>Subj: re: chat
>Date: 95-12-18 18:55:47 EST
>From: gintis@wilde.oit.umass.edu (Herbert Gintis)
>Sender: owner-tch-econ@vax1.elon.edu
>Reply-to: tch-econ@vax1.elon.edu
>To: tch-econ@vax1.elon.edu
>
>
>At 08:04 AM 11/28/95 -0600, you wrote:
>>Herb Gintis wrote:
>>>I actually think the anomalies to the expected utility
>>>hypothesis et al. are the strongest evidence in favor of an
>>>'objective' treatment of utility theory that I have seen. We know it's
>>>not correct, but it's pretty good, and we can discuss its weaknesses
>>>scientifically. Virtually ALL alternative give up completely on a
>>>theory of individual behavior, which appears to me to preclude a
>>>rigorous analysis of economic phenomena.
>>
>>Well 'objective' to this bayesian (or is it Bayesian) is in the mind of
>>the beholder.
>
> Do you think the principles of physics and chemistry are lacking in
>'objectivity,' or is it just social theory?
>
> 'Course that is completely unfair. Many alternatives
>>do not give up - Herb Simon has spent a life time with alternatives
>>to the utility paradigm for describing human economic behavior.
>
> But the notion of costly information processing has been
>increasingly incorporated into the rational actor model--I don't think of
>this as an alternative, but rather a deepening of the theory.
>
>>The Tversky-Kahneman concept is not 'REAL' utility theory -
>>Being led down the rosy utility path may preclude RIGOUROUS analysis
>>of economic phenomena because it leads us in the wrong direction.
>>In repeated situations, so that the problems admit canonical reduction
>>to solvable problems without a framing noise, game theory does well
>>to describe behavior.
>
> I agree that Kahneman and his coworkers often act as though their
>experimental evidence is a death sentence to optimization subject to
>constraint, but younger colleagues have sought richer approaches to
>optimization subject to constraints that explain the anomalies discovered in
>experimental psychology and economics. The idea that we should simply give
>up on the optimization subject to constraints model is not warranted at all,
>I believe. Mostly because there's nothing even approaching a cogent
>alternative, and the traditional theory does some things quite well.
>
>
> >
>>And as far as a theory of individual behavior, well we econ types will
>>have to wait until the psychologists working on mental models have
>>progressed enough that we can have a better description of how
>>people act in uncertain choices.
>>
> I think it is a central common goal of all the behavioral sciences
>now to find a common model of human behavior. It's just as much biology as
>economics or psychology. In 20 years there will be a common model of human
>behavior across the behavioral sciences, IMHO.
>.....
>>>| Bob Parks Voice: (314) 935-5665
>|
>Herb Gintis
>Economics
>University of Massachusetts
Gentlemen:
I am unable to restrain myself from commenting that you seem to be trying to
re-invent the wheel. And yes, I am going to bring up an old song once again,
if you would just read Progress and Poverty, by Henry George, you would find
succinct explanations for your problem. --- Try it, you'll like it!-- If
not, you will have a perfect base from which to refute my comments.
Art Scholbe, Cahokia, IL