Prospect Theory: Difference between revisions

From BloomWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
BloomWiki: Prospect Theory
 
BloomWiki: Prospect Theory
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div style="background-color: #4B0082; color: #FFFFFF; padding: 20px; border-radius: 8px; margin-bottom: 15px;">
{{BloomIntro}}
{{BloomIntro}}
Prospect Theory is the "Psychology of Choice"—the Nobel Prize-winning discovery that humans don't make "Rational" decisions based on math, but "Emotional" decisions based on "Gains and Losses." Developed by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, it challenges the idea of the "Economic Man" who always picks the best option. Instead, it proves that we "Hate losing" much more than we "Love winning" (Loss Aversion) and that we think about "Changes" in our wealth rather than our "Total" wealth. From the way we "Hold onto bad stocks" to how we "Fear rare risks," prospect theory is the foundation of behavioral economics. It is the science of why we are "Predictably Irrational" when it comes to money and life.
Prospect Theory is the "Study of the Choice"—the investigation of the "Psychological Discovery" (1979) that "Humans" "Do Not" "Evaluate" "Losses and Gains" "Equally." While "Classical Economics" (see Article 138) assumes we are **"Rational Actors"** (Homo Economicus), **Prospect Theory** proves we are "Irrationally Risk-Averse." From the "Loss Aversion" of **Daniel Kahneman** and **Amos Tversky** to "Framing Effects" and "Probability Weighting," this field explores the "Biases of the Mind." It is the science of "Subjective Value," explaining why "Losing $100" "Hurts More" than "Winning $100" "Feels Good"—and how "Psychology" "Rewrote" the "Laws of the Market."
</div>


== Remembering ==
__TOC__
* '''Prospect Theory''' — A theory that describes how people choose between probabilistic alternatives that involve risk, where the probabilities of outcomes are known.
* '''Loss Aversion''' — The phenomenon where "Losses loom larger than gains"; the "Pain" of losing $100 is twice as strong as the "Joy" of gaining $100.
* '''Reference Point''' — The "Starting point" from which you judge a gain or a loss (e.g., your current bank balance or your expected salary).
* '''Diminishing Sensitivity''' — The idea that the difference between $0 and $100 feels "Huge," but the difference between $1,000 and $1,100 feels "Small."
* '''Probability Weighting''' — The tendency to "Over-estimate" small chances (like the Lottery or a Plane crash) and "Under-estimate" high chances (like the flu).
* '''Certainty Effect''' — The preference for "Sure things" over "Risks," even if the risk has a higher mathematical value.
* '''Framing Effect''' — How the "Way a choice is presented" changes the decision (e.g., "90% Fat-Free" vs "10% Fat").
* '''Daniel Kahneman''' — The psychologist who won the Nobel Prize in Economics for this theory (author of 'Thinking, Fast and Slow').
* '''Amos Tversky''' — Kahneman's brilliant partner who co-developed the theory.
* '''The Value Function''' — The "S-shaped" curve that shows how we perceive value differently for gains (concave) and losses (convex).


== Understanding ==
<div style="background-color: #000080; color: #FFFFFF; padding: 20px; border-radius: 8px; margin-bottom: 15px;">
Prospect theory is understood through '''Loss''' and '''Framing'''.
== <span style="color: #FFFFFF;">Remembering</span> ==
* '''Prospect Theory''' — A theory of "Decision-making" under "Uncertainty" that "Replaced" "Expected Utility Theory."
* '''Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky''' — The "Founders": they "Combined" "Psychology" and "Economics," leading to a "Nobel Prize."
* '''Loss Aversion''' — The "Idea" that "The Pain of Loss" is **Psychologically Twice as Powerful** as "The Joy of Gain."
* '''The Reference Point''' — People evaluate outcomes relative to their "Current State" (Status Quo) rather than an "Absolute State."
* '''Framing Effect''' — (See Article 619). The "Way" an "Option" is "Presented" (e.g., '90% Survival' vs '10% Mortality') "Changes" the "Choice."
* '''Diminishing Sensitivity''' — Each "Extra Dollar" has "Less Impact" than the one before it (for both gains and losses).
* '''Probability Weighting''' — People "Over-weight" "Small Probabilities" (e.g., 'Lottery/Plane Crashes') and "Under-weight" "High Probabilities."
* '''S-Shaped Value Function''' — The "Mathematical Curve" that "Maps" "Objective Value" to "Subjective Utility": it is "Steeper" for "Losses" than for "Gains."
* '''Endowment Effect''' — The "Bias" where people "Value" "Something they Own" "More" than the "Same Item" if they didn't own it.
* '''Status Quo Bias''' — The "Preference" for the "Current Situation" even if a "Better Alternative" exists.
</div>


