Archivio per 15 settembre 2014

15
Set
14

This is your brain on snacks: Brain stimulation affects craving, consumption | neuroscientistnews.com

See on Scoop.itBounded Rationality and Beyond

Magnetic stimulation of a brain area involved in “executive function” affects cravings for and consumption of calorie-dense snack foods, reports a study in the September issue of Psychosomatic Medicine: Journal of Biobehavioral Medicine, the official journal of the American Psychosomatic Society. The journal is published by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, a part of Wolters Kluwer Health. After stimulation of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), young women experience increased cravings for high-calorie snacks – and eat more of those foods when given the opportunity, according to the study by researchers at University of Waterloo, Ont., Canada. “These findings shed a light on the role of the DLPFC in food cravings (specifically reward anticipation), the consumption of appealing high caloric foods, and the relation between self-control and food consumption,” the researchers write. The senior author was Peter Hall, PhD. Brain Stimulation Affects Cravings and Consumption for ‘Appetitive’ Snacks The study included 21 healthy young women, selected because they reported strong and frequent cravings for chocolate and potato chips. Such “appetitive,” calorie-dense snack foods are often implicated in the development of obesity. – See more at: http://www.neuroscientistnews.com/research-news/your-brain-snacks-brain-stimulation-affects-craving-consumption#sthash.GENRJhPs.dpuf

See on neuroscientistnews.com

15
Set
14

Neuroeconomics: hype or hope?

See on Scoop.itBounded Rationality and Beyond

This Special Issue of the Journal of Economic Methodology brings together a selection of papers presented at the Conference Neuroeconomics: Hype or Hope?, which was hosted by the Erasmus Institute for Philosophy and Economics (EIPE) in November 2008 in
Rotterdam. The conference speakers comprised ardent advocates and practitioners of neuroeconomics, outspoken critics and skeptics, and philosophers and methodologists taking a stance somewhere in between these extremes. The central question was whether neuroeconomics is a flimsy fad that is likely to pass without leaving a discernible trace in economics, or a promising new field with the potential to enrich and improve economic theory.
Neuroeconomics is hot. Over the last few years, all over the world many leading universities have started their own lab or centre for euroeconomics. Papers explicitly presented under the banner of neuroeconomics frequently appear in leading science journals such as Nature and Science. Neuroeconomics has also received quite some attention in the popular press. Not surprisingly, economists have started to reflect on neuroeconomics and its relevance for economics. To date, the paper by Gul and Pesendorfer (2008) is perhaps the staunchest denial of any potential relevance of neuroscientific findings for economics. Gul and Pesendorfer argue that economists should keep their focus on observable choice behavior and retain their agnosticism about decision-making processes. Since neuroscientific data are about decision-making processes, they should be completely disregarded in empirical assessments of economic theories

See on tandfonline.com

15
Set
14

NEUROECONOMICS, ILLUSTRATED BY THE STUDY OF AMBIGUITY-AVERSION

See on Scoop.itBounded Rationality and Beyond

This paper is about the emerging field of #neuroeconomics, which seeks to ground economic  theory in details about how the brain works. This approach is a sharp turn in economic thought. Around
the turn of the century, economists made a clear methodological choice, to treat the mind as a black box and ignore its details for the purpose of economic theory (13). In an 1897 letter Pareto wrote
It is an empirical fact that the natural sciences have progressed only when they have taken secondary principles as their point of departure, instead of trying to discover the essence of things. … Pure political economy has therefore a great interest in relying as
little as possible on the domain of psychology (quoted in Busino, 1964, p. xxiv (14)). Pareto’s view that psychology should be ignored was reflective of a pessimism of his time, about the ability to ever understand the brain. As William Jevons wrote a little earlier, in 1871

See on neuroecon.berkeley.edu

15
Set
14

Behavioural tracking and neuroscience tools designed to measure what consumers want and need

See on Scoop.itBounded Rationality and Beyond

A worth reading article by Dara O’Rourke today well explains why it’s time “we move beyond surveys, and simultaneously commit to avoiding invasive tracking and manipulative marketing, in order to really understand what consumers want and need, and to help them connect their values and actions for sustainability. A new set of tools and technologies has emerged over the last several years to measure the behaviours of consumers. These tools, if used responsibly, transparently, and without violating people’s privacy, hold important potential for better understanding consumer behavior with respect to sustainability”.

