Michael Perelman: > > I think of economics as a minor branch of psychology.
Sabri: > I think this statement is a bit of an exaggeration, although it is in the right > direction. I would rephrase it as follows: "the intersection of economics and > psychology is a large set." I disagree -- if we're talking about economists, as opposed to economics as a field of study. Psychology is extremely important to economics (especially financial economics) -- but it's not something that economists study. It's only recently that economists have studied psychology (cf. behavioral economics and finance) and almost no psychological stuff has made it into the mainstream or appeared in official textbooks. (Such work as that by Tibor Scitovsky were flashes in the pan.) For the vast majority of economists -- the neoclassicals -- psychology is very important, but it's not analyzed. "Tastes" and the like are taken as exogenously given. This is more a matter of Skinner-type behaviorism than true psychology -- though most economists do not follow Skinner's rule against making "mentalistic" assertions and discuss subjective preferences (without trying to understand them). -- Jim Devine / "In every [stock-dealing] swindle every one knows that some time or other the crash must come, but every one hopes that it may fall on the head of his neighbor, after he himself has caught the shower of gold and placed it in safety. Après moi le déluge! is the watchword of every capitalist ... " -- K. Marx
