What I Learned/Re-Learned @ Harvard
A few weeks ago I trekked to Cambridge for Harvard’s annual Investment Decisions and Behavioral Finance conference. Excited to hear a speaker list that included renowned economist Richard Zeckhauser, MIT’s Andrew Lo and Michael Mauboussin who recently authored THINK TWICE, The Power of Counter-Intuition, I admittedly however didn’t know quite what to expect.
Reflecting now – two plus weeks post – I realize I haven’t drastically changed my long-standing opinion regarding the difference in content and value between the field of behavioral finance and neuroeconomics. BF (for short) describes and documents the inordinately probable likelihood of not seeing all the data, of seeing only yesterday’s data and of making so called “irrational decisions”. In fact, at Harvard in November, BF even demonstrates that a room full of 75 portfolio managers fall prey to the exact same perceptional “deficits” as the general population. Neuroeconomics on the other hand is attempting to reveal exactly what is happening in our brain (or at least where it is happening) as we make these well-known errors in judgment.
Anyone who has followed our thinking for any period of time knows that we explain these behavioral tendencies under the general rubric of acting out unconscious emotions and I didn’t hear a single word that dissuaded me from that position. What I did however hear and realize is that BF as a body of work gives us a list of cognitive/intellectual strategies we all can use simultaneously alongside the pursuit of greater emotional awareness and skill to help us make better decisions.
I think however the problem is in categorizing the list of so called “biases”. To BF’s way of thinking, our sometimes funny, sometimes sad tendencies to not see information that is either right in front of us or glaringly obviously missing (and we should therefore realize we have to look for it) are called biases. For example, we have a confirmation bias – the tendency to see all data in a way to proves what we already belief. (If you can think political leanings here.) We also have a tendency to research a problem in terms of data we already have and fail to look for data we don’t. Generally, this is considered the availability bias.
As the weeks go on, this blog (and our upcoming December online workshop) will outline the biases and how to work with them from an intellectual point of view.
Before we get started on that however I submit for your consideration the research that shows we update our beliefs, preferences and decisions in ways that keep us feeling good (Kuhnen and Knutson, 2008) and suggest that the real underlying cause, regardless of where it happens in the brain, is the emotional impact of finding, seeing, using new and possibly contradictory data.
One more thing for today – speaking of “where” in the brain … many a respected academic still talk about the triune model of the brain proposed by Maclean in 1990. Theoretically, we have a higher reasoning brain, a mid emotional brain and a lower “keep the heart” beating brain.
With NO disrespect meant, this idea is outdated. Beginning in the late 1990’s we started getting pictures of real live healthy brains and it is clear now that emotional neural networks infuse, integrate and work reciprocally with those ostensibly higher brain centers. In essence they are higher yes – but only because they are at the top! The most recent research however shows they are non-functional without infiltrations from the emotional networks (Damaraju et. al., 2008) so I again submit the idea that understanding the reciprocity and sequencing between brain centers offers us our best possibility of defeating our otherwise seemingly entrenched “biases”.