If neuroeconomists can produce better-than-normal economic predictions, they can easily bet on them and make large amounts of money. If they don’t, the field probably isn’t very useful. At best, it’s coming up with a simpler model to explain what we already know.
Can you elaborate on what you’re trying to express? I agree with your comment’s denotation but not its connotation. Your ‘at best’ seems like an extremely valuable result.
I think neuroeconomics is aimed at small scale theory of human choice (for example a mechanistic theory which incorporates the useful features of prospect theory) rather than larger scale phenomena. Post edited to reflect this.
If neuroeconomists can produce better-than-normal economic predictions, they can easily bet on them and make large amounts of money. If they don’t, the field probably isn’t very useful. At best, it’s coming up with a simpler model to explain what we already know.
Can you elaborate on what you’re trying to express? I agree with your comment’s denotation but not its connotation. Your ‘at best’ seems like an extremely valuable result.
I think neuroeconomics is aimed at small scale theory of human choice (for example a mechanistic theory which incorporates the useful features of prospect theory) rather than larger scale phenomena. Post edited to reflect this.