Live data from Hacker News

Is Homo Economicus a Psychopath?

forbes.com

41–50 of 91 posts

Re: Is Homo Economicus a Psychopath?

#41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people do not take care of their family because they think it's in their best interests. They often take care of their family for myriad reasons--e.g. a moral call to selflessness, sociocultural norms, a sense of familial duty, love, etc. The language of "best interests" really doesn't fit here. Taking care of an ailing parent is in no way connected to maximizing one's returns on anything (except maybe fulfillin…

You're missing his point. "Interests" is a technical term in economics which means something different from the common usage. In short, it means things you consciously seek for their own value. Love, being moral, fulfilling duties; all of these are interests in the sense economists use the term. NB: Economists largely study specifically monetary interest because it's something they can measure. A number of criticisms…

> Economists largely study specifically monetary interest because it's something they can measure.

A principle assumption of many of the models underlying economic theories (including, but not limited to, rational choice theory) is that there is a unidimensional quantity, "utility", that aggregates a persons preferences and which individual decisions increase or decrease by definable amounts. Because money is widely fungible, and utility cannot be measured directly, money (e.g., the money people are willing to pay to get something they want, or the money they demand to do or give up something) is often used as a proxy for utility by economists, with the idea that all decisions have an (potentially zero) utility impact, and that utility impact can be stated in monetary terms.

Re: Is Homo Economicus a Psychopath?

#42
post #4

"Homo economicus, is a creature of coldly calculated selfishness, dispassionately maximizing its best interests even if that comes at the expense of others." For the second time today, I get to point out that in economics is neutral about "best interests" and is metaphorically happy to accommodate people whom consider happiness or other such "soft" things as part of their personal value function. If your definition o…

Exactly. The only assumptions that economics makes about people are that (1) people have different utility functions and (2) that they rationally pursue them. (1) is satisfied even if everybody is perfectly selfless just as much as if they're perfectly selfish, it's only if everybody was a perfect utilitarian that it would break down. (2) is much more tenuous but usually works well enough when you're dealing with lar…

I think (1) is a tenuous assumption as well, especially in some formalizations. Cardinal utility (the idea that it makes sense to say "I want X lambda times as much as I want Y") is almost certainly bunk. Even assuming a total ordering seems unlikely.

Re: Is Homo Economicus a Psychopath?

#43

This reminds of a thought I had a few months ago: how have there not been more thought pieces relating Uber-the-business's recent/relentless PR-debacles to Nietzsche's Ubermensch concept? I guess I'll give it a go. Uber/Travis and his execs seem to demonstrate the belief that they are "overmen" in that they seem to believe that they transcend the rules of society and are destined to shape society and its values rathe…

They outrightly express resistance to laws-as-is

Here, I found another arrogant law-defying übermensch-wannabe for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi

Re: Is Homo Economicus a Psychopath?

#44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're missing his point. "Interests" is a technical term in economics which means something different from the common usage. In short, it means things you consciously seek for their own value. Love, being moral, fulfilling duties; all of these are interests in the sense economists use the term. NB: Economists largely study specifically monetary interest because it's something they can measure. A number of criticisms…

> Economists largely study specifically monetary interest because it's something they can measure. A principle assumption of many of the models underlying economic theories (including, but not limited to, rational choice theory) is that there is a unidimensional quantity, "utility", that aggregates a persons preferences and which individual decisions increase or decrease by definable amounts. Because money is widely…

I'm familiar with utility functions, although I think they don't accurately reflect people's values; I think people's values more closely resemble a poset. But even assuming a cardinal utility function, we run into the problem that money isn't all that widely fungible. I cannot buy friends, family, love, legal or social reform, etc., all of which must weigh heavily in many people's utility functions.

Re: Is Homo Economicus a Psychopath?

#45
post #4

"Homo economicus, is a creature of coldly calculated selfishness, dispassionately maximizing its best interests even if that comes at the expense of others." For the second time today, I get to point out that in economics is neutral about "best interests" and is metaphorically happy to accommodate people whom consider happiness or other such "soft" things as part of their personal value function. If your definition o…

Most people do not take care of their family because they think it's in their best interests. They often take care of their family for myriad reasons--e.g. a moral call to selflessness, sociocultural norms, a sense of familial duty, love, etc. The language of "best interests" really doesn't fit here. Taking care of an ailing parent is in no way connected to maximizing one's returns on anything (except maybe fulfillin…

> Taking care of an ailing parent is in no way connected to maximizing one's returns on anything (except maybe fulfilling a sense of what you "ought" to do).

