英语论文网

Foundations of NeuroEconomics: From Philosophy to Practice

证据表明,神经科学可以提高我们对经济现象的理解[1 - 4]。源自于众多的实验结果验证了大脑区域的功能,包括指导对公平(5、6)和不公平的社会交往做出反应[7],解决不确定性决策[8],对风险规避[10][9]和主观价值进行追踪,说服自己意愿去支付(11、12)以及对错误信息做出反应(13、14)。令人沮丧的是,当前批评人士指责神经科学和经济学基本上是不相容的[16],而这个论点许多社会科学家一致也同样认同的。经济蓬勃发展了几个世纪，没有神经科学和一些经济学家认为,现有的神经经济学的研究比主流经济学(17、18)更加有用。

Evidence that neuroscience improves our understanding of economic phenomena [1–4] comes from a broad array of novel experimental findings, including demonstrations of brain regions that guide responses to fair [5,6] and unfair [7] social interactions, that resolve uncertainty during decision making [8], that track loss aversion [9] and subjective value [10], and that encode willingness to pay [11,12] and reward error signals [13,14]. Yet, neuroEconomics has been characterized as a faddish juxtaposition, not an integration, of disparate domains [15]. More damningly, critics have charged that neuroscience and economics are fundamentally incompatible [16], an argument that resonates with many social scientists. Economics thrived for centuries in the absence of neuroscience and some economists argue that existing neuroeconomics research is not useful to mainstream economics [17,18].

We reject the fundamental charge that neuroscience cannot influence economic modeling, even in principle, and focus on two criticisms of integrating these fields, which we label the Behavioral Sufficiency and Emergent Phenomenon arguments. We show here that these arguments contain hidden assumptions that render them unsound within the practical constraints of science.

We go on to explore two interrelated questions: is there a unique niche for a field of neuroeconomics, and, if so, what are its proper foundational principles? We do not rely on the recent demonstrations of brain systems that support economic behavior nor recount the valid concerns about potential technological constraints of neuroscience. Rather, we attempt to clarify the necessary foundations for neuroeconomics research [19–21], for which we identify two core principles, Mechanistic Convergence and Biological Plausibility.

We then ask how information about neural mechanisms improves the predictive and explanatory power of economic models. Importantly, the points we raise here recapitulate both the cognitive revolution [22] and the subsequent intertwining of cognitive Psychology and cognitive neuroscience [23,24]. We believe that the seemingly disparate neural and social sciences have much to gain from each other.

We define neuroeconomics as the convergence of the neural and social sciences, applied to the understanding and prediction of decisions about rewards [25], such as money, food, information acquisition, physical pleasure or pain, and social interactions. Neuroscience brings a wealth of technological approaches, including brain imaging [e.g., functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)], lesion studies, molecular biology, pharmacology, and electrophysiology. Economics adds conceptual principles (e.g., rationality and utility), statistical techniques, and rigorous modeling. Psychology provides evidence for decision biases such as he本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。