Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   Neuroeconomics

   

   Eric Roston, Mar 1st, 2004 @ 9:13pm

   
   

   Mike: Apologies if it's considered bad form to post one's own work. Your comment is well-taken, and the more I think about it, it opens up a whole can of epistomological worms. One of the things that's fascinating to me about neuroeconomic study is the way it blends physical science with centuries-old cultural questions, in this case, the old Latin notion of "dulce" versus "utile", sweet versus useful, or in a more modern interpretation, emotional versus utilitarian or rational. "Rational man" economics with its concern on maximiing gain has no room for the "dulce". I'm not convinced it's as easy as sweeping the non-rational into a de facto definition of rational or useful, but I think your objection strikes at a central question. Readers interested in these questions might consult the work of George Lowenstein at Carnegie-Mellon University.
   
   Again, don't want to appear in bad form. The column is new, and I'd hope to introduce it to the community and offer my e-mail address into the conversation: [email protected] Thanks. I enjoy the site. Best, Eric

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   Re: Neuroeconomics

   

   Mike (profile), Mar 1st, 2004 @ 11:38pm

   
   

   Eric,
   
   Not bad form at all. Others do so as well. I was just pointing out that it was you who had submitted it. In fact, please continue to submit them if you feel the audience here would appreciate it.
   
   Anyway, I wasn't trying to criticize your take on the issue. My complaint is mostly with the neuroeconomists who talk about traditional "rational man" economics as if it has nothing to offer to the debate. I agree that it's fascinating work (and have a good friend who is researching stuff in this area). I just think they tend to trash those who came before them when they could learn from them and build on their work with additional scientific evidence.
   
   Mike

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   Neuroeconomics

   

   Peter, Mar 3rd, 2004 @ 2:22am

   
   

   Mike, Eric,
   
   I do not think that it is really useful for the neuroeconomic research to discuss in classical terms like "ratinonality" oder "utiliy". In fact, there are obviousily different neuorological decision pattern, which is well-known in neuroscience (for instance see the work of Damasio). To improve our understanding of economic decision making, the first thing we´ve got to do is to collect some new data. And than, yet, we should try to develop some new theorie (with new terms), which fits better to the collected data.
   
   By the way: Perhaps you would like to participate on the 2nd Conference on Neuroeconomics in May 2004? Further informations: www.connecs.org
   
   Regards
   
   Peter
   
   

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   Re: Neuroeconomics

   

   Douglas Galbi, Mar 3rd, 2004 @ 7:01am

   
   

   Paul Glimcher, in his pioneering book on neuroeconomics (Decisions, Uncertainty, and the Brain (2003)), uses economic models that come from the "rational man" field of work in economics. The thrust of his work is to relate an optimizing (economic) solution of a decision problem to the biology of an organism. The issue is not whether humans are "rational" or "irrational." The point is to recognize in studying biological hardware that the decision mechanisms of a real living body are physical capabilities that evolved to maximize selective fitness with respect to particular problems in natural-historical circumstances.
   

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   Re: Neuroeconomics

   

   Peter, Mar 4th, 2004 @ 5:35am

   
   

   Hi Douglas,
   
   I think this could be an acceptable approach for further research.
   
   Regards
   
   Peter

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment