5 ms·

> the 'PhD Economist' credential is a signal that you might be the kind of person who can escape groupthink I am open to this concept but I don't think I'm bei

by scandox 10y ago

> the 'PhD Economist' credential is a signal that you might be the kind of person who can escape groupthink I am open to this concept but I don't think I'm being cynical when I say that most people would surely think the opposite when they hear the expression PhD Economist.

aaron695 10y ago
> I am open to this concept but I don't think I'm being cynical when I say that most people would surely think the opposite when they hear the expression PhD Economist. Classic groupthink :)
pjc50 10y ago
Don't worry, economics has multiple schools of groupthink.
- crdoconnor 10y ago
  Only one particular form of it is usually welcome at policymaking meetings though.
xapata 10y ago
> most people would surely think An example of groupthink? If you haven't studied economics in graduate school, you may not be aware that the field is very different than what is taught in traditional undergraduate economics classes. There are different branches, of course, but the field emphasizes modeling and acceptance of initially-unintuitive results based on careful analysis of system dynamics. Many people can think through the second-order effects (and beyond) of some policy change. Economists are just one group that has been trained to do so.
- gone35 10y ago
  An example of groupthink? Freshwater macro, for one.
  - xapata 10y ago
    Every discipline has its cliques. And I meant "an example" in the sense that justifying a thought on the basis that "most people think" is an example of groupthink.
    - gone35 10y ago
      If you haven't studied economics in graduate school, you may not be aware of the extent to which freshwater-like fundamentalism is embedded in the core ansätze of the discipline.
      - xapata 10y ago
        Nice word choice. You even got the accent character in there. I found freshwater thinking to be refreshingly criticized in my department. I suppose we were a little closer to the coast than the lakes.
- AllegedWisdom 10y ago
  Excellent comment. Many people associate 'economist' with politicized talking heads arguing about ideological issues, but that is a tiny fraction of the profession, just like the most politicized tech CEOs are the tiny fraction of the tech community that gets the most outside attention.
  - maxxxxx 10y ago
    Good point. I equate economists generally with ideologues on TV but that's probably as well as founded as thinking software developers are out of shape nerds in Hawaii shirts.
- cowardlydragon 10y ago
  Economics is a highly politicized "science" however. Desperate for their pet views self-validating their world dominance, endowed chairs, think tanks, consulting, and special access to finance deals fundamentally skew the practice of economics at an academic level, essentially bribing them into line with oligarchical capitalism / "Reaganomics". Economists routinely are placed in politically powerful positions, invariably due in large part to their professed views on economics being in line with a dominant political (aka rich cabal or pro-industry) view of economics. If economics was truly up to snuff, it would be at the forefront of guiding policy to resolve the existential threat our global scale environmental disruption poses to us as a species, which is a direct result of the imperfect economic systems of the world. But the fundamental problems in economics remain: - if you can't measure it, it doesn't really exist to economics, especially to academics - if it isn't going to run out in three months or kill you in three months, it doesn't matter and is ignored by economic study Of course those two points are slight exaggerations, but if one views the long course of economic study, they become pretty apparent.
  - true_religion 10y ago
    > If economics was truly up to snuff, it would be at the forefront of guiding policy to resolve the existential threat our global scale environmental disruption poses to us as a species, which is a direct result of the imperfect economic systems of the world. Economics can predict 'disaster' but does not have anything to say about whether or not disaster should be avoided. To give an example closer to home, in W. Africa predominant economists believe (but do not publicly say) the AIDs crises is not a general threat to humanity. AIDs rates will increase until a peak point, then society will self-correct whether this is via enforced monogamy rituals, enhanced testing, stigmatisation of carriers, wide-spread STD protection, better medical care for carriers to prevent morality, or other methods is besides the point. What method you choose to promote is a political question, not an economic one. Just because something increases X in circumstance A, does not bear into question if circumstance A is really something you want even if X is "lower mortality rates". Economists in international organisations learn this truth, and have to be extremely careful not to substitute their own personal bias, or the preferences of their society for that of their client. For a non-morbid example, working in the US an economists would be tasks to report on how to best expand the existing highway system. Taking a step back, and saying "we should all use bullet trains and live in dense cities", isn't going to be appreciated as the 'American Dream' is predicated on suburban living.
zwischenzug 10y ago
Indeed; PhD _anything_ is a signal that you _might_ be the kind of person who can escape groupthink. Or being a successful entrepreneur, lawyer, hermit, anything really. That line stood out for me too. As a 'trained' historian we were always looking down on the economists for their 'groupthink' tendencies. And on most fellow historians, and pretty much everyone in history. It's a cheap shot, but armies of trained economists failed to spot (or do anything useful about) the credit bubble, the consequences of which we are still failing to deal with.
- true_religion 10y ago
  The credit bubble was difficult to spot because it (like all bubbles) emerged fairly rapidly, and involved large amounts of lying and corruption. Banks failed to inform anyone that they had essentially broken their Chinese wall between the investing & lending divisions. They also failed to inform anyone that they were bundling good credit and bad credit structures, then rubber stamping the whole thing as AAA credit. Would these issues have been found out eventually? Sure, but: - The US markets are large and filled with sophisticated people who know just how to hide things. Governments/private corps in emerging economies try the same thing, but they're stymied by a lack of no how on how to fudge data - Even in the case of poor fudging, you can't find all of it instantaneously and can't comment prematurely
  - zwischenzug 10y ago
    It was obvious to me in about 2002 in the UK when I started to see people being forwarded money I knew they could never pay back, for cars and houses.
    - princeb 10y ago
      you would have spent 6 years believing something was going to happen before anything happened, that's 6 years out of the 8 years in between the two major crashes this millenium.
      - 10y ago

by scandox 10y ago

aaron695 10y ago

> I am open to this concept but I don't think I'm being cynical when I say that most people would surely think the opposite when they hear the expression PhD Economist. Classic groupthink :)

pjc50 10y ago

Don't worry, economics has multiple schools of groupthink.

