Thinking Fast and Slow经典读后感10篇(8)

　　三、Well-being

　　【The emotional tail wags the rational dog.】

　　我们并不是完全的经济理性人，认知结构给我们带来了难以避免的“缺陷”。好与坏并不是能被界限分明的判断出来的。【Some distinctions between good and bad are hardwired into our biology. Infants enter the world ready to respond to pain as bad and to sweet (up to a point) as good. In many situations, however, the boundary between good and bad is a reference point that changes over time and depends on the immediate circumstances.】于是，“公平”、“正义”“风险”不能在客观的空中楼阁中去理解，它们必须被置于这个不确定的“真实”世界。某事件是否是公平的这个判断，常常被我对这件事有何感受的简单问题所替代。

　　【Consider this example: A hardware store has been selling snow shovels for $15. The morning after a large snowstorm, the store raises the price to $20. Please rate this action as: Completely Fair Acceptable Unfair Very Unfair The hardware store behaves appropriately according to the standard economic model: it responds to increased demand by raising its price. The participants in the survey did not agree: 82% rated the action Unfair or Very Unfair.】【The current worker has a right to retain his wage even if market conditions would allow the employer to impose a wage cut.The firm has its own entitlement, which is to retain its current profit. If it faces a threat of a loss, it is allowed to transfer the loss to others. A substantial majority of respondents believed that it is not unfair for a firm to reduce its workers’ wages when its profitability is falling.

　　They showed indignation only when a firm exploited its power to break informal contracts with workers or customers, and to impose a loss on others in order to increase its profit.】

　　这种利他性惩罚可能是社会的粘合剂。【altruistic punishment is accompanied by increased activity in the “pleasure centers” of the brain. It appears that maintaining the social order and the rules of fairness in this fashion is its own reward.】政策制定也可能过度，但是，从这点，民主也可能是最不坏的制度。【Democracy is inevitably messy, in part because the availability and affect heuristics that guide citizens’ beliefs and attitudes are inevitably biased, even if they generally point in the right direction.】

　　【Should the child exemption be larger for the rich than for the poor？ Your own intuitions are very likely the same as those of Schelling’s students: they found the idea of favoring the rich by a larger exemption completely unacceptable. Schelling then pointed out that the tax law is arbitrary. It assumes a childless family as the default case and reduces the tax by the amount of the exemption for each child. The tax law could of course be rewritten with another default case: a family with two children. In this formulation, families with fewer than the default number of children would pay a surcharge. Schelling now asked his students to report their view of another proposition: Should the childless poor pay as large a surcharge as the childless rich？ Here again you probably agree with the students’ reaction to this idea, which they rejected with as much vehemence as the first. But Schelling showed his class that they could not logically reject both proposals. Set the two formulations next to each other. The difference between the tax due by a childless family and by a family with two children is described as a reduction of tax in the first version and as an increase in the second. If in the first version you want the poor to receive the same (or greater) benefit as the rich for having children, then you must want the poor to pay at least the same penalty as the rich for being childless. We can recognize System 1 at work. It delivers an immediate response to any question about rich and poor: when in doubt, favor the poor. The surprising aspect of Schelling’s problem is that this apparently simple moral rule does not work reliably.】

　　【Case 1: A child suffered moderate burns when his pajamas caught fire as he was playing with matches. The firm that produced the pajamas had not made them adequately fire resistant. Case 2: The unscrupulous dealings of a bank caused another bank a loss of $10 million.

　　In single evaluation, the jurors awarded higher punitive damages to the defrauded bank than to the burned child, presumably because the size of the financial loss provided a high anchor. When the cases were considered together, however, sympathy for the individual victim prevailed over the anchoring effect and the jurors increased the award to the child to surpass the award to the bank.】

　　心理账户：

　　【A woman has bought two $80 tickets to the theater. When she arrives at the theater, she opens her wallet and discovers that the tickets are missing. Will she buy two more tickets to see the play？

　　A woman goes to the theater, intending to buy two tickets that cost $80 each. She arrives at the theater, opens her wallet, and discovers to her dismay that the $160 with which she was going to make the purchase is missing. She could use her credit card. Will she buy the tickets？ …… 此处隐藏：2850字，全部文档内容请下载后查看。喜欢就下载吧 ……