« Claims I dare not make at home | Main | Status competition, rural Indian style »
Why do libertarians love science fiction?
The ever-so-loyal Jessica Pickett asks:
A few of your posts - taken together with other econobloggers - would seem to suggest a correlation between being a libertarian economist and being a die-hard sci-fi/fantasy geek. Does your experience support this anecdotal observation, and if so, can you elaborate on the possible causation?
I see the connection, and I can think of a few possible answers:
1. The rude: Because both groups live in a fantasy world. But even if that is true, many other ideologues live in a fantasy world but fail to have the same attachment to science fiction.
2. The trivial: Both loves are correlated with "young upper middle class nerdy white male," but otherwise the connection has no significance.
3. The proud: Libertarian economists like to imagine how things otherwise might be. This spills over into a love for science fiction.
4. The Freudian: Libertarians feel an infantile need to rearrange the pieces of the moral universe, due to thwarted childhood desires and ongoing sexual frustrations.
5. The sociological: Character development is notoriously weak in science fiction and libertarians are prone to see societies in terms of abstract laws rather than very definite individual human beings.
5. Denial or minimization of the fact: I doubt if the connection holds outside the USA. Plus bloggers are a very, um... "select" sample. Is Milton Friedman out there reading The King of Elfland's Daughter? Much recommended, by the way.
My question: If you discover that your personality can be explained by a smaller rather than a larger number of dimensions, should this make you happy or sad? More or less trusting of your intuitions?
Posted by Tyler Cowen on August 22, 2006 at 06:41 AM in Political Science | Permalink
Comments
The Crooked Timber writers are also chided for their attachment to science fiction. Early members of the blogosphere were probably more likely to be SF readers.
Posted by: Bill Gardner at Aug 22, 2006 7:17:10 AM
Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged is a science fiction novel of sorts. So, in a way, is The Fountainhead, as even that touches on possible architectural innovation. It could be argued that the juxtaposition of the forward-lookingness of these novels, and their political content, is not a mere coincidence. After all, one of Ayn Rand's main points is that heroes are great creators, and to fictionalize great creation either you must make your fiction be about past inventors, or else think up some new inventions for your fictional characters to produce.
Anyway, consider the genres. Which of the following is most likely to contain elements of relevance to libertarianism: supernatural horror, romance, detective fiction, spy novels, erotica?
In most of these the background is not part of the focus. Supernatural horror is typically about something that happens to a small number of people in relative isolation from others. Romance is about two or a small number of individuals. Detective fiction is about a crime and the detection of the criminal. Spy novels are about one or a small number of individuals trying to survive and complete a fairly narrow task (discover a spy, be a spy, get into and out of enemy territory, etc.). Erotica is about sex. None of these really has much room for libertarian themes - though erotica of course has room for libertine themes. Science fiction does.
Posted by: Constant at Aug 22, 2006 7:22:46 AM
I actually doubt there is much of a correlation, but to the extent there is, #2 and 3 make the most sense, esp. #3. 1, 4, and 5 are silly.
Posted by: stephan Kinsella at Aug 22, 2006 7:52:02 AM
I like 5. Several science-fiction writers have remarked on the fact that the writers and fans believe, or would like to believe, that human behavior is or could be ruled by reason instead or emotion. That is also a necessary premise for most libertarians.
Does that mean I think Rational Choice Theorey in economics is Science Fiction? Duh.
Posted by: bob mcmanus at Aug 22, 2006 8:03:09 AM
Thanks for posting my question! I'm a little surprised, though, that you didn't include what I thought was perhaps too obvious of an answer: namely, that growing up on Star Wars engendered an early suspicion of big government and planted a seed of libertarianism that only need a good dose of econ 101 to take root.
Not to mention that being outside of the middle-school mainstream (aka dorks) probably resulted in some clashes with "authority" (aka bullies) and could naturally lead to a healthy skepticism of the ruling class on the political playground as well...
