Neuroeconomics – What You Need to Know
Right after “what the heck is psych cap” should come “what the hell is neuroeconomics”? Neuro on one hand and econ on the other? … Could they be more different – microscopic brain cells versus broad based financial interworkings?
Having just received (Thanks Sandy!) my copy of NEUROECONOMICS, Decision Making and the Brain, edited by Paul Glimcher (NYU), Colin Camerer (Cal-Tech) Ernst Fehr (University of Zurich (wonder if our French PhD Chick knows him?)) and Russell Poldrack, UCLA, I personally am all giddy over the avalanche of research demonstrating what I have been karping about for years now – feelings & emotions are part and parcel of all decisions – so we might as well figure out how to use those ephemeral psychological dimensions to our advantage.
To quote (and back to the topic) “Over the first decade of its existence, neuroeconomics has engendered raucous debates…” Raucous debates – over neurons? Really? … well you see, scientific advances typically are met with great resistance. (See Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn). In my mind, it was Damasio and Descartes Error that got this field going. He is the now USC neuroscientist (Iowa before) who studies the unfortunate individuals who have had the experience of brain damage that destroys their ability to feel emotion but leaves their cognitive capacities intact.
Neuroeconomics itself however is simply the study of what brain anatomy and functions are happening while we are making decisions that involve financial or social rewards – i.e. money in the former. The idea is that no matter what else anyone wants to theorize, that in the end, seeing what the brain does and how it does it will settle once and for all how our minds really work.
For our purposes it is about how we perceive and react to “risk”. Of course the neuroeconomists (and John Keynes before them) don’t think as traders we are dealing with risk. Risk to them is precise and knowable – i.e. likelihood of drawing an ace in a four-player one deck game of blackjack. Markets however are unknown, imprecise and ambigous – always.
The whole idea of psychological capital is therefore to maximize that side of the “probability” so that the judgments we make regarding the unknown, imprecise and ambigous prices can be the best judgments.
A couple of things to keep in mind
- The brain assumes the next trade will be the same as the last – which is why you want to press it after winners and get skiddish after losers.
- The brain knows the difference between card games and markets – even if we try to make markets look like card games. (We are better served to remain conscious that we are trying to trick our innate brain’s ability)
- An upcoming study will demonstrate that it is the ability to read the other – not the ability to think in probabilities that is the real skill in trading.
…. okay the text is 8.5 x 11 and 500 pages long so they have lots more to say besides that…. but all in all, you might not need to know anymore – despite my personal fascination with the subject.
Tags: neuroeconomics