by The status quo of Economics ten or fifteen years ago was that paying to see a revenge fantasy of a fictitious protagonist taking fictitious revenge on a fictitious bad guy who has fictitiously wronged him falls tightly under economists de-gustibus-non-est-disputandum sensibility, whereas a subject spending to take real revenge on a real-life bad guy who has wronged the subject himself needed explaining. Looked at by an outsider not wedded to the assumption of 100% self-interest (or not a fan of popular action movies), the different reaction to retaliatory behavior versus cinematic behavior would be entirely perplexing. To me it is not so much perplexing as it is indicative of the power of habitual thinking by participants in an academic discipline. Matthew Rabin
Topics:
Lars Pålsson Syll considers the following as important: Economics
This could be interesting, too:
Lars Pålsson Syll writes How inequality causes financial crises
Lars Pålsson Syll writes Andreas Cervenka och den svenska bostadsbubblan
Lars Pålsson Syll writes Debunking the balanced budget superstition
Lars Pålsson Syll writes How inequality causes financial crises
The status quo of Economics ten or fifteen years ago was that paying $8 to see a revenge fantasy of a fictitious protagonist taking fictitious revenge on a fictitious bad guy who has fictitiously wronged him falls tightly under economists de-gustibus-non-est-disputandum sensibility, whereas a subject spending $8 to take real revenge on a real-life bad guy who has wronged the subject himself needed explaining. Looked at by an outsider not wedded to the assumption of 100% self-interest (or not a fan of popular action movies), the different reaction to retaliatory behavior versus cinematic behavior would be entirely perplexing. To me it is not so much perplexing as it is indicative of the power of habitual thinking by participants in an academic discipline.