Professor, você ensina Economia! Por que não é rico?

Por diversas causas, mas eu prefiro esta explicação. É mais ofensiva (para alguns) e mais engraçada (para mim).

The dark side of emotion in decision-making: When individuals with decreased emotional reactions make more advantageous decisions

Baba Shiva,T, George Loewensteinb , Antoine Becharac

Cognitive Brain Research 23 (2005) 85 – 92


Can dysfunction in neural systems subserving emotion lead, under certain circumstances, to more advantageous decisions? To answer this question, we investigated how individuals with substance dependence (ISD), patients with stable focal lesions in brain regions related to emotion (lesion patients), and normal participants (normal controls) made 20 rounds of investment decisions. Like lesion patients, ISD made more advantageous decisions and ultimately earned more money from their investments than the normal controls. When normal controls either won or lost money on an investment round, they adopted a conservative strategy and became more reluctant to invest on the subsequent round, suggesting that they were more affected than lesion patients and ISD by the outcomes of decisions made in the previous rounds.


Olha o debate aí…

A theory should primarily match the data and thus we should first seeif it in fact does so. Proving a characterization theorem that shows theequivalence of one formulation of a theory to another formulation doesnot, by definition, prove anything about the data. The two formulationswill be just as close to, or far away from, the data. So you have to askyourself: ‘Why am I doing this and what purpose does it serve?’But from my point of view, it is more important to axiomatizeparadigms than theories. With respect to the axiomatization of aparadigm, I can tell a coherent story of scientific development whereaxiomatization would play a major role: scientists are dealing withvarious problems and we could help them. For example, manyeconomists are developing models. And the questions that we canaddress are: ‘What models and theories should they be using?’ and‘In which language should they be formulating their models, whenthey develop them?’ Here, an axiomatization can help. And in such a
way it could also help in behavioural economics and neuroeconomics.But I do not think that these fields have yet developed such a paradigm.To the extent the behavioural economics has a paradigm, it seems to bethe same rational-choice paradigm of economic theory.

Com vocês, o grande Itzhak Gilboa (que tem um livrinho bacana sobre escolha racional).


Schiller fala sobre a neuroeconomia em um artigo para leigos. Vale citar o trecho:

The neuroeconomic revolution has passed some key milestones quite recently, notably the publication last year of neuroscientist Paul Glimcher’s book “Foundations of Neuroeconomic Analysis” — a pointed variation on the title of Paul Samuelson’s 1947 classic work “Foundations of Economic Analysis,” which helped to launch an earlier revolution in economic theory. And Glimcher himself now holds an appointment at New York University’s economics department (he also works at NYU’s Center for Neural Science).

Bacana, né? Veja alguns trabalhos de Glimcher e outros aqui.

Fronteiras da microeconomia

Conhece Daniel Kahneman? Conhece neuroeconomia? Não? Bem, é que sua revista nacional não faz reportagens interessantes como esta. É sério. Eu me espanto com esta diferença. Raramente acho algo no Brasil que seja polêmico e bem escrito, com entrevistas sérias (com pessoas que realmente importam, não com gurus de auto-ajuda) sobre assuntos os mais diversos.


The question “What makes people happy?” has been around forever, but there is a new approach to the science of pleasure, one that draws on recent work in psychology, philosophy, economics, neuroscience, and emerging fields such as neuroeconomics. This work has led to new ways—everything from beepers and diaries to brain scans—to explore the emotional value of different experiences, and has given us some surprising insights about the conditions that result in satisfaction.

But what’s more exciting, I think, is the emergence of a different perspective on happiness itself. We used to think that the hard part of the question “How can I be happy?” had to do with nailing down the definition of happy. But it may have more to do with the definition of I. Many researchers now believe, to varying degrees, that each of us is a community of competing selves, with the happiness of one often causing the misery of another. This theory might explain certain puzzles of everyday life, such as why addictions and compulsions are so hard to shake off, and why we insist on spending so much of our lives in worlds­—like TV shows and novels and virtual-reality experiences—that don’t actually exist. And it provides a useful framework for thinking about the increasingly popular position that people would be better off if governments and businesses helped them inhibit certain gut feelings and emotional reactions.

Amazing, não? A propósito, cuidado com os picaretas:

Some psychologists believe that this spike was not the result of better diagnosis. Rather, they say it stemmed in part from therapists who inadvertently persuaded their patients to create these distinct selves, often through role-playing and hypnosis. Recent years have seen a backlash, and some people diagnosed with the disorder have sued their therapists. One woman got a settlement of more than $2 million after alleging that her psychotherapist had used suggestive memory “recovery” techniques to convince her that she had more than 120 personalities, including children, angels, and a duck.

Um pato? Anjos? Tenha dó…