反身性和市场思维假说:为什么乔治·索罗斯不是一个失败的哲学家(以及这对经济学、经济和投资意味着什么)

Patrick Schotanus, Ron Chrisley, A. Clark, D. Pritchard, Aaron Schurger
{"title":"反身性和市场思维假说:为什么乔治·索罗斯不是一个失败的哲学家(以及这对经济学、经济和投资意味着什么)","authors":"Patrick Schotanus, Ron Chrisley, A. Clark, D. Pritchard, Aaron Schurger","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3939493","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"George Soros is one of the best traders of all time. That is the general consensus. While Soros gladly accepts that compliment he frequently also expressed his frustration that he failed as a philosopher. Specifically, he admits that he was unable to formulate his philosophy of reflexivity from its original abstractions. More importantly, reflexivity—which informed his successful trading—did not get the academic recognition that Soros’s track record suggests it deserves. This paper will discuss the reasons for this, the key one being that reflexivity points to the elephant in economics’s room. This will be highlighted by explaining reflexivity, from its original abstractions, in novel terms provided by cognitive science. In particular, via philosophy of mind this paper will argue why Soros is not a failed philosopher. This leads to the submission that reflexivity deserves proper recognition as an early contribution to the emerging field of cognitive economics, for which the Market Mind Hypothesis is a standard bearer. Moreover, the issues discussed are relevant in the wider context of our economic predicament.","PeriodicalId":198417,"journal":{"name":"DecisionSciRN: Stock Market Decision-Making (Sub-Topic)","volume":"2004 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reflexivity and the Market Mind Hypothesis: Why George Soros is Not a Failed Philosopher (and What it Means for Economics, the Economy, and Investing)\",\"authors\":\"Patrick Schotanus, Ron Chrisley, A. Clark, D. Pritchard, Aaron Schurger\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3939493\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"George Soros is one of the best traders of all time. That is the general consensus. While Soros gladly accepts that compliment he frequently also expressed his frustration that he failed as a philosopher. Specifically, he admits that he was unable to formulate his philosophy of reflexivity from its original abstractions. More importantly, reflexivity—which informed his successful trading—did not get the academic recognition that Soros’s track record suggests it deserves. This paper will discuss the reasons for this, the key one being that reflexivity points to the elephant in economics’s room. This will be highlighted by explaining reflexivity, from its original abstractions, in novel terms provided by cognitive science. In particular, via philosophy of mind this paper will argue why Soros is not a failed philosopher. This leads to the submission that reflexivity deserves proper recognition as an early contribution to the emerging field of cognitive economics, for which the Market Mind Hypothesis is a standard bearer. Moreover, the issues discussed are relevant in the wider context of our economic predicament.\",\"PeriodicalId\":198417,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"DecisionSciRN: Stock Market Decision-Making (Sub-Topic)\",\"volume\":\"2004 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"DecisionSciRN: Stock Market Decision-Making (Sub-Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3939493\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"DecisionSciRN: Stock Market Decision-Making (Sub-Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3939493","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

乔治·索罗斯是有史以来最好的交易员之一。这是普遍的共识。虽然索罗斯很高兴地接受了这种赞美,但他也经常表达自己作为哲学家失败的挫折感。具体地说,他承认他无法从最初的抽象中形成他的反身性哲学。更重要的是,促使他成功交易的自反性并没有得到学术上的认可,而索罗斯的过往记录表明它理应得到认可。本文将讨论其原因,关键是自反性指向经济学房间里的大象。这将通过用认知科学提供的新术语从其原始抽象解释反身性来强调。特别是,通过心灵哲学,本文将论证为什么索罗斯不是一个失败的哲学家。这导致了一种观点,即自反性应该得到适当的承认,因为它是对认知经济学新兴领域的早期贡献,而市场思维假说是这一领域的旗手。此外,讨论的问题在我们经济困境的更广泛背景下是相关的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reflexivity and the Market Mind Hypothesis: Why George Soros is Not a Failed Philosopher (and What it Means for Economics, the Economy, and Investing)
George Soros is one of the best traders of all time. That is the general consensus. While Soros gladly accepts that compliment he frequently also expressed his frustration that he failed as a philosopher. Specifically, he admits that he was unable to formulate his philosophy of reflexivity from its original abstractions. More importantly, reflexivity—which informed his successful trading—did not get the academic recognition that Soros’s track record suggests it deserves. This paper will discuss the reasons for this, the key one being that reflexivity points to the elephant in economics’s room. This will be highlighted by explaining reflexivity, from its original abstractions, in novel terms provided by cognitive science. In particular, via philosophy of mind this paper will argue why Soros is not a failed philosopher. This leads to the submission that reflexivity deserves proper recognition as an early contribution to the emerging field of cognitive economics, for which the Market Mind Hypothesis is a standard bearer. Moreover, the issues discussed are relevant in the wider context of our economic predicament.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信