michael shermer @ google February 18, 2008
Posted by KG in books, cognitive science, econ, history, marketing, media, neuroscience, politics, psychology, science, speeches, talks, tech.Tags: behavioral economics, capuchin monkeys, evolutionary economics, evoluton, experimental economics, frans de waal, michael shermer, mind of the market, morality, neuroeconomics, neuromarketing, oxytocin, reciprocal altruism, skeptic, skeptics, trade, trolley car, ultimatum game
add a comment
michael shermer @ google discussing his new book - the mind of the market: compassionate apes, competitive humans, and other tales from evolutionary economics
discusses the ultimatum game @ 27min, the evolution of moral sense/trolley car experiment @ 33min & how hormones affect trust/cooperation @ 43min:
related: shermer speaking about debunking superstitions @ TED & “why people believe weird things about money“
steven pinker on npr January 29, 2008
Posted by KG in cognitive science, interviews, language, neuroscience, news, psychology, religion.Tags: harvard, npr, nytimes, psychology, steven pinker, talk of the nation, the moral instinct
add a comment
“why people believe weird things about money” January 16, 2008
Posted by KG in books, cognitive science, econ, psychology, science.Tags: evolutionary economics, michael shermer, skeptic, the mind of the market
1 comment so far

michael shermer discusses the evolutionary roots of loss aversion:
This research goes a long way toward debunking one of the biggest myths in all of psychology and economics, known as “Homo economicus.” This is the theory that “economic man” is rational, self-maximizing and efficient in making choices. But why should this be so? Given what we now know about how irrational and emotional people are in all other aspects of life, why would we suddenly become rational and logical when shopping or investing?
Consider one more experimental example to prove the point: the ultimatum game. You are given $100 to split between yourself and your game partner. Whatever division of the money you propose, if your partner accepts it, you each get to keep your share. If, however, your partner rejects it, neither of you gets any money.
How much should you offer? Why not suggest a $90-$10 split? If your game partner is a rational, self-interested money-maximizer — the very embodiment of Homo economicus – he isn’t going to turn down a free 10 bucks, is he? He is. Research shows that proposals that offer much less than a $70-$30 split are usually rejected.
Why? Because they aren’t fair. Says who? Says the moral emotion of “reciprocal altruism,” which evolved over the Paleolithic eons to demand fairness on the part of our potential exchange partners. “I’ll scratch your back if you’ll scratch mine” only works if I know you will respond with something approaching parity. The moral sense of fairness is hard-wired into our brains and is an emotion shared by most people and primates tested for it, including people from non-Western cultures and those living close to how our Paleolithic ancestors lived.
When it comes to money, as in most other aspects of life, reason and rationality are trumped by emotions and feelings.
grammar matters January 14, 2008
Posted by KG in cognitive science, comedy, language, politics, science, talks.Tags: bono, books, google, steven pinker, the stuff of thought
add a comment
scroll to 20:30 for proof:
