David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (6):817-818 (2005)
This commentary on the paper “Economic Man” in Cross-Cultural Perspective  is ﬁercely critical, but the criticism is not directed at the anthropological ﬁeld work reported in the paper, which seems to me entirely admirable. The criticism is directed at the editorial rhetoric that accompanies the scientiﬁc reports of the experiments carried out in the ﬁfteen small-scale societies studied. The rhetoric is markedly more subdued than in the book Foundations of Human Sociality  from which the current paper is extracted. (See Samuelson  for a review.) However, the claim remains that “economic man” is an experimental failure, and that we must seek an alternative paradigm. This paper argues that the editors’ enthusiasm for this perennially popular claim has led them into two mistakes. Philosophers call the ﬁrst mistake the ignoratio elenchi—the refuting of propositions that your opponent does not maintain. In particular, it is not axiomatic in orthodox economic theory that human beings are selﬁsh. Even if such a proposition were axiomatic, the backward induction principle the authors use when analyzing the Ultimatum Game would not follow. The second mistake is that of neglecting to report data that does not support their claims about “economic man”. In particular, although it is not axiomatic in mainstream economics that human beings maximize their own income, there is a huge experimental literature whose results are consistent with the hypothesis that most people behave in this way after gaining suﬃcient experience of most tasks they are set in the laboratory. As a result of these mistakes, the editors contrive to treat conclusions of their study that are broadly supportive of the game-theoretic approach to social norms as though they were inconsistent with the principles on which game theory is based
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Scott Aikin & John Casey (2011). Straw Men, Weak Men, and Hollow Men. Argumentation 25 (1):87-105.
Uskali Mäki (ed.) (2001). The Economic World View: Studies in the Ontology of Economics. Cambridge University Press.
Brian Ribeiro (2008). How Often Do We (Philosophy Professors) Commit the Straw Man Fallacy? Teaching Philosophy 31 (1):27-38.
Daniel John Zizzo (2005). Economic Man: Self-Interest and Rational Choice. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (6):837-838.
Steven E. Edwards (1987). In Defense of Environmental Economics. Environmental Ethics 9 (1):73-85.
Joseph Henrich, Robert Boyd, Samuel Bowles, Colin Camerer, Ernst Fehr, Herbert Gintis, Richard McElreath, Michael Alvard, Abigail Barr, Jean Ensminger, Natalie Smith Henrich, Kim Hill, Francisco Gil-White, Michael Gurven, Frank W. Marlowe & John Q. Patton (2005). “Economic Man” in Cross-Cultural Perspective: Behavioral Experiments in 15 Small-Scale Societies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (6):795-815.
Gajo Petrović (1963). Man as Economic Animal and Man as Praxis an Interpretation of Marx. Inquiry 6 (1-4):35 – 56.
Gajo Petrovi (1963). Man as Economic Animal and Man as Praxis an Interpretation of Marx. Inquiry 6 (1-4):35 – 56.
Ken Binmore (2005). Economic Man – or Straw Man? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (6):817-818.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads45 ( #81,241 of 1,781,482 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #141,959 of 1,781,482 )
How can I increase my downloads?