Can the neuroeconomics revolution revolutionize psychiatry?

Neuroeconomics is a rapidly growing new research discipline aimed at describing the neural substrate of decision-making using incentivized decisions introduced in experimental economics. The novel combination of economic decision theory and neuroscience has the potential to better examine the interactions of social, psychological and neural factors with regard to motivational forces that may underlie psychiatric problems. Game theory will provide psychiatry with computationally principled measures of cognitive dysfunction. Given the relatively high heritability of these measures, they may contribute to improving phenotypic definitions of psychiatric conditions. The game-theoretical concepts of optimal behavior will allow description of psychopathology as deviation from optimal functioning. Neuroeconomists have successfully used normative or near-normative models to interpret the function of neurotransmitters; these models have the potential to significantly improve neurotransmitter theories of psychiatric disorders. This paper will review recent evidence from neuroeconomics and psychiatry in support of applying economic concepts such as risk/uncertainty preference, time preference and social preference to psychiatric research to improve diagnostic classification, prevention and therapy.

On the Limits of Greenwich Mean Time, or The Failure of a Modernist Revolution

On the Limits of Greenwich Mean Time, or The Failure of a Modernist Revolution From the introduction of World Standard Time in 1884 to Einstein’s theory of relativity, the nature and regulation of time was a highly contested issue in modernism, with profound political, social and epistemological consequences. Modernist aesthetic sensibilities widely revolted against the increasingly strict rule of the clock, which, as Georg Simmel observed in “The Metropolis and Mental Life,” was established as the necessary basis of a capitalist, urban life. This paper will focus on the contending conceptions of time arising in key modernist texts by authors like Joyce, Woolf and Conrad. I will argue that the uniformity and regularity of time necessary to a rising capitalist society came under attack in a similar way by both modernist literary aesthetics and new scientific discoveries. However, while Einstein’s theory of relativity may have led to a subsequent change of paradigm in scientific thought, it has failed to significantly alter social and popular conceptions of time. Although alternative ways of thinking and living with time are proposed by modernist authors, they remain isolated aesthetic experiments, ineffectual against the regulatory pressure of economic and social structures. In this struggle about the nature of time, so I suggest, science and literature join force against a society that is increasingly governed by economic reason. The fact that they lost this struggle can serve as a striking illustration of an increasing shift of social influence from science and art towards economy.