Perfect complements satisfy a related assumption of monotonicity (more of everything is better) but neither local nonsatiation (either more or less of anything is better) or strong monotonicity (more of anything is better). Note that in the common example of left shoe/right shoe, goods are not continuous (infinitely divisible), thus local nonsatiation may not even apply (a change can't be an arbitrary constant but discrete).
its something to do with a non satiation assumption. ie if all the bundles on the indifference curve are "goods" (actively wanted products) then the indifference curve slopes downward from L to R. if there is a "good" and a "bad" on the curve then it will be positively sloped. (upward from L to R)
The concept of non-satiation in economics suggests that individuals always seek to increase their satisfaction by consuming more goods and services. This influences consumer behavior by driving people to constantly desire more and different products, leading to higher levels of consumption and potentially impacting market demand and pricing.
That’s not a fact, it’s a fantasy. There are obvious limits to the amount of food, shoes, CDs etc than people can want.
its something to do with a non satiation assumption. ie if all the bundles on the indifference curve are "goods" (actively wanted products) then the indifference curve slopes downward from L to R. if there is a "good" and a "bad" on the curve then it will be positively sloped. (upward from L to R)
Indifference curves represent combinations of two goods that provide the same level of utility to a consumer. If an indifference curve were to touch the x-axis or y-axis, it would imply that the consumer is indifferent to having zero quantity of one good, which contradicts the assumption of non-satiation—the idea that more of a good always provides greater utility. As such, consumers derive some level of satisfaction from both goods, preventing the curve from touching either axis.
No, it's actually the opposite. Satiation is defined as "to satisfy (an appetite or desire) fully" by the free online dictionary.
No, the opposite.
satiety = when you've eaten enough and don't feel hungry anymore satiation = when the feeling of hunger is gone and you feel a strong feeling of satisfaction
Satiation refers to how a reinforcer loses its effectiveness. For example, if someone is receiving chocolate as reinforcement, it is likely that after a time they will tire of it and no longer find it desirable. Satiation will occur if a reinforcer is given at too high a frequency, intensity or duration. Satiation tends to be linear - that is, a graph of the reinforcing effect of a stimulus against the amount of the stimulus will be a straight line falling off from left to right. There will be be a quantity of the stimulus greater than which it will start to function as a punisher. When satiation begins, the rate at which the desired behavior is displayed tapers off until it halts. This is very common with primary (or unconditioned) reinforcers such as food. Secondary (or conditioned) reinforcement such as activities, social opportunities, and learning activities tend to be more immune to satiation. General reinforcers such as money or praise - that is, secondary reinforcers that are associated with more than one primary reinforcer - are also resistant to satiation.
satiation, gratification
Satiation means a feeling of fullness, whether that be with an emotion or food. It is also the idea of relieving as in the sentence "It satiated her hunger." Satisfaction is more of being content with something. As if something were good enough to fulfill your want. Normally, satisfaction is used with an emotion and satiation with hunger, but the two are really interchangeable.
"Semantic Satiation"
Leptin, Cholecystokinin and Serotonin create the feeling of satiety. Any others do not.
Satiation is being physically full and unable to eat anymore food.
Heathrow