'''1. Loss Aversion (The "Pain" of Money)''':
<div style="background-color: #006400; color: #FFFFFF; padding: 20px; border-radius: 8px; margin-bottom: 15px;">
Humans are "Risk-Averse" for gains but "Risk-Seeking" for losses.
== <span style="color: #FFFFFF;">Understanding</span> ==
* **Gains**: If I offer you $50 for sure, or a 50% chance at $100, you will take the **Sure $50**.
Prospect theory is understood through '''Loss''' and '''Relative Value'''.
* **Losses**: If I tell you that you will lose $50 for sure, or have a 50% chance to lose $100, you will **Take the Risk** to avoid the loss.
* This is why people "Keep gambling" when they are losing—they are "Seeking risk" to get back to zero.


'''2. The Reference Point (Context is Everything)''':
'''1. The "Pain" of the Minus (Loss Aversion)''':
You don't care about your "Total Net Worth."
Why don't we "Bet"?
* If you expect a $10,000 bonus and get $5,000, you feel "Poor" (A Loss).
* If you have a **50/50 Chance** to "Win $100" or "Lose $100," a "Rational Person" should take the bet.
* If you expect no bonus and get $1,000, you feel "Rich" (A Gain).
* Most humans **"Refuse."**
* Happiness is determined by "Changes," not by "Levels."
* To "Accept" the bet, the "Possible Gain" must usually be **$200.**
* We are "Hard-wired" to **"Protect"** what we have "More" than to **"Acquire"** what we don't.
* "Survival" (see Article 146) favored "Avoiding Predators" over "Finding Extra Food."


'''3. Probability Weighting (The Lottery Effect)''':
'''2. The "Anchor" of the Present (Reference Points)''':
We are "Bad" at understanding small numbers.
Wealth is "Relative."
* A "1 in a Million" chance of winning a lottery feels "Possible."
* If you "Gain $1,000" but your "Neighbor" "Gains $10,000," you feel **"Poorer."**
* A "1 in a Million" chance of a side effect from a vaccine feels "Scary."
* Our "Brain" (see Article 163) does not care about "Absolute Dollars."
* We "Over-react" to the "Ends" of the distribution and "Under-react" to the "Middle."
* It cares about the **"Direction of Change"** from "Right Now."
* "Happiness" is the **"Derivative"** of Wealth, not the "Integral."


'''The 'Diseases' Experiment'''': Kahneman and Tversky asked people to choose between two treatments for a disease. Group A was told: "200 people will be saved." Group B was told: "400 people will die." Even though the math was the same, people chose the first option because it was "Framed as a Gain." This proved that "Words matter more than Math" in human choice.
'''3. The "Lottery" Illusion (Probability Weighting)''':
Why do we "Buy Tickets"?
* A **1 in 100 Million** chance of winning is **"Mathematically Zero."**
* But the "Brain" "Weights" it as **"Significant."**
* Conversely, a **99% Chance** of success feels "Uncertain" to us.
* We "Fear" the "1%" "Too Much" and "Hope" for the "0.00001%" "Too Much."


== Applying ==
'''Kahneman’s 'Thinking, Fast and Slow' (2011)'''': The "Bible" of the field. It introduced the world to **"System 1"** (Fast/Intuitive/Biased) and **"System 2"** (Slow/Logical/Lazy). It proved that "Behavioral Economics" is the "Study of how System 1 Hijacks System 2."
'''Modeling 'The Loss Aversion' (Predicting if a person will accept a bet):'''
</div>
 
