4 ms·

The existence of human irrationality is not unknown to economists. Behavioral economics, which concerns itself with the effects of this phenomenon on economic

The existence of human irrationality is not unknown to economists. Behavioral economics, which concerns itself with the effects of this phenomenon on economic decision-making, is one of the major branches of the subject studied today.

pessimizer 6y ago
Yet it still gets grouped in as "heterodox."
- huitzitziltzin 6y ago
  No. Behavioral economics is absolutely not considered heterodox. Mainstream departments (Chicago, mit) all have behavioral people. They don’t have heterodox people (eg marxists, Austrians, or MMT). Nor should they. CS departments won’t hire people who (for example) believe computers work via magic. Dollars and tenure lines are scarce and can’t be wasted on BS. There is a lot more diversity of thought in economics departments than commenters here know, but there are limits, as there are in every field.
  - gmtx725 6y ago
    my main problem with economics is it makes a philosophical error in that it assumes people and economic agents are inert objects to be studied as you would chemicals or atoms, without the capacity to react and respond to economic "laws" thereby changing them. Reflexivity is a thing.
    - huitzitziltzin 6y ago
      > it makes a philosophical error in that it assumes people and economic agents are inert objects to be studied as you would chemicals or atoms, without the capacity to react and respond to economic "laws" thereby changing them. This is literally the foundation of macroeconomics AFTER Keynes. This is (one of several) reasons why Keynesianism was rejected. Every single macroeconomist in every mainstream department in the country (and everyone in a central bank anywhere) would agree with exactly what you said AND say that it is precisely that fact which makes macroeconomics really hard. This is why, for example, even the bare-bones simplest macroeconomic model you learn in your first year graduate macro class must include some notion of the agents' expectations. It would be an error if we didn't do that. But fortunately, it's been at least 50 years since we started thinking about exactly that problem.
  - rrrrrrrrrrrryan 6y ago
    Oh, come now - comparing Marxists to people who "believe computers work via magic" is a little harsh. Econ departments don't have Marxists for the same reason philosophy departments don't have Buddhist scholars: it's just not where they belong. The Buddhists belong in religious studies, and the Marxists belong in the political science department.

pessimizer 6y ago

Yet it still gets grouped in as "heterodox."

huitzitziltzin 6y ago
No. Behavioral economics is absolutely not considered heterodox. Mainstream departments (Chicago, mit) all have behavioral people. They don’t have heterodox people (eg marxists, Austrians, or MMT). Nor should they. CS departments won’t hire people who (for example) believe computers work via magic. Dollars and tenure lines are scarce and can’t be wasted on BS. There is a lot more diversity of thought in economics departments than commenters here know, but there are limits, as there are in every field.
- gmtx725 6y ago
  my main problem with economics is it makes a philosophical error in that it assumes people and economic agents are inert objects to be studied as you would chemicals or atoms, without the capacity to react and respond to economic "laws" thereby changing them. Reflexivity is a thing.
  - huitzitziltzin 6y ago
    > it makes a philosophical error in that it assumes people and economic agents are inert objects to be studied as you would chemicals or atoms, without the capacity to react and respond to economic "laws" thereby changing them. This is literally the foundation of macroeconomics AFTER Keynes. This is (one of several) reasons why Keynesianism was rejected. Every single macroeconomist in every mainstream department in the country (and everyone in a central bank anywhere) would agree with exactly what you said AND say that it is precisely that fact which makes macroeconomics really hard. This is why, for example, even the bare-bones simplest macroeconomic model you learn in your first year graduate macro class must include some notion of the agents' expectations. It would be an error if we didn't do that. But fortunately, it's been at least 50 years since we started thinking about exactly that problem.
- rrrrrrrrrrrryan 6y ago
  Oh, come now - comparing Marxists to people who "believe computers work via magic" is a little harsh. Econ departments don't have Marxists for the same reason philosophy departments don't have Buddhist scholars: it's just not where they belong. The Buddhists belong in religious studies, and the Marxists belong in the political science department.