Hostname: page-component-5d84bcc8dc-rdjxm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-09-11T20:03:49.285Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

AGAINST SIMPLICITY AND COGNITIVE INDIVIDUALISM

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 November 2008

Nathaniel T. Wilcox
Nathaniel T. Wilcox*
Affiliation:
University of Houston
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Neuroeconomics illustrates our deepening descent into the details of individual cognition. This descent is guided by the implicit assumption that “individual human” is the important “agent” of neoclassical economics. I argue here that this assumption is neither obviously correct, nor of primary importance to human economies. In particular I suggest that the main genius of the human species lies with its ability to distribute cognition across individuals, and to incrementally accumulate physical and social cognitive artifacts that largely obviate the innate biological limitations of individuals. If this is largely why our economies grow, then we should be much more interested in distributed cognition in human groups, and correspondingly less interested in individual cognition. We should also be much more interested in the cultural accumulation of cognitive artefacts: computational devices and media, social structures and economic institutions.

Information

Type
Essay
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 24 , Issue 3: Neuroeconomics , November 2008 , pp. 523 - 532
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Ballinger, P., Palumbo, M. and Wilcox, N.. 2003. Precautionary saving and social learning across generations: an experiment. Economic Journal 113: 920–47.Google Scholar
Camerer, C. 2008. The case for mindful economics. In Foundations of positive and normative economics, ed. Caplin, A. and Schotter, A.. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Churchland, P. 1981. Eliminative materialism and the propositional attitudes. Journal of Philosophy 78: 67–90.Google Scholar
Clark, A. 1997. Being there: Putting brain, body and world together again. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cox, J. C. and Hayne, S. C.. 2005. Barking up the right tree: are small groups rational agents? Experimental Economics 9: 209–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dennett, D. 1987. The intentional stance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Duffy, J. and Feltovich, N.. 2006. Words, deeds, and lies: Strategic behavior in games with multiple signals. Review of Economic Studies 73: 669–88.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. 1975. The language of thought. New York: Thomas Cromwell.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. 2000. The mind doesn't work that way. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fudenberg, D. and Levine, D. K.. 2006. A dual self model of impulse control. American Economic Review 96: 1449–76.Google Scholar
Glimcher, P. 2003. Decisions, uncertainty, and the brain: The science of neuroeconomics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. and Lewontin, R. C.. 1979. The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A critique of the adaptationist programme. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 205: 581–98.Google Scholar
Gul, F. and Pesendorfer, W.. 2008. The case for mindless economics. In Foundations of Positive and Normative Economics, ed. Caplin, A. and Schotter, A.. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Harrison, G. and List, J.. 2004. Field experiments. Journal of Economic Literature 42: 1013–59.Google Scholar
Hutchins, E. 1995. Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Marr, D. 1982. Vision. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Martin, A. and Caramazza, A.. 2003. Neuropsychological and neuroimaging perspectives on conceptual knowledge: An introduction. Cognitive Neuropsychology 20: 195–212.Google Scholar
McCabe, K. 2008. Neuroeconomics and the economic sciences. Economics and Philosophy 24.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. 1988. Representation and reality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ross, D. 2005. Economic theory and cognitive science: Microexplanation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Schotter, A. and Sopher, B.. 2003. Social learning and coordination conventions in intergenerational games: An experimental study. Journal of Political Economy 111: 498–529.Google Scholar