<div style="background-color: #8B0000; color: #FFFFFF; padding: 20px; border-radius: 8px; margin-bottom: 15px;">
== <span style="color: #FFFFFF;">Applying</span> ==
'''Modeling 'The Loss Aversion' (Predicting 'Bet Acceptance'):'''
<syntaxhighlight lang="python">
<syntaxhighlight lang="python">
def evaluate_gamble(win_amount, lose_amount, probability=0.5):
def evaluate_gamble(potential_win, potential_loss, win_prob):
     """
     """
     Shows that people need a 2x Gain to justify a 1x Loss.
     Shows why 'Homo Economicus' would bet, but 'Humans' won't.
     """
     """
     # Rational Utility: (Win * P) - (Lose * (1-P))
     # Expected Value (Rational)
     rational_utility = (win_amount * probability) - (lose_amount * (1 - probability))
     ev = (potential_win * win_prob) - (potential_loss * (1 - win_prob))
      
      
     # Behavioral Utility: (Win * P) - (2 * Lose * (1-P))
     # Prospect Value (Human - Loss is weighted 2.2x)
     # Note: The '2' is the 'Loss Aversion Coefficient'
     prospect_v = (potential_win * win_prob) - (potential_loss * 2.2 * (1 - win_prob))
    psychological_utility = (win_amount * probability) - (2 * lose_amount * (1 - probability))
      
      
     if psychological_utility > 0:
     if prospect_v > 0:
         return f"Rational: {rational_utility} | Behavioral: {psychological_utility} | RESULT: TAKE THE BET."
         return f"RESULT: ACCEPT BET. (EV: {ev}, Prospect: {round(prospect_v, 2)})."
     else:
     else:
         return f"Rational: {rational_utility} | Behavioral: {psychological_utility} | RESULT: REJECT THE BET."
         return f"RESULT: REJECT BET. (Rational EV is {ev}, but it FEELS like {round(prospect_v, 2)})."


# A 'Fair' bet: Win 100, Lose 100.
# Case: A 'Fair' bet ($110 win vs $100 loss)
print(evaluate_gamble(100, 100))
print(evaluate_gamble(110, 100, 0.5))
# A 'Good' bet: Win 250, Lose 100.
# Case: A 'Great' bet ($250 win vs $100 loss)
print(evaluate_gamble(250, 100))
print(evaluate_gamble(250, 100, 0.5))
</syntaxhighlight>
</syntaxhighlight>


; Prospect Landmarks
; Economic Landmarks
: '''The 'Endowment Effect'''' → Why you think your "Old Coffee Mug" is worth $10 when everyone else thinks it's worth $2. Because you "Own it," losing it feels like a "Loss," so you over-value it.
: '''The 'Mug' Experiment''' (Thaler) Proving the **Endowment Effect**: students who were "Given a Mug" "Demanded" **$7** to sell it, while those who "Didn't have one" only "Offered" **$3** to buy it.
: '''Sunk Cost Fallacy''' → Why we "Stay in a bad relationship" or "Finish a bad movie." We don't want the "Past time/money" to be a "Loss," so we "Waste more time" trying to save it.
: '''The 'Asian Disease' Problem''' → Proving **Framing**: when a choice was "Framed as 'Saving 200 lives'," people chose the "Certainty." When "Framed as '400 people dying'," people "Gambled."
: '''Insurance Sales''' → How companies sell you "Extended Warranties." They frame a $50 payment as "Protection against a $500 Loss," hitting your "Loss Aversion" button.
: '''Mental Accounting''' (Thaler) The "Bias" where people "Treat Money Differently" depending on its "Category" (e.g. 'Bonus money' vs 'Salary').
: '''The 'Status Quo' Bias''' → Why we "Don't change our bank" or "Our internet provider," even if we can save money. Changing feels like a "Risk," so we "Stick with what we know."
: '''Hyperbolic Discounting''' → The "Bias" where we "Value" "Now" "Way More" than "Tomorrow," "Explaining" why we "Fail" to "Save for Retirement" or "Diet."
</div>


