Posts Tagged ‘economics’

A psychologist believes in Trump!

November 25, 2015

I usually go for coffee once a week in the beautiful Marina watching the wild seals with 3-5 “thinking” friends. Two years ago I did my analysis that Trudeau will be the next prime minister of Canada. I was congratulated over coffee for my ‘wisdom’ accurate prediction last week. A few months ago I also did my analysis of Trump’s chances. I predicted that he will be the next president of the United States (with Cruz as VP) unless he decided to quit or go independent or get killed. A month ago I bet $125 with my friends who felt the opposite. They didn’t think that Trump will win. It was easy to get all my 5 friends to bet me because they think trump is not electable because of his rude behavior in public and because they don’t know that Hillary is her worse enemy and Trump could devastate her in a debate.. I am really enjoy the 2016 election. I love the way Americans do it. The American people  understand that most presidents main job is to distribute the people’s money to their cronies and friends and Trump will not do that. I won’t tell you how I came to the conclusion that Trump is our next president except to say that a few months ago I got it that security will best economics as a reason to vote around election time. It is almost like saying that ISIS’s behavior in the US and France will get Trump elected president. It is a terrific irony because trump is the best man for the WH for many other reasons than security. I guess America is blessed despite of her people’s socialist attitude in 2016. God loves America!

Advertisements

What causes the gridlock in Washington?

October 8, 2013

You know that I always tell the truth in this blog regardless of consequences because I am wealthy and I don’t need side income. Abraham Maslow, the father of the school of psychology called Humanistic Psychology and the creator of the self-actualization pyramid said, “Your vote is only as good as your culture let you act.” The American culture doesn’t educate you to vote for the candidate with the highest governing values for the people, although our leaders are better behaved than the leaders in most other countries. In fact, to vote based on values might be unconstitutional! When I was a professor of psychology on a hiring committee, we got a directive from Sacramento stating that we cannot ask candidates value questions or personal questions. Once we interviewed a candidate for a position of assistant professor of psychology who it was clear to me considered female students inferior to male students. I was not allowed to ask him any questions about personal values as if the personality of the instructor has no effect on students and is irrelevant to teaching in public schools. The same cultural directive you get when you enter the voting booth, “Don’t consider the personal values of the candidate you are electing to office.” (I never voted, went into business with or chose as friends negative people. I had too many in my family). You the voter created the gridlock in Washington that is affecting your life but it not your fault, only your responsibility (You are not taught in school about the huge difference between these two words either). Do you want a better life? Next election you will have to pull yourself up with your own bootstraps. You will have to ask the candidate before you decide who to vote for the simple question, “Is Obamacare gives you the best medical care for the buck”? If the congressman says “Yes, but I didn’t vote for it” he is plain stupid. If he says, “No, but I voted for it” through him out. If he says “No, and I didn’t vote for it” elect him again. Do you want a better life? Start looking for candidates that can answer the question “Please explain to me how Obamacare violate the cost/benefit rule”? Vote for him if can describe the answer well, and if enough of you do that, the next congress will get you a health care program that covers everyone at a reasonable cost!

Why did the plane crashed in San Francisco?

July 9, 2013

I was sitting at my computer formulating the differences between economics and behavioral economics in preparation for my presentation in Rome next January 24 – when the plane crashed. My immediate intuitive reaction was sadness that there was no “behavioral aviation” system in place that could have prevented this air disaster. You see, the 2008 recession gave birth to a new behavioral economics system laden with psychological insight that could have prevented the bankers from selling fake mortgages causing the 2008 recession. Ones, in a paper I predicted that one day at the end of the 21st century humanity will have a behavioral politics too, but I never thought about behavioral aviation – the use of psychology to prevent air disasters.

The San Francisco air disaster is easy to explain (although the experts won’t get it without new schooling). It is called in psychology a “Risky shift,” a classic case when 3 experienced pilots are in one cockpit and each rely on the other two for flight information (conversations). Thus, each of these experienced pilots enters the subconscious mode of risk elevation cause by distraction or desire to please –  the attention to the other two pilots. Did you ever drive your car with your wife as a back seat driver? It’s a ‘risky shift.” In a future behavioral avionics system, there will be only two pilot in place and have clear roles to play, never equal! Oh, how I wish behavioral aviation was here today, to save lives, but, ladies and gentlemen, history is more insightful  than a committee of aviation officials!

How does a behavioral psychologist think?

January 17, 2013

All my professional life I was a professor of developmental psychology. I retired in 1998, four years before Dr. Daniel Kahneman, another professor of psychology, got his Nobel Price in – Economics – in 2002. I will speak at the University of Valencia this month on his research on the behavior of the economic man: Is he as rational as society believes? Behavioral Economics was born the moment empirical evidence replaced rationality in the decision-making about money. Hey, young dude, join me on the edge of discovery? Today is only 10 years since the new profession began and people associated with the Symposium (and here in Canada) are already thinking of Behavioral Politics, Behavioral Medicine, etc. as the next step in the evolution of solutions and human success. I want to thank Hippocrates for asking the question 2500 years ago: Should Medicine be rational or empirical. I also want to thank Plato and Aristotle 2400 years ago for asking the question: Should language be rational-logical or natural-empirical?

 

The beauty of adding behavioral in front of any name of a discipline is that solutions become clear. For example, for years as a psychologist I struggled with the issue, “Does man kills or do guns kill?” On the day I became a behavioral thinker the answer became clear. Man kills, not guns. As a behavioral psychologist I know very clearly that the problem is not a billion gun in every home, its behavior. American society needs to look at how it raises its kids! What behaviors are rewarded and what behaviors are punished by parents, schools, etc.

