« The Worst Idea I have Heard Today | Main | The culture that is Dutch »
Assorted links
2. Should you laugh at UFO research?
3. Is there excess conformity in economics?
4. A new theory of the genetic origins of homosexuality
Posted by Tyler Cowen on August 21, 2008 at 01:08 PM in Web/Tech | Permalink
Comments
"But after three decades of questioning whether the world can continue to support our consumption habits, Rees has had trouble convincing his colleagues in economics that their economic model needs an overhaul."
Gee, I wonder why.
Posted by: liberty at Aug 21, 2008 1:35:18 PM
Excess conformity? - very likely, though it's very easy to use this idea to explain away inconvenient scientific consensus, which seems to be what the adbusters article is doing. For example:
“The leading economists of the day feared that if workers understood Marxist theory, the working class would realize how badly they were being exploited,” he says. “Fearing this might lead to revolutionary fervor, economists sought to recast economic theory to neutralize the Marxist critique. They limited their neoclassical theory to looking at innocuous issues such as how prices change. They also sought to prove that everyone gets paid exactly in accordance with their net contribution to society, implying that workers aren’t exploited and that is no basis for workers to claim a fairer share of the pie.”
Good grief.
Posted by: Constant at Aug 21, 2008 1:36:14 PM
Excess conformity? - very likely, though it's very easy to use this idea to explain away inconvenient scientific consensus, which seems to be what the adbusters article is doing. For example:
“The leading economists of the day feared that if workers understood Marxist theory, the working class would realize how badly they were being exploited,” he says. “Fearing this might lead to revolutionary fervor, economists sought to recast economic theory to neutralize the Marxist critique. They limited their neoclassical theory to looking at innocuous issues such as how prices change. They also sought to prove that everyone gets paid exactly in accordance with their net contribution to society, implying that workers aren’t exploited and that is no basis for workers to claim a fairer share of the pie.”
Good grief.
Posted by: Constant at Aug 21, 2008 1:36:27 PM
I'd say you're probably likely to find a high level of conformity in any relevant grouping, though I don't know how you're defining "excess." You probably aren't likely to find a great diversity of opinions about free markets on Adbusters, or a great diversity of opinions about eating meat at a PETA rally.
Yes, economists do lean towards free markets, though not even close to unanimously. The great majority of biologists believe in evolution, too. Hell, most mechanics will probably tell you that the best way to make your car run is to put gas in the tank.
Posted by: d.cous. at Aug 21, 2008 1:52:35 PM
Has that genetic theory on homosexuality been reported on elsewhere in the past month or so? NPR, perhaps? It sounds really familiar.
Posted by: d.cous. at Aug 21, 2008 1:54:29 PM
good grief. the "book boyfriend" woman says tyler "understands that most women want diamonds and other stuff that guys think to be stoopid."
speak for yourself, hon.
men, choose your women carefully. some of us understand that diamonds really are "stoopid" (um, unless you're talking about something useful like a drill bit, in which case they're just fine).
kthx.
Posted by: curious at Aug 21, 2008 2:12:38 PM
What the heck is 'feminist economics', anyway?
Posted by: Sean at Aug 21, 2008 3:51:04 PM
Should you laugh at UFO research?
Ummm, yes, yes you should.
But not at BigFoot "research" and Bigfoot "researchers". And also not at Loch Ness monster "research". No, uh uh.
the "book boyfriend" woman says tyler "understands that most women want diamonds and other stuff that guys think to be stoopid."
Plus, is it really a secret that some women often like and want diamonds and other baubles, not useful things that many guys like and want (like drill bits)?
And not since junior high school have the women I've known had to refer to all their male friends as some kind of "boyfriend." Sheesh.
Posted by: at Aug 21, 2008 3:53:24 PM
That was a new theory like 6 months ago.
