Difference between revisions of "Will you take 'neuro' with that?"
m (no more tweaking needed) |
|||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
[[listing section::neuroeconomics]] | [[listing section::neuroeconomics]] | ||
[[lead-in>Neuroeconomics is an interesting idea that has an epistemological worm at its core... but there is no guarantee at all that the optimizing process corresponds to "explicit optimization" in which courses of action are well-defined...]] | |||
[[full text::Neuroeconomics is an interesting idea that has an epistemological worm at its core. Classical microeconomics is a science of outcomes and its mathematical tool has always been optimality theory. As ''[[Wikipedia:Microeconomics#Assumptions_and_definitions|Wikipedia]]'' puts it: “The demand for various commodities by individuals is generally thought of as the outcome of a utility-maximizing process” – “a process” not any specific process. Until very recently, economics had no interest at all in the details of the process that allows people to maximize their utility. But the “neuro” in Neuroeconomics must refer to the physiology of some very specific optimizing process. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee at all that the process corresponds to “explicit optimization” in which courses of action are well-defined, their utilities explicitly computed and the highest one reliably chosen. | |||
Neuroeconomics is an interesting idea that has an epistemological worm at its core. Classical microeconomics is a science of outcomes and its mathematical tool has always been optimality theory. As ''[[Wikipedia:Microeconomics#Assumptions_and_definitions|Wikipedia]]'' puts it: “The demand for various commodities by individuals is generally thought of as the outcome of a utility-maximizing process” – “a process” not any specific process. Until very recently, economics had no interest at all in the details of the process that allows people to maximize their utility. But the “neuro” in Neuroeconomics must refer to the physiology of some very specific optimizing process. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee at all that the process corresponds to “explicit optimization” in which courses of action are well-defined, their utilities explicitly computed and the highest one reliably chosen. | |||
But a few Nobel prizes change everything. First John Nash (A Beautiful Mind) Reinhard Selten, and John Harsanyi got the Economic Nobel for their contributions to Game Theory, and then Daniel Kahneman (with Vernon Smith) got his for his and Amos Tversky’s work showing | But a few Nobel prizes change everything. First John Nash (A Beautiful Mind) Reinhard Selten, and John Harsanyi got the Economic Nobel for their contributions to Game Theory, and then Daniel Kahneman (with Vernon Smith) got his for his and Amos Tversky’s work showing | ||
| Line 43: | Line 41: | ||
* Staddon, J. E. R. (1980). Optimality analyses of operant behavior and their relation to optimal foraging. In J. E. R. Staddon (Ed.), ''Limits to action: The allocation of individual behavior''. New York: Academic Press. Pp. 101-141. | * Staddon, J. E. R. (1980). Optimality analyses of operant behavior and their relation to optimal foraging. In J. E. R. Staddon (Ed.), ''Limits to action: The allocation of individual behavior''. New York: Academic Press. Pp. 101-141. | ||
* Staddon, J. E. R., & Zanutto, B. S. (1997) Feeding dynamics: Why rats eat in meals and what this means for foraging and feeding regulation. In ''Learning, motivation and cognition: The functional behaviorism of Robert C. Bolles''. M. E. Bouton & M. S. Fanselow (eds.) Washington: American Psychological Association. Pp. 131-162. | * Staddon, J. E. R., & Zanutto, B. S. (1997) Feeding dynamics: Why rats eat in meals and what this means for foraging and feeding regulation. In ''Learning, motivation and cognition: The functional behaviorism of Robert C. Bolles''. M. E. Bouton & M. S. Fanselow (eds.) Washington: American Psychological Association. Pp. 131-162. | ||
]] | |||
</hide>{{page/spec/response}} | |||
Revision as of 13:30, 25 July 2020
- Title: Will you take 'neuro' with that?
- Author(s): J. E. R. Staddon
- Date: 16 July 2006
- Keyname: 2006-07-16-Staddon
- Responds to: Addiction and cue-triggered decision processes
- Lead-in: Neuroeconomics is an interesting idea that has an epistemological worm at its core... but there is no guarantee at all that the optimizing process corresponds to "explicit optimization" in which courses of action are well-defined...
no responses found
... more about "Will you take 'neuro' with that?"
Date"Date" is a type and predefined property provided by Semantic MediaWiki to represent date values.
July 16, 2006 +