Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘neuroeconomics’ Category

Paul Glimcher co-created the field of neuroeconomics a decade ago. After a first book in 2003 which imagined a  research program for neuroeconomics, his just published second book delivers the first results. Is neuroeconomics now a reality? What questions does it raise? I review the book here: http://seinecle.110mb.com/html/neuroeconomics.php (first item of the list).

PS: In the review, I did not comment on the book’s dust jacket. As can be seen above, it conveys a very gloomy impression of the topic of neuroeconomics – for a book which actually promotes it! I would be curious to know how this very wrong choice of an illustration came to be made.

Read Full Post »

“Economics Job Market Rumor” is a website which functions like a blog. You write a blogpost which consists most often of a single line, and which is the statement of a rumor you’ve heard. People can react to that by writing  a comment, confirming or disconfirming the rumor. The possibility to remain anonymous acts as an incentive to voice honest opinions, I suppose.

A friend of mine had posted a simple question related to “history of economic thought”, and got fairly sympathetic responses to this field. The average, job-seeking economist is not completely averse to history of economic thought, would it seem (good for me!)

What about neuroeconomics? I let you see the comments posted to a post consisting of the single word, “Neuroeconomics”. Very harsh!

Interestingly, it has been posted in the category “micro job rumors”, micro standing for “microeconomics” of course. Would the responses have been different in the smaller, but more oecumenic category “The Economics Discipline” instead? I just started a thread, let’s wait for the reactions!

Read Full Post »

What is neuroeconomics? I tried to answer this nagging question in a quantitative and visual way:

What do these big blobs mean?

The big, green one stands for all the journals published in neuroscience. The strings connecting this blob to some other blobs in the graph represent citations. The size of the blob represents the proportion of papers in neuroeconomics published in this discipline, according to a dataset spanning 1999-2009.

Not surprisingly, neurosciences is the biggest one. But, where is economics for example, and which size is it? Ok, I hope this was teasing enough (to neuroeconomists at least…): this is explained in much more details on a presentation I gave a few days ago, the slides of which you can find there. Note: if you are a neuroeconomist, a scientometrician, or a social network analyst, I am particularly interested in your feedback! Post a comment on this blog entry!

Read Full Post »

NB: I also posted this blog entry earlier today on http://historyofeconomics.wordpress.com/, with marginal modifications.

I am currently reading a fascinating book, “The Cognitive Revolution in Psychology” by Bernard J. Baars (1986).

With a long introduction, it provides informative material for an outsider like me on how the cognitive turn played out in psychology, and presents a clear historical background getting back to Wundt and the early experimentalists, and the origins of the behaviorist revolution. Then it is followed by a series of interviews of participants in the cognitive revolution: from the opponents (Skinner and others) to the enthusiasts, and the followers.

On the substance, I was stroke by how much behaviorism, which is the methodological orthodoxy that was overthrown by cognitive psychology, shares features with today’s textbook economics. Both share the status of a well-guarded orthodoxy: in their interviews, psychologists remember that behaviorism in psychology was exclusive, displaying a “nothing but” attitude: variables should be related to nothing but observable behavior, which disqualified the discussion of concepts like “memory” or “representations” ! Those words were taboo in psychology at least until the mid-1950s.  Looking back, psychologists consider that the methodological rigorousness of behaviorism, which insisted that each concept be operationally defined and testable, had the effect to strip psychology from its substance: the study of cognition, consciousness,  emotions and rational behavior were discouraged, virtually banned indeed, because these concepts did not readily translate into tightly defined behavioral variables that could be observed in an experimental setting.

I could not help but be reminded of a similar taboo in today’s economics, where the formation of preferences, or how the process of choice unfolds, is declared “out of bound” right from the introductory chapters in microeconomic textbooks: only an individual’s observable behavior, as it is instantiated in the outcome of the choice it performs, is to be taken into account.

Reading this book, neuroeconomists will also be strongly reminded of Princeton economists Gul and Pesendofer’ essay published in 2008, in which they defend a “nothing but” approach to the revealed preference approach – dismissing any kind of evidence from “inside the head”, and advocating bluntly a “mindless economics”. Behaviorists (or operationalists…) of the purest ink!

The cognitive revolution in psychology crystallized around the mid-1950s, early 1960s. Forty years later, nothing of that sort happened in economics, it seems to me. With behavioral economics and neuroeconomics, maybe that economics will jump directly to the next train: the neurocognitive turn. Or will it miss that one also?

Post-script: on an approaching topic, Wade Hands has a paper forthcoming in the CJE, which is a nice read.

Read Full Post »

This coming Saturday I will start a three-week visit to a university with teams performing research in neuroeconomics. The purpose of this visit is to perform an “ethnography” of neuroeconomics, focused on how interdisciplinarity works in practice. Among other purposes, this study will provide me with qualitative insights which will complement one of the other projects I am currently running on the bibliometric study of neuroeconomics.