== Analyzing ==
<div style="background-color: #8B4500; color: #FFFFFF; padding: 20px; border-radius: 8px; margin-bottom: 15px;">
== <span style="color: #FFFFFF;">Analyzing</span> ==
{| class="wikitable"
{| class="wikitable"
|+ Rational Man vs. Behavioral Human
|+ Neoclassical vs. Behavioral Economics
! Feature !! Rational (Expected Utility) !! Behavioral (Prospect Theory)
! Feature !! Neoclassical (The Math) !! Behavioral (The Psychology)
! Human Model || "Homo Economicus" (Rational) || "Homo Sapiens" (Emotional/Biased)
|-
|-
| Goal || Maximize Total Wealth || Avoid "Losses" relative to a point
| Goal || "Utility Maximization" || "Satisfaction / Loss Avoidance"
|-
|-
| Risk View || Consistent (Always the same) || Inconsistent (Depends on Gain/Loss)
| Preferences || "Stable / Consistent" || "Context-Dependent / Fluid"
|-
|-
| Probabilities || Handled Linearly (0.5 = 0.5) || Weighted (0.01 feels like 0.05)
| Focus || "The Market Equilibrium" || "The Individual Choice"
|-
|-
| Analogy || A 'Calculator' || A 'Storyteller'
| Analogy || A 'Computer' || A 'Primate'
|}
|}


'''The Concept of "Reflection"''': Analyzing the "Mirror Effect." If you "Flip" a positive problem into a negative one, the human brain "Flips" its behavior. We move from "Playing it Safe" (Gains) to "Gambling Everything" (Losses). This explains why a "Losing Gambler" becomes "More and More Dangerous" as the night goes on.
'''The Concept of "Bounded Rationality"''': Analyzing "The Constraint." Herbert Simon (see Article 514) argued that we "Aren't Lazy"—we just have **"Limited Brainpower"** and **"Limited Time."** We don't "Optimize" (Find the best); we **"Satisfice"** (Find 'Good Enough'). "Prospect Theory" is the "Map" of our "Satisficing Shortcuts."
</div>


== Evaluating ==
<div style="background-color: #483D8B; color: #FFFFFF; padding: 20px; border-radius: 8px; margin-bottom: 15px;">
Evaluating prospect theory:
== <span style="color: #FFFFFF;">Evaluating</span> ==
# '''The "Expert" Defense''': Do "Experts" (like Professional Traders) still suffer from loss aversion, or can you "Train" the brain to be rational?
Evaluating Prospect Theory:
# '''Culture''': Does a "Culture of Honor" or "Scarcity" make loss aversion "Stronger"?
# '''Universality''': Does "Loss Aversion" apply to "Professional Traders"? (Or can you 'Learn' to be 'Rational'?).
# '''Happiness''': If we only care about "Changes," can we ever be "Permanently Happy," or are we "Doomed" to the "Hedonic Treadmill" (needing more and more to feel a 'Gain')?
# '''Marketing''': Is it "Ethical" to use "Prospect Theory" to "Trick" people into "Buying"? (e.g. 'Limited time offer!').
# '''AI''': Should we program AIs to be "Rational" (like a calculator) or "Behavioral" (to understand and help humans)?
# '''Policy''': (See Article 620). Should "Governments" "Frame" "Taxes" as "Losses" or "Contributions"?
# '''Impact''': Why did "Behavioral Economics" "Fail" to "Predict" the **2008 Financial Crisis**?
</div>


== Creating ==
<div style="background-color: #2F4F4F; color: #FFFFFF; padding: 20px; border-radius: 8px; margin-bottom: 15px;">
== <span style="color: #FFFFFF;">Creating</span> ==
Future Frontiers:
Future Frontiers:
# '''Loss-Aversion "Therapy"''': Using VR to "Practice" losing small amounts of money to "De-sensitize" the brain, allowing for more rational investing.
# '''Personalized 'Bias' AI''': An "App" that "Tracks your Spending" and "Alerts you" when your "Loss Aversion" is "Making a Bad Choice."
# '''Hyper-Personalized Nudges''': An app that "Knows your reference point" and "Frames" healthy choices (like Exercise) as a "Gain" for you specifically.
# '''Neurological 'Market' Design''': A "Stock Exchange" that "Adjusts" "Rules" (see Article 602) to "Cancel Out" "Human Biases," "Preventing" "Bubbles."
# '''Policy Design''': Governments that "Auto-Enroll" people in savings accounts, using the "Status Quo Bias" to help people save for retirement.
# '''Global 'Utility' Credits''': A "New Currency" based on "Subjective Well-being" (see Article 118) rather than "Dollars," "Optimizing" for "Human Happiness."
# '''The 'Rationality' Assistant''': A real-time AI that "Flags" your decisions: "Warning: You are only making this choice because you are afraid of a loss. The math says you should take the risk."
# '''Direct 'Brain' Economics''': Using "fMRI" (see Article 127) to "Measure" "Utility" "Directly in the Neurons," "Ending" the "Need" for "Prices" entirely.


