« Aid Realism for the Idealist | Main | Assorted links »
In which regards are autistics more rational?
Many bloggers are citing a recent Scientific American piece, one part of which covers how autistics come closer to satisfying some canons of economic rationality. Since I discuss the underlying research in Create Your Own Economy, I should point out that the SA article doesn't quite get it right. They serve up:
One group that does not value perceived losses differently than gains are individuals with autism...
I would sooner describe the underlying research as showing that framing effects are weaker (NB: not absent) for autistics. That is, for the autistics it matters less whether a given change in endowment is described as a gain or a loss, relative to varying frames. I read the SA account ("when balancing gains and losses") as conflating framing and endowment effects; in any case the exposition is not clear.
SA writes:
...this seeming rationality may itself denote abnormal behavior...
An alternative would have been: "The autistics are in this way more rational."
One underexplored question is whether most people distrust those who are not irrational in particular, commonly realized ways. Even the researchers on the original piece considers the superior performance of autistics on the test to be a sign of their processing "failures."
Another part of the piece concerns the skin conductance responses; there is preliminary evidence that autistics approached the framed choices in a less emotional manner, at least by that one measure.
Create Your Own Economy considers a number of possible overlaps between economics and autism, including Vernon Smith's claim that Adam Smith was himself on the autism spectrum. It also considers other ways in which autistics are likely to be more rational, such as being less likely to encode false memories and less likely to resort to excessive use of narrative to organize their memories and explanations.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on June 30, 2009 at 10:31 AM in Books, Economics, Science | Permalink
Comments
Is it irrational to have certain preferences or should preferences be taken as given by economists?
For instance, risk aversion (concave utility) doesn't seem to be considered irrational even though it doesn't maximize (monetary) wealth and income. How about altruism? Envy? Spite? Endowment effects? Framing effects? How about preferences that change over time or in response to new information?
What is the line that makes some preferences "irrational" but other preferences "rational"?
Posted by: a student of economics at Jun 30, 2009 11:02:17 AM
To the previous commenter:
I think at bottom of your question is the seeming contradiction between claim that some preferences or cost/benefit analysis are more rational than others and the concept of subjective value.
Perhaps, in theory at least, these are not contradictory. One could say that even by a persons own subjective value standard they make decisions that yield less value than an alternative choice would have. This is possible in theory, but the problem is that an outside observer cannot ever know if this is the case. All the observer has to go on is the revealed preference - i.e. the thing actually chosen - as a measure of what the actor values most, and it is impossible to know for sure (even if the actor tells you) that what they chose was really not the option they value most.
But I think the interesting thing in the post above is not that some people choose more or less rationally (which is far too subjective), but that people with autism consitently display similar patterns of choice that are noticeably different from the patterns of choices made by people without autism. One set of choices doesn't have to be more or less rational than the other, but the mere existence of the difference in patterns is fascinating and it tells us something about not only the differences in subjective valuations, but also the manner in which value is calculated.
Whether both groups share the same value scale but one group (austistics) are simply better at anaylzing which decisions come closest to that value or whether the underlying values themselves are different we may never know.
Posted by: Isaac at Jun 30, 2009 11:30:38 AM
Where does Captain Spock fall on the autism spectrum?
Posted by: Dave at Jun 30, 2009 11:43:31 AM
I’ve had this idea for a long time now – the most vocal proponents of libertarian policies are so ignorant of human inner life that they seem to have Asperger’s Syndrome.
The classic thought experiment: two choices: (1) you get $1000 and your neighbors each get $2000, or (2) you get $500 and your neighbors get nothing. Anyone with a modicum of understanding of human aspirations and need for status knows that case 2 is preferable, even though it departs from the simplistic economic model.
Yet libertarians and Asperger types don’t seem to understand this. And not only that, but they want social polices based on their idea that case 1 is preferable: i.e.low taxes for people with high incomes. Gosh, they say, if the rich do well, we’re all better off. Which misses the whole point of social policies in the first place. We’re not trying to increase GDP (as the economic models assume). We’re trying to increase overall well being. And status is incredibly important.
Posted by: Dirk at Jun 30, 2009 12:21:20 PM
Describing "framing effects" as "irrational" seems to me to be an instance
of the common problem of experimental psychologists not being as smart as
their subjects (or as having their intelligence degraded by too much misguided
instruction).
These experiments typically deal with highly artificial situations, in which
the subjects' responses are going to depend strongly on how they go about
pretending that this artificial situation is actually real. The way things
are framed as "losses" or "gains" can affect this. In particular, in most
real situations, the effects of a person's decision on their reputation is
very important. Winning $100 may not be good if the way you won it gives
you a reputation for recklessness, dishonesty, or something else bad. In
actual situations, we have lots of information on how our actions are going
to be percieved by other people. In an artificial situation, the phrases
used to describe the options may be the only indication of how (we pretend)
these actions are going to be perceived, and hence basing the decision on
this phrasing is far from being irrational.
