Which Of Camerer's Counter-Arguments Seems Most Persuasive? Why?
1. What is the overall goal of psychology? What is the overall goal of economics? In what ways are these goals compatible? In what ways are they incompatible?
The overall goal of psychology is to systematically explore human judgement, behavior, well-being and it can teach us important facts about how humans differ from the way traditionally described by economics.
The goal of economics is to study the variables and institutions that influence “economic” choices, choices with important consequences for health, wealth, and material possession and other sources of happiness. Overall, economics affects changes that result in greater happiness to all.
Economics and psychology study different kinds of behavior and, more importantly, focus on different …show more content…
Therefore, brain science cannot fundamentally change economics (is what is being argued).
4. Which of Camerer’s counter-arguments seems most persuasive? Why?
The argument that neuroeconomics can use technological advances in understanding the choice-making organ (the brain) to find non-price neural and psychological variables that predict and change economic choices seems to be the most persuasive. He then lists a number of examples for non-price neural and psychological variables. One such example was the quality of early childhood environment being a strong predictor of adult productivity and that early enrichment for disadvantaged children increases the probability of later economic success.
If studying the brain helps us understand how it can make different economic choices, then G&P’s argument that brain science has nothing to do with economics is not valid. Furthermore, as Camerer mentioned - advances in neuroscience make it possible to measure and causally manipulate many processes and quantities that were not imaginable a hundred years ago when the foundation of neoclassical economics was being laid. To ignore these developments entirely is bad scientific
The overall goal of psychology is to systematically explore human judgement, behavior, well-being and it can teach us important facts about how humans differ from the way traditionally described by economics.
The goal of economics is to study the variables and institutions that influence “economic” choices, choices with important consequences for health, wealth, and material possession and other sources of happiness. Overall, economics affects changes that result in greater happiness to all.
Economics and psychology study different kinds of behavior and, more importantly, focus on different …show more content…
Therefore, brain science cannot fundamentally change economics (is what is being argued).
4. Which of Camerer’s counter-arguments seems most persuasive? Why?
The argument that neuroeconomics can use technological advances in understanding the choice-making organ (the brain) to find non-price neural and psychological variables that predict and change economic choices seems to be the most persuasive. He then lists a number of examples for non-price neural and psychological variables. One such example was the quality of early childhood environment being a strong predictor of adult productivity and that early enrichment for disadvantaged children increases the probability of later economic success.
If studying the brain helps us understand how it can make different economic choices, then G&P’s argument that brain science has nothing to do with economics is not valid. Furthermore, as Camerer mentioned - advances in neuroscience make it possible to measure and causally manipulate many processes and quantities that were not imaginable a hundred years ago when the foundation of neoclassical economics was being laid. To ignore these developments entirely is bad scientific