Posted by: Jessica at Aug 22, 2006 8:16:01 AM
An extension of 5 as selection bias: it is probably more remarkable to the casual observer when an economist likes SF than when a (say) physicist is a fan.
Is there a nurture arguement? My father was a sputnik space-race geek (who explicitly acknowledges the government intervention in his education) and had me on Asimov by 10. I don't remember my first hit of Heinlein, but my first dealer was definitely an authority figure...
Posted by: tsoodonym at Aug 22, 2006 8:34:51 AM
Physicist also love science fiction, probably for the same reasons.
Part of 5 "libertarians are prone to see societies in terms of abstract laws rather than very definite individual human beings". Much of science fiction is based on the implications of such an abstraction. The fact that character development is notoriously weak in science fiction is not a plus, but is not that important.
Posted by: joan at Aug 22, 2006 8:38:00 AM
You may well have put the cart before the horse. I suspect SF readers are more susceptible to libertarian ideology. There probably aren't too many who have come to SF after libertarianism.
Posted by: Mike Huben at Aug 22, 2006 9:03:46 AM
Both groups are connected with upper middle class white males? Hmmm... Robert Nozick and David Schmidtz grew up poor. (So did I, relative to my peers.) I thought left liberalism was the ideology of upper middle class kids.
Posted by: Jason at Aug 22, 2006 9:24:25 AM
I think that 5 (sociological) has some element of truth. Consider Asimov's Foundation series, IMO & widely considered one of the greatest sets of SF writing ever produced. What is it ultimately about? The evolution of a civilization entirely governed by abstract laws. Who is the ultimate protagonist? A quantitative social scientist who, through careful planning and manipulation, adverts a dark age. Seems like a natural fit for economists.
Posted by: Alex at Aug 22, 2006 9:28:53 AM
I've got it the answer (akin to that Duke professor saying that most academics are leftist because they're smart):
Science fiction appeals to smart people who aren't trying to show off what good people they are. Libertarians are smart people who aren't trying to show off how good they are.
Posted by: Jason at Aug 22, 2006 9:32:02 AM
I have thought about this for a while too. I think the correlation between libertarianism and sci-fi exist in Sweden too. My favourite example is Johan Norberg, libertarian, trekkie and - this is my other observation - electronic music. Almost every libertarian I've met like it. Has anyone else made the same observation?
Posted by: Johan Folin at Aug 22, 2006 9:34:59 AM
I think it's libertarianism is very attractive to geeks and geeks read science fiction. Geeks are usually smart and hardworking people whose priviledge is to a large extent invisible. They are usually products of middle class families who prize education and the beneficiaries of decent public schooling ( but which they see as sub-par because they're the smart kids who are being held back by the average pace). Geeks are consistently told that their successes are the products of the moral virtues of intelligence and hard work.
They don't see the how they have been placed in the position where intelligence and hard work can benefit themselves as the result of priviledge. They are not usually the products of wealthy families, so they see themselves as not starting with massive advantages. This is a perfect recipe for believing the myths of libertaranism. They are self-made men who succeeded because they were better than others in intelligence, imagination, persistence, and work ethic and government is tool for lesser beings to hold them back.
Posted by: jon at Aug 22, 2006 9:49:23 AM
I favor 2 and the second 5 (6?).
Although 5-1 (aka abstract law approach) might explain some of the variation within econ-bloggers, I wouldn't expand it to libertarianism and libertarians in general. As I see it, libertarianism and methodical individualism are closely connected concepts, whereas collectivism in all its forms is far more prone to forget the individual - even though the most common excuse for collectivist policies are some specific (group of) individuals. In short - there's no need for libertarians to support the myth created by lefties that a libertarian approach is more "emotionally restrained" than any other political/sociological approach.
TC's question:
Who is to tell whether one given set of preferences is any better than any other set of preferences other than the individual itself? No objective answer can be given to this question. You know this, but I just wanted to spell this point out in order to stop a heated discussion about the "best set of preferences" before it even started.
