ABSTRACT
Throughout its history, finance theory has made certain simplifying assumptions regarding human behavior and concerned itself with whether the implications of these assumptions were true and not with whether the assumptions themselves were. Recently, however, more interest has been shown in experimental investigation of these assumptions, and the resultant behavioral finance has been presented as a significant departure from the current research paradigm. Recent research in cognitive science, however, is finding that the mind can and does work differently than traditional finance assumes, and the differences between the behavioral assumptions of traditional finance and the supposedly more realistic ones of today’s behavioral finance are at best superficial. Knowledge and knowing are likely to be profoundly different from the forms in which we have incorporated them in our extant models, both traditional and behavioral, and they differ in ways similar to those which, for example, have differentiated corporations from corporate images in marketing. To truly understand what is going on we must go beyond behavioral finance to address these differences.
