Abstract
Neuroeconomics : A Critique of « Neuroeconomics : A Critical Reconsideration ». Some economists believe that the work of neuroeconomists threatens the theory of economics. Glenn Harrison’s paper "Neuroeconomics : A Critical Reconsideration" provides some support for this threatened view, though some of the points he makes are disguised (Harrison, 2008). The field of neuroeconomics is barely into its teenage years ; and it is trying to do what ? Criticize and redesign the field of economics developed over hundreds of years ? But that is not what neuroeconomics is trying to do, in spite of all the efforts of some economists trying to place it into that shoebox (see the argument in great detail in Caplin and Schotter (2008)). Neuroeconomics is a Mendelian-Economics of sort ; it is a science that is able to generate data by fixing the environment to some degree, varying a single independent variable for its affects, and is able to see each individual’s choices from initiation of the decision-making process to its outcome. Mainstream economics, on the other hand, looks at the average of the outcomes of many individuals and proposes how people chose those outcomes, retroactively. The two fields, neuroeconomics and mainstream economics, are evaluating two sides of the same coin : one with and the other without ceteris paribus ; they are not necessarily in conflict with one another.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
