Sandro Ambuehl
👤 PersonAppearances Over Time
Podcast Appearances
In California, you cannot eat horse, whereas in many European countries, you have horse butcheries.
In California, you cannot eat horse, whereas in many European countries, you have horse butcheries.
In California, you cannot eat horse, whereas in many European countries, you have horse butcheries.
I brought buckets and tissues. I was afraid that somebody might throw up. We look into what psychologists call the mere exposure effect.
I brought buckets and tissues. I was afraid that somebody might throw up. We look into what psychologists call the mere exposure effect.
I brought buckets and tissues. I was afraid that somebody might throw up. We look into what psychologists call the mere exposure effect.
And can you incentivize someone to look past their disgust? The way the experiment works is people made decisions in five rounds, and each round was associated with one species of insect. That's coming up after the break. I'm Stephen Dubner, and this is Freakonomics Radio.
And can you incentivize someone to look past their disgust? The way the experiment works is people made decisions in five rounds, and each round was associated with one species of insect. That's coming up after the break. I'm Stephen Dubner, and this is Freakonomics Radio.
And can you incentivize someone to look past their disgust? The way the experiment works is people made decisions in five rounds, and each round was associated with one species of insect. That's coming up after the break. I'm Stephen Dubner, and this is Freakonomics Radio.
That's Sandro Ambul, an economist at the University of Zurich. They think, if anything, about moral repugnance because that puts limits on what can be traded in markets.
That's Sandro Ambul, an economist at the University of Zurich. They think, if anything, about moral repugnance because that puts limits on what can be traded in markets.
That's Sandro Ambul, an economist at the University of Zurich. They think, if anything, about moral repugnance because that puts limits on what can be traded in markets.
For instance, it limits how much you can pay people to participate in medical trials or surrogate motherhood or human egg donation and so forth. There's limits on the incentives that you can provide for these kind of transactions. But is it true that incentives lead to worse decision making? We have all these laws that are based on this hunch.
For instance, it limits how much you can pay people to participate in medical trials or surrogate motherhood or human egg donation and so forth. There's limits on the incentives that you can provide for these kind of transactions. But is it true that incentives lead to worse decision making? We have all these laws that are based on this hunch.
For instance, it limits how much you can pay people to participate in medical trials or surrogate motherhood or human egg donation and so forth. There's limits on the incentives that you can provide for these kind of transactions. But is it true that incentives lead to worse decision making? We have all these laws that are based on this hunch.
Laws against, for instance, compensating kidney donors or even offering compensation for breast milk? It's something that is empirically testable, but hasn't been empirically tested. So that's the main question that I want to answer it.
Laws against, for instance, compensating kidney donors or even offering compensation for breast milk? It's something that is empirically testable, but hasn't been empirically tested. So that's the main question that I want to answer it.
Laws against, for instance, compensating kidney donors or even offering compensation for breast milk? It's something that is empirically testable, but hasn't been empirically tested. So that's the main question that I want to answer it.
He used college students, of course, as his research subjects. The way the experiment works is people made decisions in five rounds, and each round was associated with one species of insect.
He used college students, of course, as his research subjects. The way the experiment works is people made decisions in five rounds, and each round was associated with one species of insect.