Classical Economics: Dismal Science
At the very dawn of time...
Let me begin again.
I was not so long ago a first-year pre-university student, not yet seventeen, awkward in the head. I thought economics sounded really interesting. And then I was thrown into a world in which people were rationalised without their consent.
Essentially, I was taught three things: 1) All humans are greedy and grasping. 2) It is rational to be so, and otherwise irrational people will lose this aspect of rationality last. 3) If you aren't so, you are still a rational-utility money maximizer.
What bondage. What terror. What amorality and thralldom. I got out of there really quickly, swapped physics in for economics (well, that wasn't very rational, was it, say some of you), and rejected classical economics forever.
It's interesting, though, to see how functional MRI looks at the brain and confirms my suspicions about classical economics being an overly simplistic model of the world. It's a lot like classical physics; largely true under local conditions but subject to a lot of intricate fine-tuning when applied over larger quantities and a wider range of applications. Scientific American's article this month, The Prospects forHomo Economicus, is a very interesting read, even though it might not be the last word on the matter.
Perhaps more interesting however is another article also found in this month's issue: Steve Mirsky's piece on the metascience of science, Dog Bites Dog Story, differentiates between historical and observational sciences on one hand, and experimental sciences on the other. It's a useful distinction to those of us who, at times, might be unsure as to which paradigm we're employing in our understanding of the world, and whether it is being employed correctly.
=====
On a lighter note, people who know me think that this cartoon reminds them of me. Heh. Well, people?
Let me begin again.
I was not so long ago a first-year pre-university student, not yet seventeen, awkward in the head. I thought economics sounded really interesting. And then I was thrown into a world in which people were rationalised without their consent.
Essentially, I was taught three things: 1) All humans are greedy and grasping. 2) It is rational to be so, and otherwise irrational people will lose this aspect of rationality last. 3) If you aren't so, you are still a rational-utility money maximizer.
What bondage. What terror. What amorality and thralldom. I got out of there really quickly, swapped physics in for economics (well, that wasn't very rational, was it, say some of you), and rejected classical economics forever.
It's interesting, though, to see how functional MRI looks at the brain and confirms my suspicions about classical economics being an overly simplistic model of the world. It's a lot like classical physics; largely true under local conditions but subject to a lot of intricate fine-tuning when applied over larger quantities and a wider range of applications. Scientific American's article this month, The Prospects forHomo Economicus, is a very interesting read, even though it might not be the last word on the matter.
Perhaps more interesting however is another article also found in this month's issue: Steve Mirsky's piece on the metascience of science, Dog Bites Dog Story, differentiates between historical and observational sciences on one hand, and experimental sciences on the other. It's a useful distinction to those of us who, at times, might be unsure as to which paradigm we're employing in our understanding of the world, and whether it is being employed correctly.
=====
On a lighter note, people who know me think that this cartoon reminds them of me. Heh. Well, people?
Labels: Economics, Social Sciences
etched with acid at 2:58:00 pm
1 Comments:
Furthering on, do we, in ourselves recognise the Homo Economicus Character? Do we see self-interest as natural and thus everything else falls in place naturally. Even going back to the famous Economist (who was actually a moral Philosopher) Adam Smith, he did not note anything about self-interest. Neither did others like Karl Polanyi, Thorstein Veblen. Even Keyenes, I believe, was wary of that.
Ok, that's what you get after being taught much about political economy in your first year. Some parts may be wrong. But great entry sir.
Post a Comment
<< Home