Regular kind of economists make projections on the assumption that humans are logical people and we will do what’s best for us. In their world, we save for retirement because it’s objectively smart. We wait for prices to drop before buying that new phone. We eat the salad instead of the fries because the data clearly says it’s the healthier choice. And our answer for a request doesn't change if we are asked before or after lunch.
The problem?
We’re not that kind of people.
Behavioral kind of economists try to understand how humans actually are - psychology, emotions, biases-driven people whose priorities change based on the weather, when and what they ate, what they last heard from a neighbour on their walk to the supermarket, or our need to feel good about how we compare to people we spend time with (even when we don’t like those people - we just not gonna let those people look like they are getting ahead)
They study how people actually behave "in the wild".
Why we sign up for the gym in January but stop showing up by March. Why we buy stuff on sale we didn’t need in the first place. Why we keep meaning to start saving “next month” like if something would change then all of a sudden.
A traditional economist might say:
“If the retirement plan has better returns, people will pick it.”
A behavioral economist says:
“People will probably just go with whatever the default option is. And will justify the decision later with some made-up story”
Or take healthy eating.
The economist assumes that when calorie counts are displayed, health-concerned people will make better choices.
The behavioral economist knows we’ll still grab the muffin if it’s sitting at eye level and the fruit is hidden in the corner.
I used to be a "regular kind of economist" in my coaching.
Now, I'm more of the second kind.
Instead of trying to make clients act like the people they wish they were — disciplined, rested, always in control — I help them build systems for the people they actually are: busy, distracted, often tired, pulled in too many directions.
Together, we design scaffolding for their best aspirations to grow into reality.
If you tend to forget your workouts, we put them on your calendar right after school drop-off.
If you snack late at night, we move the snacks out of sight and keep fruit on the counter.
If you overcommit, we make “no” your default response, with a think-later time scheduled when you are at your best.
When systems match reality, frustration drops. Progress happens more consistently.
I try to apply this to myself too now.
I ask: How can I help Angela — the real Angela, not the ideal one — win today?
High aspirations are great. But systems should serve the person you are right now, not the fantasy/or future version that finally has it all together.
Like scaffolding for a growing tree - it helps your best self stand taller until the roots are strong enough 🌱
Over to you, dear reader, are your systems built for who you are — or who you wish you were?
PS Great podcast from Tim Ferriss just came out to accompany this blog's reading.
