Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The New York Times On Neuroeconomics

Posted by timothy on from the say-hello-to-messrs-sterling-and-gibson dept.

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."

6 of 21 comments (clear)

  1. Economy of the Living Dead? by Rick+the+Red · · Score: 3, Funny

    I must not be getting enough sleep.Either I'm brain-dead, or I have dead on the brain. I thought it said "The New York Times on Necroeconomics."

    --
    If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
  2. Nash by mmport80 · · Score: 2, Informative
    It looks like John Nash's game theory could have yet another application.

    Wrong!

    As far as I understand Nashes approach was a wholey rational one.

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

    1. Re:Nash by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  3. question by kurosawdust · · Score: 2, Insightful

    at what point does this kind of research (and subsequent advertising that arises from it) become more like pulling levers on human money-machines (you WILL buy Alex Chiu's immortality rings...) and less like a free market proposition (I got these rings. Want em? Don't want em? OK.) ?

  4. Neuroeconomics... by t4eXanadu · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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

    1. Re:Neuroeconomics... by NoData · · Score: 2, Informative


      I respectfully point you to the work of Kahneman and Tversky. Read Judgment Under Uncertainty. And Choices, Values, and Frames. Kahneman didn't win a Nobel Prize for not delivering on some very real principles of human behavior.

      There are patterns and principles to the kinds of irrationality humans exhibit. Psychology, exemplified in the work of Kahneman and Tversky, has made tremendous progress in characterizing how people behave. K & T's stuff has especial bearing on economic behavior which is the topic of the research discussed.