It is rather difficult for me to appreciate in any larger extent the existence of a perception bias as the one you seem to want to discuss in the first place: How would you learn that your preferences _in reality_ are formed in a different way than the one you used to think? As I see it, if you think a given set of variables determine your preferences, then they ARE in fact the variables that determine the structure of your preferences. A new perception of which variables influence your decisions would just be analog to a change in preferences, nothing else. And as mentioned above, whether such a change is good or bad depends on the individual.
But of course, IMHO it would be rather strange if an individual would be disappointed about a shift in his own preferences, would it not? I mean, he could just shift back again if he wanted to. He does have a free will, does he not?
Posted by: US at Aug 22, 2006 10:08:51 AM
Just thought I'd mention that I'm not arguing 4. Until this week, I hadn't given that much thought to libertarians. And I can't really call anyone else sexually frustrated.
Posted by: Megan at Aug 22, 2006 10:20:21 AM
Your answer will likely depend on whether you think libertarianism is a lot of hooey. For example, your answer is unlikely to be, "this is a perfect recipe for believing the myths of libertaranism," if you're a libertarian.
Posted by: Constant at Aug 22, 2006 10:52:05 AM
What I like about libertarianism is precisely what I DON'T LIKE about sci-fi.
Libertarianism WORKS: free-market economies really do grow more quickly and produce more wealth. Libertarianism, to me, is the most empirical, the least FANTASTIC, of political positions.
Sci-fi, which is all about fantasy, is the opposite.
So, quite frankly, I fear that you libertarians who like Sci-Fi are not libertarianism's best ambassadors. You'll be prone to make abstract philosophical arguments (who cares?) rather than just note that libertariasm WORKS.
Posted by: Richard at Aug 22, 2006 11:09:15 AM
I've tried several sci-fi books recently, basically because so many libertarian bloggers recommend them.
I didn't like them though.
Posted by: Bishop Hill at Aug 22, 2006 11:29:36 AM
I read a lot of Robert Heinlein when I was young, and perhaps it converted me to libertarianism.
Posted by: Half Sigma at Aug 22, 2006 11:45:21 AM
"libertariasm WORKS"---It has never even been tried.
Posted by: joan at Aug 22, 2006 12:22:03 PM
While Milton Friedman probably does not read _The King of Elfland's Daughter_
or much other SF or fantasy (although I do not know that, maybe he does), I
would lay odds that his son, David does, arguably a harder line libertarian
than his dad.
A non-trivial amount of SF has taken the form of anti-utopia novels, some
very classic and read outside the SF world, with Orwell's _1984_ and Huxley's
_Brave New World_ being arguably the archetypes.
Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Aug 22, 2006 1:07:30 PM
Not just libertarian-ish economist-bloggers are SF fans. Consider Brad DeLong, who posts on SF topics from time to time and is hardly a libertarian.
I'll go with the SF fans -> technophiles -> bloggers causality chain myself.
Posted by: DaveL at Aug 22, 2006 1:33:16 PM
First, a distinction must be made between "hard" science fiction and fantasy. While there's a lot of middle ground between those two poles, it's my experience that people who prefer fantasy to hard SF are much less likely to be libertarians. Hard SF fans are people who like dealing with the world as it really is; who understand that even when there is a technological solution, it may not be economic; and who believe that progress is good, but that human nature is fairly fixed.
Science fiction fans are also less likely to believe that their tribal customs are laws of nature, and thus are more willing to entertain the possibility that social and political arrangements could be radically different than they are now. This might also explain the small, but influential, number of Communists in SF, and the large number of science-fiction fans in the polyamorous community.
Posted by: Anthony at Aug 22, 2006 1:33:29 PM
Do Libertarians dream of Electric Sheep?
I'm trying to guess which could be the version of the Voigt-Kampf more suitable to detect a Libertarian ...
Posted by: Ctrl_F9 at Aug 22, 2006 1:51:59 PM
6. The neurological.
Libertarians/SF fans share disproportionate characteristics of high functioning autism (asperger's syndrome).
Posted by: Kathleen Fasanella at Aug 22, 2006 1:54:40 PM