crdoconnor 10y ago
Only one particular form of it is usually welcome at policymaking meetings though.

xapata 10y ago

> most people would surely think An example of groupthink? If you haven't studied economics in graduate school, you may not be aware that the field is very different than what is taught in traditional undergraduate economics classes. There are different branches, of course, but the field emphasizes modeling and acceptance of initially-unintuitive results based on careful analysis of system dynamics. Many people can think through the second-order effects (and beyond) of some policy change. Economists are just one group that has been trained to do so.

gone35 10y ago
An example of groupthink? Freshwater macro, for one.
- xapata 10y ago
  Every discipline has its cliques. And I meant "an example" in the sense that justifying a thought on the basis that "most people think" is an example of groupthink.
  - gone35 10y ago
    If you haven't studied economics in graduate school, you may not be aware of the extent to which freshwater-like fundamentalism is embedded in the core ansätze of the discipline.
    - xapata 10y ago
      Nice word choice. You even got the accent character in there. I found freshwater thinking to be refreshingly criticized in my department. I suppose we were a little closer to the coast than the lakes.
AllegedWisdom 10y ago
Excellent comment. Many people associate 'economist' with politicized talking heads arguing about ideological issues, but that is a tiny fraction of the profession, just like the most politicized tech CEOs are the tiny fraction of the tech community that gets the most outside attention.
- maxxxxx 10y ago
  Good point. I equate economists generally with ideologues on TV but that's probably as well as founded as thinking software developers are out of shape nerds in Hawaii shirts.
cowardlydragon 10y ago
Economics is a highly politicized "science" however. Desperate for their pet views self-validating their world dominance, endowed chairs, think tanks, consulting, and special access to finance deals fundamentally skew the practice of economics at an academic level, essentially bribing them into line with oligarchical capitalism / "Reaganomics". Economists routinely are placed in politically powerful positions, invariably due in large part to their professed views on economics being in line with a dominant political (aka rich cabal or pro-industry) view of economics. If economics was truly up to snuff, it would be at the forefront of guiding policy to resolve the existential threat our global scale environmental disruption poses to us as a species, which is a direct result of the imperfect economic systems of the world. But the fundamental problems in economics remain: - if you can't measure it, it doesn't really exist to economics, especially to academics - if it isn't going to run out in three months or kill you in three months, it doesn't matter and is ignored by economic study Of course those two points are slight exaggerations, but if one views the long course of economic study, they become pretty apparent.
- true_religion 10y ago
  > If economics was truly up to snuff, it would be at the forefront of guiding policy to resolve the existential threat our global scale environmental disruption poses to us as a species, which is a direct result of the imperfect economic systems of the world. Economics can predict 'disaster' but does not have anything to say about whether or not disaster should be avoided. To give an example closer to home, in W. Africa predominant economists believe (but do not publicly say) the AIDs crises is not a general threat to humanity. AIDs rates will increase until a peak point, then society will self-correct whether this is via enforced monogamy rituals, enhanced testing, stigmatisation of carriers, wide-spread STD protection, better medical care for carriers to prevent morality, or other methods is besides the point. What method you choose to promote is a political question, not an economic one. Just because something increases X in circumstance A, does not bear into question if circumstance A is really something you want even if X is "lower mortality rates". Economists in international organisations learn this truth, and have to be extremely careful not to substitute their own personal bias, or the preferences of their society for that of their client. For a non-morbid example, working in the US an economists would be tasks to report on how to best expand the existing highway system. Taking a step back, and saying "we should all use bullet trains and live in dense cities", isn't going to be appreciated as the 'American Dream' is predicated on suburban living.

zwischenzug 10y ago

Indeed; PhD _anything_ is a signal that you _might_ be the kind of person who can escape groupthink. Or being a successful entrepreneur, lawyer, hermit, anything really. That line stood out for me too. As a 'trained' historian we were always looking down on the economists for their 'groupthink' tendencies. And on most fellow historians, and pretty much everyone in history. It's a cheap shot, but armies of trained economists failed to spot (or do anything useful about) the credit bubble, the consequences of which we are still failing to deal with.

true_religion 10y ago
The credit bubble was difficult to spot because it (like all bubbles) emerged fairly rapidly, and involved large amounts of lying and corruption. Banks failed to inform anyone that they had essentially broken their Chinese wall between the investing & lending divisions. They also failed to inform anyone that they were bundling good credit and bad credit structures, then rubber stamping the whole thing as AAA credit. Would these issues have been found out eventually? Sure, but: - The US markets are large and filled with sophisticated people who know just how to hide things. Governments/private corps in emerging economies try the same thing, but they're stymied by a lack of no how on how to fudge data - Even in the case of poor fudging, you can't find all of it instantaneously and can't comment prematurely
- zwischenzug 10y ago
  It was obvious to me in about 2002 in the UK when I started to see people being forwarded money I knew they could never pay back, for cars and houses.
  - princeb 10y ago
    you would have spent 6 years believing something was going to happen before anything happened, that's 6 years out of the 8 years in between the two major crashes this millenium.
    - 10y ago