The gathering place for Mental Health and
Applied Behavior Science Professionals. Become a charter member of Behavior OnLine. |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
New Yorker: Neuroeconomics (Mind Games)
The New Yorker published a pretty good introductory article on Neuroeconomics, a budding field studying how economic behavior works in terms of the brain.
MIND GAMES, "What neuroeconomics tells us about money and the brain," by JOHN CASSIDY Some representative snippets: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Todd |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: New Yorker: Neuroeconomics (Mind Games)
Todd, very cool stuff. I have a study in front of me right now:
"Frames, Biases. and Rational Decision-Making in the Human Brain" - Benedetto de Martino, et al. University College, London. I hate to run over here and say "I told you so" every time a study comes out that seems to support my hypothesis so well - but here is one that's right on topic as well. Quote:
Regards, Margaret Last edited by Margaret McGhee; September 13th, 2006 at 01:51 PM.. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re: New Yorker: Neuroeconomics (Mind Games)
Hi Margaret,
You might also enjoy Marc Hauser's recent book, "Moral Minds." Amazon listing for Hauser, Moral Minds Hauser starts with the Humean notion that our moral judgments are driven by our passions rather than calculated through reason, but then expands on it to try to explain how and why we distinguish social conventions from moral decisions. Hauser concludes that we possess an unconscious grammar of action underlying morality, similar to the one that underlies our acquisition of language. It does a good job summarizing both the philosophical issues and relevant scientific data from various fields but is not technical. He points out that while our actions are frequently catalyzed by emotion, the emotion itself must first by triggered by underlying unconscious judgments, and then proceeds to look for the biological roots of those judgments and hypothesizes a universal human moral faculty along the same lines as Chomsky's universal grammar. I'll also mention another work in the same spirit, Ray Jackendoff's "Patterns of the Mind." It is a clearly articulated argument but the book is less effective because it tries to accomplish so much more in less space and seemingly for an even more novice audience than Hauser assumes. Jackendoff has a very clear explanation of grammars, the kinds of empirical evidence we use to infer them, and their application to various human abilities. I mention this because one of the things that made Hauser's argument appeal to me is that I was swayed first a few years ago by many of Jackendoff's points, and they came back to me when reading Hauser. I know you struggle here sometimes clarifying your emotion-based theory, but from my perspective the only criticism I have of it is that I take much of it for granted and am particularly interested in the next step, as Hauser emphasizes, seeking out the biology underlying the emotions rather than stopping with their existence and role in thinking. kind regards, Todd |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Re: New Yorker: Neuroeconomics (Mind Games)
Quote:
Trouble is this “framing effectâ€â€”that how a question is posed can skew decision-making—is old news. It’s been known for some time that many folk are indeed less objective than others, that some (e.g. MM) allow irrational emotion/feeling to influence their “reasoning†far more than those of us (e.g. Fred H.) that tend to be more objective and are more inclined to use the orbital and medial prefrontal cortex that God/evolution gave us While the study confirms what is already well known, that “emotion†obviously plays a big role in human decision making/ reasoning, it in no way confirms MM’s circular notion that all humans believe only whatever feels good to them and “use their brains to justify it†(although for MM herself that seems to be the case). Nevertheless, the De Martino brain-imaging study does provide some cool pics of neural activity. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Re: New Yorker: Neuroeconomics (Mind Games)
Thanks much for the book suggestions. I'm afraid I've been falling behind my usual consumption. Right now I'm reading "The Executive Brain" by Elkhonon Goldberg and I've also dropped back to pick up one of LeDoux's earlier books that I'm reading at the same time, "The Emotional Brain". But it's been a busy summer. It takes me quite a while to get through them as I tend to go back and re-read one or more chapters as soon as I sense that I'm not getting the full monte - and that happens frequently. I'm sure I could get through them faster if I actually had a background in the bio sciences and psychology. But then, I'd probably miss some connections that I catch now - perhaps even ones that few psychologists see, perhaps even the author.
Quote:
I don't really know what you do but from a couple of things mentioned by TomJ (I think) you are into some kind of robotics or machine intelligence. I worked in that area at one time too and I have often wondered about endowing a machine with a type of emotion-like decision-making heuristic - where its "logical mind" is a service provided to that function rather than the driving algorithm - which would better model the solution to complex machine control that nature has provided through evolution. Sort of a Captain Kirk model instead of the current Mr. Spock version of machine intelligence. In any case, thinking about all these applications of my "emotion-based theory" keeps my head spinning quite enough - and I never think much about the underlying biology - except that it may further illuminate just what's going on in there. Added on edit: Two paragraphs removed because I think sometimes I analyze this stuff too much. Thanks for your comments. Best regards, Margaret Last edited by Margaret McGhee; September 15th, 2006 at 03:47 PM.. |
|
|