To use our price comparison to get the cheapest price, please click on the "Find the Cheapest Price" button located above for The Mind of the Market: Compassionate Apes, Competitive Humans, and Other Tales from Evolutionary Economics by Michael Shermer (ISBN-10: 0805078320, ISBN-13: 9780805078329).
At this time we have not yet written a review for The Mind of the Market: Compassionate Apes, Competitive Humans, and Other Tales from Evolutionary Economics by Michael Shermer (ISBN-10: 0805078320, ISBN-13: 9780805078329). Please continue to keep checking back to this page as we are constantly adding reviews.
Summaries and Customer Reviews are supplied by Amazon.com
Bestselling author Michael Shermer explains how evolution shaped the modern economy—and why people are so irrational about money How did we make the leap from ancient hunter-gatherers to modern consumers and traders? Why do people get so emotional and irrational about bottom-line financial and business decisions? Is the capitalist marketplace a sort of Darwinian organism, evolved through natural selection as the fittest way to satisfy our needs? In this eye-opening exploration, author and psychologist Michael Shermer uncovers the evolutionary roots of our economic behavior.
Drawing on the new field of neuroeconomics, Shermer investigates what brain scans reveal about bargaining, snap purchases, and establishing trust in business. He scrutinizes experiments in behavioral economics to understand why people hang on to losing stocks, why negotiations disintegrate into tit-for-tat disputes, and why money does not make us happy. He brings together astonishing findings from psychology, biology, and other sciences to describe how our tribal ancestry makes us suckers for brands, why researchers believe cooperation unleashes biochemicals similar to those released during sex, why free trade promises to build alliances between nations, and how even capuchin monkeys get indignant if they don’t get a fair reward for their work.
back to front
| Customer Rating:   | If you find fascinating the author's tales of bicycle racing, then you're his mum or dad. If you find his summary of psychological experiments interesting, then join the club, but there's little new here. This is a very conceited book, fuller of references to his own less than groundbreaking work than of the usual suspects'. (Skiiner, Game Theory, etc.)
There are some genuine and interesting puzzles about the market. Why do prices vary by marketplace? Is 'market failure' an aberration, a temporary madness, confined to some (public?) goods, an universal condition? Would better understanding of human nature avoid manias, panics and crashes? Why do banks always seem to bet the farm at the very worst moment (or do they)? Why is the return on capita cyclical? Why is the long run rate (smoothed for the cycle) so stable? Is Efficient Market Theory true, a useful proxy, an approximation, a crafted illusion? You can think of additional questions of your own.
If you hoped for answers, forget it. This is a pop psychology book with 'market' tacked on the end.
Despite discussing some titanic German bores (Hegel, Marx, Weber, et al) along with the genuine greats (Voltaire, Smith, Schumpeter, Hayek) J Z Muller's near identical title 'The Mind AND the Market' is a far better read.
To be fair, for amateur psychologists the bibliography in Shermer's book is really quite good. |
The Title a Bit Misleading
| Customer Rating: | The title of this book led me to believe that it would be an in-depth analysis of the psychology and behavior of the stock market. However, that is not really the subject of this book. Instead, the book advances a thesis regarding how to apply evolutionary principles to economic and political frameworks, and consisting mostly of a defense of free markets and democracy. Also, the author identifies some popular conceptions of evolution (social Darwinism, "nature red in tooth and claw," the "selfish gene") as "myths" that inaccurately characterize evolutionary concepts, and that he suggests that cooperative behavior is actually a more evolutionarily advanced strategy in species.
As I read the book, some questions occurred to me regarding the assertions made in the book:
1. The linkage of free market competitive ideology with evolutionary concepts and efficiency (Adam Smith's "invisible hand" paradigm) was developed in a era of continuous western expansion into new land frontiers, rich with resources and free land. This affected the relationship between "producers" and "consumers." The author suggests that free markets favor consumers over producers, and that favoring producers over consumers (via protectionism, tariffs, unionization, etc.) leads to stagnation and inefficiency. Whether or not this may be true, now that we live in a time of increasingly scarce material resources with fewer virgin frontiers to exploit, producers will necessarily gain greater power in the relationship with consumers (as with oil production, energy, technology, etc.) This skews the "free market" relationship the author describes and may therefore warrant governmental/outside regulation or mediation to keep the playing field level. This also has relevance to the tendency of some producers to gain a monopoly of resources, information, or access, which renders them effectively impervious to true competition and therefore causing consumers to be less likely to gain the benefits of free market competition in quality, price, etc.
