Skip to main content

More From and about Andrew Lo

Sunday and again yesterday I wrote posts here about the biomedical world.
 
Yesterday's, you may recall, I summarized a paper by Andrew Lo and two other scholars, proposing a new system for the private financing of biomedical research.

Today I'd like to say something about another recent paper by Lo [well, not so recent -- I'm behind the curve -- this goes back to 2011], that is the other sign of the coin of Lo's own versatility. The paper offers a neuroscientific look at the impulses of traders and investors.

In both cases, the paper I summarized yesterday and this one, Lo occupies the borderland between biology and finance. But he faces in opposite directions: in the one case discussing the best ways to finance biology, in the other case discussing the biological bases of finance.

Now: isn't that a neat symmetry?

So who is Lo? He's the possessor of a Ph.D. in economics from Harvard University (1984). He has been on the MIT finance faculty since 1988, and taught at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School from 1984 to 1988.

His central claim to fame us the "adaptive market hypothesis," which exists on the border of biology and finance in yet a third sense. It is a modification of the efficient capital markets hypothesis according to evolutionary principles.

Let's get back to the neurosciences paper. I'll close with one provocative quote from there.

The work of Kapp, LeDoux, and many others showed that the pathway for fear response in the brain sidesteps the higher brain functions, including the ones we usually associate with rationality. This pathway leads instead to a specific center that processes the emotional significance of stimuli. We fear things for reasons outside out conscious, rational mind, and we do this because we have no choice, we are physiologically hard-wire to do so. More broadly, we behave, think, reach conclusions, and make decisions with the effects of the emotional brain always running in the background.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Hume's Cutlery

David Hume is renowned for two pieces of cutlery, the guillotine and the fork.

Hume's guillotine is the sharp cut he makes between "is" statements and "ought" statements, to make the point that the former never ground the latter.

His "fork" is the division between what later came to be called "analytic" and "synthetic" statements, with the ominous observation that any books containing statements that cannot be assigned to one or the other prong should be burnt.

Actually, I should acknowledge that there is some dispute as to how well or poorly the dichotomy Hume outlines really maps onto the analytic/synthetic dichotomy. Some writers maintain that Hume meant something quite different and has been hijacked. Personally, I've never seen the alleged difference however hard they've worked to point it out to me.

The guillotine makes for a more dramatic graphic than a mere fork, hence the bit of clip art above.

I'm curious whe…

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.



We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majestic wate…