不会演戏的经济学家不是好股神，这位新晋诺奖得主有点意思

Peter Gardenfors, member of the committee for the Economics Prize said, Thaler's achievements successfully integrated economics and psychology, as he made economics "more human." And his theories "help people make better economic decisions."
诺贝尔经济学奖委员会成员皮特•加登福斯称，塞勒的研究成果成功地将经济学和心理学整合在一起，让经济学更“人性化”。他的理论“帮助人们做出更好的经济决策”。

塞勒1945年出生在美国，是行为经济学之父，现执教于芝加哥大学商学院，同时在国民经济研究局主管行为经济学的研究工作。

塞勒还是一家基金公司的创始人，专注美国小企业股。在他的行为经济学理论下，公司替摩根大通管理的一只基金表现优异，2015年基金规模激增1倍至37亿美元，目前资产总规模已达60亿美元。

不会演戏的经济学家不是好股神，如果你看过获得2016年奥斯卡最佳改编剧本奖的电影《大空头》，一定会觉得这位新晋诺贝尔奖得主有些眼熟。

Thaler's work earned him a glamorous foray into the movie business when he made a cameo appearance, alongside Christian Bale, Steve Carell and Ryan Gosling, in the 2015 movie 'The Big Short' about the credit and housing bubble collapse that led to the 2008 global financial crisis.
塞勒曾凭借其成就得到一个进军电影业的机会，他在2015年的《大空头》中客串了一个小角色，和克里斯蒂安•贝尔、史蒂夫•卡瑞尔、瑞恩•高斯林同框出镜。这部电影讲述的是引发2008年全球金融危机的信贷与房地产泡沫崩溃。

In his cameo, he appeared in a scene alongside pop star Selena Gomez to explain the 'hot hand fallacy,' in which people think whatever's happening now is going to continue to happen into the future.
在塞勒客串的一幕中，他出现在流行歌手赛琳娜•戈麦斯旁边，解释着“热手效应”，这个理论说的是人们认为现在发生的一切将来还会继续发生。

用塞勒徒弟、中欧国际工商学院金融学副教授余方的话来评价塞勒的学术风格，那就是有点“非主流”，“总跟别人做的研究不太一样”。

作为一位传统学术理论的挑战者，塞勒认为：人们的行为并不像传统经济学理论中认为的那样理性。

Thaler has incorporated psychologically realistic assumptions into analyses of economic decision-making. By exploring the consequences of limited rationality, social preferences, and lack of self-control, he has shown how these human traits systematically affect individual decisions as well as market outcomes.
塞勒将心理学上的现实假设整合进经济决策分析中。通过探索“有限理性”、“社会偏好”和“自制力缺乏”等因素的影响，揭示了这些人性特征对个体选择和市场结果产生的系统性影响。

听起来太高大上？下面我们将用尽量通俗的语言来介绍塞勒的主要理论：

Limited rationality
有限理性

Thaler developed the theory of mental accounting, explaining how people simplify financial decision-making by creating separate accounts in their minds, focusing on the narrow impact of each individual decision rather than its overall effect.
塞勒创建了“心理账户”理论，阐述了人们是如何通过在内心创建不同的账户来简化经济决策的：人们会聚焦于单个决策的狭隘影响，而不是它们的总体效果。

举例说明：

We may have a “vacation” budget in our heads, and a “household maintenance” budget, and we tend not to mix them. If we get an unusually good deal on our airfare to Hawaii, we won’t use the savings to have the carpets cleaned; we’ll spend more at the bar on our vacation, keeping the money in the appropriate bucket.
我们脑海里有一笔“度假预算”和一笔“家庭维护预算”，我们通常不会将两者混在一起。如果我们能以特别划算的价格买到飞往夏威夷的机票，我们不会把省下的钱用来清洁地毯；我们度假时会在酒吧花得更多，让这笔钱花在原本的预算上。

He also showed how aversion to losses can explain why people value the same item more highly when they own it than when they don’t, a phenomenon called the endowment effect.
塞勒还向我们介绍了如何用厌恶损失来解释为什么人们拥有某件东西时，会比没有的时候更高估其价值，即“禀赋效应”。

其实“禀赋效应”在生活中有很多体现，比如下面这个经典的掷硬币打赌的例子：

In the first case, you are offered the chance to bet on the toss of a coin: You can win $10 if you call the coin toss correctly, or lose $10 if you call the toss incorrectly. Most people will decline the bet.
在第一种情况下，你有机会玩儿掷硬币打赌：如果你猜对可以赢得10美元，如果你猜错就会输掉10美元。大多数人会放弃这个赌注。

