Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.
Wählen Sie Textabschnitte aus um mit Künstlicher Intelligenz passenden Patente zu finden.
powered by
Markieren Sie Textabschnitte, um KI-gestützt weitere passende Inhalte zu finden.
powered by
Abstract
Economists appropriately stress the problem of scarcity of resources in the external physical world where people seek to maximize their gain from an array of individually conceived wants that far exceed their capacities to fulfill their wants. A nontrivial portion of life for almost everyone is spent making choices and tradeoffs, some made unconsciously, which is to say, automatically or by instincts, routines and habits (regardless of whether or not the routines and habits are set by rational processes). A major goal of conventional microeconomics is to understand how the particulars of alternative institutional settings will encourage people to use their scarce resources efficiently in the external physical world, given whatever rational capacities people possess. And people’s rational capacities are typically viewed as fixed (more or less), not as a variable, subject to more or less activation. The so-called “economic problem,” which reduces, in conventional neoclassical microeconomics, the inherent difficulty of achieving economic efficiency in the external physical world, has been qualified in key ways throughout the discipline’s intellectual history, most notably by Frank Knight and Friedrich Hayek (see Chap. 5). Knight insisted that economics was concerned with the “rationale of life,” but he also recognized that a central problem for the discipline was how far life was, or even could be, rational, or (as rationality is normally conceived by neoclassical economists) as a matter of people deliberately choosing to allocate known resources among known wants. Knight mused that much time and human energy is soaked up in a life-long exploration into the field of alternatives and their evaluations in order that people can determine what ends can be and should be pursued (Knight 1935, p. 105). Hayek’s major concern was that information on people’s wants and the scarcities of resources is scattered among individuals who are the ultimate (and, according to Hayek, only) wellspring of wants. Moreover, subjectively conceived wants determine what physical things in the external world can, indeed, serve as resources; that is, as material and nonmaterial inputs that can be used to actually satisfy individually determined wants (Hayek 1945 and 1952b). Subjective evaluation, accordingly, is at the foundation of both sides of the scarcity dichotomy, wants and resources, the market values of which are necessarily determined interactively in social settings in the external physical world, which means that as a discipline, economics could not, and should not, imitate the methods of the physical sciences. Since Lionel Robbins defined the economic problem as that of coping with scarcity, Knight’s and Hayek’s (and other subjectivists’) methodological concerns have been largely sidelined, if not dismissed, because, if taken seriously, economists’ pursuit of empirical science would be seriously hobbled.
Anzeige
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.
Paul Zak is a professor and director of the Center for Neuroeconomics Studies at the Claremont Graduate University. Jessica Turner is a senior neuroscience researcher in the School of Medicine at the University of California, Irvine.
Granted, the human brain contains far more intelligence – or capacity for thinking, reasoning, remembering, and learning – than that of any other species, including, of course, cows and ducks. The intelligence of adult chimpanzees, for example, comes close to rivaling humans’ intelligence, but only for humans up to 18-months of age or so. Adult human intelligence reaches well beyond the mental capacities of chimpanzees. “By adolescence,” observes neuroscientist Michael Gazzaniga, “human intelligence is uniquely human, and other primate intelligence is unique to those particular species. When circuits unique to our species click in, we leave the chimps in the trees” (Gazzaniga 1992, p. 105). Humans may be the only species capable of contemplating its own consciousness, much less the origins and fate of the universe or create complex production processes and markets to ease the scarcity problems they face, and these abilities must be traced to their mental resources unmatched by other species.
It is hard to see how humans in any transient generation would be able to conceive of a more efficient, higher level of mental capacity and then institute the biological modifications required to establish the greater mental capacity throughout future generations. Any species, human or otherwise, able to pull off such a feat would not need to move to a higher mental capacity, or so it would seem. Of course, genetic engineering might eventually overcome the time constraints of evolution, enabling people in some future generation to transform human mental abilities in a matter of generations, if not during one or two generations.
A potential basis for this can be seen in neural responses in visual areas to the same visual stimuli being modulated by attentional states (Treue and Maunsell 1996).
The experiment can be better visualized by viewing a video of the interviews with the change of interviewers occurring in the midst of the interviews (http://viscog.beckman.uiuc.edu/grafs/demos/15.html).
In another version of the experiment involving basketball players passing the ball, a research assistant walked through the players holding an open black umbrella with the results much the same (Simons and Chabris 1999).
Again, the irreducible noise in neural firing rates may partially affect the changes in people’s decisions. Neurons have background stochastic firing rates for reasons that are not well-understood, but may accomplish “housekeeping” tasks that cells need to function properly, and the neurons’ stochastic firing rates can, we surmise, give rise to productive exploration of people’s sensory landscape about them. Laboratory studies of animals and humans consistently reveal this behavior, and doing the occasional exploration can easily be understood as an evolutionarily adaptive trait (or else we must wonder how or why humans could, as Frank Knight suggested, see so much of life as an “exploration” into the field of alternatives and their values).
As reported in “Not on the List? The Truth about Impulse Purchases” at Knowledge Wharton, accessed March 6, 2009 at http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2132.
Andreoni et al. (2003) have shown that half of contributions in public goods games are due to confusion and half due to “warm glow,” or wanting to benefit others. However, over time people get more selfish; i.e., learn they can exploit the system, presumably as they gain experience with the task and engage brain circuits to fully evaluate options.
For example, neuroeconomists have found brain processes that produce empathy and motivate other regarding behaviors, as well as the utility function already acknowledged (Zak et al. 2007).