From a recent book review: Jonah Lehrer's mission in The Decisive Moment is to help us determine when to override our instincts and when to let them run. … One of Lehrer's interesting recommendations [is]: trust your emotions in situations where you have had a lot of experience, since this is when [your brain is] … best equipped to warn you of any deviations from their established patterns. In novel situations, on the other hand, such as when playing a new game or considering a risk to your health, it is a good idea to take a step back and do the maths, even though your emotional brain will tell you it knows better.
You may be making bad assumptions on both. Perhaps the drinking before the dart championship is an end in of itself; a tourney that starts at 9am provides an excellent excuse for starting to "loosen up" around 8am (I usually shoot for 7:30).
I couldn't say what this way of thinking would mean regarding the response to the current crisis.
Isn't anti-inductiveness the best explanation of why every single theory of macroeconomy always failed in the long run? Governments, central banks, financial system etc. are trying to take advantage of regularities in macroeconomy just as stock market participants are trying to take advantage of regularities in microeconomy.
Jeffrey, macroeconomists do not believe history is very "anti-inductive", and I'm inclined to agree with them.
Any comment on how to weigh historical data in macroeconomics, given the anti-inductive nature in microeconomics? Does looking at the last couple of attempts by industrial nations to pull themselves out of recessions, and looking at which succeeded and which failed hold water in this context, or does the markets' attempt to induce on the same data cancel its usefulness?