![]() Econlib Resources
Subscribe to EconLog
XML (Full articles)RDF (Excerpts) Feedburner (One-click subscriptions) Subscribe by author
Bryan CaplanDavid Henderson Alberto Mingardi Scott Sumner Subscribe by email
More
FAQ
(Instructions and more options)
|
TRACKBACKS (1 to date)
TrackBack URL: http://econlog.econlib.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/312
The author at Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science in a related article titled Overconfidence in historical predictions; also a discussion of graphical displays of scientific results writes:
COMMENTS (7 to date)
Mike Linksvayer writes:
It appears that participants in the second paper more accurately assessed their relative performance with no money. Which of Thaler's or others' papers is the best place to get the "stronger incentives do not make people back away from their irrational beliefs" argument? What are the implications of either of these papers for idea futures/prediction markets? Posted July 16, 2005 3:42 PM
jaimito writes:
If the prophets had to pay for being wrong, they would be less overconfident. According to the stories, in Oriental courts the Sultan or Chinese emperor used to behead the failed vizier. I wonder what that did for accuracy. It may have been a nice incentive. Posted July 17, 2005 12:12 AM
spencer writes:
This reminds me of the old wall street comment that everytime a stock is traded someone has made a mistake. Posted July 17, 2005 3:48 PM
Roger McKinney writes:
These articles remind me of one that Fortune or Forbes carried back in the mid 90s that said arrogance was a main cause of the failure of large established companies like Sears. My personal experience tells me that most managers are overconfident even when large sums of money or the success of their business is at stake. One reason for the overconfidence is that managers surround themselves with yes-men and brown-nosers. Posted July 18, 2005 9:00 AM
aaron writes:
You seem awfully confident in these articles. Posted July 18, 2005 9:48 AM
aaron writes:
Now, what if the overall performance of participants determines the size of the prize? Posted July 18, 2005 10:04 AM
deb writes:
Gerd Gigerenzer, a psychologist was the first to demonstrate the easy-hard reversal in overconfidence judgments. Hoelzl and Rustichini don't cite his research. This is either outright plagiarism or extreme citational incompetence. If you read Gigerenzer, you'll see that the easy-hard reversal occurs even in the absence of monetary incentives. It might be stronger with monetary incentives, but your claim that it depends on incentives is false. Posted July 18, 2005 5:31 PM
Comments for this entry
have been closed
|
||||||||
![]() |
![]() |