A short story
During a sciences and economic lesson the teacher taught me about a concept from Pareto’s research in 1906 the Homo œconomicus. To illustrate he told us a story about a guy who wanted to mow the lawn. What happened in his mind? He thought he could have borrowed his neighbour lawnmower but he wonders if that was the best option? his thoughts were like « I will have to return it soon and negotiate with my neighbour I could buy one instead of borrowing but that costs money and I don’t have much but I could work more for money but… »
Homo economicus stands for?
This means « the economic Man » which is a concept of human behaviour which is rationality. We are talking about someone who always balances pros and counts about a move or a behaviour. This Homoeconomicus will basically choose the behaviour which brings him more benefits instead of bad consequences which are in short what we are all up to.
What links between Homo oeconomicus and addiction?
You feel bad, you feel a lack of something, what is your reaction?
You may try to find a way to re-balance this emotional state but how?
Imagine a beautiful girl who broke with her boyfriend who bullied her all along their relationship. When their relationship reaches a non-return point she may think: « this couldn’t be love I can’t stand him he wants to control my life and scares me! » She weighs up the pros and cons before breaking up and then she takes the decision to put an end to her relationship.
How did she took this decision and what next?
She broke a strong link and we could imagine the consequences of this event. Happy in a way but certainly a bit lost, and sometimes sad. And especially the bullying she has to cope with during the relationship may have side effects on her personality, she might think she’s ugly and alone now and even more, she might feel a loss of confidence in case of insight.
But: « what is less rational than emotions? Feelings for sure! Why? because you take for granted feelings of the other agent »
It shouldn’t be useless to remind that the equilibrium problematic’s in the sense of the games theory is by principle distinguishable from this of rationality. The stamina problematic ask this question: « from the moment when we try to schematize or describe the individuals actions/choices of the agents as dependant from these of the other’s agent, which could also be mistaken? ». This question is bankable even if the agent isn’t supposed as rational; which is typical in Biology.¹
¹ Translate and rephrase from: Laslier, J. (2004). L’homo œconomicus et l’analyse politique. Cités, 19,(3), 133-138. doi:10.3917/cite.019.0133.
How is she going to jump out of this emotional state?
She, same as almost everyone will do something really pragmatic. She will consciously or unconsciously balance what she is capable to go well and to improve her situation.
e.g: shopping was a former way for her to go through the damage she experiences during the relation to feel pretty but her boyfriend didn’t want her to be pretty and often told her not to hang around well dressed because he was jealous. But this feeling of fear she experienced when she met her former boyfriend with her new clothes is still here.
She might do a wrong cognition in her mind when she still links new clothes to this fear. But who can blame her? That’s why she started to do online shopping first and guess what? This time no punishment she has to deal with her former lover authority and now she feels pretty and did a step through her healing.
And what if this solution became the solution?
She felt better with her new clothes, beautiful and stuff. One day after she received a call from this boy who bothers her again and reminds her everything. At this time she still needs help to feel better should I go for a ride on the online shopping site? ». Just like Pavlov taught us the reward associated with a behaviour create a conditional behaviour and now, you see how a solution could become a systematic solution. Because she figured out how to answer stressful feelings due to the situation.
Don’t you think addiction (behavioural or substantial) works the same way?
Let’s go back to our first hypothesis « could Junkies be also Homo oeconomicus? »
Their lives are made of reluctant thoughts since we learned it at school and also paradoxical behaviour. Let’s think about the cognition from weed smoker brain. You may have this friend who always pushes his obligations to the next day and so on… and how their inability to stop this behaviour of smoking and denying the obligations. At one moment when the delay accumulated in his work is big enough to be considered as an obstacle, start the intrusive thoughts like: « should I work now? No, I’m too high and I will do bullshit, but if I don’t, what’s gonna happen to me? »
And when he reaches the paroxistic point of his own anguish what is going on?
He just rolls his next joint because he knows weed will help him to stop the mentalization and to find out a way to rebalance his emotional state. He pushes to the day after and promises himself not to be high on the next day in order to work better. Finally, just like the guy who wanted to mow the lawn and the girl who wanted to put an end to her relationship this guy took according to his own construct which made him a Homo oeconomicus as you and I.
What are the differences between these two situations and what are the similarities? We should keep in mind craving, rationality, withdrawal and procrastination are components of addicts every day lives. Their personality is clearly linked to the addiction they suffer from.
Thanks to Ainslie theory (1992), we finally conclude that « idle hands are the devil’s playground » especially for addiction.
Thanks to your own reflexion and knowledge and thanks to the modélisation I made: « who’s is more rational between the weed smokers and the broke heart girls? »
Bibliographie
Ainslie G.Haslam N. (1992) : « Hyperbolic Discounting », In George Lowenstein and John Zlster (eds.), Choice over time, New York: Russel Sage Foundation, pp. 57-92.
Laslier, J. (2004). L’homo œconomicus et l’analyse politique. Cités, 19,(3), 133-138. doi:10.3917/cite.019.0133.
lawnmower: tondeuse
balances pros and counts: pour peser les pours et les contres
weighs up: peser
we are all up to: tous capable
agents: l’agent, la personne ou l’entité qui agit
bankable: qui réuni toutes les conditions
former: ancien
weed smoker : fumeur de weed
bullshit: connerie
joint: un join, un pêtard
“idle hands are the devil’s playground” : l’oisiveté est mère de tous les vices
Master 2, Clinical Psychology Student.