Essay Title 3: Nothing is more exciting than fresh ideas, so why are areas of knowledge often so slow
to adopt them? Discuss with reference to the human sciences and one other area of knowledge.
Despite how new ideas are constantly being developed, how come only a small portion of them are
being implemented and accepted? Contrary to the exciting nature of the new opportunities and
possibilities that these “fresh” ideas entail, it is undeniable that there seems to be a slower acceptance
and a sort of resistance against them. Of course, the extent of the resistance is dependent on the
different areas of knowledge. For example, the Human Sciences may have a higher resistance, and
therefore slower adoption, of these fresh ideas as the issues that the Human sciences aim to address
could have long term consequences on human wellbeing and lifestyles. Alternatively, adoption of
fresh ideas in the Arts may be quicker in comparison, as art is a subjective reflection of societal norms
and beliefs that are constantly changing. Likewise, the extent of which an idea can be considered
“fresh” is also dependent on the different areas of knowledge as well. An idea could very well be
considered “fresh” if it is entirely a new concept that has not yet been explored before, like a new type
of medium or technique being used in the Arts, but could also be considered “fresh” if it is an idea
that adds onto knowledge already implemented, like an extension or a new perspective on a theory
that is used in the Human Sciences. Thus, in the exploration of the third TOK Essay title, “Nothing is
more exciting than fresh ideas, so why are areas of knowledge often so slow to adopt them?”, it is
imperative to understand that the extent to which knowledge is defined “fresh” and the extent of how
“slow” the adoption of an idea is greatly dependent on the area of knowledge. Thereby, with reference
to the areas of knowledge of the Human Sciences and the Arts, this essay will discuss why fresh ideas
take time to be adopted due to the amount of credibility and reliability it needs to prove before its
acceptance and implementation.
In the area of knowledge of the Human Sciences, the slow adoption of knowledge can be seen in the
field of economics, more specifically, in the slow acceptance of behavioral economics. First proposed
in the 1980s by economist Richard Thaler, now considered the founder of the study, behavioral
economics refers to the intersection between economics and psychology, a field of study that attempts
, to rationalize and predict essentially irrational human behavior in regard to economic
decision-making. Thaler popularized the “nudge” concept, an aspect of behavioral economics where
someone is “nudged” - encouraged or influenced - to make one decision over another, guiding them to
seemingly make “better” decisions. However, behavioral economics was only recently accepted, only
implemented into the IB HL Economics program in the 2019-2020 school year syllabus. Although
now widely recognized and finally put into consideration in the real world, the acceptance and
adoption of behavioral economics was remarkably slow. This is due to how, the creation of behavioral
economics exceeded the development of psychological study, that proved why behavioral economics
worked. This meant that, although the economic theory was fully developed and could easily be
implemented right away, the evidence that would have backed it up utilizing psychological studies
lacked, resulting in the long-term dismissal of behavioral economics from other economists of
Thaler’s time. Without concrete evidence to prove the validity of “fresh ideas” there is a lack of
certainty, ultimately complicating the justification process, in this case proving the reliability of
behavioral economics, slowing down the acceptance of new knowledge. Therefore, the slow adoption
of behavioral economics serves as an example of how fresh ideas, without being able to prove its
credibility and reliability, can take more time to be implemented, in comparison to pre-existing
knowledge that has more evidence to prove its utility.
However, just because there has been cases where acceptance to fresh ideas have been slow, it does
not directly mean that this process always takes time. For example, even within the same area of
knowledge of the field of economics, the acceptance of the Keynesian model was much faster in
comparison to the acceptance of the behavioral economics. The Keynesian model developed in 1936,
around the time of the great depression, in John Maynard Keyne’s book “The General Theory of
Employment, Interest and Money”. The Keynesian model went against the economic theories built
upon Classical economics which proposed that the economy would eventually learn to fix itself with
time, and instead encouraged government intervention to step in and change the state of the economy.
