Neuroscience is the study of the human mind. It provides a map of the human mind. The studies that relate the economic arena to the human mind may have a variety of benefits as well as negative impacts on the economists’ performance. Neuro-economics therefore, combines the relations of the two and may be of benefits as scientist prove. This paper highlights the view of the proposers and critics regarding the implication of neuro-economics. From this, it comes out that neuro-economics is far much important as will be shown by its benefits.
The proposers of the ideas asserts that neuroscience allow the direct measurement of the human mind in terms of thought and feelings. Daw et al (2013) notes that such a step in economic world can be used as a first-hand tool in informing the economic theory. It not only help to balance the cost, but also enables the establishment of the benefits of economic options such as life time saving options. The operation of economic activities is well guided the deliberate equilibrium establishment (Daw et al 2013).
Additionally, the concepts can help in the establishment of human automatic response behaviors. Emotions and feelings of the impacts of economic decisions can be established in a broad perspective in the long term evaluation of economic decision options. Such a step can help to establish the categories of economic behaviors among the economists. The impacts of science provides a road map to the human economic mind. Providing vivid pictures of the possible options in terms of decisions in the economic trends in the world today.
Moreover, the impacts of disabling specific parts of the brain have an impact on the innovation and the creativity of the economist's operations. This can as well predicted by the neuroscientists as they study the minds of both the economic markets and the performance of the economy. It is common knowledge that men will ever have the means of measuring directly the feelings of the human heart. It is from the quantitative effects of the feelings that their comparative performance can be estimated. Hence feelings can be used to influence behavior and predict a trend in outcome (Phelps, 2013).
On the other hand, the opposing side of neuro-economics asserts that it can affect the interdisciplinary performance in a negative way. Foremost, Grossberg (2013) asserts that neuroeconomics can never influence the impact of automatic response of the human mind. It only has an influence on the controlled response part can be modified to respond to the environmental impacts. The complexity of the human mind at the same time means little or nothing to the economists. Even this exciting road map of the human mind does not excite much the economist in their operations (Sharp et al 2012).
At the same time, when exposed to Neuroeconomics, an economist may feel being a target audience. Glimcher (2013) argues that this may set a platform for the rhetoric of excess hype. Such an impact may not only undermine the performance of the economics, but also scare the wit in the economists' performance. This makes them feel being manipulated and regulated in the economic market as well as their performance. The link in excess rhetoric and the family relation has been established to cause uncertainty in the economists' perception in their operations as well as their effective performance.
Eventually, the link in human decision and the neuroscientific findings may have very little relations since the studies may only manipulate the conscious aspects of the mind. Little is known about the subconscious part of the brain. The beautiful image created in the picture of the road map to the human mind has very little results (Glimcher, 2013)
When I weigh the opposing sides, I wholly agree and support the neuro-economics as a significant aspect. There is a very high connection between neuroscience and economics. Neuroscience that has led to neuro-economics has given a big support to modalities of measurements in economics. Neuro-economics has helped in the study of the behavioral models (Frantz & Leeson, 2013). Behavioral model is normally concerned with the things that can be observed and measured. The behavioral model only assumes things that are real are things that gone can see and observe. In behavioral models it assumed that three elements always converge at the same point for it to occur. These include motivation ability and trigger. Neuro-economics has helped in testing the behavioral models without questioning what produces the behavior. Neuro-economics will lead to building a behavioral model that can be used to predict economic and social behaviors in a better way since it will be grounded in neurobiology. This will help the economist to use some questions which have been troubling them such as; why some individuals make choices that are very in consistent. Neuro- economics will help in understanding more the interpersonal and the inter-temporal variation which are very fundamental to effective public policy.
Additionally, neuro-economics is very important as it provides a platform for carrying out decision-making for account of neuorobiology and computation (Glimche & Fehr, 2014). Decision making is the process of one forming a preference, selecting and even executing actions and finally evaluating the outcome. Economics model has proved that individuals value reward and choosing among the alternatives. Neuro-economics functions and considers the notion that there ae no predictions made from standard economic theory, especially those regarding the no-choice information.
References
Glimcher, P. W., & Fehr, E. (Eds.). (2013). Neuroeconomics: Decision making and the brain. Academic Press.
Daw, N. D., & O'Doherty, J. P. (2013). Neuroeconomics: decision making and the brain.
Grossberg, S. (2013, August). Behavioral economics and neuroeconomics: Cooperation, competition, preference, and decision making. In Neural Networks (IJCNN), The 2013 International Joint Conference on (pp. 1-5). IEEE.
Phelps, E. (2013, January). The Neuroeconomics of Emotion and Decisions. In journal of cognitive neuroscience (pp. 22-22). 55 HAYWARD STREET, CAMBRIDGE, MA 02142 USA: MIT PRESS.
Sharp, C., Monterosso, J., & Montague, P. R. (2012). Neuroeconomics: a bridge for translational research. Biological psychiatry, 72(2), 87-92.
In Glimcher, P. W., & In Fehr, E. (2014). Neuroeconomics: Decision making and the brain.
In Frantz, R. S., & In Leeson, R. (2013). Hayek and Behavioral Economics
In Reuter, M., & In Montag, C. (2013). Neuroeconomics