Unless that act teaches your own children how to treat you later in life.

Re: Is Homo Economicus a Psychopath?

#46

This reminds of a thought I had a few months ago: how have there not been more thought pieces relating Uber-the-business's recent/relentless PR-debacles to Nietzsche's Ubermensch concept? I guess I'll give it a go. Uber/Travis and his execs seem to demonstrate the belief that they are "overmen" in that they seem to believe that they transcend the rules of society and are destined to shape society and its values rathe…

> Note on Nietzche: In Thus Spake Zarathrusa, the "uberman" concept is (maybe) considered a positive that humanity should work towards in the absence of belief in God, and I think it can still be understood as such. The problem is that, in the absence of God, there is no absolute morality that is not the result of an arbitrary choice. When the "uberman" arises, he/she creates a new morality, which is needed in the mo…

There is an objective basis to morality without God, proposed by Immanuel Kant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative

Re: Is Homo Economicus a Psychopath?

#47
I find strange that the HE's decided not to lie on the tests.

Given that it was a game, and they knew they were being tested, I would have thought that "appearing generous and well-disposed to the testers and other participants" (even if they were not like that in real life) would benefit their self-interest more than "winning fictional money" (and risking looking like a self-centered person). The first benefit is small but takes place in the real world, the other one is bigger but fictional.

I must be missing something. It seems to me that in order to maximize your benefit in such games the obvious and selfish thing to do is appearing infinitely generous.

Re: Is Homo Economicus a Psychopath?

#48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people do not take care of their family because they think it's in their best interests. They often take care of their family for myriad reasons--e.g. a moral call to selflessness, sociocultural norms, a sense of familial duty, love, etc. The language of "best interests" really doesn't fit here. Taking care of an ailing parent is in no way connected to maximizing one's returns on anything (except maybe fulfillin…

> Taking care of an ailing parent is in no way connected to maximizing one's returns on anything (except maybe fulfilling a sense of what you "ought" to do). Unless that act teaches your own children how to treat you later in life.

I know it is a semantics argument, but there's a difference between "X ends up acting in alignment with self interest" and "X's actions are motivated/guided by self interest".

Re: Is Homo Economicus a Psychopath?

#49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Economists largely study specifically monetary interest because it's something they can measure. A principle assumption of many of the models underlying economic theories (including, but not limited to, rational choice theory) is that there is a unidimensional quantity, "utility", that aggregates a persons preferences and which individual decisions increase or decrease by definable amounts. Because money is widely…

I'm familiar with utility functions, although I think they don't accurately reflect people's values; I think people's values more closely resemble a poset. But even assuming a cardinal utility function, we run into the problem that money isn't all that widely fungible. I cannot buy friends, family, love, legal or social reform, etc., all of which must weigh heavily in many people's utility functions.

> I cannot buy friends, family, love, legal or social reform, etc., all of which must weigh heavily in many people's utility functions.

The concept is that while you can't do so directly, the degree to which you value these things can in principle be quantified monetarily by the monetary value of the things you can buy with money that you are willing to forego in order to attain the things that cannot be bought with money, allowing money to be used as a tool to quantify utility even for things which it can't buy directly.

Re: Is Homo Economicus a Psychopath?

#50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people do not take care of their family because they think it's in their best interests. They often take care of their family for myriad reasons--e.g. a moral call to selflessness, sociocultural norms, a sense of familial duty, love, etc. The language of "best interests" really doesn't fit here. Taking care of an ailing parent is in no way connected to maximizing one's returns on anything (except maybe fulfillin…

You're missing his point. "Interests" is a technical term in economics which means something different from the common usage. In short, it means things you consciously seek for their own value. Love, being moral, fulfilling duties; all of these are interests in the sense economists use the term. NB: Economists largely study specifically monetary interest because it's something they can measure. A number of criticisms…

> "Interests" is a technical term in economics which means something different from the common usage. In short, it means things you consciously seek for their own value. Love, being moral, fulfilling duties; all of these are interests in the sense economists use the term.

So what is the "utility" (sorry, I couldn't resist) of this term? It seems to be a tautology - what else could people pursue besides their "interests"? It seems circular - by definition anything people consciously do is an "interest", because humans are rational, because they pursue their interests...

Post reply on HN