So the "normal" people may not be acting irrationally. And the autistic
people may not be acting irrationally either, if they simply care less about
the opinions of other people. (Or the autistic people may be acting in an
irrational, or at least less perceptive, way if they do care, but don't
realize what the effects will be.)
Posted by: Radford Neal at Jun 30, 2009 12:32:40 PM
Is it safe to assume that the neighborhood is small enough relative to the entire economy that giving $2,000 to all of my neighbors is not going to inflate prices to the extent that the buying power of my $1,000 in choice 1 is reduced to less than the buying power of my $500 in choice 2?
If so, choice 1 sounds much better to me.
Posted by: mooshinator at Jun 30, 2009 12:35:27 PM
The classic thought experiment: two choices: (1) you get $1000 and your neighbors
each get $2000, or (2) you get $500 and your neighbors get nothing. Anyone with
a modicum of understanding of human aspirations and need for status knows that
case 2 is preferable, even though it departs from the simplistic economic model.
Anyone with a modicum of understand of humans knows that choosing (2) is
understandable. Lots of evil actions are understandable, and many
are distressingly common. That doesn't make them right. Nor does it mean
that all humans do, or want to do, these actions.
Posted by: Radford Neal at Jun 30, 2009 12:38:42 PM
I haven't been formally diagnosed w Asperger's but it seems highly likely. I'd take #1, no question, as I couldn't care less what my relative status is. However, I'm also not an idiot--I'd try to get my neighbors to agree to pay me a percentage of what my choice paid them.
Posted by: Laserlight at Jun 30, 2009 1:29:15 PM
Not taxing isn't the same as giving.
Posted by: Andrew at Jun 30, 2009 1:36:52 PM
"One underexplored question is whether most people distrust those who are not irrational in particular, commonly realized ways."
As an agnostic I notice this all the time. Most people really don't like atheists and agnostics - I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that atheists in particular are the last minority most people have no trouble discriminating against. And it seems pretty clear that the dislike and distrust comes from a sense people have that their unquestioned but unsupported and essentially irrational deep beliefs are being called into question.
Posted by: DCBob at Jun 30, 2009 1:45:10 PM
Dirk,
Many of us, psychologically deviant or not, fully understand envy, realize it is not optimal, don't like neighbors who act on it, and understand that using the government for zero-sum outcomes is an enormously wasteful, though widely rationalized and popular sport. That's all.
Posted by: Andrew at Jun 30, 2009 1:55:35 PM
DCBob, you analysis would suggest that people have problems with atheists everywhere. Instead, many countries have no noticable bias against atheism at all. So the causes for the American perception of atheists are probably something else.
On the original autism and rationality case, I would be lot more convinced if there were significant real world situations where autists (medically diagnosed ones, not self-proclaimed geeky ones) where doing an obviously better job of self-enrichment.
This looks more like autists treating artificial examples as artificial examples, while most people respond to them as if they were part of some complicated but not explicitly mentioned social situation.
Posted by: Zamfir at Jun 30, 2009 2:26:10 PM
"One underexplored question is whether most people distrust those who are not irrational in particular, commonly realized ways. Even the researchers on the original piece considers the superior performance of autistics on the test to be a sign of their processing "failures.""
My experience would point towards yes.
Posted by: Vichy at Jun 30, 2009 2:35:45 PM
Michelle Dawson points to an inaccuracy in my original description of the paper. In absolute terms, the skin tests show autistics to be *more* involved in the choice overall, but showing less *differential* emotional involvement across the two frames. See p.4 of the paper itself for further detail and more explanation.
Posted by: Tyler Cowen at Jun 30, 2009 3:30:21 PM
The classic thought experiment: two choices: (1) you get $1000 and your neighbors each get $2000, or (2) you get $500 and your neighbors get nothing. Anyone with a modicum of understanding of human aspirations and need for status knows that case 2 is preferable, even though it departs from the simplistic economic model.
Yet libertarians and Asperger types don’t seem to understand this. And not only that, but they want social polices based on their idea that case 1 is preferable: i.e.low taxes for people with high incomes. Gosh, they say, if the rich do well, we’re all better off. Which misses the whole point of social policies in the first place. We’re not trying to increase GDP (as the economic models assume). We’re trying to increase overall well being. And status is incredibly important.
I am libertarian and high-functioning Aspie and can't imagine anyone preferring scenario 2 over 1. I guess I prove your point, whatever it is.
Posted by: james B. at Jun 30, 2009 3:31:44 PM
The classic thought experiment: two choices: (1) you get $1000 and your neighbors each get $2000, or (2) you get $500 and your neighbors get nothing. Anyone with a modicum of understanding of human aspirations and need for status knows that case 2 is preferable, even though it departs from the simplistic economic model.