[[Category:Arts]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Psychology]]
[[Category:Economics]]
[[Category:Economics]]
[[Category:Psychology]]
[[Category:Behavioral Economics]]
[[Category:Decision Science]]
[[Category:Decision Science]]
[[Category:Behavioral Economics]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]
</div>

Latest revision as of 01:56, 25 April 2026

How to read this page: This article maps the topic from beginner to expert across six levels � Remembering, Understanding, Applying, Analyzing, Evaluating, and Creating. Scan the headings to see the full scope, then read from wherever your knowledge starts to feel uncertain. Learn more about how BloomWiki works ?

Prospect Theory is the "Study of the Choice"—the investigation of the "Psychological Discovery" (1979) that "Humans" "Do Not" "Evaluate" "Losses and Gains" "Equally." While "Classical Economics" (see Article 138) assumes we are **"Rational Actors"** (Homo Economicus), **Prospect Theory** proves we are "Irrationally Risk-Averse." From the "Loss Aversion" of **Daniel Kahneman** and **Amos Tversky** to "Framing Effects" and "Probability Weighting," this field explores the "Biases of the Mind." It is the science of "Subjective Value," explaining why "Losing $100" "Hurts More" than "Winning $100" "Feels Good"—and how "Psychology" "Rewrote" the "Laws of the Market."

Remembering[edit]

  • Prospect Theory — A theory of "Decision-making" under "Uncertainty" that "Replaced" "Expected Utility Theory."
  • Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky — The "Founders": they "Combined" "Psychology" and "Economics," leading to a "Nobel Prize."
  • Loss Aversion — The "Idea" that "The Pain of Loss" is **Psychologically Twice as Powerful** as "The Joy of Gain."
  • The Reference Point — People evaluate outcomes relative to their "Current State" (Status Quo) rather than an "Absolute State."
  • Framing Effect — (See Article 619). The "Way" an "Option" is "Presented" (e.g., '90% Survival' vs '10% Mortality') "Changes" the "Choice."
  • Diminishing Sensitivity — Each "Extra Dollar" has "Less Impact" than the one before it (for both gains and losses).
  • Probability Weighting — People "Over-weight" "Small Probabilities" (e.g., 'Lottery/Plane Crashes') and "Under-weight" "High Probabilities."
  • S-Shaped Value Function — The "Mathematical Curve" that "Maps" "Objective Value" to "Subjective Utility": it is "Steeper" for "Losses" than for "Gains."
  • Endowment Effect — The "Bias" where people "Value" "Something they Own" "More" than the "Same Item" if they didn't own it.
  • Status Quo Bias — The "Preference" for the "Current Situation" even if a "Better Alternative" exists.

Understanding[edit]

Prospect theory is understood through Loss and Relative Value.

1. The "Pain" of the Minus (Loss Aversion): Why don't we "Bet"?

  • If you have a **50/50 Chance** to "Win $100" or "Lose $100," a "Rational Person" should take the bet.
  • Most humans **"Refuse."**
  • To "Accept" the bet, the "Possible Gain" must usually be **$200.**
  • We are "Hard-wired" to **"Protect"** what we have "More" than to **"Acquire"** what we don't.
  • "Survival" (see Article 146) favored "Avoiding Predators" over "Finding Extra Food."

2. The "Anchor" of the Present (Reference Points): Wealth is "Relative."

  • If you "Gain $1,000" but your "Neighbor" "Gains $10,000," you feel **"Poorer."**
  • Our "Brain" (see Article 163) does not care about "Absolute Dollars."
  • It cares about the **"Direction of Change"** from "Right Now."
  • "Happiness" is the **"Derivative"** of Wealth, not the "Integral."

3. The "Lottery" Illusion (Probability Weighting): Why do we "Buy Tickets"?

  • A **1 in 100 Million** chance of winning is **"Mathematically Zero."**
  • But the "Brain" "Weights" it as **"Significant."**
  • Conversely, a **99% Chance** of success feels "Uncertain" to us.
  • We "Fear" the "1%" "Too Much" and "Hope" for the "0.00001%" "Too Much."

Kahneman’s 'Thinking, Fast and Slow' (2011)': The "Bible" of the field. It introduced the world to **"System 1"** (Fast/Intuitive/Biased) and **"System 2"** (Slow/Logical/Lazy). It proved that "Behavioral Economics" is the "Study of how System 1 Hijacks System 2."

Applying[edit]

Modeling 'The Loss Aversion' (Predicting 'Bet Acceptance'): <syntaxhighlight lang="python"> def evaluate_gamble(potential_win, potential_loss, win_prob):

   """
   Shows why 'Homo Economicus' would bet, but 'Humans' won't.
   """
   # Expected Value (Rational)
   ev = (potential_win * win_prob) - (potential_loss * (1 - win_prob))
   
   # Prospect Value (Human - Loss is weighted 2.2x)
   prospect_v = (potential_win * win_prob) - (potential_loss * 2.2 * (1 - win_prob))
   
   if prospect_v > 0:
       return f"RESULT: ACCEPT BET. (EV: {ev}, Prospect: {round(prospect_v, 2)})."
   else:
       return f"RESULT: REJECT BET. (Rational EV is {ev}, but it FEELS like {round(prospect_v, 2)})."
  1. Case: A 'Fair' bet ($110 win vs $100 loss)

print(evaluate_gamble(110, 100, 0.5))

  1. Case: A 'Great' bet ($250 win vs $100 loss)

print(evaluate_gamble(250, 100, 0.5)) </syntaxhighlight>

Economic Landmarks
The 'Mug' Experiment (Thaler) → Proving the **Endowment Effect**: students who were "Given a Mug" "Demanded" **$7** to sell it, while those who "Didn't have one" only "Offered" **$3** to buy it.
The 'Asian Disease' Problem → Proving **Framing**: when a choice was "Framed as 'Saving 200 lives'," people chose the "Certainty." When "Framed as '400 people dying'," people "Gambled."
Mental Accounting (Thaler) → The "Bias" where people "Treat Money Differently" depending on its "Category" (e.g. 'Bonus money' vs 'Salary').
Hyperbolic Discounting → The "Bias" where we "Value" "Now" "Way More" than "Tomorrow," "Explaining" why we "Fail" to "Save for Retirement" or "Diet."

Analyzing[edit]

Neoclassical vs. Behavioral Economics
Feature Neoclassical (The Math) Behavioral (The Psychology) Human Model "Homo Economicus" (Rational) "Homo Sapiens" (Emotional/Biased)
Goal "Utility Maximization" "Satisfaction / Loss Avoidance"
Preferences "Stable / Consistent" "Context-Dependent / Fluid"
Focus "The Market Equilibrium" "The Individual Choice"
Analogy A 'Computer' A 'Primate'

The Concept of "Bounded Rationality": Analyzing "The Constraint." Herbert Simon (see Article 514) argued that we "Aren't Lazy"—we just have **"Limited Brainpower"** and **"Limited Time."** We don't "Optimize" (Find the best); we **"Satisfice"** (Find 'Good Enough'). "Prospect Theory" is the "Map" of our "Satisficing Shortcuts."

Evaluating[edit]

Evaluating Prospect Theory:

  1. Universality: Does "Loss Aversion" apply to "Professional Traders"? (Or can you 'Learn' to be 'Rational'?).
  2. Marketing: Is it "Ethical" to use "Prospect Theory" to "Trick" people into "Buying"? (e.g. 'Limited time offer!').
  3. Policy: (See Article 620). Should "Governments" "Frame" "Taxes" as "Losses" or "Contributions"?
  4. Impact: Why did "Behavioral Economics" "Fail" to "Predict" the **2008 Financial Crisis**?

Creating[edit]

Future Frontiers:

  1. Personalized 'Bias' AI: An "App" that "Tracks your Spending" and "Alerts you" when your "Loss Aversion" is "Making a Bad Choice."
  2. Neurological 'Market' Design: A "Stock Exchange" that "Adjusts" "Rules" (see Article 602) to "Cancel Out" "Human Biases," "Preventing" "Bubbles."
  3. Global 'Utility' Credits: A "New Currency" based on "Subjective Well-being" (see Article 118) rather than "Dollars," "Optimizing" for "Human Happiness."
  4. Direct 'Brain' Economics: Using "fMRI" (see Article 127) to "Measure" "Utility" "Directly in the Neurons," "Ending" the "Need" for "Prices" entirely.