Jim Devine wrote: > My impression is that Kahneman and (perhaps) Tversky are > psychologists, not economists. Mandelbrot, I believe, was a > mathematician, not an economist.
I did say that Mandelbrot was a mathematician. Now, you're right about Kahneman and Tversky starting their careers as professional psychologists. But, for all practical effects, the economics Nobel is like an adoption certificate. And the same applies to Gerard Debreu. It's not where you start, but where your work gets adopted, incorporated, celebrated. > Debreu, despite being officially affiliated with an economics > department, was no economist (but instead a mathematician) because he > was not concerned with the real world at all. Unlike, say Arrow who > has done some similar work, he was the very model of the modern > autistic economist, totally disconnected from the economy and the rest > of the world. (It makes actual autism look good, since much of > autistic economics is embraced as a matter of choice.) I think that the charges of "autism," "physics envy," etc. are not serious. The idea that Debreu's theoretical work lacks concrete content is baseless. And I don't know who envies whom. For all we know, those who accuse the economists of "physics envy" may be the envious ones. Who cares, really. I'm not comfortable with views that reject form, theory, or math in economic thinking, especially when their rejection precedes engaging them seriously. We've been through this before. Theory, form, math are not everything in science. But they play a big role. I don't mean "could play." I mean "play." More importantly, one cannot engage anything -- any object or any subject -- without coming out at the other end a transformed person. That's the way we humans learn. Not sure many young people read our postings here -- or care about our advice. But my honest (unsolicited) advice to them is Get into it, as seriously as you can. Don't let your initial prejudices get in the way. Immerse yourself in the material, don't worry about looking good, think for yourself, be honest with yourself, and see where your work leads you. > In any event, it's important to avoid lumping all economists, even all > mainstream economists, in the same trashcan -- or putting them all on > the same pedestal. Right. I don't think I'm doing this. I try to look at economics as an evolving organism, beyond the individual personalities. In any case, to paraphrase Gramsci, there's no use in studying or refuting the vulgar version of a theory when the high version is public and available. If the high version is really debunked, the vulgar versions will be easier to dispel. They won't be dispelled automatically though. It's not only prejudices that get in the way, but vested interests. We know all that. I'd be curious to know how Akerlof introduces basic economics to first timers. I seriously doubt that he rejects or regards the simple, conventional theories as useless. I know that Stiglitz doesn't. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
