Are humans predictable

[THE Bigzoman]

I think so. Prove me wrong.

Economics is a wonderful science that has a set of assumptions about human nature that allow them to accurately economic outcomes, only dropping the ball twice (great depression and 08 crisis.)

I recently was challenged by my mentor due to an argument we got into over if previous behaviour can predict future behaviour, and it got to the nitty gritty of what we thought about human actions and feelings" Him thinking there's an unpredictable element, and me thinking that he's a helpless poet.

People like to claim that theres a element of humanity is unpredictable or romantize human nature, but I just don't think it is. That said, nothing is unmodfiable, so I open the floor to my friends to challenge me on this if they so choose.

I'm all ears.

[Cosmic Janitor]

If you have all the major input variables of a system and a function that adequately approximates the output of said system, sure.

[THE Bigzoman]

If you have all the major input variables of a system and a function that adequately approximates the output of said system, sure.

And there's the flaw with any/all assumptions. Can someone really take into account all variables and functions? For example, the unpredictable elements of global finance that left economists flabbergasted in the 08 crisis.

Still though, is there a certian degree of saftey with a certain # of varaibles, and to what degree are some variables more important than others? Is the importance of variables the same for the majority of people?

Finally, to what degree is a model sufficient to predict at least a majority of people and actions?

[Jamber]

I believe nearly all, if not all processes can be fully predicted, granted you know every single possible source of inside and outside force. This being said, it's highly unlikely one can foresee everything related to a single individual. You can't predict a person is going to do something 10 years from now with any quantifiable amount of certainty. You can be highly sure that someone will respond to a specific situation if you know a lot about said individual.

However, I don't believe you can be 100% sure, because I don't feel one can know everything about a given situation. What if a car crashes nearby? What if a baby cries and sets off someone with PSTD nearby? What if the individual has a sudden heart attack? These are the types of "unpredictable elements" I would deem as very real events that prevent 100% certainty with predicting an individual human. This being said, when you stack in hundreds, thousands, millions of humans into a situation, I feel the interupting event has to be on as large a scale to upset prediction, so there's a slight better chance in predicting groups.

Again, this is assuming one knows all the inside and outside forces that can act on your prediction. And that's quite a bit of them.

[Deleted]

Statistically humans are predictable, individuals less so.

[THE Bigzoman]

I believe nearly all, if not all processes can be fully predicted, granted you know every single possible source of inside and outside force. This being said, it's highly unlikely one can foresee everything related to a single individual. You can't predict a person is going to do something 10 years from now with any quantifiable amount of certainty. You can be highly sure that someone will respond to a specific situation if you know a lot about said individual.

However, I don't believe you can be 100% sure, because I don't feel one can know everything about a given situation. What if a car crashes nearby? What if a baby cries and sets off someone with PSTD nearby? What if the individual has a sudden heart attack? These are the types of "unpredictable elements" I would deem as very real events that prevent 100% certainty with predicting an individual human. This being said, when you stack in hundreds, thousands, millions of humans into a situation, I feel the interupting event has to be on as large a scale to upset prediction, so there's a slight better chance in predicting groups.

Again, this is assuming one knows all the inside and outside forces that can act on your prediction. And that's quite a bit of them.

This is was my mentor's argument, but I don't think so much is neccessary.

Suppose I see you clearly drunk off your ass. You being to walk, and you take a step towards the left. Based solely on that, i'd place all my cards that your next step will be to your left. Because given basic probability-me seeing you take one step to the left already, it's safe to say that you'll step to the left again.

- - - Updated - - -

Systems are predictable, individuals aren't.

If you a create a system that rewards individuals who can generate the most profit, then you're going to create a trend of nature and health destroying choices. Not all doctors are sadists, but the ones running the concentration camps in 1945 all were.

Mentor said it.

To whcih I responded "which is driven by what, humans?"

[Huputiti]

Yes, but in our year 2015 not nearly completely predictable.
However absurd this may feel but i firmly believe there ain't no free will.
There's cause and effect though, this leads ultimately to predictability of not only quantum mechanics but also the human mind.

[Deleted]

Mentor said it.

To whcih I responded "which is driven by what, humans?"

You can predict something if you have statistical data. You can for instance predict a individual will spent x amount per year on food, y per year on clothing, etc.
But you cannot predict what kind of food or what kind of clothes the individual will buy with nearly as much certainty without studying the individual.

[THE Bigzoman]

Yes, but in our year 2015 not nearly completely predictable.
However absurd this may feel but i firmly believe there ain't no free will.
There's cause and effect though, this leads ultimately to predictability of not only quantum mechanics but also the human mind.

