TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Is Homo Economicus a Psychopath?

112 点作者 jonathansizz超过 10 年前

16 条评论

jerf超过 10 年前
&quot;Homo economicus, is a creature of coldly calculated selfishness, dispassionately maximizing its best interests even if that comes at the expense of others.&quot;<p>For the second time today, I get to point out that in economics is neutral about &quot;best interests&quot; and is metaphorically happy to accommodate people whom consider happiness or other such &quot;soft&quot; things as part of their personal value function. If your definition of &quot;homo economicus&quot; is a psycopath... well, <i>you&#x27;re</i> 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.<p>There is absolutely no contradiction between &quot;most people act in what they believe to be their best interests&quot; and &quot;most people take care of their family&quot;, because obviously most people consider &quot;taking care of their family&quot; to be in their &quot;best interests&quot;.<p>Homo Economicus is still a fictional being, but it&#x27;s not because &quot;not everyone is a psychopath&quot;, it&#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 <i>approximation</i> because on the whole, people <i>do</i> act amusingly rationally in a surprising array of situations. (I say &quot;amusing&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.)<p>It&#x27;s still supposed to be &quot;<i>Homo</i> Economicus&quot; and not &quot;<i>Robo</i> Economicus&quot; or &quot;<i>Vulcan</i> Economicus&quot;.
评论 #8786445 未加载
评论 #8785852 未加载
评论 #8785873 未加载
评论 #8784948 未加载
评论 #8785969 未加载
评论 #8785215 未加载
glenra超过 10 年前
A better question might be &quot;Is Homo Economicus a Strawman?&quot;<p>To which the answer is: yes, it is. Classical economics does not actually assert that <i>individual</i> humans behave in a purely rational and fully-informed manner.<p>A more accurate premise is that <i>groups</i> of humans tend <i>on average</i> to act at least somewhat <i>as if</i> they were rationally well-informed. We have tools to determine what &quot;rational&quot; behavior might look like and that turns out to have predictive power as applied to human behavior because responding appropriately to incentives is <i>one</i> of the inputs that (in some contexts) shape how people act.<p>This idea that economists are stupidly assuming all people are rational is a myth. People who want to attack &quot;neoclassical economics&quot; should find some other pretext for doing so.<p>As an entirely separate matter, economists all the way back to Adam Smith have known that humans have &quot;fellow feeling&quot; - how other people feel is one input to our own utility functions. The idea suggested in OP that rational behavior must be <i>entirely</i> greedy with no regard for others is also not an inherent part of classical economics. If that premise is used in some strategy calculation, it&#x27;s rebuttable.<p>To say &quot;people aren&#x27;t perfectly greedy, so economics is broken&quot; is a bit like assuming in a physics model that bee wings don&#x27;t flex, proving they can&#x27;t fly given that assumption and thereby concluding not that the assumption turned out to be inaccurate in this context but rather that physics itself is broken.
评论 #8784715 未加载
评论 #8785323 未加载
评论 #8785915 未加载
评论 #8785268 未加载
评论 #8784782 未加载
gordaco超过 10 年前
My biggest gripe about the concept of Homo Economicus is the huge ideological component that often gets ignored. The article mentions it, but doesn&#x27;t focus on it.<p>An ideal HE behaves rationally, yes, but that doesn&#x27;t tell the whole picture; being rational is about discussing with oneself all the possible behaviours, choosing the one that gives him the outcome closest to his desires. But also, and this is very important, it seems like the only thing an HE cares about is his own benefit, especially his own monetary benefit. So he has friends only because &quot;who you know&quot; is valuable and can help him get more money; he doesn&#x27;t care about poor people because their misery doesn&#x27;t affect him; the welfare of society in general is not relevant unless he can benefit from it; etc. Many people, including me, find all this very troubling, since this is the kind of people that makes this world far worse than it could be. And yes, I would say that it&#x27;s clearly psychopathic behaviour.<p>Some economists that present, either tacitly or openly, the HE as a positive ideal, try to hop over this troubling issue by using the ill-defined term &quot;utility&quot;, saying that an HE is someone who maximizes the perceived utility; and then they proceed to basically define the behaviour of the HE as economically-oriented, making the whole &quot;utility&quot; concept useless.<p>Contrast with this Marxist slogan: <i>From each according to his ability, to each according to his need</i>. One can be perfectly rational and follow it; it&#x27;s just about using reason to fulfill a completely different goal. So being rational is about means to attain a goal, while being an HE also includes the goal of hoarding money and not caring about what happens to other people.
