The Somatic Marker Hypotheses, and What the Iowa Gambling Task Does and Does not Show
Department of Sociology and Philosophy, University of Exeter, Amory Building, Rennes Drive, Exeter EX4 4RJ, UK
 |
Abstract |
|---|
Damasio's somatic marker hypothesis (SMH) is a prominent neuroscientific hypothesis about the mechanisms implementing decision-making. This paper argues that, since its inception, the SMH has not been clearly formulated. It is possible to identify at least two different hypotheses, which make different predictions: SMH-G, which claims that somatic states generally implement preferences and are needed to make a decision; and SMH-S, which specifically claims that somatic states assist decision-making by anticipating the long-term outcomes of available options. This paper also argues that neither hypothesis is adequately supported empirically; the task originally proposed to test SMH is not a good test for SMH-S, and its results do not support SMH-G either. In addition, it is not clear how SMH-G could be empirically invalidated, given its general formulation. Suggestions are made that could help provide evidence for SMH-S, and make SMH-G more specific.
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Two Hypotheses: Somatic Markers as Embodied Preferences, and as a Source of Farsightedness
- 3 Lack of Evidence for Somatic Farsightedness
- 4 Does Making Decisions Require Somatic Markers, and can it be Shown in the Laboratory?
- 5 Conclusion
- 2 Two Hypotheses: Somatic Markers as Embodied Preferences, and as a Source of Farsightedness