The "Bahala na" norm, if I may argue, does not actually deal with the problem of uncertainty (the state of the world where probabilities and expected value are unknown) but rather with the problem of ambiguity (either of the probabilities or expected value is unknown). The way individuals behave in states of ambiguity, as opposed to states of uncertainty, leads to decisions that attempts to confirm pre-conceived or pre-packaged beliefs on how to deal with the missing elements of the state of the world. The "bahala na" norm, according to Lagmay (1976), suggests that individuals do not avoid facing the problem, but rather are emboldened to face the problem despite the lack of information available to complete their expected utility of an outcome. However, what Lagmay does not clearly delineate is the extent individuals seek information that would confirm or reject their pre-conceived mental hypothesis. When do individuals stop finding information about a problem? Are our automatic and affective processes that strong in preventing individuals from cognitively searching for information to form a decision? Is "bahala na" a form of avoidance from the cognitive and psychological costs of searching for more information? Sikolohiyang Pilipino, in the language of social and affective neuroscience and neuroeconomics, has problems far cooler than what the mainstream psychologists in the Philippines think. Good recommendations to start exploring this inquiry are papers by Hogarth and Kunreuther (1995), Einhorn and Hogarth (1986), and with some shameless plugging, a paper we wrote related to confirmation avoidance and confirmation seeking in moral and risky decision making in Garcia Barretto, Soto and Spath (2013).
Posted on: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 01:52:50 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015