Using Vladimir M’s heuristics for evaluating the soundness of the academic mainstream in unfamiliar fields...
1) Is there low-hanging fruit in the field, as in: interesting and doable research goals?
Yes. There are thousands of interesting and doable experiments that can be run on humans and other primates using fMRI, TMS, and optogenetics in order to measure activity in the parts of the brain involved in making decisions under uncertainty.
2) Is the field ideologically charged?
It doesn’t seem that way to me. There are standard debates about mindful vs. mindless economics, but otherwise it’s basically just figuring out how brains make decisions so we can predict human behavior better. Not too ideological.
A few other things to note:
a) the field is heavily integrated with data and literature in related fields like economics, behavioral economics, neuroscience, and psychology, making use of all the latest results from those fields
b) the field originated in the major peer-reviewed journals in relevant fields, and has remained there (with the addition of new journals dedicated to neuroeconomics)
c) the field is led by respected academics at major universities like NYU, MIT, Duke, and GMU.
The major criticisms of the field come from economists who argue in favor of mindless economics. These economists don’t claim that neuroeconomics is wrong, just that one can do economics without caring how human brains make decisions under uncertainty. Neuroeconomics hasn’t been criticized much by neuroscientists or psychologists, as far as I know.
Thanks, that’s very useful! The field has actually been recommended to me over studying a basic cognitive science textbook; would you make a different recommendation?
I am trying to get better models for how my brain works so I can lead a more successful/pleasant life. Thus I am interested in understanding things like motivation research, how brains learn via reinforcement (I was lead to believe that this is partially addressed in neuroeconomics), how memory works, affective neuroscience, etc. Does that make sense?
It sounds like what you want is basically the thing I would eventually like to write: a self-help book that draws from all the latest scientific self-help, including stuff (e.g. in neuroeconomics) that is often overlooked by those working in scientific self-help (aka the psychology of adjustment).
If you mostly want to know this stuff for self-improvement and happiness, I suspect badger’s review of the Glimcher book has just about all you need.
Using Vladimir M’s heuristics for evaluating the soundness of the academic mainstream in unfamiliar fields...
1) Is there low-hanging fruit in the field, as in: interesting and doable research goals?
Yes. There are thousands of interesting and doable experiments that can be run on humans and other primates using fMRI, TMS, and optogenetics in order to measure activity in the parts of the brain involved in making decisions under uncertainty.
2) Is the field ideologically charged?
It doesn’t seem that way to me. There are standard debates about mindful vs. mindless economics, but otherwise it’s basically just figuring out how brains make decisions so we can predict human behavior better. Not too ideological.
A few other things to note:
a) the field is heavily integrated with data and literature in related fields like economics, behavioral economics, neuroscience, and psychology, making use of all the latest results from those fields
b) the field originated in the major peer-reviewed journals in relevant fields, and has remained there (with the addition of new journals dedicated to neuroeconomics)
c) the field is led by respected academics at major universities like NYU, MIT, Duke, and GMU.
The major criticisms of the field come from economists who argue in favor of mindless economics. These economists don’t claim that neuroeconomics is wrong, just that one can do economics without caring how human brains make decisions under uncertainty. Neuroeconomics hasn’t been criticized much by neuroscientists or psychologists, as far as I know.
Thanks, that’s very useful! The field has actually been recommended to me over studying a basic cognitive science textbook; would you make a different recommendation?
What are you trying to get out of studying cognitive science or neuroeconomics in particular?
Probably, I would just read Cognitive Science in One Lesson and then read Glimcher’s Foundations of Neuroeconomic Analysis.
I just realized I never answered your question!
I am trying to get better models for how my brain works so I can lead a more successful/pleasant life. Thus I am interested in understanding things like motivation research, how brains learn via reinforcement (I was lead to believe that this is partially addressed in neuroeconomics), how memory works, affective neuroscience, etc. Does that make sense?
Certainly.
It sounds like what you want is basically the thing I would eventually like to write: a self-help book that draws from all the latest scientific self-help, including stuff (e.g. in neuroeconomics) that is often overlooked by those working in scientific self-help (aka the psychology of adjustment).
If you mostly want to know this stuff for self-improvement and happiness, I suspect badger’s review of the Glimcher book has just about all you need.
Muchas gracias!