ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Research Blogs -> Slaw.ca

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Legal Research

: Slaw.ca

Neuroeconomics, Neuromancy? and Law

By Simon Fodden

ADVERTISEMENTS

Well, not yet neuromancy, William Gibson notwithstanding: we can’t yet hack our heads enough to predict the future. But neuroeconomics, yes, apparently.

I’m no big fan of economists and have long wondered why law, and legal academics in particular, give them and their theories such (or, indeed, any) credit. I’m convinced that it’ll turn out to be one of the great mysteries as to why in this era we all allowed economics to be mistaken for what is most important in society — but that’s verging on neuromancy.

Vox, a European site, offers “Research-based policy analysis and commentary from leading economists,” one instance of which is “Neuroeconomic theory: Using neuroscience to understand the bounds of rationality” by Isabelle Brocas and Juan D. Carrillo. Turns out that economists are puzzled by the fact that people make “irrational” choices, meaning that they’re unpredictable, which in turn casts “a grey cloud over economics.” Fortunately, or not:

Neuroeconomics offers a solution through an additional set of data obtained via a series of measurements of brain activity at the time of decisions.

This is, of course, an incursion into the field of psychology, a science no less rigorous than that of economics and one, I should have thought, that would appeal to law far more than it’s “dismal” cousin. And, as you can see, it is also a mere axon or dendrite away from an incursion into law itself:

Neuroeconomic theory proposes to build brain-based models capable of predicting observed behaviour.

Law is already in bed head with brain scanning, of course. There are consultants who offer their services as forensic neuropsychologists, academic articles on what neuroscience might mean for juristic concepts of responsibility, and even the odd outlier of a judgment in which a court accepts brain scans as evidence of guilt. But now that economics is limbering up the PET, CT, and MRI machines, it’s seriously likely that the law will welcome the ghost out of the machine much more warmly. Or am I being irrational?

Full post as published by Slaw.ca on March 30, 2010 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0047 secs (from cache 11/06/26 19:26:05)