262ventures.com

The Predictably Irrational blog brought up a revealing case study regarding organ donor rates across a range of European countries.  Ariely asserts that the discrepancy in organ donors (4.3% for Denmark vs. 85.9% for Sweden) originates from the way the forms are set up; Sweden having an opt-out choice and Denmark having a opt-in choice.  He continues to discuss the notion that indecision often arises when we are forced to make choices that are frightening.  In this case the frightening choice is what to do with our material remains once we pass away.  As we are pushed to consider our own mortality we seize up and select the default choice (i.e. leave the check box unchecked).

How many other scenarios can this be applied to?  Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion, essentially claims that religion is a default option and that we live in a world where no one wants to check the box.  In this situation, again there are quintessential dilemmas regarding life, death, our role in this universe and our purpose for existence, to which we wish to avert our eyes.  Though the fiery rhetoric or the synthesis of the book may not be agreeable to everyone (from the Amazon comments it seems to raise a ruckus with logicists, anthropologists, scientists, atheists, theologists, everyone), in conjunction with Ariely’s hypothesis, we really have to wonder why there are so few atheists out there.

OK, religion is probably a tough one to argue.  But how a grayer area, where we aren’t talking about 95-5 splits but something more akin to 65-35? What about doping in sports?  Are there really, as Jose Canseco said, 50% or some inordinate number of steroid users in the MLB?  Having heard testimonies of current and former users, albeit only a select few, it seems that the choice to do performance enhancing drugs is a difficult one.  On one hand, you want to stay in the league, make more money, or generally attain success.  On the other, you could get busted, suffer health consequences, or be libeled a cheater by people you care about.  We’re not talking life/death decisions here, but undoubtedly this would be a tough decision to make.

The default decision here is to not use performance enhancing drugs right?  Do we see fewer users of performance enhancing drugs than expected?  And why is the onus on the athletes to prove their innocence even before they are labeled guilty?  Obviously there are many more effects at play in this environment (the current PED witchhunt in MLB, BALCO scandal, etc.) but overall it seems that we are paralyzed by indecision when it comes to difficult choices.  Shouldn’t we assume innocence and test for guilt?

Tags: Predictably Irrational, sports doping, The God Delusion

This entry was posted on Thursday, May 8th, 2008 at 3:47 pm and is filed under Economics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.