最近有接触到一点行为经济学和行为心理学的内容，有感而发。所以写下了这篇文章，暂以粗浅观点予以讨论。

本次讨论包括但不限于物质环境对个人的判断力，风险偏好及耐心的讨论。

一、判断力

物质环境对个人判断力有影响这一观点在中国的社交平台，诸如：QQ空间，知乎，豆瓣，微博等地被时常提起，并获得了不少人的支持。此处，仅以我个人所得资料及论述对这一问题讨论。

曾经有一个哈佛的研究团队——Mullainathan，在印度的农村做过一次非常大胆的实验：分别在饥年和丰年去测同一群农民的智商。结果显示，这群农民在饥年的逻辑思维能力显著下降。而远在大洋彼岸的美国，也有同样一群人进行了一个极为相似的实验，对象是1191个家庭收入在四万美金以下的贫困家庭。对这群人的实验是：在发工资前后对思维能力的分别测试。结果显示，相比于发工资前，这些人的思维能力得到了显著的提升。

这一令人诧异的研究结果有诸多不同的解释，其中以Mullainathan（对的，就是那个哈佛的研究团队）的心智资源稀缺假说最为经典。那个模型用了一大堆的数学模型来解决这个问题，简单说就是：We propose an alternative approach to this question based on the idea that attention is a scarce resource that is important for productivity.Specically, people may not be able to fully attend to their jobs if they are also worrying about problems at home and being distracted in this way reduces productivity.所以作者认为，当一个人在非工作相关的领域（因贫穷造成的生活问题）投入更多的精力，那么他就不能全身心的投入工作，因此工作收入减少，并因此需要更多的精力解决生活中的问题。并以此循环（Paying more attention at home makes the person poorer and therefore less able to buy comfort goods. But having less comfort goods makes the problems at home worse and this makes it even more important to pay more attention at home.This makes the optimization problems non-convex and produces a bang-bang solution despite the fact that both the work and the home production functions are bad.）

作者在研究了印度及非洲的情况后，在同年发表的论文中提到：为了改变发展中国家的现状，必须从基础建设开始。用更高的基础建设水平来提高人民的生活水平和幸福指数，由此提高人民的创造力及思维能力——财富创造能力（countries where the average worker is better paid will have more productive workers: in other words, this will be true even if the di⁄erence in pay has nothing to do with productivity.）

So ,  Conclusion：1、对生活中的小事要快速处理，防止其堆积

2、不要把为数不多的精力放在生活的闲杂事上，把主要精力放在主要工作中！！！

二、风险偏好

在诸多的研究结果中，大多数的研究结果都显示：拥有较差物质环境的人群的风险厌恶程度和未来贴现率更高。

在Haushofer & Fehr_On The Psychology Of Poverty中，提到The IV estimates confirm（文） the negative relationship between the discount rate and income, suggesting that poverty may causally affect time-discounting.

各国的统计数据都表示：在长期的股票投资中，相对贫穷的人群参与率较富裕人群明显更低，而更进一步，大量经验研究表明，如果风险的结果是逐渐揭露出来的，相比于一次直接披露，人更厌恶风险。也就是为什么彩票反而在低收入家庭更受欢迎。因为就一般而言，物质条件较差的群体对风险承受的能力往往更弱，而且也不能通过银行等金融机构来转移风险，因而他们多趋向于低风险！！

So，Conclusion：合理应用适当的金融工具等来抵消风险

三、耐心

关于耐心，就目前的研究结果而言，物质环境较差的人较物质环境好的人都特别不耐心。经典的别拿那颗糖的例子足以说明问题。还有部分同学可能遇到的：“越是没复习好，越不想复习”，说的也是这个道理。因为负面情绪诸如焦虑、压力、悲伤，让人厌恶风险、失去耐心，而物质环境通常会决定一个人的环境负面情绪。所以他们会经常面对更多的负面情绪，因而耐心更差。

还有关于上文提到的time-discounting，这个概念非常重要。时间折扣（time discounting）是指，人们会将未来获益或损失的价值打一个折扣，未来的权重低 于对目前的权重。但在对未来与现在的价值进行权衡时一一即跨期选择(inteftemporal choice）时，如同故事“朝三暮四”中的猴子一样，人类难以避免地带有来自进化的非理性偏差：偏好即刻的价值胜于未来的更大价值。从动物到人类，从儿童到成人，这一普遍现象己被大量经济学和心理学研究所证实。（The study indeed found that previous decision-making in the poor condition—but not the rich condition— impaired behavioral control, as measured by the duration of time subjects were able to squeeze a handgrip and their performance in a Stroop task. poverty appears to affect decision-making by rendering people susceptible to the willpower and self-control depleting effects of decision-making. Because willpower and self-control are hypothesized to be important components of the ability to defer gratification,such effects may also affect time-discounting behavior.）

此问题有两个解释，第一个是用aspiration failure来解释，为了逃避现实，很多人不敢去想如果自己这样下去会怎样，于是今朝有酒今朝醉，这是很多影视作品里的亡命之徒的真实写照。。2014年的一篇文章的题目干脆就叫Closing eyes to the gloomy future。

第二个解释，也就是另一个模型——Becker·Uzawa(1968)给出的内生贴现因子模型，该模型的解释是：假设贴现因子是人们消费水平效用的函数,而且假设,现在消费的效用越高,人们对将来的耐心程度越低,这样,人们越希望今天消费。所以更多人就更期待在今天开始享受，而不是在今天开始努力。简化一点就是，富裕的人群因为对未来的期许更为乐观，因而有耐心等待更好的未来，而贫穷人群却不一样，他们对未来少有信心，因而造成了对未来的信心缺乏，有了更高的时间贴现率（time discounting）。造成了个人积累的贫乏，而在没有一定规模的积累下，那么回报相应也更低。

So , Conclusion：1、远离负面情绪，学会释放压力，防止受到影响

2、拒绝time-discounting，对未来保持信心

3、耐心积累，只有耐心积累才能改变未来的资本回报

附录：一、Mullainathan·Limited Attention and Income Distribution

Conclusion

This paper produces a simple model of how home life and work life can interact through limited attention to generate poverty traps and other e⁄ects on income distribution. While there is natural connection between ditsractions and deviations from rationality, it is worth emphasizing that our model, while motivated by psychology, does not rely on any of these deviations. Instead, the psychological insights help us motivate a richer preference structure within a rational choice model.

Given that the model is entirely located within the standard neo-classical framework, it is perhaps no surprise that there is no formal di⁄erence between our model and a model of rational time-allocation, if we think of comfort goods as time-saving devices. In other words, our result could be read as saying that time spent working jumps up as human capital goes up. However as noted by Banerjee and Duo (2008), while the poor do work less hours than the non-poor in some of the countries where there is survey data for both groups (and not in others), the di⁄erence (especially conditional on actually working) tend to be small and nowhere near what they would be to explain a substantial part of the di⁄erences in earnings.If time-use has to be a signicant part of the explanation of the observed di⁄erences, it mustbe the quality of time-use (i.e. attention) rather than the quantity, that matters.

二、Haushofer & Fehr_On The Psychology Of Poverty

conclusion

People living in poverty, especially in developing countries, have repeatedly been found to be more risk averse and more likely to discount future payoffs than wealthier individuals. For example, discount rates of poor U.S. households are substantially higher than those of rich households (3); likewise, studies of Ethiopian farm households (4) and a South Indian sample (5) find that lower wealth predicts substantially higher (behaviorally measured) discount rates. Wealthier households or those with higher annual incomes also display lower levels of risk aversion in representative samples