Comments on: Shhh . . . Don't Say 'Recession.'

By: On Warnings

On Warnings — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 15:42:17 +0000

In the experiment you described, it appears as though the number that you had students write down functioned as some sort of prompt or exerted (very loose!) stimulus control over bids, which is interesting. Would you say this is accurate?

I wonder, though, if the social security experiment you described above is applicable to behavior in the natural environment, where there are many, many competing and interlocking contingencies, complex learning histories, and (perhaps most importantly) rules. When findings from basic behavioral labs do not generalize to the natural environment it is usually for the aforementioned reasons, and I would argue, largely due to complex rules and personal histories with rule-following.

Rule-governance behavior exerts a GREAT deal of control over language-able human’s behavior, and rules typically specify a contingency. A rule about studying might be, “If I study, I will get an A on the test.” Getting a good grade on the test is contingent (usually) on studying. Seems reasonable. We say that deciding to study on a test is rule-governed behavior, as the response (studying) to reinforcement (good grade on the test) delay is too great for a direct-acting contingency. An example of rule-governed behavior from your book may be the experiment on honesty and the 10 Commandments (Rule: “If I follow some honor code, I will be a good person, good things will happen to me, people will be kind to me….ect”)

When discussing a recession, the rule might be, “I have to limit my spending in order to save money for the impending recession.” Having money in the future is contingent on saving in the present. The problem with THIS rule is that is a WARNING, and warnings, by their very nature are aversive. Naturally, we learn to avoid aversive events. So instead of following this rule, we ignore it or forget about it (i.e., avoidance) or perhaps even rationalize why we are not following the rule in an attempt to mitigate some of our guilt. Warnings are also difficult to follow because they cause us to forgo positive reinforcement in the present. That is, we must forgo the new appliance or nice restaurant now in order to avoid the effects of the recession in the future. This is hard to do.

Though this point is minor and probably irrelevant, I think that thinking about sex is not analogous to thinking about a recession. In thinking about sex, one is thinking about the sexual reinforcement that is eminent in the act. Assuming that the sexual act is safe and monogamous, there are very little risk and aversive outcomes in the act. So sex is all positive reinforcement and no punishment. A recession is aversive, as are all warnings. Warnings are so called as they warn us that punishment is approaching. So we ignore or rationalize the recession/the impending doom and thus maximize reinforcement in the short-term (e.g., buy a new appliance).

Anyway, I guess my point is that the social security numbers appeared to exert some degree in stimulus control over bids; it was an arbitrary number and had no rules associated with it. Thinking about a recession, however, involves rules and warnings, which involve different behavior mechanisms than simple stimulus control (i.e., they have different effects on behavior). (Or maybe I’m completely incorrect and thinking about a recession also functions merely as some sort of stimulus control). What are your thoughts?

By: abilio

abilio — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 13:34:24 +0000

one more thing, talking about sex, iirationality and all this:
deleuze says that our unconscious is a factory of desire.
There are moments – or sometimes enormous timescales- in that calculus stops working, that´s a humna necessity. I think. We are no computers, we dont come from mars. We are hormonated beings.

By: abilio

abilio — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 13:01:43 +0000

sorry my english… i try to explain myself…
i think is not question of expectances or if buy or not when the price is up. The more suggestion issue in the article, in my point of view, is not waht happen when we -or others- say “recession” all the time.
How we construc reality? What are the ways of the sense of reality? Waht is the role of rationality here?
I think rationality is like maths: an instrument. Don´t work alone but on bases stablishes by the sense we construc. I think that institutionalism speaks very well about this things.
Rationality dont works alone.

By: Bob R

Bob R — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 20:50:25 +0000

The spread of toxic ideas –poisonous memes– via the media may have an effect on the attitudes of investors. Investors may ‘swarm’ away from bad news, may react in a way that they try to minimize their losses, etc., consistent with the idea that we humans are more afraid of loss as a motivation than we are for making a profit. This mass ‘swarm’ to mitigate potential losses is nothing new historically, but its effect is magnified by faster communications, e.g. the Internet and 24 hour cable news channels, by the complicated nature of financial instruments, and by computer trading. These factors may lead to increased volatility drivern primarily by the human urge to avoid loss from a panicky psychology that swarms.

By: B. Hill

B. Hill — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:58:13 +0000

Would it be predictably irrational to purchase stocks when they are high and sell when they are low? Case-in-point: clearly buying a stock [e.g. now] when it is low would mean a much better upside. But when stocks are flying high, everyone wants a piece of them.

By: Yechezkel Zilber

Yechezkel Zilber — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:43:44 +0000

Here the dependencies work via the fact that the very expectation of recession creates recession via various channels.

By: Yechezkel Zilber

Yechezkel Zilber — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:40:26 +0000

General problem of dependencies (or diffusion). Our world gets more and more dependent. It happens in financial markets where the dependence between markets is reported to increase, so diversification becomes less useful, and here via the media via self-.. {prophicies}.

On the other hand, people need always to re-balance their personal decisions and expenses. many do not do it at an ordered “rational” basis. Therefore, it maybe rational to reconsider expenses on every outside cue.
In our case it actually depends on whether previous levels of spending were adequate, abuot which many economists say that US citizens were spending too much……