Skeptikos's Comment Board

Of course, I have some serious doubts about that strategy as well.

I wonder though what role economic theory could play in developing engineering methodologies.

Here are some relevant links:

In other words, in a market, demand is ultimately limited by how much money consumers have. However, when you don't need to be rational in the purchasing decisions that you support, & you don't lose money as a result of your support, demand for government goodies will go through the roof, limited only by what people think is possible, & politicians will supply what they can for political expedience.

This also applies to laws & regulations which supposedly make our lives better. Granted, RI also means that it's easier to reject government goodies for moral reasons, but ultimately, who doesn't want goodies?

I'll admit though, it's really unknowable until a truly free market emerges.

Now when it omes to mathematical sociology (which I thought you looked into, but I correct me if I'm wrong), would that be relevant to a quantitative analysis of culture, & could you model markets as sociological networks? If the latter could be done, I think we could expect to see some major-league bitch wars between economists & sociologists, lol.

When it comes to thinking of culture in terms of software though (& I think QP would be relevant to that), does the hardware really matter? In other words, theoretically, human cognition programs could be run on artificial computers which themselves are built into robot bodies that look & behave like human bodies. So presumably, studying cognition & culture only involves the software, which would severely marginalize the role of neuroscience, as it doesn't matter if culture runs on neurons or silicon chips. It's kinda like a game of soccor played by perfectly designed humanoid robots - the mechanics & physics would be the same. But that's the question, do you think neuroscience is really needed to study cognition & culture?

I was looking over my older comments, saw one by you that I don't recall responding to (& btw, don't hesitate to remind me if I don't respond in a timely manner, I am adittedly somewhat disorganized & forgetful), so in regards modeling irrationality as a constraint -

Btw Though, Quantitative Psychology - which is divided up into Psychometrics (which deals with measurements - such as IQ - & population statistics, such as IQ averages) & Mathematical Psychology (which models the mind in mathematical terms & analyzes things such as response times mathematically) - is a field with a lot of demand but little supply. In other words, a lot of people are needed, but very few people specialize in it, probably because most psychology students don't like math & it's esoteric to the point that most people outside of psychology are unaware of it. Now, if QP, & in particular, Psychometrics, can be integrated with Rational Choice & Monetary Theory models, it seems as if a mixed background in economics & QP could land one a promising & unique research career, & it might even have some practical applications. I might do that, but I mentioned it just so you could look into it if you also wanted.

Sorry for the lateness of my reply, I wasn't informed of the comments I've been getting until today. Anyways...

What I mean is that if an individual brain is flawed (& brains are flawed), that would close off certain options that a better brain would have seen or pursued. For example, suppose there's somebody faced with the problem of developing a shaving gel that people will buy, & they have an irrational habit of rejecting things that are colored either green or blue. The effect of this would be no different than a government ban on green & blue shaving gels, since for the "rational" actor, the options of coloring the gel green or blue in either case would be off the table; conversely,