dalia
New Member
Posts: 28 
|
Post by dalia on Apr 19, 2016 1:31:14 GMT
In the article, "Do economists need brains?", the author presents two sides of a debate regarding the emergence of the field of Neuroeconomics. Traditionally, Economists try to explain how people make actions via models that represent their preferences, options, utility etc... However, such models do not always hold true because in real life, things don't always occur as predicted (shocking right?  ) This is where neuroscience comes in. Researchers are suggesting that by integrating the fields of economics and neuroscience, and analyzing how the brain functions when performing different economic tasks (like decision-making), then we can create models that better predict the outcomes observed in real life. Specifically, "releases of dopamine, the brain's pleasure chemical, may indicate economic utility or value" under different circumstances. On the other hand, some argue that neuroscience cannot contribute to economics because the only thing that matters is the outcome and not the inner process involved in reaching that outcome. For example, we only care about the how a consumer ranks his preferences for any given bundle of goods (like preferring chocolate over apples, and apples over broccoli etc...) and the maximum utility they gain from consuming the goods, and not why or how they chose such preferences. That being said, this debate seems to mirror the one we examined in fall quarter regarding the hard problem. Just like the mind-brain duality, I think the neuroeconomics debate mirrors it: Even with the integration of neuroscience and economics, can we model or represent all types of behavior with economic models and MRIs ( the brain), or are there limitations to what such models offer (mind)? Can you think of any examples of behaviors that don't seem to follow or conform to either model? Can't think of any? No worries, here are some suggestions  - In class we talked about the new Coca Cola flavor and how it failed because they didn't recognize that there were unconscious factors behind consumers decisions. Do you think neuroscience can always explain such hidden dynamics that appear to make a behavior economically irrational?
- What about concepts like altruism, love, and sacrifice? Think about soldiers in a battlefield, how do they make decisions or sacrifices?
- Many dystopian novels like 1984, Brave New World, and Fahrenheit 451 (fun fact: Ray Bradbury wrote it in YRL, that's why the cafe there is called cafe 451) depict situations where people seem to succumb to some form of authority and abandon rational reasoning. In many of the cases, this control is achieved through exploiting media or due to an over-saturation of information and entertainment. One well known case occurs in 1984, where the main character is lead to truly believing that 2+2=5.
If we do advance our understanding of the interplay between economics and neuroscience, do you think its possible that our society ever reaches an extreme such as that depicted in such novels? What are some implications on media and advertising?
Feel free to talk about any of these or even come up with your own examples from other works of literature, movies, or life experiences. |
|
|
|
Post by vannahyazon on Apr 20, 2016 4:49:56 GMT
Well, the main problem you're bring up about economics is external validity, meaning how applicable/representative the data is to the population of interest, and what i feel like Neuroscience can hope to provide is causation to behavior, which could predict outcomes and influence economics and cater to its needs by using causation data. I think that it won't lead to some dystopia necessarily, i mean not yet a least because Neuroscience is still rather new and the interdisciplinary-ness of neuro-econ is even newer, sooo i doubt it would end up that way in the near future. In general we are already over-saturated with information in social media, so i feel like if there is any of this brain-washing already, it occurs under 2 minutes on a facebook video soo.. i don't know if i make any sense.
|
|
dalia
New Member
Posts: 28
|
Post by dalia on Apr 20, 2016 5:07:34 GMT
Vannah, you bring up a good point about social media! I definitely agree that neuroscience can contribute to economics by making models more applicable to the observed behaviors. Although the interdisciplinary field is still new, do you think that neuroeconomic findings could influence the way social media is used or maybe even exploited for marketing/business oriented goals?
|
|
|
|
Post by jinghuang on Apr 20, 2016 18:02:50 GMT
I agree that a lot of decisions we make can be explained by Neuroscience. However, I think that for certain instances of decision making, the environmental factors and other external influences also weigh in a lot. For example, I read an interesting article in regards to the My Lai Massacre, during which the social conditions of the American soldiers dramatically weakened the moral inhibitions that otherwise would have prevented them from killing so many innocent civilians. In this case, I don't think that Neuroscience itself can explain how the soldiers made the decision to follow these inhumane orders even though it was most likely against their moral values as well.
I think that this is when other fields of study such as Sociology and Psychology come into play, and the article described that the soldiers' obedience in following orders resulted from the authorization, routinization, and dehumanization caused by the environmental factors of a warfare setting. Similarly, in regards to your question of whether or not our society can reach the extent to which authorization can cause us to adopt a dystopian rule, I believe that unless in some extreme circumstances in which our normal decision making skills are hindered by external forces or environmental influences like the soldiers during the massacre, it is almost impossible because we are much more knowledgable as a collective society and are exposed to enough resources to understand why we shouldn't and wouldn't allow ourselves to adopt dystopian values.
|
|
dalia
New Member
Posts: 28
|
Post by dalia on Apr 22, 2016 3:55:19 GMT
Great point! Now that you've brought it up, I definitely feel like sociology and other social sciences can contribute a lot to our understanding of neuroeconomics. In fact, the naming might be a bit misleading since its not just neuroscience and economics, but rather an interdisciplinary mix between different fields of social science. That being said, I agree to what you said about how society is more knowledgeable now. I feel like the amount of literature present on such matters as well as what we've learned from history has definitely prepared us well to resist falling under the trap of utopian values that soon turn dystopian.
|
|
) This is where neuroscience comes in. Researchers are suggesting that by integrating the fields of economics and neuroscience, and analyzing how the brain functions when performing different economic tasks (like decision-making), then we can create models that better predict the outcomes observed in real life. Specifically, "releases of dopamine, the brain's pleasure chemical, may indicate economic utility or value" under different circumstances. 