After its first implementation during the great depression, it became the dominant model from 1946 to
1976, and was widely accepted within the span of a mere 10 years. While behavioral economics was
to adopt them? Discuss with reference to the human sciences and one other area of knowledge.
Despite how new ideas are constantly being developed, how come only a small portion of them are
being implemented and accepted? Contrary to the exciting nature of the new opportunities and
possibilities that these “fresh” ideas entail, it is undeniable that there seems to be a slower acceptance
and a sort of resistance against them. Of course, the extent of the resistance is dependent on the
different areas of knowledge. For example, the Human Sciences may have a higher resistance, and
therefore slower adoption, of these fresh ideas as the issues that the Human sciences aim to address
could have long term consequences on human wellbeing and lifestyles. Alternatively, adoption of
fresh ideas in the Arts may be quicker in comparison, as art is a subjective reflection of societal norms
and beliefs that are constantly changing. Likewise, the extent of which an idea can be considered
“fresh” is also dependent on the different areas of knowledge as well. An idea could very well be
considered “fresh” if it is entirely a new concept that has not yet been explored before, like a new type
of medium or technique being used in the Arts, but could also be considered “fresh” if it is an idea
that adds onto knowledge already implemented, like an extension or a new perspective on a theory
that is used in the Human Sciences. Thus, in the exploration of the third TOK Essay title, “Nothing is
more exciting than fresh ideas, so why are areas of knowledge often so slow to adopt them?”, it is
imperative to understand that the extent to which knowledge is defined “fresh” and the extent of how
“slow” the adoption of an idea is greatly dependent on the area of knowledge. Thereby, with reference
to the areas of knowledge of the Human Sciences and the Arts, this essay will discuss why fresh ideas
take time to be adopted due to the amount of credibility and reliability it needs to prove before its
acceptance and implementation.
In the area of knowledge of the Human Sciences, the slow adoption of knowledge can be seen in the
field of economics, more specifically, in the slow acceptance of behavioral economics. First proposed
in the 1980s by economist Richard Thaler, now considered the founder of the study, behavioral
economics refers to the intersection between economics and psychology, a field of study that attempts
, to rationalize and predict essentially irrational human behavior in regard to economic
decision-making. Thaler popularized the “nudge” concept, an aspect of behavioral economics where
someone is “nudged” - encouraged or influenced - to make one decision over another, guiding them to
seemingly make “better” decisions. However, behavioral economics was only recently accepted, only
implemented into the IB HL Economics program in the 2019-2020 school year syllabus. Although
now widely recognized and finally put into consideration in the real world, the acceptance and
adoption of behavioral economics was remarkably slow. This is due to how, the creation of behavioral
economics exceeded the development of psychological study, that proved why behavioral economics
worked. This meant that, although the economic theory was fully developed and could easily be
implemented right away, the evidence that would have backed it up utilizing psychological studies
lacked, resulting in the long-term dismissal of behavioral economics from other economists of
Thaler’s time. Without concrete evidence to prove the validity of “fresh ideas” there is a lack of
certainty, ultimately complicating the justification process, in this case proving the reliability of
behavioral economics, slowing down the acceptance of new knowledge. Therefore, the slow adoption
of behavioral economics serves as an example of how fresh ideas, without being able to prove its
credibility and reliability, can take more time to be implemented, in comparison to pre-existing
knowledge that has more evidence to prove its utility.
However, just because there has been cases where acceptance to fresh ideas have been slow, it does
not directly mean that this process always takes time. For example, even within the same area of
knowledge of the field of economics, the acceptance of the Keynesian model was much faster in
comparison to the acceptance of the behavioral economics. The Keynesian model developed in 1936,
around the time of the great depression, in John Maynard Keyne’s book “The General Theory of
Employment, Interest and Money”. The Keynesian model went against the economic theories built
upon Classical economics which proposed that the economy would eventually learn to fix itself with
time, and instead encouraged government intervention to step in and change the state of the economy.
After its first implementation during the great depression, it became the dominant model from 1946 to
1976, and was widely accepted within the span of a mere 10 years. While behavioral economics was
