I have written on the distinction between rationality and selfishness. They are not the same. See David Collard's Altruism and Economy, or Lutz and Lux The Challenge of Humanistic Economics.
>>> Jay Hanson wrote: >>> Most of you probably know this, but modern biology doesn't agree with the >>> economist's rational man model(s). If anyone is interested I can explain >>> further... > >>Jim Devine >>please do! BTW, it seems like Dawkins stuff about "selfish genes" fits >>with economics. > >PART 1 RATIONAL MAN: With respect to the economic homo economicus model, >biologists call this a "domain general" model. The jargon is confusing. > >"Domain" means "problem" in evolutionary psychology, so economists are using a >"problem general" model of human behavior. In other words, economists assume >that all behavior is a product of a universal problem-solving, MATHEMATICAL >computer. Rational man is said to look at the choices and COMPUTE (solve Bayes >equations) the optimum (or nearly optimum) behavior. Although economists do >not explicitly specify economicus that way, nothing else could optimize like >that. This model is also called a "pursuer" because economicus actively >"pursues" a certain outcome. > >Biologists say that's not the way that animals make decisions. Moreover, a >general-purpose computing device like that couldn't have evolved. Animals are >adaption "executers," not "pursuers." In other words, animals use "logic" >instead of "math" to make decisions. > >Humans evolved behavioral "algorithms" (rules of behavior in the form "IF this >THEN that") to solve specific reproductive problems in the EEA ><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology#Human_EEA> We also grow >and modify behavioral algorithms throughout our lives. > >So, to make a long story short, advertisers appeal to behavioral algorithms to >sell their products. Typical behavior might be initiated when someone sees an >advertisement that produces "feel good" neurotransmitters in the brain (e.g., >dopamine) which then causes the consumer to buy the product. The logical >behavior is rationalized after the decision is made subconsciously. Neither >"utils," nor anything else, is optimized. > >It's almost like a reflex. The doctor whacks someone on the knee and the >innate reflex makes the leg pop up. Advertisers whack people with an image >that causes them to invent reasons to buy their products. It's more >complicated than that, but you should get the general idea... > >PART 2 SELFISH GENES: Richard Dawkins' "selfish genes" metaphor has been >almost universally misunderstood. "Selfish genes" does not mean a selfish >person. It's simply a way of looking at evolution as though animals act on >behalf of their genes: > >"It rapidly became clear to me that the most imaginative way of looking at >evolution, and the most inspiring way of teaching it, was to say that it?s all >about the genes. It?s the genes that, for their own good, are manipulating the >bodies they ride about in. The individual organism is a survival machine for >its genes." ? Richard Dawkins > >So-called "selfish genes" create people who both cooperate and compete at the >same time (e.g., the best team player). With respect to "selfishness," it's >actually our innate drive for "status" that has been transmogrified into a >drive for money (political power). The drive for "status" is one of our >most-powerful innate drives. > >Jay > >_______________________________________________ >pen-l mailing list >[email protected] >https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > > _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
