I wonder what proportion of conclusions drawn from economic[^1] studies are *wrong* due to flawed framing/assumptions. I think the scientists running the study may frame the problem incorrectly, then draw false conclusions about their study simply to not really understanding [[What are You Optimizing For]]. These types of errors would be subtle, and probably not provable in all but the most egregious of instances. ## Example "**The Trust Game**" is a game used in studies in which actor A is given a sum of money (say $10) which they must split with actor B however they so choose (for example, A gets $6 and B gets $4). If Actor B doesn't agree to the proportion of the split, neither actor receives any money. Observation: Actor B sometimes rejects deals where they are given a small amount of money (say $2 leaving $8 for Actor A). Conclusion from researcher: Actor B is irrational! They turned down $2 they could have had for free and instead took $0! False premise / unappreciated nuance: Actor B is solely motivated to optimize for the highest amount of money they can make - I.e. only money has value. Reality: Actor B is mutually optimizing for *satisfaction*, which in this situation is comprised of both money in **and** other factors (including self-worth, fairness, etc). ## Meta Note This note I'm crediting myself for, but it's an amalgamation of thoughts I had reading the two books in the sources below **** # More ## Source - myself - [[Play at Work]] - [[Thinking Fast and Slow]] [^1]: And other more "hard" sciences, but probably to a lesser degree