I think free will is a thing. I don't think that actions being predictable negates that concept.

We're all ingrained in the thoughts that influence our actions because we all think in a paradigm of universals. It isn't until a large exogenous force that provides a counterexample of our paradigms that people willingly change their behavior and beliefs, and that's where free will lies. We either choose to remain stubborn in old ways in spite of the paradigm until we're forced to change--which takes a very long time, or we change much sooner.

[Jamber]

Suppose I see you clearly drunk off your ass. You being to walk, and you take a step towards the left. Based solely on that, i'd place all my cards that your next step will be to your left. Because given basic probability-me seeing you take one step to the left already, it's safe to say that you'll step to the left again.

That's probably the most possible outcome, and would happen 99.999% of the time. But, personally, I never like to say something is not possible when there's the non-zero chance something else could occur. That being said, I'm being more literal with my beliefs, and would be completely surprised if someone so drunk off their ass suddenly started to tap dance before falling over or taking another step to the left.

It could happen, most likely not, but could. That's why I say things aren't 100% certain unless you know everything. For a more reasonable situation: What if as I take my first step, I hear a song I love, or thought about a song I love, and stopped trying to take steps and broke out in loud, drunken chorus? I do enjoying singing drunk.

[Deleted]

if a car falls on to you do you have the free will to die or not if a atom in you re brain gets affected by something do you have the free will to not be affected

[Dezerte]

"Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills."

So I don't think it's possible.

[nextormento]

Not an economics expert, but when you read the multitude of opinions from experts, I don't think they have such a solid model. Not yet anyway.
They're able to produce every single possible outcome. Then they claim "I told you so" because they had someone somewhere predicting that outcome.
But yeah, behavior is predictable to great accuracy. I'm skeptic that the models are as accurate as they claim to be, though.

[zealo]

As a whole on a society level, largely yes, on an individual level no, there is always going to be outliers to most major trends and behaviors.

[THE Bigzoman]

Not an economics expert, but when you read the multitude of opinions from experts, I don't think they have such a solid model. Not yet anyway.
They're able to produce every single possible outcome. Then they claim "I told you so" because they had someone somewhere predicting that outcome.
But yeah, behavior is predictable to great accuracy. I'm skeptic that the models are as accurate as they claim to be, though.

For the most part, neoclassical economics has an okay record. Great Depression hit, and Keynes fixed some macroeconomic models to a certain degree. Imperfect, but still an improvement.

Current models still have most neoclassical assumptions in tact: (all beings are rational decisions makers, and how they make their optimal decisions. Consumers to maximize utility and how firms in certain markets make production and hiring decisions etc.)

While I will concede that the 08 crisis flipped it again, a few minor adjustments and we should be go until a time where we're all dust.

[Duridi]

I think we are predictable, but that there are way too many factors to take into account, for us to be able to see the result. Or predict the result quick enough for it to not happen a lot of other things in between that changes the result while figuring it out.

I mean, in many cases we can see parts of the results, so I am sure it goes deeper than that. We're just not capable of seeing that far fast enough.

[Nurvus]

And there's the flaw with any/all assumptions. Can someone really take into account all variables and functions? For example, the unpredictable elements of global finance that left economists flabbergasted in the 08 crisis.

Still though, is there a certian degree of saftey with a certain # of varaibles, and to what degree are some variables more important than others? Is the importance of variables the same for the majority of people?

Finally, to what degree is a model sufficient to predict at least a majority of people and actions?

So your whole point rests on the premise that everything is predictable, but you can't predict it because you don't have enough variables?

I can say something like that too:
I have the power to become invisible, but it only works when no one and nothing is watching me.

[nextormento]

While I will concede that the 08 crisis flipped it again, a few minor adjustments and we should be go until a time where we're all dust.

I guess those mistakes are what get people interested. The day to day market is pretty boring for the lay person. It would be desirable if they predicted those big flops.
On the other hand, those behind the models tend to focus on predicting the everyday things; because modeling around 1 big thing every half century is inefficient I guess.
I can't wait for the whole market to be operated solely by robots

[Pull My Finger]

I recently was challenged by my mentor due to an argument we got into over if previous behaviour can predict future behaviour, and it got to the nitty gritty of what we thought about human actions and feelings" Him thinking there's an unpredictable element, and me thinking that he's a helpless poet.

Aah, the naive fervor of youth.

[Super Kami Dende]

You should never underestimate the predictability of stupidity.