The New York Times On Neuroeconomics

ravenousbugblatter writes "The New York Times technology section has an article discussing the increasing attention that neurologists are devoting to the study of the human mind in relation to economics. It looks like John Nash's game theory could have yet another application."

Comments

Neuroeconomics...

[t4eXanadu]

This neural science approach ackowledges that people aren't rational and tries to explain why.


Then that is their first very big mistake. I am totally amazed as the Scientists and Analytic Philosophers who are insistent that the world can be reduced to/ explained by/ etc., grand theories and laws which govern everything, including human behavior.

Speaking of behavior, If you are familiar with Psychology, you would know that today we still do not know HALF as much as they like to claim. We are still as very much confused as any philosopers/psychologists were about the mind in Freud's time. We've just manage to classify a bunch of disorders instead of calling them all neurosis/psychosis.

The same in the Philosophy of Mind field. We haven't made any headway for 100 years, and some might argue since Plato.

My point? The idea that highly irrational (i.e. random, and non-deterministic) can be explained by absolute, deterministic laws. Of course, the Quantum Physicist might agree, and propose a Quantum explanation of consciousness and human behavior, its not new, but its not any more valid than Freud.

-Andy

Re:Neuroeconomics...

[Anonymous Coward]

A Law is any useful heuristic. The labels we use for emotions are such heuristics. I don't know what you feel like when you are "angry", but I can make a reasonable guess. Human motives are certainly irrational as you suggest, but that doesn't mean that people are unpredictable. Hence the fact that marketing and great PR work in the first place. Which is, I think, what this is trying to say. As opposed to conventional market theory, which says rational decisions (transactions) are the driving factor behind a market.

Re:Nash

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Yep. And for that reason, I predict, free market fundamentalists (Randoids et al.) are going to reject this research out of hand. "The market will take care of it" makes sense if and only if people act rationally. But because they do make decisions based on their guts instead of their heads, giant companies with shitty products and great P.R. end up ruling the day -- which the FMF's take as proof that the market is working! (Yes, kids, that's right. Britney Spears is the greatest singer ever. You need $300.00 shoes or you won't be able to walk. And you can't use a computer without Windows. Trust us.) In the current political climate, this research will be buried.