Talk:Homo economicus

Rattus economicus

The concept of 'Homo Economicus' includes just those feelings that are common to people and to rats, along with other mammals and birds. So it should be Rattus economicus, a rat-race that is typically won by rats.

What's lacking from the model is sympathy, the vital human quality that allows people to work as a group even when any one of them could do better by cheating on the others.

This is explicable by natural selection, in as much as groups of hominids who sympathised would do better together than hominids who cheated each other. This would also require a strong reaction to cheats, but that too is very human.

--GwydionM 13:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Sympathy isn't lacking from the model -- your understanding of the model's entirety is what's lacking. The principle of reciprocation involves the exercise of rationality and if it doesn't, then it's simply not rational. Cheating may be a result of evil or ignorance and if it's the former, it's not rational, it's simply deliberated, but the deliberation intentionally robs the intended subject of their rationalism, which is irrational, and thus the initiation of violence, cheating, etc., is an irrational act from a rational process through irrational principles. It's not 'Homo economicus', it's thinking with your feelings or the immediate rewards without properly deliberating the consequences; an inability to take premises, with the variables in mind, and then reasoning to their consequences. The principle of reciprocation is the method for Homo economicus, while the negation of the principle of reciprocation is not. So, what you mean by 'sympathy' is deliberation, a rational process, with irrational principles, that concludes with an irrational consequence, cheating. Of course a group of people who work together would do better, because reciprocation is being utilized for equal benefit to those involved, and if it doesn't, it usually results in someone being cheated. Actually, one could say that your presented definitions/argument is a result of 'cheating on the others' through an incomplete grasping of the philosophy involved to simply alleviate an emotional itch, which is a contradiction to your original assertion. TheObservee (talk) 23:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Preach it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.50.129 (talk) 00:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey, what do you got against rats? Booger-mike (talk) 20:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

TheObservee Exactly! Well said. Good response. 9 years late I know. Himo Karim (talk) 02:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Presentation issues

By now, WP contains an impressive wealth of information on the controversy surrounding the model. I am afraid the criticisms and responses sections are somewhat confusing, though -- quite a few paragraphs may belong to the other section, or to both. I am wondering if, instead of splitting criticisms/responses, we could split by issue (e.g. empirical studies / sociology / intrinsic motivation / self-fulfilling prophecy / ...) and discuss the pros and cons per issue. Comments? Rl 14:27, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Homo oeconomicus

Why has an article dedicated to a rich history of academic criticism of the homo-economicus model been destroyed then redirected here? Is it truly necessary to ruin wikipedia with endless mergers and deletions of important and trivial (relativism) topics?

The quotation from Aristotle misrepresents Aristotle's conceptions of human nature and private property.

The quotation seems to imply Aristotle would support the definition of Man as a "rational, self-interested, labor-averse individual" or at the very least agree with the self-interest of economic man.

While man may clearly have a level of self interest, for Aristotle man is fundamentally a Political Animal. Thus he considers our main drive is that of forming a community with virtuous laws and justice. He also denies that humans can be self sufficient from the wider community.

The quote also makes it seem Aristotle supports private property as it is commonly conceived. The section directly before the quote however says

"And yet by reason of goodness, and in respect of use, 'Friends,' as the proverb says, 'will have all things common.'"

And

"It is clearly better that property should be private, but the use of it common; and the special business of the legislator is to create in men this benevolent disposition.".

Thus his conception of private property is that which is privately maintained but available for use by the community at large.

Oemurray (talk) 14:40, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Distinction

I imagine if this were a real species, it'd be identified by green skin, and gold dollar sign pupils. Booger-mike (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)