评论 #8784917 未加载
评论 #8785128 未加载
wahsd超过 10 年前
The answer is yes, in the current form of human economy. A non-psychopathic personality type has approaching zero percent chance of meritocratic reward beyond a certain glass ceiling. There are, of course, exceptions, but they do not make the rule. The rule is that the overwhelming majority of the most &quot;successful&quot; beneficiaries of current and past human economy have all been far more psychopathic personalities than not.<p>The ironic thing is that it&#x27;s one of those things that is so blatantly obvious and right in front of people&#x27;s face that they can&#x27;t see it; the proverbial forest in spite of all the trees.
swatow超过 10 年前
People misunderstand classical economics, because it is subtle.<p>The prisoner&#x27;s dilemma is an interesting game because it is extreme: people are able to lower the total welfare while raising their own.<p>But classical economics asserts that these situations arise only when there are externalities or market frictions, and only in proportion to how large these are (there are also issues of wealth distribution, but this could be thought of as a friction to perfect taxation).<p>If there were no market frictions, and people could be taxed according to their innate ability to earn money, then it wouldn&#x27;t matter whether people aimed to maximize their own utility, or the sum of everyone&#x27;s utility: they would engage in exactly the same actions.<p>Altruism vs selfishness only becomes an issue when there are externalities or frictions. E.g. do I choose to pollute a stream, even though I know I won&#x27;t be punished. Or do I choose to work less than I would otherwise, because some of my income is taxed (if people didn&#x27;t work less for this reason, we could have a tax system with much more redistribution).<p>So neoclassical theory isn&#x27;t nearly so tied to the idea of selfishness as people think. One thing it does do, is make very clear that people are selfish. I could buy a coffee every day, or make a donation that would (on average) save one life in Africa. And yet I chose to buy the coffee anyway. As a believer in classical economics, I have to conclude that I am that selfish.
yourapostasy超过 10 年前
Following Betteridge&#x27;s Law of Headlines, the answer the article answers is &quot;no&quot;, but it is a qualified &quot;no&quot;.<p>Homo Economicus according to the article &quot;is a creature of coldly calculated selfishness, dispassionately maximizing its best interests even if that comes at the expense of others&quot;.<p>The researchers concluded: &quot;We see a person who is intelligent, driven to excel and to dominate other people, and capable of impulse control and of working toward long-term goals. In other words, Homo economicus is the prototypical member of the social and economic elite.&quot;<p>I wish the researchers went further and went back to the biographies of their participants to evaluate whether or not their conclusion fit the participants&#x27; social and economic standings.<p>Nonetheless, this is one of the few better-controlled and quantified studies I&#x27;ve seen about the over-representation of sociopathic and psychopathic traits in leadership. Keep this in mind the next time you work under&#x2F;alongside them. Many hackers tend to have a meritocratic ideation of how the world <i>should</i> work, but the reality is sociopaths and borderline psychopaths are mostly the ones that rise to the top, and many a hacker is easily taken advantage of until they learn how the world really works (for now, at least).
评论 #8787115 未加载
BradFinkle超过 10 年前
The terrifying thing about this analysis, if we presume as the author does that it is correct and could be applied to society, is that this small percentage of our society (&quot;the prototypical member of the social and economic elite&quot;) holds the power that creates the logic by which most of us must act within. Even if we have more altruistic and communitarian values, our life is not a neutral experiment whereby we can demonstrate these values. The logic of our social sphere seems to hinder the expression of communitarian values even for those of us whom are naturally inclined this way. For me this article exemplifies that which we worry about most - that the logic of Homo Economicus which we can be seen to adhere to is championed by those who run the game rather than those playing it.
otikik超过 10 年前
I find strange that the HE&#x27;s decided not to lie on the tests.<p>Given that it was a game, and they knew they were being tested, I would have thought that &quot;appearing generous and well-disposed to the testers and other participants&quot; (even if they were not like that in real life) would benefit their self-interest more than &quot;winning fictional money&quot; (and risking looking like a self-centered person). The first benefit is small but takes place in the real world, the other one is bigger but fictional.<p>I must be missing something. It seems to me that in order to maximize your benefit in such games the <i>obvious and selfish</i> thing to do is appearing infinitely generous.
