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.

User Created Content in Virtual Worlds and Cultural Diversity

User created content (UCC) has often been celebrated as a grassroots cultural revolution that as a genuine expression of creativity, localism and non-commercialism can arguably also cater for a sustainable culturally diverse environment. The present article puts these claims under scrutiny and in a more differentiated manner seeks to identify the value of UCC within digital game environments considering the constraints upon players and upon creative play that these impose. The article subsequently tests whether UCC in its dynamic sense of a creative and communicative process can be seen as a channel for the promotion of cultural diversity and if so, what the State should (and could) do about this.

Book Review: Regulating Code : Good Governance and Better Regulation in the Information Age

Digital technologies have profoundly changed not only the ways we create, distribute, access, use and re-use information but also many of the governance structures we had in place. Overall, "older" institutions at all governance levels have grappled and often failed to master the multi-faceted and multi-directional issues of the Internet. Regulatory entrepreneurs have yet to discover and fully mobilize the potential of digital technologies as an influential factor impacting upon the regulability of the environment and as a potential regulatory tool in themselves. At the same time, we have seen a deterioration of some public spaces and lower prioritization of public objectives, when strong private commercial interests are at play, such as most tellingly in the field of copyright. Less tangibly, private ordering has taken hold and captured through contracts spaces, previously regulated by public law. Code embedded in technology often replaces law. Non-state action has in general proliferated and put serious pressure upon conventional state-centered, command-and-control models. Under the conditions of this "messy" governance, the provision of key public goods, such as freedom of information, has been made difficult or is indeed jeopardized.The grand question is how can we navigate this complex multi-actor, multi-issue space and secure the attainment of fundamental public interest objectives. This is also the question that Ian Brown and Chris Marsden seek to answer with their book, Regulating Code, as recently published under the "Information Revolution and Global Politics" series of MIT Press. This book review critically assesses the bold effort by Brown and Marsden.

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.

Rhyming the National Spirit: Taras Shevchenko and Ilia Chavchavadze

The paper is a comparative inquiry into the roles of Ilia Chavchavadze (1837-1907) and Taras Shevchenko (1818-1861) as national poets and anti-colonial (anti-Tsarist) intellectuals within the context of their respective national traditions (Georgia and Ukraine). During the period of their activity (19th and the beginning of 20th century) both Ukraine and Georgia were under Tsarist imperial rule, albeit the two poets lived in different periods of Russian empire history. Through their major works, each called on their communities to ‘awaken’ and ‘revolt’ against oppression, rejected social apathy caused by Tsarist subjugation and raised awareness about the historical past of their nations. The non-acceptance of present and belief in an independent future was one of the dominant themes in the poetry and prose of both. Their contemporary importance is illustrated in political discourse both after Orange Revolution in Ukraine (2004), and Rose Revolution in Georgia (2003) where both poets are referred “as founding fathers of national ideology”, the history textbooks alluding to them as “symbols of anti-colonial resistance”. To this day, however, there has been surprisingly little academic writing in the West endeavoring to compare the works and activities of the two poets and their impact on national mobilization in Tsarist Ukraine and Georgia, even though their countries are often mentioned in a same breath by commentators on contemporary culture and politics. The paper attempts to fill this gap and tries to understand the relationship between literature and social mobilization in 19th century Russian Empire. By reflecting on Taras Shevchenko’s and Ilia Chavchavadze’s poetry, prose and social activism, I will try to explain how in different periods of Russian imperial history, the two poets helped to develop a modern form of political belonging among their compatriots and stimulated an anti-colonial mobilization with different political outcomes. To theorize on the role of poets and novelists in anti-colonial national movement, I will reflect on the writings of Benedict Anderson (1991), John Hutchinson (1994; 1999), Rory Finnin (2005; 2011) and problematize Miroslav Hroch’s (1996) three phase model of the development of national movements. Overall, the paper would aim to show the importance of, what John Hutchinson called, ‘cultural nationalists’ in understanding contemporary nationalist discourse in Georgian and Ukrainian societies.