有道理还是没有道理?关于“民间经济信仰”的最新进化认知方法的批判性讨论

Q2 Social Sciences Evolution, Mind and Behaviour Pub Date : 2019-12-01 DOI:10.1556/2050.2019.00011
Theiss Bendixen
{"title":"有道理还是没有道理?关于“民间经济信仰”的最新进化认知方法的批判性讨论","authors":"Theiss Bendixen","doi":"10.1556/2050.2019.00011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Laypeople hold beliefs about economics and policy issues—so-calledfolk-economic beliefs(FEBs)—that are often wrong or misleading according to professional economists. Here, I critically discuss a recent evolutionary–cognitive approach to understanding folk-economic beliefs. According to this approach (Boyer & Petersen 2018a), some economic beliefs are more prevalent than others, because such beliefs (i.e., folk-economic beliefs) resonate with evolved features of the human mind. I refer to this as the “FEB hypothesis”. A central challenge to the FEB hypothesis, with its heavy reliance on universal cognitive features, is to explain individual and cultural differences in economic beliefs and behavior. This challenge is the starting point for the discussion. Overall, the conclusion of this paper is that the FEB hypothesis relies on unnecessarily strong and controversial theoretical assumptions (e.g., “massive modularity” and the “Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness”), and that it overlooks important findings from adjacent fields, but that the FEB hypothesis, following some modifications inspired by Dual Inheritance Theory, can be integrated with robust findings from the rest of the evolutionary, cognitive, and anthropological sciences, as well as standard political psychology. Based on this discussion, the paper ends with brief reflections on how to correct inaccurate folk-economic beliefs.","PeriodicalId":36768,"journal":{"name":"Evolution, Mind and Behaviour","volume":"5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Sense or non-sense? a critical discussion of a recent evolutionary–cognitive approach to “folk-economic beliefs”\",\"authors\":\"Theiss Bendixen\",\"doi\":\"10.1556/2050.2019.00011\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Laypeople hold beliefs about economics and policy issues—so-calledfolk-economic beliefs(FEBs)—that are often wrong or misleading according to professional economists. Here, I critically discuss a recent evolutionary–cognitive approach to understanding folk-economic beliefs. According to this approach (Boyer & Petersen 2018a), some economic beliefs are more prevalent than others, because such beliefs (i.e., folk-economic beliefs) resonate with evolved features of the human mind. I refer to this as the “FEB hypothesis”. A central challenge to the FEB hypothesis, with its heavy reliance on universal cognitive features, is to explain individual and cultural differences in economic beliefs and behavior. This challenge is the starting point for the discussion. Overall, the conclusion of this paper is that the FEB hypothesis relies on unnecessarily strong and controversial theoretical assumptions (e.g., “massive modularity” and the “Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness”), and that it overlooks important findings from adjacent fields, but that the FEB hypothesis, following some modifications inspired by Dual Inheritance Theory, can be integrated with robust findings from the rest of the evolutionary, cognitive, and anthropological sciences, as well as standard political psychology. Based on this discussion, the paper ends with brief reflections on how to correct inaccurate folk-economic beliefs.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36768,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Evolution, Mind and Behaviour\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Evolution, Mind and Behaviour\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1556/2050.2019.00011\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evolution, Mind and Behaviour","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1556/2050.2019.00011","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

外行人对经济和政策问题持有的信念——所谓的民间经济信念(FEBs)——根据专业经济学家的说法,往往是错误的或具有误导性的。在这里,我批判性地讨论了最近一种理解民间经济信仰的进化认知方法。根据这种方法(Boyer & Petersen 2018a),一些经济信仰比其他信仰更普遍,因为这些信仰(即民间经济信仰)与人类思想的进化特征产生共鸣。我把这称为“FEB假设”。FEB假说严重依赖于普遍认知特征,其核心挑战是解释经济信念和行为中的个体和文化差异。这个挑战是讨论的起点。总体而言,本文的结论是,FEB假设依赖于不必要的强大和有争议的理论假设(例如,“大规模模块化”和“进化适应的环境”),并且它忽略了邻近领域的重要发现,但是,在双重遗传理论的启发下进行一些修改后,FEB假设可以与来自其他进化,认知和人类学科学的强大发现相结合。以及标准的政治心理。在此基础上,本文最后对如何纠正不正确的民间经济观念进行了简要的思考。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Sense or non-sense? a critical discussion of a recent evolutionary–cognitive approach to “folk-economic beliefs”
Laypeople hold beliefs about economics and policy issues—so-calledfolk-economic beliefs(FEBs)—that are often wrong or misleading according to professional economists. Here, I critically discuss a recent evolutionary–cognitive approach to understanding folk-economic beliefs. According to this approach (Boyer & Petersen 2018a), some economic beliefs are more prevalent than others, because such beliefs (i.e., folk-economic beliefs) resonate with evolved features of the human mind. I refer to this as the “FEB hypothesis”. A central challenge to the FEB hypothesis, with its heavy reliance on universal cognitive features, is to explain individual and cultural differences in economic beliefs and behavior. This challenge is the starting point for the discussion. Overall, the conclusion of this paper is that the FEB hypothesis relies on unnecessarily strong and controversial theoretical assumptions (e.g., “massive modularity” and the “Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness”), and that it overlooks important findings from adjacent fields, but that the FEB hypothesis, following some modifications inspired by Dual Inheritance Theory, can be integrated with robust findings from the rest of the evolutionary, cognitive, and anthropological sciences, as well as standard political psychology. Based on this discussion, the paper ends with brief reflections on how to correct inaccurate folk-economic beliefs.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Evolution, Mind and Behaviour
Evolution, Mind and Behaviour Social Sciences-Anthropology
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Environmental stress effects on appetite: Changing desire for high- and low-energy foods depends on the nature of the perceived threat Altruism, costly signaling, and withholding information in a sport charity campaign Self-perceived mate value influences intrasexual competitiveness attitudes in young people of both sexes Sense or non-sense? a critical discussion of a recent evolutionary–cognitive approach to “folk-economic beliefs” Evolutionary perspectives on human sex differences and their discontents
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1