<story><title>Is Homo Economicus a Psychopath?</title><url>http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterubel/2014/12/15/is-homo-economicus-a-psychopath/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>jerf</author><text>&amp;quot;Homo economicus, is a creature of coldly calculated selfishness, dispassionately maximizing its best interests even if that comes at the expense of others.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;For the second time today, I get to point out that in economics is neutral about &amp;quot;best interests&amp;quot; and is metaphorically happy to accommodate people whom consider happiness or other such &amp;quot;soft&amp;quot; things as part of their personal value function. If your definition of &amp;quot;homo economicus&amp;quot; is a psycopath... well, &lt;i&gt;you&amp;#x27;re&lt;/i&gt; the one who stuck a psychopath there, so ultimately this is a circular argument in which one asserts that economics is based on the idea of a psychopath that you put there in the first place. Not exactly a surprising result there.&lt;p&gt;There is absolutely no contradiction between &amp;quot;most people act in what they believe to be their best interests&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;most people take care of their family&amp;quot;, because obviously most people consider &amp;quot;taking care of their family&amp;quot; to be in their &amp;quot;best interests&amp;quot;.&lt;p&gt;Homo Economicus is still a fictional being, but it&amp;#x27;s not because &amp;quot;not everyone is a psychopath&amp;quot;, it&amp;#x27;s because not everyone is perfectly rational all the time, and humans do have some weaknesses on the rationality front. It was (and really is) a good &lt;i&gt;approximation&lt;/i&gt; because on the whole, people &lt;i&gt;do&lt;/i&gt; act amusingly rationally in a surprising array of situations. (I say &amp;quot;amusing&amp;quot; because they will often act perfectly rationally in some circumstance, then cite as their reason some astonishing bullshit reason. Nevertheless, their actions are often quite rational.)&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s still supposed to be &amp;quot;&lt;i&gt;Homo&lt;/i&gt; Economicus&amp;quot; and not &amp;quot;&lt;i&gt;Robo&lt;/i&gt; Economicus&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;&lt;i&gt;Vulcan&lt;/i&gt; Economicus&amp;quot;.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>lukifer</author><text>Homo Economicus might be fictional, but Corpo Economicus and Beaureau Econonomicus are not. Whenever individuals must make decisions on behalf of organizations (public or private), they must be able to justify their actions in the rational, sometimes psychopathic, terms of their institution (to make &lt;i&gt;legible&lt;/i&gt; decisions, to use Venkatesh Rao&amp;#x27;s terminology).&lt;p&gt;Though economics is value-neutral when it comes to what individuals define as their best interests, institutions have their best interests defined quite explicitly, and are often indifferent to any other outcome. Applying the rational actor model to such institutions provides a great deal of cover, if not active encouragement, for maximizing the acquisition of power and resources with little regard for the irrational human processes of morality, responsibility and decency.</text></comment>
<story><title>Is Homo Economicus a Psychopath?</title><url>http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterubel/2014/12/15/is-homo-economicus-a-psychopath/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>jerf</author><text>&amp;quot;Homo economicus, is a creature of coldly calculated selfishness, dispassionately maximizing its best interests even if that comes at the expense of others.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;For the second time today, I get to point out that in economics is neutral about &amp;quot;best interests&amp;quot; and is metaphorically happy to accommodate people whom consider happiness or other such &amp;quot;soft&amp;quot; things as part of their personal value function. If your definition of &amp;quot;homo economicus&amp;quot; is a psycopath... well, &lt;i&gt;you&amp;#x27;re&lt;/i&gt; the one who stuck a psychopath there, so ultimately this is a circular argument in which one asserts that economics is based on the idea of a psychopath that you put there in the first place. Not exactly a surprising result there.&lt;p&gt;There is absolutely no contradiction between &amp;quot;most people act in what they believe to be their best interests&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;most people take care of their family&amp;quot;, because obviously most people consider &amp;quot;taking care of their family&amp;quot; to be in their &amp;quot;best interests&amp;quot;.&lt;p&gt;Homo Economicus is still a fictional being, but it&amp;#x27;s not because &amp;quot;not everyone is a psychopath&amp;quot;, it&amp;#x27;s because not everyone is perfectly rational all the time, and humans do have some weaknesses on the rationality front. It was (and really is) a good &lt;i&gt;approximation&lt;/i&gt; because on the whole, people &lt;i&gt;do&lt;/i&gt; act amusingly rationally in a surprising array of situations. (I say &amp;quot;amusing&amp;quot; because they will often act perfectly rationally in some circumstance, then cite as their reason some astonishing bullshit reason. Nevertheless, their actions are often quite rational.)&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s still supposed to be &amp;quot;&lt;i&gt;Homo&lt;/i&gt; Economicus&amp;quot; and not &amp;quot;&lt;i&gt;Robo&lt;/i&gt; Economicus&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;&lt;i&gt;Vulcan&lt;/i&gt; Economicus&amp;quot;.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>DanDanDanDan</author><text>Most people do not take care of their family because they think it&amp;#x27;s in their best interests. They often take care of their family for myriad reasons--e.g. a moral call to selflessness, sociocultural norms, a sense of familial duty, love, etc. The language of &amp;quot;best interests&amp;quot; really doesn&amp;#x27;t fit here.&lt;p&gt;Taking care of an ailing parent is in no way connected to maximizing one&amp;#x27;s returns on anything (except maybe fulfilling a sense of what you &amp;quot;ought&amp;quot; to do).</text></comment>