I just came from the mall. I saw a mother screaming at her daughter, “Don’t shout at me,” she screamed. You know something, dude, Buddha once said that the word perfect means awareness, not  the absence of errors. Now I understand what he meant. Hey dude, have a better day!

Dr. Daniel Kahneman’s System 2: Making sense of perceiving something, observing it, agreeing/disagreeing, point of viewing, having a position and experiencing.

September 9, 2012

Dr. Daniel Kahneman is the only behavioural psychologist that ever received the Nobel prise in economics, triggering jealousy, anxiety, rejection of psychological research and out right animosity among most classical economists.  He received the Nobel prize in economics for his research finding that humans do not usually make logical or rational decisions in business and investing, even court decisions are flawed! Humans are emotional. Most of their decisions are heuristic (System 1), but those who make decisions based on science and statistics (System 2) are usually more moral, fair and successful.

I drove home an hour ago from my usual Sunday meeting discussing the Jewish world. My friend John and I disagreed on a political issue. Our friend  Jerry turned to us and said, “This is the first time that I see you two disagree on anything.” I decided to post the scientific and statistical truth about human disagreements. For 10,000 years people went to war with each other because of disagreements. Today, friends split and families break up because of disagreements. I hope that after you read this important scientific posting, you will understand what geneticists call the evolutionary flaw of human perception, ie., that each mind’s hardware thinks that its observation is the observation. I am guilty of it, you are guilty of it, we all are guilty of it. We can’t help it (its genetic), but once we understand perception mathematically we become more tolerant of other points of viewing a phenomenon.

Let us begin to understand Kahneman behavioural genius:

Draw a perfect circle and count the equal number of degrees of freedom on the curved line: 360 degrees? 385%? 34%? How many degrees? Each of these 360 equal positions on the circle line has an equal distance to the center of the circle where you place a phenomenon to be observed and judged (if your life is 100% heuristic you lose perspective of mathematical reality. The extreme manifestation of distorted perception of reality is when a weak person or nation declares war on a strong person or nation with the hope to win (watch the play the mouse that roared), knowing that he is going to lose. A mild manifestation of distorted perception of reality is when a husband picks up a verbal fight with his wife believing he would win…ha, ha, ha). Here is an example from my life: My Catholic friend believes that abortion is murder. I don’t. System 2 would say that he observes the phenomenon from one side of the circle and I observe it from the opposite side. If he convinces me that he is right…I will have to move on the circle, replace the dude and take his position (a degree cannot be split. You can’t have 361 degrees unless you are heuristic). My response to people on the other side of the circle from me is usually, “Would you like a cup of coffee or tea? How is your mom? Hey, what’s happening in Timbuktu?” (called the inappropriate response in psychology). Try it you’d like it. It will keep you out of trouble, free your time  and keep you living in the truth (System 2). The only way to know the center of the circle is not to argue about it but to move in and experience it. 1980: an EST workshop with Werner Erhard in San Francisco, a participant asked  “What’s a tree.” Werner took him by the hand and they walked outside and hugged a tree. It blew my mind away when they returned and he opened a book and said, “and now let’s learn the concept “tree.” I have been hugging a lot of things ever since, ha, ha, ha.

Curing cancer is possible!

March 9, 2012

Are you hooked on my blog? If you read everything I write you are either precocious, a lucky person or God loves you. I mean it. Let me prove it to you: Newton discovered “Classic physics” where the behavior of the observer didn’t mean diddle shit to him. Came Einstein and replaced Newton with “Behavioral physics” where the behavior of the  observer influences even the Universe.” Good enough? Not yet, where is the trend? Then came Adam Smith and started “Classical economics” with his book  The Wealth of Nations.” (gave us recessions because he didn’t give a diddle shit about the behavior of financiers). Came Daniel Kahneman (2002 Nobel) and replaced classical economics with “Behavioral economics,” where the behavior of bankers must be studied before you invest!  (I joined the Academy at UCLA last year, ABF.com). So far so good? Here is the clincher. “Classical medicine” has always seen cancer as complex, varied, hard to treat, costly, many side effects, and the patient dies. “Behavioral medicine” sees cancer as simple, unified, inexpensive to treat, no side effects and the patient lives!

We have recessions, unemployment, and people die from cancer because Newton is still  revered, Einstein has been demoted, Kahneman… you haven’t even heard of him, and “Behavioral Cancer Therapy” (BCT) is only a year old (FDA Approved 2011) model practiced in Germany and hasn’t spread yet. (according to the director it may take a 100 years before  “BCT will replace the old classic medical dude that loves to operate and drug you.)

I told you, you stay with me and together we will change the classical world and make all solutions “Behavioral.”

The panda and her feuding twins.

October 18, 2010

Hey, you know who I mean by P, and there is the grown up twin, SK, that P admires, likes to do business with, and uses as a rep to make friends in the neighborhood, but then there is this dummy twin-born holding his brother’s Achilles heel, that twin is a disgrace to his mother in the neighborhood , always getting in trouble and embarrassing her. Why doesn’t P send NK to rehab? Good question, maybe because NK looks like mommy Panda with his red sickle stripes on white fur and a star around the eyes. Well, you guessed it, the P is C, the NK is North K and the SK is South K. Are you confused? I am sure not, after all NK is well-known, proudly wearing a suicide belt while his smarter brother is churning out cars, appliances and TVs. China loves both North Korea and South Korea, but I think one of these days mom will get sick and tired of its unruly twin boy and send him to rehab. There will be a celebration in the neighborhood 🙂

This posting was triggered by the fact that South Korea and China are in the news this week as the strongest trading partners in Asia, to illustrate the findings in psychological research that economic necessity makes for strange bed (bad) fellows. Hey, let’s make this posting even more interesting. Who is the democratic strategist (male) in Washington happily married to a republican strategist (female)? Can you think of a few more strange bed fellows?