See on ceeds-project.eu

15
Set
14

Stumbling and Mumbling: The referendum, & risk attitudes

See on Scoop.itBounded Rationality and Beyond
THE REFERENDUM, & RISK ATTITUDES

To what extent is the Scottish referendum about the benefits of independence and to what extent is it about people’s attitudes to risk?

To see my question, think of independence as an investment with a risky payoff – which is what it is. 
There are two reasons why one might reject such an investment. One, trivially, is simply that you expect a negative payoff. The other is that you expect a positive payoff but think the risks around it are too high.

It is perfectly possible for two people to agree upon payoffs and risks and yet one would accept the proposal and the other reject it because one is more risk-tolerant than the other. This is commonplace in asset allocation. Two investors might agree upon expected returns and volatility and yet one might hold more equities and fewer safe assets than the other simply because of differences in tastes.

Mightn’t the same be true for many people for Scottish independence? Two Scots might agree on the payoffs and risks to independence but one might vote yes and the other no because of differences in risk tolerance.The statement “Independence probably would be a good thing, but I don’t want to risk it” seems tenable to me.

See on stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com

15
Set
14

Affective basis of Judgment-Behavior Discrepancy in Virtual Experiences of Moral Dilemmas

See on Scoop.itBounded Rationality and Beyond

AbstractAlthough research in moral psychology in the last decade has relied heavily on hypothetical moral dilemmas and has been effective in understanding moral judgment, how these judgments translate into behaviors remains a largely unexplored issue due to the harmful nature of the acts involved. To study this link, we follow a new approach based on a desktop virtual reality environment. In our within-subjects experiment, participants exhibited an order-dependent judgment-behavior discrepancy across temporally-separated sessions, with many of them behaving in utilitarian manner in virtual reality dilemmas despite their non-utilitarian judgments for the same dilemmas in textual descriptions. This change in decisions reflected in the autonomic arousal of participants, with dilemmas in virtual reality being perceived more emotionally arousing than the ones in text, after controlling for general differences between the two presentation modalities (virtual reality vs. text). This suggests that moral decision-making in hypothetical moral dilemmas is susceptible to contextual saliency of the presentation of these dilemmas.
See on hcilab.uniud.it

15
Set
14

Neuroscience Provides Clues To Organization

See on Scoop.itBounded Rationality and Beyond

We’ve all heard the conventional wisdom for better managing our time and organizing our professional and personal lives. 

We’ve all heard the conventional wisdom for better managing our time and organizing our professional and personal lives. Don’t try to multitask. Turn off the email and Facebook alerts. But what’s grounded in real evidence and what’s not? In his new book The Organized Mind, Daniel Levitin — a McGill University professor of psychology and behavioral neuroscience — explores how having a basic understanding of the way the brain works can help us think about organizing our homes, our businesses, our time and even our schools in an age of information overload. We spoke with Levitin about his work. This interview has been edited for length and clarity. Question: What was your goal in writing this book? Answer: Neuroscientists have learned a lot in the last 10 or 15 years about how the brain organizes information, and why we pay attention to some things and forget others. But most of this information hasn’t trickled down to the average reader. There are a lot of books about how to get organized and a lot of books about how to be better and more productive at business, but I don’t know of one that grounds any of these in the science. From the book, you seem to be a fan of David Allen, the time management guru. Does his Getting Things Donesystem have a real basis in neuroscience? 
See on vnews.com




Time is real? I think not

settembre: 2014
L M M G V S D
« Ago   Ott »
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930  

Commenti recenti

Lorenzo Bosio su Un testo che trascende le sue…

Inserisci il tuo indirizzo e-mail per iscriverti a questo blog e ricevere notifiche di nuovi messaggi per e-mail.

Segui assieme ad altri 1.160 follower

Latest Tweets


%d blogger hanno fatto clic su Mi Piace per questo: