Reddit mentions of Choices, Values, and Frames

These are all great questions and comments.

My conceptual goal is for the Gibbons Prime to be based on economic system that instead of using Adam Smith or Karl Marx as the baseline, it instead begins with an economics system based on the ideas of Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman. So there was no Wealth of Nations at that point in history. Or rather there was but it was quickly trumped and summarily dismissed as outdated. Instead there was Choices, Values and Frames at a much earlier point in comparable history.

I haven't worked out all the details and this is a bit of an exercise in me conceptualizing a space opera economic system that never really had a fossil fuel focused industrial revolution stage of evolution.

Basically the meta concept I am toying with is that whole concept of utility maximization is itself a mental construct. So with Gibbons Prime I have uprooted that entire history of classic utility theory and replaced it instead with prospect theory and behavioral economics.

Some basic differences between human earth culture and Gibbons Prime would be:

• Gibbons never had a concept of nation states. It was always Clans -> Guilds evolution.
  
  
• Gibbons never had a massive population increase with industrial revolution like humans did. Population growth never exceeded the threshold that food+medical technological evolution could handle.
  
  
• Due to the evolutionary biology, even contemporary Gibbons "cities" have a far smaller permanent residential population and exponentially less population density than human cities. Due to this evolutionary biology Gibbons Prime population grows slower than industrial revolution-modern humans and in a more balanced manner.
  
  
• In human history classic utility theory dominate economics for a long time. In Gibbons Prime history, Prospect Theory almost immediately replaced classic utility theory as the basic Econ 101 theory that everyone learns.
  
  So to apply some of that to your questions:
  
  > almost self imposed restriction or limit of job growth?
  
  Its not so much a self-imposed restriction so much as there is no real need to pursue growth for growth sake.
  
  > It seems to me as though a business owner would really want to maximize the value gained from every input, driving the cost of output as low as possible, even if the reduction of cost was minimal.
  
  I see what you are saying but this assumes that Gibbons Prime business owners are homo economicus with a decision making system based on human values.
  
  What I did with Gibbons is take some concepts from Behavioral economics and neuroeconomics and reinforce them. Namely the value of prestige is greatly increased. So the average Gibbons business owner is not trying to maximize the value gained from every input so much as ensuring the inputs-outputs are balanced enough to be self-sustaining.
  
  So even the average Gibbons Prime has a motivation system more equivalent to human university professors who want to publish in academic journals rather than a human earth businessman maximizing profit at all costs who would be seen by even a low class Gibbons as quite banal and uninteresting.
  
  > In other words, there would really be no economic 'booms' in earnest, as companies would continue to strive to become more streamlined even in the face of opportunity, instead of ramping up production through the increase of inputs that could lead to a short term (or long term if it was a bad opportunity) loss, but be a boon in the long term.
  
  Also, "companies" as we know it as humans don't really exist for Gibbons Prime. The Guild and Clan systems dominate the economic landscape and individual families have family run businesses.
  
  But you are absolutely correct that one goal of my system was to create one that wasn't nearly so boom and bust based as human capitalism but more streamlined and gradual.
  
  > Since labor costs are the easiest to control I feel like it could be hard for Joe Gibbons Prime to find a job.
  
  Naw. This is where the steady population growth (rather than 'baby booms'), pair bonding culture, desire for personal living space and the Guild and Clan systems come in. Also, the fact that a lot of deep space work is dangerous. There are a number of low Tribe traditionalists that don't participate in the guild system but they are still capable of living off the land so don't need a "job".
  
  > Maybe I'm placing more emphasis on the avoiding losses part than you intend, though
  
  Hmm. Let me try to formulate that a little different. How about:
  
  
• Gibbons are more risk averse than humans when it comes to monetary losses, far less risk seeking than human when it comes to monetary gains but far more risk taking when it comes to prestige gains?
  
  Admittedly there are lot of details here I haven't worked out and I have to balance some things so I appreciate all the questions and thoughts :)

I don't mean to sound harsh, but just as an alternative view, I don't have much respect for the 'forefathers' of psychology, especially Psychoanalysts.. In fact, I think that they are responsible for leading psychology down the pseudo-scientific path that has been hard to shed for so many years (despite meticulous efforts by Skinner, James, etc.)

What someone called "unified theories" were not unified in the sense of all-encompassing, but were rather shoddy attempts to synthesize rote observations and philosophical mumbo-jumbo. Other sciences were way more advanced than psychology because they were inventing new technologies and methods (Cajal, Darwin, Mendel, to name a few) several years before Freud and Co. came along. Therefore, I don't think they deserve any sympathy. Rather, they were willfully ignorant.

As for OP's question, I think as broad areas of research, there are TONNES of good books to read in case you are (rightfully) moving forward from the dark ages of psychology. For example, Cognition is quite a fantastic coverage of brilliant scientific research in psychology, so is Psychological Science. There is also Choices, Values, Frames which is a bit more applied, and How the Mind Works, which may be a bit more speculative, but fascinating.