Mathematics, psychology, decisions

I attended a conference on the mathematics of finance last week. It seems that things would have gone better in 2007/8 if only policy makers had employed some mathematicians to critique the then dominant dogmas. But I am not so sure. I think one would need to understand why people went along with the dogmas. Psychology, such as behavioural economics, doesn’t seem to help much, since although it challenges some aspects of the dogmas it fails to challenge (and perhaps even promotes) other aspects, so that it is not at all clear how it could have helped.

Here I speculate on an answer.

Finance and economics are either empirical subjects or they are quasi-religious, based on dogmas. The problems seem to arise when they are the latter but we mistake them for the former. If they are empirical then they have models whose justification is based on evidence.

Naïve inductivism boils down to the view that whatever has always (never) been the case will continue always (never) to be the case. Logically it is untenable, because one often gets clashes, where two different applications of naïve induction are incompatible. But pragmatically, it is attractive.

According to naïve inductivism we might suppose that if the evidence has always fitted the models, then actions based on the supposition that they will continue to do so will be justified. (Hence, ‘it is rational to act as if the model is true’). But for something as complex as an economy the models are necessarily incomplete, so that one can only say that the evidence fitted the models within the context as it was at the time. Thus all that naïve inductivism could tell you is that ‘it is rational’ to act as if the  model is true, unless and until the context should change. But many of the papers at the mathematics of finance conference were pointing out specific cases in which the actions ‘obviously’ changed the context, so that naïve inductivism should not have been applied.

It seems to me that one could take a number of attitudes:

  1. It is always rational to act on naïve inductivism.
  2. It is always rational to act on naïve inductivism, unless there is some clear reason why not.
  3. It is always rational to act on naïve inductivism, as long as one has made a reasonable effort to rule out any contra-indications (e.g., by considering ‘the whole’).
  4. It is only reasonable to act on naïve inductivism when one has ruled out any possible changes to the context, particularly reactions to our actions, by considering an adequate experience base.

In addition, one might regard the models as conditionally valid, and hedge accordingly. (‘Unless and until there is a reaction’.) Current psychology seems to suppose (1) and hence has little to help us understand why people tend to lean too strongly on naïve inductivism. It may be that a belief in (1) is not really psychological, but simply a consequence of education (i.e., cultural).

See Also

Russell’s Human Knowledge. My media for the conference.

Dave Marsay