Comments on: 3 experiments with money

By: Roman

Roman — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 14:24:11 +0000

I agree, Bransby - the rationality of a high social position is entirely debatable!

By: Bransby

Bransby — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 13:56:45 +0000

I think you make a good point about the social positioning being more important to people than the money in the second experiment, but I’m not sure that I’d call the desire for social position rational.

By: Kayong Kagaguhan

Kayong Kagaguhan — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 20:35:38 +0000

being look for a long time for that 200,000 is it still an offer? i like to take it.
Yeah right, there no such thing, a thought experiment. don’t really happen.

By: Klebiits » Blog Archive » par to jautājumu par naudu

Klebiits » Blog Archive » par to jautājumu par naudu — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 08:30:27 +0000

[...] izvēlas to, kur pašiem mazāk, bet vienlaikus vairāk par citiem. -> it kā neracionāli. Šī raksta autoram sava pārliecība. (tur kopā 3 “eksperimenti” [...]

By: Sharad Khandelwal

Sharad Khandelwal — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 04:19:29 +0000

Thumbs Up. Man choses the option which builts his ego.

But,to reach God,you should not have any ego.

By: Nick

Nick — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 17:47:43 +0000

This is a great post and makes some very good points, but I wonder how the experiment is presented and set-up. I think if people who are subjects of the experiment really know what is going on, then their response would be different than if they didn’t know.

There’s a name for that as well, I just can’t think of what it is…where people act differently when they know they are being watched.

By: dougfoot

dougfoot — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:46:36 +0000

It is the “love” of money that is the root of evil, not money in of itself.
The desire to be wealthy is not an evil desire - the evil is putting this desire above all else.
If one is charitable with their wealth (tithe, giving to charity, giving to the poor) what does it matter how much a person earns? There are many who are wealthy and you would never know it. Their focus with their wealth is to help those in need versus with material goods.
The most selfish people I’ve met are those who are not charitable - they beleive it is the government’s role to assist the less fortunate - on the backs of everyone else (taxes).
If a person wants the force of government to make people “charitable” (sharing their wealth) that person is at least a socialist at worst a communist.

By: Roman

Roman — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:10:11 +0000

The fact that you were reading this article and this blog already makes you stand out of most people Blip!
It means that you have the ability to make rational decisions money wise (or at least that you are striving to that direction)

By: Roman

Roman — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:04:04 +0000

Doug, I think your comment shows great insight!
Just because one makes an irrational choice from the point of maximizing your income doesn’t mean that this choice was irrational - maybe the person did exactly what he wanted to do and got what he wanted!

By: Doug

Doug — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:21:12 +0000

Individuals are often called rational if they tend to act optimally in pursuit of their goals. Without knowing the goals, you can’t know if a behavior is rational or not. In all three experiments, a goal is assumed, then subjects are described as “irrational” when they do not appear to have this goal. It is not irrational to have goals other than income maximizing. In fact, maximizing income is at best inadvisable, as it commonly conflicts maximizing such goals as survival, happiness, health,and security. “It is better to get $1 than nothing” no matter accompanies the dollar?