The Mind of the Market: The Case for Capitalism from an Evolutionary Perspective with author Michael Shermer.
In his new book, The Mind of the Market: Compassionate Apes, Competitive Humans, and Other Tales from Evolutionary Economics, Michael Shermer examines such questions as: How did we evolve from ancient hunter-gatherers to modern consumer-traders? Why are people so irrational when it comes to money and business?
He argues that the new science of evolutionary economics provides an answer to both of those questions. Shermer shows how evolution and economics are both examples of a larger phenomenon of complex adaptive systems- Cato Institute
Bio
Michael Shermer
Psychologist Michael Shermer, the author of nine previous books, including the bestselling Why People Believe Weird Things, is a columnist for Scientific American, the publisher of Skeptic magazine, and the founder and director of the international Skeptics Society.
I read this book and loved it. It is easy to nitpick the examples given if you disagree with the central thesis of the book. If you are going to read a provocative work like this you need to do so with an open mind or it is a waste of time. Shermer is one of my favorites and this may be his best work yet. This is just one of the examples of how people on the left and right make similar argruments with similar fallacies except they do so with completely different issues. For example people on the left understand that making drugs illegal does not get rid of drugs. It simply shifts them to the black market and creates all sorts of other problems. The right is completely clueless on this subject. Conversly people on the right understand that making guns illegal does not get rid of guns. It simply shifts guns to the black market creating a host of new problems. It is always amusing to see people criticize the other said for embracing fallacies that they indulge in on a regular basis. If people read this book they will become more aware of these inconsistencies and we will have a better, more informed electorate.
Yes. And the analogies are a bit clumsy.
Consider the Ultimatum game with a $90,000/$10,000 split. It's hard to imagine anyone refusing the $10,000, no matter how spiteful they are.
The first sin Shermer commits here, is the assignation of a dollar value to the possessions of a Yanomama, a supposition from which his entire argument flows!
I like Shermer when he's debunking psuedo-science. In this discussion, however, in developing his theory here, he breezes through so much world economic history, ignoring so many possible economic situations/transactions, that I can't take it seriously. It's a very selective consideration of economics.
Stick to the debunking, Michael. You're spreading yourself too thin here.