now is labeled PTSD.
I'm confident that most if not all the "soft" sciences are merely conjecture, as repeatable results of experimental situations never seem to occur. The stuff is not without merit and usefulness. But calling it "science" seems a stretch.

I would think the bigger issue is the complexity of the thing being studied. Humans are so complex that I would think it would be extremely difficult to arrive at more than generalities where human behaviour is concerned. Add in the biases that then exist interpreting the data from a study, and it becomes obvious that there is a lot of room for error. But over time and many studies we can still get a good general idea of behaviour, it just won't ever be as concrete as a hard science. Also it would be a lot easier to apply to big groups than individuals. But to say it is merely conjecture seems a bit extreme. It's just hard to get fully repeatable results with so much complexity and so many variables.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:153931
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.