If preferring case 1 makes me an autistic freak, then I'll wear that badge with honor. You're actually proud of your envy that makes you want to actively destroy wealth? Please don't vote.
The only way I can see an argument for case 2 is if you expand the number of neighbors such that the increased money supply causes inflation which negates my gain in real terms (as mooshinator said), or in an even more contrived scenario where the "neighbors" are my direct rivals in a zero-sum game, for example if we're all trying to impress the same girl. Even in the latter case, I would acknowledge that my preferences are purely selfish and should not be enforced by government.
We’re not trying to increase GDP (as the economic models assume). We’re trying to increase overall well being. And status is incredibly important.
Are you really happier if Bill Gates has only $50 billion as opposed to $60 billion? To the extent that relative status matters, how much of it is due to the absolute size of the gap rather than ordinal ranking? Increase taxes on the rich out of spite, and they'll still be richer than you.
Posted by: Brian 2 at Jun 30, 2009 4:16:05 PM
Dirk, it's not that we don't understand the idea that option 2 is preferable, it's that we reject it. Option 1 is both subjectively better because my absolute wealth is higher, it's objectively better because social wealth is higher. And while it's true that it's possible that some individuals would prefer to give up $500 of wealth to see $4000 taken away from others, that is not a preference that should be validated by the systems of society, because it is destructive.
Posted by: Noah Yetter at Jun 30, 2009 4:48:37 PM
"Gosh, they say, if the rich do well, we’re all better off. Which misses the whole point of social policies in the first place. We’re not trying to increase GDP (as the economic models assume). We’re trying to increase overall well being. And status is incredibly important."
Rarely are liberal socialists this forthright or direct. I wish they all were. It would help prove their lunacy to the masses.
Posted by: Steve at Jun 30, 2009 4:51:03 PM
Dirk,
Most of these posters are inadvertently making your point for you. They don't seem to get why many, maybe most, human beings instinctively prefer 2. And the comments about "envy" are very revealing about the way libertarians don't get it. We're not talking about envy here at all, we're talking about relative status. If I make my neighbor twice as rich as me I've given him a big competitive advantage in the mating game, and why would I do that? These examples are of course far too simplistic - if my neighbor is an 85 year old woman with no kids - I'll definitely take 1. If my neighbor is a dweeby guy who spends too much time posting on the internet, I may go for option 1 as well. But if my neighbor is my age and a little better looking than me - I'm definitely taking 2.
Posted by: vanya at Jun 30, 2009 9:16:42 PM
Is there actual research in the experimental literature that confirms that most non-autistic people choose Dirk's #2 over #1 or is that just supposition?
My reaction to Dirk's hypothetical was that if I pick #2, my neighbors will (correctly) regard me as a selfish asshole or a spiteful neighbor and will ostracize me. If I pick #1, my neighbors might thank me for the perceived sacrifice and that could elevate my status in other ways in addition to the fact that I would have $500 more.
I would also point out that Dirk's "normal" person would not make any donations to charity. The fact that many people do means we should not be so quick to conflate wealth and status.
Posted by: Ricardo at Jun 30, 2009 9:51:09 PM
Dear God, surely you people realize that you were being trolled by Dirk. He's trying to make a point off the redistributionists. On the other hand, the fact that no-one seemed to cotton on says something about how people here view those who believe that there's a social good to flattening wealth differences...
*sigh*.
Posted by: Tom West at Jun 30, 2009 10:28:19 PM
I think you're right Dirk. Nobody could actually believe that option 2 is the best choice. It's just that most people don't think through the implications of a policy that SOUNDS like:
(3) "the pie will stay the same size, but you get a bigger slice".
Of course, many politicians and activists take great care to ensure their preferred policy are presented like that.
Posted by: doctorpat at Jun 30, 2009 11:21:45 PM
Tyler, I hope that your book does not say that Vernon Smith "claimed" that Adam Smith was himself on the autism spectrum. In his memoir he puts Adam forward as a "candidate."
Posted by: Paul Johnson at Jul 1, 2009 2:03:35 AM
"says something about how people here view those who believe that there's a social good to flattening wealth differences"
This is news? What does the revelation say about the people who think we give a damn about that? That noone listens to eachother? Fair enough.
We want to flatten wealth differences by flattening hurdles to entry of competition against entrenched incumbents, the same incumbents who are always subsidized by political incumbents, and they don't listen.
Posted by: Andrew at Jul 1, 2009 5:48:39 AM
That is the most depressingly pathetic criticism of libertarianiam from a liberal perspective that I have seen in quite some time. Perhaps that is the reason why some people are liberals. Let me assure you: there are much better reasons.
Posted by: mpowell at Jul 1, 2009 6:22:55 AM
