Good presentation, but with one important error. In classical economics, humans are judged to be broadly rational creatures, while behavioral economics demonstrates that there are intrinsic limits to rationality, or to major decision making. A common thread in both disciplines is that decision is dispassionate, with affect being the byproduct of cognition. In contrast, for the study of mammalian decision making or ‘learning theory’, and as rendered through contemporary affective neuroscience, affect is an unrelenting, distorting, and animating factor for all cognition and thus for all momentary as well as major decisions. In other words, everything we think and do is influenced by conscious or non-consciously continuously perceived affect, or emotion, and to be effective, we have to understand how affect guides every momentary choice we make. The fact that behavioral economics is based on social psychological experiments, rather than deriving from first principles as to how incentive motivation is instantiated in human brains makes its conclusions piecemeal and disjointed. Or in the words of the economist David Gal (linked below), “behavioral economists are too often concerned with describing how human behavior deviates from the assumptions of standard economic models, rather than with understanding why people behave the way they do.” The following linked treatise for a lay audience, written in consultation and with the endorsement of the distinguished affective neuroscientist Kent Berridge, perhaps can provide a counterpoint to this perspective that may illuminate, confirm, and often disconfirm many ideas in behavioral economics. Also linked is an history of incentive motivation by Dr. Berridge. www.scribd.com/document/495438436/A-Mouse-s-Tale-a-practical-explanation-and-handbook-of-motivation-from-the-perspective-of-a-humble-creature Berridge and Incentive Motivation sites.lsa.umich.edu/berridge-lab/wp-content/uploads/sites/743/2020/09/Berridge-2001-Reward-learning-chapter.pdf Berridge Lab, University of Michigan sites.lsa.umich.edu/berridge-lab/ Gal’s Criticism of behavioral economics --- and his take on why the concept of loss aversion is wrong www.nytimes.com/2018/10/06/opinion/sunday/behavioral-economics.html
There's nothing wrong with averting losses. We all do. Telling people to get over it under a false sense of integrity and optimism just because they made it however is what's really wrong. Mistakes, failures, and losses sting like fuck. It doesn't make you learn. It makes you avert.
Texan accents have never been so apparent to me than in this video lol
Good presentation, but with one important error.
In classical economics, humans are judged to be broadly rational creatures, while behavioral economics demonstrates that there are intrinsic limits to rationality, or to major decision making. A common thread in both disciplines is that decision is dispassionate, with affect being the byproduct of cognition. In contrast, for the study of mammalian decision making or ‘learning theory’, and as rendered through contemporary affective neuroscience, affect is an unrelenting, distorting, and animating factor for all cognition and thus for all momentary as well as major decisions. In other words, everything we think and do is influenced by conscious or non-consciously continuously perceived affect, or emotion, and to be effective, we have to understand how affect guides every momentary choice we make. The fact that behavioral economics is based on social psychological experiments, rather than deriving from first principles as to how incentive motivation is instantiated in human brains makes its conclusions piecemeal and disjointed. Or in the words of the economist David Gal (linked below), “behavioral economists are too often concerned with describing how human behavior deviates from the assumptions of standard economic models, rather than with understanding why people behave the way they do.”
The following linked treatise for a lay audience, written in consultation and with the endorsement of the distinguished affective neuroscientist Kent Berridge, perhaps can provide a counterpoint to this perspective that may illuminate, confirm, and often disconfirm many ideas in behavioral economics. Also linked is an history of incentive motivation by Dr. Berridge.
www.scribd.com/document/495438436/A-Mouse-s-Tale-a-practical-explanation-and-handbook-of-motivation-from-the-perspective-of-a-humble-creature
Berridge and Incentive Motivation sites.lsa.umich.edu/berridge-lab/wp-content/uploads/sites/743/2020/09/Berridge-2001-Reward-learning-chapter.pdf
Berridge Lab, University of Michigan sites.lsa.umich.edu/berridge-lab/
Gal’s Criticism of behavioral economics --- and his take on why the concept of loss aversion is wrong www.nytimes.com/2018/10/06/opinion/sunday/behavioral-economics.html
Damn Man U used references in a RUclips comment section 😭. Very educational tho
Best video!
There's nothing wrong with averting losses. We all do. Telling people to get over it under a false sense of integrity and optimism just because they made it however is what's really wrong. Mistakes, failures, and losses sting like fuck. It doesn't make you learn. It makes you avert.
it would be better if there is no individual interview in these vids