评论 #8786428 未加载
vorg超过 10 年前
&gt; about 7% of people were consistent HEs, never endowing their partners with any coin. They discovered that another 9% were quasi-HE (or qHE), giving their partners money a small proportion of the time. About a quarter of people consistently gave them a hefty chunk of change. These people were called Consistent Cooperators or CCs. And everyone else was in the middle, so the researchers called them Ordinary People (or ORDs)<p>According to another notation out there...<p>* the 16% HE+qHE&#x27;s are called &quot;Sociopaths&quot;<p>* the 60% ORD&#x27;s care called &quot;Clueless&quot;<p>* the 25% CC&#x27;s are called &quot;Losers&quot;
Animats超过 10 年前
This subject was covered recently in &quot;Assholes, A Theory&quot;, by Aaron James. This is a serious study of assholes and why they rise to the top in certain types of organizations. It&#x27;s not a joke. It&#x27;s worth reading.
chrismealy超过 10 年前
Cosma Shalizi on this very good:<p><a href="http://vserver1.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crshalizi/bulletin/homo-reciprocans.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;vserver1.cscs.lsa.umich.edu&#x2F;~crshalizi&#x2F;bulletin&#x2F;homo-...</a>
_nedR超过 10 年前
&quot;Smart, non-manipulative people shun them, perhaps even refuse to mate with them.&quot;<p>Not helpful. All the A-hole jock-types have hot girlfriends and wives.
joshjkim超过 10 年前
This reminds of a thought I had a few months ago: how have there not been more thought pieces relating Uber-the-business&#x27;s recent&#x2F;relentless PR-debacles to Nietzsche&#x27;s Ubermensch concept? I guess I&#x27;ll give it a go.<p>Uber&#x2F;Travis and his execs seem to demonstrate the belief that they are &quot;overmen&quot; in that they seem to believe that they transcend the rules of society and are destined to shape society and its values rather than the other way around (probably something not too uncommonly shared with HN readers…).<p>A few fun&#x2F;funny&#x2F;serious examples (in no particular order):<p>1. They outrightly express resistance to laws-as-is, and regularly threaten to ignore and sometimes do break those regs as necessary to conduct their business &#x2F; benefit themselves and their consumers.<p>2. They hire lobbyists and other high-level political actors to change the laws they don&#x27;t like and&#x2F;or influence lawmakers - not atypical for a large company, but they did this earlier than most companies at their stage, with much more specific agendas in place and with a lot more PR surrounding it (the last may or may not have been their doing, hard to say). They have a belief (probably well-founded) that they can use the political process to make the law bend to their will. “Creating New Values” as any good uberman should.<p>3. They call their central system “Godmode” which implies that they, the viewers, are like God (a bit of a stretch I know…couldn’t resist)<p>4. They are proud that using the data in Godmode they can track, predict and identify specifics of other human being’s behavior.<p>5. The whole “we’ll pay our own researchers to smear journalists” thing - another good example of Creating New Values and constructing narratives.<p>6. The general feeling that Uber (perhaps correctly) operates against “states” and “sovereigns” and “systems” more than corporate competitors (who even writes about Lyft anymore these days…)<p>The funny thing is that after thinking this through, all (good?) CEOs of major corporations basically operate like this (and so do many other tech-leaders - it is often associated with libertarian-leaning individuals like P. Thiel, etc.) - the difference is that Uber (1) has a name that calls it out and (2) seems to be especially prone to doing this in public and (3) sometimes appears to relishes their “overlord-iness” a little too much. You can call it being crass or being honest.<p>In any case, they seem to be getting hip to the system and playing nice which of course can be viewed as just another level of the game, etc. - still, glad to see them do it because I overall think that playing nice is best (especially when you can afford to do it) and with a $40b val. and a couple billion raised, I think they can spare some good behavior, at least for now =)<p>Note on Uber: I think Uber is a great business and has a significantly net-positive impact on society, and I reserve judgment w&#x2F;r&#x2F;t whether TK and the other Uber execs are good or bad people - I can&#x27;t conclude they are good because they run a good business, and I can&#x27;t conclude they are bad because they say stupid things in public.<p>Note on Nietzche: In Thus Spake Zarathrusa, the &quot;uberman&quot; concept is (maybe) considered a positive that humanity should work towards in the absence of belief in God, and I think it can still be understood as such. The fact that history has attributed some very negative actions to the belief in this concept (Hitler, Leopold &amp; Loeb&#x27;s murder, etc.) is, in my opinion, not definitive but at the same time not entirely insignificant, but I&#x27;m also a Christian that believes in capital-M Morality so I&#x27;m biased against nihilism in general.
评论 #8786009 未加载
评论 #8786073 未加载
debacle超过 10 年前
&gt; HE makes up only a small portion of the population.<p>But enough to control it.
评论 #8785751 未加载
gdonelli超过 10 年前
Is it me or this sounds like a portrait of Steve Jobs?
productcontrol超过 10 年前
I work in an investment bank. Here I see a lot of people with psychopathic tendencies, probably more than in other industries I have worked in, but, what worries we most, is the ones I don&#x27;t spot. They are there, after all, finance offers them a refuge where their singular behaviour is rewarded.