Posted by: oldhat at Aug 21, 2008 4:02:28 PM
Dr. Cowan, would you be interested in collecting a harem of book-girlfriends? I've been chided here re something called an Alexa rating, by a blogger for whose traffic you created a massive spike on that system with a mere link-free allusion to his ickiness. You are apparently possessed of mysterious might. Let me show you how, um, wildly obnoxious I can be. I'm shameless, I'll even moralize if you're into that.
Posted by: Spungen at Aug 21, 2008 4:07:18 PM
He was my blog boyfriend before he was your book boyfriend, bitches! :) :) :)
Posted by: Jacqueline at Aug 21, 2008 5:00:40 PM
http://www.feministeconomics.org/
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/presssite/metadata.epl?mode=synopsis&bookkey=26264
http://www.e-elgar.co.uk/Bookentry_Main.lasso?id=1129
Posted by: Colin Danby at Aug 21, 2008 5:07:57 PM
Re: Too much conformity in economic thought:
I would translate the article thusly: Most of the people in my field think I'm wrong; therefore, there's obviously too much conformity of thought!
I wonder what the author thinks concerning diversity of thought with regard to anthropogenic global warming?
My favorite observation was the young lady who noted that supply and demand curves don't care about social justice: how astute! At least she got her money's worth from the class...
Posted by: CJS at Aug 21, 2008 5:11:02 PM
Tom Green's bitterness over UBC's economics department refusing to grant credit for courses across campus in ecological economics makes more sense once you note that Tom Green is currently a graduate student at UBC in ecological economics. Here's more of his insights into academic economics:
Old professors retired to new pursuits are replaced by new professors pursuing old ideas. The new recruits were carefully screened for their orthodoxy. They studied at leading departments, where they demonstrated their commitment to markets, economic growth, free trade and learned to respect the consumer as king. They were not exposed to other disciplines and they will never read an article published in the natural sciences. Like their predecessors, they too will lecture while they draw graphs on blackboards, discouraging any questioning. The students who question, probe, explore contradictions and ask the big questions are weeded out. Those who conform are nurtured. And so the profession recreates itself and industrial society, relying on the economic priesthood for its guidance, merrily follows the same path, despite signs of trouble ahead.
Viciously attacking use of the blackboard to draw diagrams is hitting below the belt.
Punchline:
Tom Green is a Vancouver-based ecological economist who is currently working on his Ph.D. He is researching how the undergraduate economics curriculum can be reformed and textbooks rewritten to address sustainability.
Posted by: Chris Auld at Aug 21, 2008 5:12:18 PM
dude, not all women want diamonds. not all women are ok with financing civil wars in western africa. and some women lose everything and would probably lose a diamond ring too because she can't hold onto any piece of jewelry.
“Even though I took them with one of the most popular profs at the university, a guy who always won undergraduate teaching awards, I hated them. I found them so far removed from real life, and it seemed like the only thing economics was good for was to argue against my political views. For me, there were other considerations beyond shifting supply and demand curves, like social justice, but there was absolutely no discussion in class about those kinds of issues.”
I think that economics comes across as far-removed from real life in the introductory classes, where things are very simplified, less nuanced and you learn a lot of generalities. I think if this person had taken beyond 2 economics classes, she would have found that a) there's plenty of economic arguments in support of her political views and b) you can look at economics in the context of social justice.
Posted by: k at Aug 21, 2008 5:39:55 PM
Re: Too much conformity in economic thought:
Well, there is a predominance of white, well-off men in economics (to put it mildly). Who knows what questions non-white people, not-so well off individuals and female economists might decide to study? Probably questions that are disparagingly dismissed by the mainstream, even those loyal MR readers who might pride themselves in being "above" the mainstream. You won't really know until there are more of these people in your university departments. And as with most intellectual pursuits, the outcome of these different/alternative point of view questions could give the whole field a paradigm shift. Just look at micro-lending.
Moment of truth: What percent of your economics faculty are not white males? ... I thought so.
