The readings for this past week highlighted the theory of neuroeconomics and how it relates to emotions and reasoning. Jonah Lehrer discusses how neuroeconomics uses the experimental techniques of neuroscience to make economic decisions. Lehrer says that neuroscientists are looking to understand the immediate causes of economic choices by looking at how the brain makes the economic decisions. This leads to the reasoning aspect of decision-making and how emotions play a role. Humanity is constantly throwing a crimp in neuroeconomic reasoning because of our ability to trust and to approach the future in such irrational ways. Ken Grimes goes into detail about how the Nash equilibrium theory is bunk when adding the neurological act of trust into the theory. The Nash equilibrium discusses how when two strangers are making economic transactions between one another they will not trust each other at all. On the contrary, people consciously choose to be cooperative and trusting when negotiating economically.
Grimes claims that this has something to do with the “trust chemical” in the brain: oxytocin. Whereas some chemicals released into the brain enact “fight or flight” or “rest and digest” reactions, oxytocin is known to release “lust and trust” feelings into the brain. Grimes wants to find a way to build a national utopia through universal acts of releasing oxytocin. That way we can all trust each other and coexist with more harmony. Is this a rational idea within itself or is this humanities irrationality of the future at play? Damasio discusses how there is passion for a reason and having these extreme emotional opinions is part of our reasoning. Is this what Grimes is doing when saying that he wants a utopia of trust?
Damasio explains the title to his book, Descartes’ Error and talks about Descartes separation of the mind and body is what makes his claim, “I think therefore I am.” incorrect. Descartes’ idea of consciousness and reasoning ignores the abstract approach that the mind has. He does not wish to discuss the lucid concepts that emotions and feeling present so he separates the body and the mind so that he can prove his theory to be true. Is Damasio going so far as to say that the phrase should be, “I feel therefore I am.”? I don’t know. I don’t know if that’s possible. I think that Damasio wants a synthesis of thinking and feeling to occur so that we can claim existence. We exist because we think and we feel. We are overcome with passion for a reason and that is part of our complexity and fascination, to Damasio.
So, how does neuroeconomics help us to understand the emotional aspect of economic negotiations? It is hard for me to come to a well-developed conclusion because it was hard for me to relate the gambling experiments to real-life situations outside the gambling context. When you add a component to a situation like money, there will be rewards and penalties. So, if there is frontal lobe damage, can one not understand the difference between when they are rewarded and when they are penalized? Does this happen when there is no neuroeconomic aspect to the experiment? Why was economics the choice of study for neuroscientists? How has it been more helpful than other areas? How could Damasio better incorporate neuroeconomics into his studies other than through the gambling experiments?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
This week’s extensive readings covered dozens of topics worth noting, however for me, the most significant question(s) raised were the ones which initially motivated me to take the class. At the beginning of the semester, I remember wondering what is it exactly that makes us human? What separates human beings from just beings? At first, I thought the answer laid with emotions, which I originally considered to be our most uncontrollable, inherent aspects. However, as the class progressed, it became all the more apparent that emotions are not uncontrollable, “natural” or even limited to humans. This leaves human’s distinctive high level of cognitive abilities. But as Damasio explains, it is far too limiting to separate humans and animals due to our ability to “think rationally.” As nearly every author has tried to emphasize, emotions are not simply primitive, subjective, and certainly not lesser than what is typically accepted as our objective, rational thinking or cognition. Emotion and cognition are not polarized, but rather, hopelessly interconnected and dependent on the other.
This interconnectedness is perfectly exhibited in human’s ability to recognize, assess and (eventually) solve problems. Not only are the multiple brain structures required for decision making completely dependent on each other and their respective functions are incalculably varied, but the conscious decision making process itself illustrates this blend of cognitive and emotional thought. For example, when we were deciding which college to attend, each of us had to analyze dozens of factors. However, none of these factors were entirely “rational” in the conventional sense, as many had emotional weight as well. Our ultimate decision wasn’t the result of some list of objective pros and cons based on statistics and test scores, but what we felt from the other students and professors, the campus itself, and the advice of our family and friends.
I, Damasio and what seems to be the majority of the class has concluded that humans are not just what we think or what we feel. We simply are. As Damasio says, “We are, and then we think, and we think only inasmuch as we are, since thinking is indeed caused by structures and operations of being.” (248)
Granted, this notably vague conclusion is no surprise, however it does raise several other disturbing questions. Are people with brain disorders, whether genetic, developed, or at the result of some accident, who are unable to feel or think “normally,” any less human? A computer can solve problems, but it cannot feel or think, therefore no one considers it a conscious being. But if we are forced to accept this compulsory vague conclusion as to what actually constitutes as humanity, then are people like HM and Phineas Gage or autistic or schizophrenic individuals still human? What about infants or any individual when they’re asleep? Just because “I think therefore I am” is too limiting doesn’t mean that Damasio and others like him can conclude that we simply “are” because unfortunately, several people (and yes, I do still consider them “people”) do not qualify under his increasingly vague requirements.
Post a Comment