Studies Show: The Emerging Science of Neuro-Economics
Posted by Peter Lawler
Reason, emotion, and self-interest are sometimes in conflict, despite the efforts of the brain to balance them. And not only that: Our sense of injustice sometimes trumps our rational self- interest. The old-fashioned economists are not always right; they have a hard time explaining suicide bombers.
2:59 PM / October 10, 2006
: include(/srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/sd/nlt-blog/_includes/promo-main.php): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in
: include(): Failed opening '/srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/sd/nlt-blog/_includes/promo-main.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/opt/sp/php7.2/lib/php') in
Peter: They not only have a hard time explaining suicide bombers; they probably also have a hard time explaining women! Ooops, did I say something wrong again?
That must mean I’m an (old-fashioned) economist! You never say anything wrong...that’s the mystery of (a very few) women.
Couldn’t old fashioned economists explain suicide bombers by the sucide bomber’s belief that through his action (his cost) he will reap a very good benefit, eternal bliss and all of that?
I believe this is the same criticism some people level against the Christian virtues. That people are only meek, mild, and humble becuase they will lord it over the sinner someday. I believe some of Tertullian’s writings illuistrate that point.
The "rational choice" theory of economics is pretty thin. If people do things that (they think) will serve their own desires, and yet those desires are set by the social and physical environment, then virtually anything can be "rational." Moreover, there is a strong tendency in economics to discount prestige and social honor as commodities.
In short, the assumptions underlying most economics are flawed, which may explain why they can’t predict economic trends worth squat.