I heard Terry O’Reilly mention this book on his CBC radio show, Under the Influence. It sounded interesting, so I looked it up, but unfortunately, I was disappointed. The book starts with a summary of biases in perception and decision-making, which I found provided a good reminder of work covered well elsewhere (e.g. Kahneman, “Thinking, Fast and Slow”; Eagleman, “Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain“). It’s good to be reminded of sources of bias like framing, priming, anchoring, availability, representativeness, overconfidence, inertia and loss aversion. I like to think that I am immune to these biases, but of course I’m not, as the little tests in the book demonstrate.
There’s a nice example of the framing bias, showing how information is presented can cause different responses: electricity consumers given data about power consumption in their neighbourhood decreased their consumption of they were above average, but increased their consumption if they were below average. But if the information was accompanied by a smiley face for those who consumed less than average and a sad face for those who consumed more, the above average consumers reduced their power use even more, and the below average consumers did not increase their consumption.
I was hoping for more examples like this, where a clever, subtle tweak caused a desirable change in behaviour or better outcome for society. Instead, we see proposals for improvements in American social policy. Some are related to changing the default options for things like company matched savings plans and organ donations (if by default you are deemed to have opted out of matched savings or organ donation, then inertia ensures that most people opt out. If the default is the reverse, it’s no surprise that participation rates rise dramatically). Others would require more clarity and transparency in things like mortgage agreements health insurance. Sometimes regulation is required when the free market doesn’t create the best outcomes for society.
Books I've Read 