SHOE Archives

Societies for the History of Economics

SHOE@YORKU.CA

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
[log in to unmask] (Bill Williams)
Date:
Fri Mar 31 17:18:43 2006
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (28 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