In the second case, a bet is described differently: You are told that you are about to lose $10, but there’s a 50-50 chance you could come out with no loss—but with the prospect of a $20 loss if the coin toss works against you. That’s really the same bet as in the first example, but framed as loss avoidance rather than seeking a gain. People are much more likely to take the second bet; they will take larger risks to try to avoid a loss.
在第二种情况中，赌局的描述有所不同：你被告知将输掉10美元，但有50%的机会不输钱，不过如果猜错的话将输掉20美元。这和第一个赌局是相同的，但却被视为是在避免损失，而不是寻求利益的。人们更倾向于参加第二个赌局，冒更大的风险以尽力避免损失。

Social preferences
社会偏好

Thaler’s theoretical and experimental research on fairness has been influential. He showed how consumers’ fairness concerns may stop firms from raising prices in periods of high demand, but not in times of rising costs.
塞勒关于公平的理论和实验研究很有影响力。他称，消费者对公平的关注会阻止公司在需求增加的时候涨价，但却不会阻止公司在成本上升时涨价。

还是用一个通俗易懂的例子来说明：

Let’s say you run a building supply company located in a hurricane warning area, and everyone is coming in to buy plywood. It would be bad practice to raise prices with a sign that says: “We have raised our prices so that plywood is only bought by those who really need it.”
假设你在飓风警报区开了一家建筑用品公司，所有人都来买胶合板（一种装修常用的板材）。错误的做法是将标语写成：“为了将胶合板卖给真正需要的人，我们涨价了。”

Good practice would be to raise prices with a sign that says “Our wholesale cost of plywood has increased, and we have to pass the cost along to you. But we have not raised our profit margin.”
要想涨价，正确的做法是将标语写成：“我们的胶合板批发成本上涨了，不得不把成本转嫁给你们。但是我们的利润并没有增加。”

Thaler and his colleagues devised the dictator game, an experimental tool that has been used in numerous studies to measure attitudes to fairness in different groups of people around the world.
塞勒和他的同事还设计了“独裁者博弈”，这个实验工具被应用在大量研究中，用于衡量世界各地的不同群体对于公平的态度。

Lack of self-control
自制力缺乏

Thaler has also shed new light on the old observation that New Year’s resolutions can be hard to keep. He showed how to analyze self-control problems using a planner-doer model, which is similar to the frameworks psychologists and neuroscientists now use to describe the internal tension between long-term planning and short-term doing.
新年计划难以执行是一个世纪难题，塞勒还为解决这个问题提供了新线索。他向人们展示了如何通过“计划者-执行者模型”分析自控问题，这个模型与当前心理学家和神经科学家用来解释长期计划与短期执行间的矛盾的理论类似。

Succumbing to short-term temptation is an important reason why our plans to save for old age, or make healthier lifestyle choices, often fail. In his applied work, Thaler demonstrated how nudging – a term he coined – may help people exercise better self-control when saving for a pension, as well in other contexts.
我们打算存养老金，想选择更健康的生活方式，却经常失败，一个重要的原因就是我们会向短期诱惑屈服。在塞勒的应用研究中，他展示了如何通过“助推”（他自创的术语）来帮助人们更好地控制自己存下养老金，以及完成其他事情。

“助推理论”的原理：

缺少思考时间、习惯以及失败的决策意味着即使事实分析摆在眼前，比如明知健康饮食的好处，我们仍然可能选择汉堡和薯条。

We're hungry, we're in a hurry and burger and chips is what we always buy.
我们很饿，很着急，而汉堡薯条是我们一直购买的食物。

Nudge theory takes account of this, based as it is on the simple premise that people will often choose what is easiest over what is wisest.
助推理论考虑到了这点，人们往往会做出最容易的选择，而不是最明智的选择，该理论就是建立在这个简单前提之上。

Tests have shown that putting healthier foods on a higher shelf increases sales.
测试表明，将更健康的食品摆放在更高的货架上，销量会增加。

The food is more likely to be in someone's eye line and therefore "nudge" that person towards the purchase - whether they had any idea about the obesity argument or not.
摆放在高层货架上的食物更容易进入消费者的视线，因此会“助推”人们购买，不论他们是否了解关于肥胖症问题。