Product Description

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #14971 in Books
• Published on: 2007-12-26
• Released on: 2007-12-26
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Hardcover
• 336 pages

From Publishers Weekly
Shermer (The Science of Good and Evil), columnist for Scientific American and publisher of Skeptic magazine, provides an in-depth examination of evolutionary economics. Using fascinating examples—from monkeys that balk at unfair distribution of rewards after completing a task to humans who feel cheated when offered $10 of free money if a partner is given $90—Shermer explores the evolutionary roots of our sense of fairness and justice, and shows how this rationale extends to the market. Drawing upon his expertise as a scientist and the works of noted economists, Shermer argues convincingly that human beings are not exclusively self-centered, the market itself is moral, and modern economies are founded on our virtuous nature. He explores how we mind our money, the value of virtue, why money can't buy happiness and whether we are really free to make choices. Though dense in places, this book offers much insight into human behavior and rationales regarding money and fairness and will be of interest to serious readers of science or business. (Jan.)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Review

“Written with his customary verve and flair, The Mind of the Market is Michael Shermer at his best. Roving over the entire sweep of history, and drawing on the best of modern science, Shermer attempts a grand synthesis of research from psychology and the neurosciences to demonstrate that markets are moral and that free trade meshes well with human nature. Shermer entertains as well as informs, and in the process he deepens the argument for economic, political and social freedom.”—Dinesh D’Souza, author of What’s So Great About America

“Economists who understand Charles Darwin are almost as rare as biologists who understand Adam Smith. Yet the two were essentially saying the same thing—that order emerges unordained from competition and innovation. Michael Shermer brilliantly brings the two insights together to explain how the human mind creates the human market.”—Matt Ridley, author of The Origins of Virtue

“Economics is not just about money. It is also about human nature, justice, trust, and happiness. Michael Shermer brilliantly shows that the real experts of Homo economicus are often found in psychology, biology, even primatology.”—Frans de Waal, author of Our Inner Ape

About the Author
Michael Shermer is the author of nine previous books, including the bestselling Why People Believe Weird Things. He is a columnist for Scientific American, the publisher of Skeptic magazine, and the founder and director of the international Skeptics Society. He lives in Southern California.

Customer Reviews

The Title a Bit Misleading
The title of this book led me to believe that it would be an in-depth analysis of the psychology and behavior of the stock market. However, that is not really the subject of this book. Instead, the book advances a thesis regarding how to apply evolutionary principles to economic and political frameworks, and consisting mostly of a defense of free markets and democracy. Also, the author identifies some popular conceptions of evolution (social Darwinism, "nature red in tooth and claw," the "selfish gene") as "myths" that inaccurately characterize evolutionary concepts, and that he suggests that cooperative behavior is actually a more evolutionarily advanced strategy in species.

As I read the book, some questions occurred to me regarding the assertions made in the book:

1. The linkage of free market competitive ideology with evolutionary concepts and efficiency (Adam Smith's "invisible hand" paradigm) was developed in a era of continuous western expansion into new land frontiers, rich with resources and free land. This affected the relationship between "producers" and "consumers." The author suggests that free markets favor consumers over producers, and that favoring producers over consumers (via protectionism, tariffs, unionization, etc.) leads to stagnation and inefficiency. Whether or not this may be true, now that we live in a time of increasingly scarce material resources with fewer virgin frontiers to exploit, producers will necessarily gain greater power in the relationship with consumers (as with oil production, energy, technology, etc.) This skews the "free market" relationship the author describes and may therefore warrant governmental/outside regulation or mediation to keep the playing field level. This also has relevance to the tendency of some producers to gain a monopoly of resources, information, or access, which renders them effectively impervious to true competition and therefore causing consumers to be less likely to gain the benefits of free market competition in quality, price, etc.

2. The characterization of "producers" and "consumers" as separate entities may itself be somewhat inaccurate. Ideally, in our society all will possess both roles. Therefore favoring one over another, or speaking of them as opposed interests may inaccurately characterize our consideration of the topic of optimum structuring of markets.

It seemed to me that there were a number of ideological assertions made as statements of fact, with a lack of supporting evidence presented. However, I found the book to be interesting, engaging and thought-provoking, and would recommend it as stimulus for thought, reflection, and development of ideas.

(For another perspective on some of these concepts regarding free markets and democracy, I suggest "World on Fire" by Amy Chua.)

Shermer's "Blindspot": Certainty in Evolutionary Psychology.
A few years ago, I read Shermer's "Science of Good and Evil," in which he explains how evolutionary psychology can explain human's moral natures. The issue I had with that book is very much the issue I have with this one, which uses evolutionary psychology to explain human economic behavior (particularly in markets).

The fact is that Shermer bases just about everything in both books on a very tenuous "science" of evolutionary psychology and where Shermer is very skeptical when it comes to many things, he is probably more accepting of evolutionary psychology explanations (which are generally "could be" propositions that Shermer takes as "is" propositions.) While I don't have any major qualms with evolutionary explanations for behavior, the problem is that evolutionary explanations of behavior are not empirical as are evoluitonary explanaitons of physical structures. (Many times in the book, Shermer says things like, "We know we have x tendency. The reason this strategy evolved IS..." instead of, "This could have evolved in humans because..." With every page, I had to ask myself why a careful skeptic like Shermer chose to write a book based on a very tenuous and tentative "science" that he unskeptically takes as unquestioned fact?

Beyond this, I must confess that the thesis of the book seems quite jumbled: sometimes, it seems like Shermer is suggesting an analogy between the market and biological evolution. Other times, it seems that Shermer is making the case that human psychology functions best in a market system. Other times, whole chapters are devoted to discussing asides like why humans are not quite the rational actors that "rational choice theory" has us believe, without so much as telling us where this ties in to Shermer's story.

The upside is that the book is very interesting. As usual, Shermer is a great popularizer and summarizer, interspersing theory with fascinating anecdoes (both personal stories and recounting others' experiments). In the end, though, I must caution readers against the book owing (a) to usually-skeptical Shermer's unquestioning reliance on the very tentative ideas of evolutionary psychology for the bulk of the book; and (b) to the book's lack of any real clear thesis, instead having a very disjointed and hurried feel.

Good food for thought, but much to digest...
Michael Shermer is always an engaging and informative writer, and this book is no exception. There is quite a bit of good science in here, and plenty to stimulate discussions (I used the book as a summer reading with my biology graduate students, and we all enjoyed it). However, Michael at times gets a bit too close to the evolutionary psychology perspective on things (which I am very critical of), and his libertarianism shows up here and there (again, a position I don't share). Some of my students found that there are too many personal anecdotes, though of course that's a matter of personal stylistic preferences. Again, more than worth the money!