Do you like it or love it?
The last time I looked into it it hadn’t made very much progress. Is there anything recent of value?
You seem to like it, but do you even use it? Nearly all of your concrete economic arguments have no reference to a neurological basis. In fact, in practice, you seem to rely on what you call “mentalese” just as much as anyone else does.
Can you see value?
To be fair, if microeconomics is sound, then giving explanations in terms of neurology is unneccesary for most purposes. This is the same reason that chemists can gives explanations of events without reference to physics (it is assumed that the explanations would not contradict eachother).
Grayson Lilburne, I’m comfortable with using language that only targets a non-fundamental resolution of reality; of course, I accept it as crude and scientifically weak.
For the sake of common economic argumentation, I will happily postulate rational actors that are optimizing expected utility; but, I find more value in exploring economic applications of evolutionary game theory (no need for “rationality” there) or in the eliminative materialism possible in neuroeconomics.
Sieben, what is “value”?
Your post history contradicts that statement. You’ve said you believe in looking at demonstrated preferences, right? Well, outside of your posts about methodology, you’ve demonstrated a recurring preference for “mentalese”, and not for actually applying evolutionary game theory and neuroeconomics.
Assuming full understanding (model) of your own thinking process, wouldn’t your thoughts be affected by the model thus affecting the model back? If I know that input A produces thought B, wouldn’t input A + my awareness that it should produce B result in thought C, rendering the model useless?
Neoclassical, what is “utility”?
z1235, there would be a feedback loop. I fail to see how you draw your conclusion from that.
Grayson Lilburne, what use would it be in an arena dominated by Austrian dogmatists?
If you could see a “preference” under a microscope and quantify it cardinally, does this allow you to make interpersonal comparisons of utility (or value)?
Grayson Lilburne, what use would it be in an arena dominated by Austrian dogmatists?
If you’re here for sincere debate (and trust me, your own posts have been nothing but breathtakingly dogmatic so far), I’d advised you drop the term.
Ah, a lame excuse, in a wrapper of hostility.
I think you should put your economic application money where your methodological mouth is.
If a model exists that is able to predict my next thought (or my thought an hour from now), would that model be able to predict my next thought (or my thought an hour from now) assuming my knowledge of those predictions? Just curious.
You guys take things way too seriously.
Let’s face it, though: according to an uncontroversial definition of dogmatism, there is a gathering of faithful Austrian methodologists and economists here. That’s simply factual, not insulting.
I wouldn’t necessarily dispute the title of “dogmatist,” since I am usually smeared as being an adherent of “scientism” (and I wouldn’t even dispute that label), but that same dogma also means all of my beliefs are, in principle, provisional and revisable.
I’m looking for worthwhile debates, but I’m also looking for happy-go-lucky humor. I don’t believe the two are incompatible.
P.S. I’m flattered that you find me breathtaking.
Do you have a link discussing the psychology involved in neuroeconomics?
I wouldn’t necessarily dispute the title of "dogmatist
While you are correct to state that the word “dogma” should not be taken as an insult, the word is almost always used in such a way.
I’m looking for worthwhile debates, but I’m also looking for happy-go-lucky humor.
OMG, Me too! Whats your age/sex/location?
What criteria must be met to be classified as dogmatic? Just curious.
P.S. I’m flattered that you find me breathtaking.
I don’t.