3 ms·

I think your criticism of Graeber is somewhat fair. And it's a fair point that incorrect popular/lay theories don't mean experts don't know how things actually

by md_ 5y ago

I think your criticism of Graeber is somewhat fair. And it's a fair point that incorrect popular/lay theories don't mean experts don't know how things actually work. That said, I do think Graeber is right to emphasize the role of culture and belief--anthropological ideas--as an antidote to overly quantitative/mechanistic models. I'm not an economist, but it does seem like behavioral economics was pretty revolutionary in advancing the idea that humans are not just rational utility maximizers, despite Keynes using the term "animal spirits" nearly 100 years ago. Again, speaking as a layperson, it's frankly a bit weird to me how distant economics, anthropology, and psychology seem to be from each other.

LudwigNagasena 5y ago
> I do think Graeber is right to emphasize the role of culture and belief--anthropological ideas--as an antidote to overly quantitative/mechanistic models This is a false and misguided dichotomy. Nothing prevents you from taking culture and beliefs into account when you create a model.
- md_ 5y ago
  Can you give examples of this done well? Genuinely curious, as I’ve not seen it.
  - LudwigNagasena 5y ago
    Many New Keynesian models posit price and wage stickiness. Labor search models usually have a notion of bargaining power.
- um-ha-puh-uh 5y ago
  I do ^^ "Just-so stories that support their preferred ideas" + "so nothing prevents you from taking culture and beliefs into account when you create a model." A litte OT but,... years ago i read a HN-Topic, about um 'What to change if we could'. I read some postings, where people seem realy angry with abuse, misuse and malpractice, done by people who may or even may not wanted to be remembered as: 'This is our work, we do this cos we are in empowered to do so' (won't explain it more, back to more context:) My conclusion by that time was, questioning: 'Is privatizing favourable?' Cos there is confusing data, complex situations and a need for easy hypotheses...(and solutions maybe) The assumption that time was, that the gov spend a (huge) budged to pacify many more conflicting 'partys' than a private entity would like to do/or will, cos generating income through excessive spending (may 'only work when'/'need expotential growth') means nothing more than the need to reinvest profits to bigup the businesses. (sry, non native english-speaker) And now really OT, I remember some of the friends around Putin are building contractors, and the TV-shows about the war in Ukraine or Syria before um... [turns-around-in-a-circle] (-;
unmole 5y ago
Behavioral economics, the bastard child of psychology, is built on an edifice of fashionable nonsense. The field is rife with grand generalizations based on dubious conclusions from small under-powered behavioral experiments. Just look at what a disaster the much hyped priming studies turned out to be. I would not count on behavioral economics to advance a more accurate understanding of the human condition.
- allmodelsRwrong 5y ago
  I know very little about economics but I am compelled to point out the irony in your comment. How I understood your comment: "This whole field, consisting up of many people trying to do understand things, is just a bunch of nonsense generalizations."
  - unmole 5y ago
    Touché.
- disgruntledphd2 5y ago
  > Behavioral economics, the bastard child of psychology, is built on an edifice of fashionable nonsense. This is a relatively fair take. That being said, at least it's damaged and dethroned the equally misguided frictionless spheres of homo economicus.
  - md_ 5y ago
    Yes, this was my point: that prior, economists had silly ideas about humans which make no sense.
  - unmole 5y ago
    Frictionless spheres are fine in Physics 101 and Homo economicus is fine in Economics 101. Like all models, economic models too are wrong but some of them are useful. The bulk of economics after 101 is about how the models break. The idea that humans are not perfectly rational self-interested actors has been part of mainstream economics at least since Keynes.

by md_ 5y ago

LudwigNagasena 5y ago

> I do think Graeber is right to emphasize the role of culture and belief--anthropological ideas--as an antidote to overly quantitative/mechanistic models This is a false and misguided dichotomy. Nothing prevents you from taking culture and beliefs into account when you create a model.

md_ 5y ago
Can you give examples of this done well? Genuinely curious, as I’ve not seen it.
- LudwigNagasena 5y ago
  Many New Keynesian models posit price and wage stickiness. Labor search models usually have a notion of bargaining power.
um-ha-puh-uh 5y ago
I do ^^ "Just-so stories that support their preferred ideas" + "so nothing prevents you from taking culture and beliefs into account when you create a model." A litte OT but,... years ago i read a HN-Topic, about um 'What to change if we could'. I read some postings, where people seem realy angry with abuse, misuse and malpractice, done by people who may or even may not wanted to be remembered as: 'This is our work, we do this cos we are in empowered to do so' (won't explain it more, back to more context:) My conclusion by that time was, questioning: 'Is privatizing favourable?' Cos there is confusing data, complex situations and a need for easy hypotheses...(and solutions maybe) The assumption that time was, that the gov spend a (huge) budged to pacify many more conflicting 'partys' than a private entity would like to do/or will, cos generating income through excessive spending (may 'only work when'/'need expotential growth') means nothing more than the need to reinvest profits to bigup the businesses. (sry, non native english-speaker) And now really OT, I remember some of the friends around Putin are building contractors, and the TV-shows about the war in Ukraine or Syria before um... [turns-around-in-a-circle] (-;

unmole 5y ago

Behavioral economics, the bastard child of psychology, is built on an edifice of fashionable nonsense. The field is rife with grand generalizations based on dubious conclusions from small under-powered behavioral experiments. Just look at what a disaster the much hyped priming studies turned out to be. I would not count on behavioral economics to advance a more accurate understanding of the human condition.

allmodelsRwrong 5y ago
I know very little about economics but I am compelled to point out the irony in your comment. How I understood your comment: "This whole field, consisting up of many people trying to do understand things, is just a bunch of nonsense generalizations."
- unmole 5y ago
  Touché.
disgruntledphd2 5y ago
> Behavioral economics, the bastard child of psychology, is built on an edifice of fashionable nonsense. This is a relatively fair take. That being said, at least it's damaged and dethroned the equally misguided frictionless spheres of homo economicus.
- md_ 5y ago
  Yes, this was my point: that prior, economists had silly ideas about humans which make no sense.
- unmole 5y ago
  Frictionless spheres are fine in Physics 101 and Homo economicus is fine in Economics 101. Like all models, economic models too are wrong but some of them are useful. The bulk of economics after 101 is about how the models break. The idea that humans are not perfectly rational self-interested actors has been part of mainstream economics at least since Keynes.