what's new about behavioral economics is that its practitioners are actually trying to be scientific rather than simply _assuming_ the conclusion they want (homo econonomicus) and this can gain respect among economists outside of the Chicago school. But like Dan Pink, they are almost entirely individualistic in their approach. They may dip into psychology, but not into sociology.
On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 10:05 PM, Gar Lipow <[email protected]> wrote: > Dan Pink lecturing on mainstream behavior economics. What is > surprising is how surprising mainstream economists are at people being > motivated by stuff besides money. To me is is a fascinating two-step > to watch - stumbling onto a truth, and taking a step back to explain > why this justifies Apple and Skype rather than socialism. I do wonder > why Pink thinks all this stuff is new. Even if one focuses only on > "studies" I can think of studies going back to the early 20th century > showing much of this stuff. Also I wonder when "behavioral economics" > will stumble upon the principle of small-group solidarity. The > economists doing these studies could have read Michael Perelman and > save themselves a great deal of effort. (and also travel miles down a > path they have moved a quarter inch.) Still it is an oddly compelling > spectacle to watch economists notice a bit of reality their ideology > normally blinds them to. > > http://youtu.be/X_mMxhvzVmQ > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > -- Jim Devine "All science would be superfluous if the form of appearance of things directly coincided with their essence." -- KM _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