2. The characterization of "producers" and "consumers" as separate entities may itself be somewhat inaccurate. Ideally, in our society all will possess both roles. Therefore favoring one over another, or speaking of them as opposed interests may inaccurately characterize our consideration of the topic of optimum structuring of markets.
It seemed to me that there were a number of ideological assertions made as statements of fact, with a lack of supporting evidence presented. However, I found the book to be interesting, engaging and thought-provoking, and would recommend it as stimulus for thought, reflection, and development of ideas.
(For another perspective on some of these concepts regarding free markets and democracy, I suggest "World on Fire" by Amy Chua.) |
Shermer's "Blindspot": Certainty in Evolutionary Psychology.
| Customer Rating: | A few years ago, I read Shermer's "Science of Good and Evil," in which he explains how evolutionary psychology can explain human's moral natures. The issue I had with that book is very much the issue I have with this one, which uses evolutionary psychology to explain human economic behavior (particularly in markets).
The fact is that Shermer bases just about everything in both books on a very tenuous "science" of evolutionary psychology and where Shermer is very skeptical when it comes to many things, he is probably more accepting of evolutionary psychology explanations (which are generally "could be" propositions that Shermer takes as "is" propositions.) While I don't have any major qualms with evolutionary explanations for behavior, the problem is that evolutionary explanations of behavior are not empirical as are evoluitonary explanaitons of physical structures. (Many times in the book, Shermer says things like, "We know we have x tendency. The reason this strategy evolved IS..." instead of, "This could have evolved in humans because..." With every page, I had to ask myself why a careful skeptic like Shermer chose to write a book based on a very tenuous and tentative "science" that he unskeptically takes as unquestioned fact?
Beyond this, I must confess that the thesis of the book seems quite jumbled: sometimes, it seems like Shermer is suggesting an analogy between the market and biological evolution. Other times, it seems that Shermer is making the case that human psychology functions best in a market system. Other times, whole chapters are devoted to discussing asides like why humans are not quite the rational actors that "rational choice theory" has us believe, without so much as telling us where this ties in to Shermer's story.
The upside is that the book is very interesting. As usual, Shermer is a great popularizer and summarizer, interspersing theory with fascinating anecdoes (both personal stories and recounting others' experiments). In the end, though, I must caution readers against the book owing (a) to usually-skeptical Shermer's unquestioning reliance on the very tentative ideas of evolutionary psychology for the bulk of the book; and (b) to the book's lack of any real clear thesis, instead having a very disjointed and hurried feel.
|
Good food for thought, but much to digest...
| Customer Rating: | | Michael Shermer is always an engaging and informative writer, and this book is no exception. There is quite a bit of good science in here, and plenty to stimulate discussions (I used the book as a summer reading with my biology graduate students, and we all enjoyed it). However, Michael at times gets a bit too close to the evolutionary psychology perspective on things (which I am very critical of), and his libertarianism shows up here and there (again, a position I don't share). Some of my students found that there are too many personal anecdotes, though of course that's a matter of personal stylistic preferences. Again, more than worth the money! |
Monkey See, Human Do?
| Customer Rating: | Shermer attempts to synthesize a wide range of findings about how humans often behave in a manner that refutes the idea of homo economicus, that is, a human being who makes rational economic decisions. Clearly, we often don't do that. Shermer gives many examples of this, most of which have been highlighted in a number of other works. Examples include: how we value something more once we posses it; how varied phrasing of identical choices leads to different behaviors; how we are generally unable to take future discounting into account.
Shermer weaves these findings from psychology, as well as numerous findings from primate behavior, into a story that claims that most of our aforementioned irrationality is the result of a mind that has not evolved quickly enough to meet current economic conditions. What worked well among hunter-gatherers millenia ago is just not suited to today's economic environment. While Shermer's theory is plausible, there are too many gaps to make it fully convincing. For example, in my opinion, the theory must apply universally to all aspects of human existence. By that I mean that if the "economic" brain did not evolve quickly enough, so then must other parts of brain have remained the same. If, for example, reading of print did not occur in history until relatively recently, why should our brains have evolved quickly enough to carry out that function, but not other functions? Shermer himself posits that we manage on many occasions to override our hunter-gatherer impulses; if so, what is the nature of this override feature and where did it come from?
Nevertheless, Shermer takes on a challenging topic with gusto, and provides enough interesting information on human behavior to make the book a worthwhile read. |
|
