SHOE Archives

Societies for the History of Economics

SHOE@YORKU.CA

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Date:
Fri Mar 31 17:19:03 2006
Message-ID:
Subject:
From:
[log in to unmask] (Bill Williams)
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (23 lines)
----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
Sorry to be delayed in replying. 
 
My question had its source in my experience teaching price theory to elementary students.
Some of them find the use of a utility based explanation of economic behavior fascinating.
Yet,  some of them quite evidently had never perceived that they were behaving according
to the description provided by the orthodox description of  "Economic Man."   If they were
accurately reporting their "inner world" it was a world in which they had not been aware
of having been processing utilities in the course of making decisions.
 
Perhaps if they had been asked about their mental world after having had the price theory
course, then they might have reported weighting utilities and ratios of prices, and
calculating budgets.  I understand that some MBA believe, or at least say they believe
that this is what they are actually doing.
 
The  meaning of utility would seem to be entirely a learned and cultural artifact rather
than a question of innate physiology or psychology.  Sort of like the Easter Bunny.
 
Bill Williams 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask] 

ATOM RSS1 RSS2