Posted by: A_Female_Brain at Aug 21, 2008 6:25:00 PM
Ms. Brain: at my department,(Univ. of Oklahoma Econ) we have 6 women, 2 Chinese men, 1 Turkish man, 1 Argentine man, 1 Greek man, and 7 American men. Not sure how you want to break that down, but it's pretty diverse, no? This is way more common across economics than you think. It's not an American male club by any stretch of the imagination.
Posted by: angus at Aug 21, 2008 6:38:06 PM
"But after three decades of questioning whether the world can continue to support our consumption habits, Rees has had trouble convincing his colleagues in economics that their economic model needs an overhaul."
So basically Rees has a theory that he tacitly admits has been falsified for 3 decades so why should we listen to him. The world has continued for the last 3 decades to support consumption habits. There has been no collapse.
Posted by: assman at Aug 21, 2008 7:03:39 PM
this article is demagoguery, designed to make lazy people feel like they understand economics. there is no mention of econometrics or the use of logical and mathematical modelling techniques.
even at the undergraduate level, economics is concerned with developing formal solutions. political debate ought to take place in the political realm, where it belongs.
Posted by: anon at Aug 21, 2008 7:47:57 PM
"Who knows what questions non-white people, not-so well off individuals and female economists might decide to study?"
At my university the graduate departments far more diverse in engineering, economics and the 'conservative' disciplines. In fact I would say the graduate department was unrepresentative of the general population because it was in fact far more diverse. On the other hand from what I have observed the sociology group was filled with white people (mostly women). Same was true of Philosophy, English.
From Stuff that White People Like:
"But what about the white people who study Science, Engineering or Business? Unless they become doctors, they essentially lose white person status (and can only be regained by working at a non-profit)."
http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/02/01/47-arts-degrees/
Posted by: assman at Aug 21, 2008 8:25:54 PM
Does this mean that if my wife doesn't like sex, that my kids are less likely to be gay?
Posted by: Craig Thebikeman at Aug 21, 2008 9:15:57 PM
Hmm. The theory of homosexuality blames it on women again, saying it's gotta be an X-chromosome gene that makes women want more children. (In which case, allegedly, the spillover effect on the occasional non-reproducing son would be offset by greater numbers of sons that *did* reproduce.)
As usual the actual study doesn't seem to be available but I'd really like to see if or how they address various prior studies showing that men with more older brothers (biological brothers of the same mother, not step-brothers) have higher chances of being gay than their older brothers.
Of course there doesn't have to be a single gene, or any other reason, for something as complex as orientation. But I'd want to know why their general hypothesis would be news given previous, more specific ones.
figleaf
Posted by: figleaf at Aug 21, 2008 9:26:06 PM
Note. The authors will have had to take previous birth order findings into account. A summary article in PNAS by Puts,
Jordan, and Breedlove says the effect (called fraternal birth-order or FBO) was observed and replicated as far back as Kinsey's research in the 1940s and 50s.
figleaf
Posted by: figleaf at Aug 21, 2008 9:32:12 PM
Does this mean that if my wife doesn't like sex, that my kids are less likely to be gay?
Yes.
Posted by: at Aug 21, 2008 10:23:59 PM
Dr. Cowan, would you be interested in collecting a harem of book-girlfriends? I've been chided here re something called an Alexa rating, by a blogger for whose traffic you created a massive spike on that system with a mere link-free allusion to his ickiness. You are apparently possessed of mysterious might. Let me show you how, um, wildly obnoxious I can be. I'm shameless, I'll even moralize if you're into that.
It's Cowen, not Cowan.
The world's most obnoxious blogger was, and is, not a he. "Ickiness" has nothing to do with it.
Yes, Dr. Cowen is possessed of mysterious might. It's called intelligence.
You are obnoxious, but not, um, wildly so. More mildly so.
Posted by: at Aug 21, 2008 10:32:10 PM
