18. Herbert Gintis and Samuel Bowles, “Prosocial Emotions,” Santa Fe Institute working paper 02-07-028, June 21, 2002.

FREUD’S DREAM

  

1. Von Neumann, actually, was very interested in the brain, and his last book was a series of lectures (that he never delivered) comparing the brain to a computer. But I found no hint that he saw an explicit connection between neuroscience and game theory.

  

2. P. Read Montague and Gregory Berns, “Neural Economics and the Biological Substrates of Valuation,” Neuron, 36 (October 10, 2002): 265.

  

3. Colin Camerer, interview in Santa Monica, Calif., June 17, 2003.

  

4. Read Montague, interview in Houston, Tex., June 24, 2003.

  

5. The earliest MRI technologies were good for showing anatomical detail, but did not track changes in brain activity corresponding to behaviors. By the early 1990s, though, advances in MRI techniques led to fMRI—functional magnetic resonance imaging—which could record changes in activity over time in a functioning brain.

  

6. Read Montague, interview in Houston, June 24, 2003.

  

7. A Web page that tracks new words claimed that its first use was in the Spring 2002 issue of a publication called The Flame.

  

8. M.L. Platt and P.W. Glimcher, “Neural Correlates of Decision Variables in Parietal Cortex,” Nature, 400 (1999): 233–238.

  

9. Read Montague, interview in Houston, June 24, 2003.

  

10. A.G. Sanfey et al., “The Neural Basis of Economic Decision-Making in the Ultimatum Game,” Science, 300 (2003): 1756.

  

11. Read Montague, interview in Houston, Tex., June 24, 2003.

  

12. Paul Zak, interview in Claremont, Calif., August 4, 2003.

  

13. Aldo Rustichini, “Neuroeconomics: Present and Future,” Games and Economic Behavior, 52 (2005): 203–204.

  

14. James Rilling et al., “A Neural Basis for Social Cooperation,” Neuron, 35 (July 18, 2002): 395–405.

  

15. In this version of the game, Players A and B both get 10 “money units” and Player A chooses whether to give his 10 to Player B. If he does, the experimenter quadruples the amount to make 40, so Player B now has 50 (40 plus the original 10). Player B then chooses to give some amount back to A, or keep the whole 50. If Player A doesn’t think B returned a fair amount, Player A is given the option to “punish” B by assessing “punishment points.” Every punishment point subtracts one monetary unit from B’s payoff, but it costs A one monetary unit for every two punishment points assessed. See Dominique J.-F. de Quervain et al., “The Neural Basis of Altruistic Punishment,” Science, 305 (August 27, 2004): 1254–1258.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement