the thing I was now fascinated by and called it behavioral decision theory, which is kind of what the name of this field used to be.
I got about eight students.
So I had to think of something to do to increase the enrollment in the class.
And so I changed the name to managerial decision making.
50 students show up. I began the class by asking how many of you signed up for this class because of the name.
No one raised their hand.
I said, well, actually, nearly all of you.
That's one illustration of what Danny's talking about.
No one thinks they would be stupid enough to sign up for a class based on the name.
I believe it was in thinking fast and slow or Danny wrote, not only are we blind, but we are blind to our blindness.
Yeah. My new best friend is going to tell me that Tom, I've been thinking more about your chapter.
It's all wrong. I've heard you're planning to publish this.
You can't do that. If you do, people will go after you.
And if no one does, I'm going to go after you.
What happened to Brilliant?
Did he in that conversation give you his argument for why you thought now you were wrong?
Yes. He said that there really isn't a change in the intensity of either action or inaction regrets.
There's just a substitution of the kinds of things that you're regretting.
And the regrets of inaction really aren't serious regrets.
You might not even call them regrets.
They're more wistful. Like, oh, I wish I had learned to speak Esperanto.
Said no one ever. Yeah. All right.
So what happens next? Well, lots of panic for a few days.
Vicki Medvick and I, what do we do?
It can't be worse. Some people look at the big insights that have come out of this behaviorless research as essentially esaps fables with a little bit of math.
After this year, we made a series about the late physicist Richard Feynman.
He didn't think the social sciences like psychology and even economics should be called science at all.
He thought they were just too squishy to deserve that name.
And as for psychologists discovering the idea of adversarial collaboration, well, Feynman was a junior member of the Manhattan Project, which in its quest to build an atomic bomb brought together the most brilliant and argumentative group of scientists ever assembled.
That was adversarial. And yes, it was in the end a successful collaboration.
Anyway, back to Chicago.
As Richard Taylor suggests, let's move on to Shane Frederick.
He is a behavioral scientist at Yale who collaborated with Danny Coniman on set that the CRT is a good measure of cognitive abilities beyond just math skills.
It seemed to do quite well and it's doing well consistently.
Time preference is risk reference is other sorts of things.
And how would you characterize the nature of the collaboration?
How adversarial was it?
It wasn't so adversarial between the opposing groups.
It's just like everybody's fighting with everybody else, but everything.
More like a family gathering, right?
Does this suggest that an adversarial collaboration is not as useful as one might hope if the actual adversaries are not often in the ring with the collaborators?
I mean, I don't think it will work.
Do you, Barb? Do these things work?
Well, what does work mean?
It depends on your definition.
If you think people change their minds all the way, no, it doesn't work.
If they change their minds a bit, that's good.
And it speeds up science too.
That is looking over your shoulder.
