(Note: this was posted in the Human Science section, but I figured I might receive more response and insight in the econ forum Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ) I was just wondering about a new discipline called "behavioral economics." I read a very interesting article about in the April edition of Scientific American. The author discussed his research concerning capuchin monkeys and their cooperative behavior. This lends support to the main tenet of behavioral economics - "it views the way human conduct business as an evolved heritage of our species," (SciAm, April 2005 p.74). Also, the author pointed out that basic cooperational and emotional mechanics in humans readily appear in animals (most prevalent and similar in primates). Does anyone know anything about this? I read in the article that Daniel Kahneman and Vernon Smith founded this discipline, and even won the Nobel Prize in '02 for doing so - However, does anyone know of specific literature or published research I can check out about this subject? I searched on the internet, but there is a lot of material. I dont' know where to begin. I welcome any guidance and insight into this emerging social science field.
Any input? OK, you asked for it. Monkeys and other animals play dominance games. POWER GAMES if you will. The power games that we play get much more complicated because of language. "All warfare is based on deception." - Sun Tzu Its 36 years after the moon landing, we have robots running around on Mars. Are we supposed to believe economists haven't the vaguest idea planned obsolescence is going on in automobiles. John Kenneth Galbraith talked about this in his 1959 book, THE AFFLUENT SOCIETY. I don't hear any other economists pointing it out. What does this say about the BEHAVIOR OF ECONOMISTS? Can we trust what they say about economics if they are participating in the economic power games instead of being objective observers?
Good points, but I believe you took a more economical/political perspective. I was thinking that this discipline of behavioral economics would have foundations in biology and evolutionary psychology, then contribute outwardly to the social sciences in general. Additionally, the people who have researched behavioral economics are psychologists and biologists by trade, not economists (and I believe they were in fact, objectively observing, so the answer would be that I think we can trust them). Your mention of power games was interesting. I shall look into that further.
They play power games but they are still motivated to care for the tribe. It's not illogical to behave as though having the pack led by the individual with the most strength is good for the pack. What's important is selecting for the type of strength that's appropriate for the situation or era.
The way academia works is that there is an established body of knowledge for any discipline (subject), and you establish yourself by learning and understanding that knowledge. In the case of economics, you need to get the hang of “neo-classical economics” – and this operates on the basis that individuals know what is going on (know what choices are available) and behave rationally (in their best self-interest). At the same time, an academic discipline also needs to give the impression that it is making progress – that there are new ideas about which promise a better tomorrow. This is necessary to persuade governments (or business, if you are really persuasive) to fund research. It provides new buzzwords to beguile the students, and to breathe new life into the columns of the academic journals, whilst providing a jousting ground for bright young men and women to sharpen their wits and make their names. “Behavioural economics” is the flavour of the month in economics. It is where the research councils are placing their funding bets. It is the fashionable place to be. It is the fast lane for getting ahead. Coat your research in this garment if you wish to get it published. My advice is: treat this buzzword with cynicism. It is not without meaning, but its meaning is of a very general nature. It is a wave of the hand in a general direction, not a signpost. It is an appeal to empiricism (taking account of what is actually going on) ahead of economic rationalism (what would happen if people acted with 100% intelligence and 100% self-interest). It bows its head to psychology, and to people’s many and mixed motives. It takes note of their imperfect knowledge, their urgency and lack of time, their social motivations to cooperate or compete, their instinct (modified by experience) to trust or distrust, their willingness to gamble or their preference for the safest option. It modifies traditional models, tests differing assumptions, and measures the predicted outcomes against the reality of life. The university of life has already told most of us that people’s economic behaviour is of a different hue from that depicted in the textbooks. This is not to dispute that there is some new thinking going on and there are some new insights being gained, but I can contain my excitement! River Ape, BA (Econ)
That was great River Ape. Far more classy than my calling it pseudo-intellectual bullshit. A couple of years ago a short article in THE ECONOMIST said that Vance Packard was wrong but said nothing about what he was wrong about. I wonder how many economists have sold more than 1,000,000 books? Psychology and sociology are SOFT SCIENCES. They like to pretend to be hard sciences by doing a lot of complicated statistical analyses. Everybody knows mathematics makes you look intelligent and credible. The thing about psychological manipulation, which is what marketing is all about, is that the people being manipulated become more resistant is they know what is going on. How much is spent on advertising each year? Its cost has to be included in the products we buy. How much do our economists talk about this? Shouldn't this go into the human behavior category? "All warfare is based on deception" "Know your enemy, know yourself and you will win 100 battles." - Sun Tzu The consumers must be kept ignorant so they will continue to be loosers. http://www2.pfeiffer.edu/~lridener/courses/MILLSR1.HTML http://www.goodbyemag.com/nov/packard.htm http://www.disinfo.com/archive/pages/dossier/id321/pg1/ http://www.bedfordstmartins.com/usingseries/hovey/horowitz.htm psikeyhackr
Global Algebra Long time no see. I didn't have this written at the time and then I procrastinated and then I forgot about this site. It turned up in a search on economic power games. So here is my belated update: http://discussions.pbs.org/viewtopic.pbs?t=28529 psik