A bibliometric study can be many things, in this case I am interested in how publications in neuroeconomics reflect its interdisciplinary nature. Online databases such as ISI Thomson help a great deal in performing such a study, and the remaining difficulties are probably of the conceptual sort (see the previous post!).

The results of those bibliometric studies are most commonly represented in graphs of social networks: they help read a tonne of information in just one picture.  I am currently training myself to use them, getting gray hair at pre-processing bibliometric files which then can be fed into those softwares…

This is how a social network can look like in practice (click on the pic to expand):

A co-citation network - green and yellow nodes indicate those papers citing heavily the original set

Read Full Post »

Opinions about neuroeconomics vary enormously – to begin with, there is little agreement about what even *counts* as neuroeconomics.

In my historical study of neuroeconomics,  I am confronted to this difficulty right from the first step. Before even analyzing it, what is neuroeconomics, the field that I am studying? There is yet no journal of neuroeconomics which would map and delineate the topic, and there is of course no single parent field from which this sub-field can be traced from.

Lost, but with a map

Mapping neuroeconomics

The Society for Neuroeconomics is a useful rallying point where neuroeconomists can be found, but there is an obvious North American bias. More, an unknown proportion of scientists attending this conference would be reluctant to be labeled neuroeconomists, if I refer to the interviews I conducted there. So?

There is always the possibility to ask “the experts”, as it is customary to do in scientometrics. That is, I would not placate any arbitrary definition of neuroeconomics on the field, but would ask some renowned neuroeconomists what they would consider classic papers in neuroeconomics, or who do they consider to be the leading figures in neuroeconomics, and then start from there.

The problem with this approach is that leading neuroeconomists are truly extremely busy people, so the sample of experts that I could tap from would be very low, and hence surely not representative of all the currents represented in neuroeconomics.

There are many other ways to define a field, all with their particular drawbacks. One is to refer to the indexing of papers performed by Thomson Reuters‘ ISI Web of Knowledge, a database which records and indexes virtually all peer-reviewed journals and their papers on the planet since 1988. If a paper is indexed with the keyword “neuroeconomics”, then it can count as neuroeconomics. Authors who published a certain number of articles indexed with the keyword “neuroeconomics” can be considered to be neuroeconomists. However, this approach is equivalent to delegating the task of defining neuroeconomics to the employees in charge of indexing the papers at Thomson Reuters: given the immensity of their task, probably not the best experts in neuroeconomics.

I am in the process of finding my own (and hopefully, consensual) solution to this arduous problem of mapping a field which has still not a stabilized identity. But from experience, it is an issue where everybody can quickly come up with their preferred procedure. So, what do you think? What would be your procedure to arrive at a definition of *who is a neuroeconomist*, and *what is a paper in neuroeconomics*?

Read Full Post »

Computational neuroeconomics?

Computational neuroeconomics?

Neuroeconomists develop their own jargon, as it is to be expected from a consolidating community of scientists with distinct interests. But denominations, categorical classifications, and basic concepts in neuroeco are very much still in the early stages of their definitions – they have not been “blackboxed” yet.

“Computational neuroeconomics” is one of such terms. I was a bit tired of nodding to my interlocutors when computational neuroeco popped up in interviews, without being sure to understand how different it was from “not computational” neuroeco, or from computational modeling in cognitive neuroscience.

A first possibility was that it could resemble this class of models where connectivity of different brain regions is represented by an analogy with the architecture of a computer.  This is the kind of model used by Peter Dayan and Szabolcs Kali in a paper in 2004, who discussed memory storage and retrieval.

It could have also been the models inspired not by computer hardware, but by softwares: algorithm processes which demonstrate that starting with very simple building blocks and logical rules, an organism could  achieve complex cognitive tasks like letter recognition and other sensory to motor tasks.

But computational neuroeconomics seems in fact to represent an alternative, third possibility.  An entire session was devoted to it in the third day of the annual meeting of the Society for Neuroeconomics. It featured papers which were basically game theory applied to social cognitive problems. The language of game theory provides concepts  to think many useful parameters of behavior: strategies, payoffs, probabilities, types. As I understand it, the task of computational neuroeco is to operationalize those concepts. In the speeches of the session, it was interesting to see how the presenters navigated between mathematical sophistication, and constant references to pragmatic issues in social behavior: what theory of mind emerges from repeated interactions between players, or how risk minimization is accomplished through learning.

Is it a new approach in neuroeconomics? Not really. When one thinks about it, it is “simply” further work in a direction impulsed by Paul Glimcher and his collaborators since the very beginnings of neuroeconomics, when they introduced expected utility and then Bayesian Nash equilibrium in their studies of neurons in the LIP area for monkeys.  In this light, computational neuroeco appears to be at the very core of the new discipline.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »