Michael Perelman wrote: > I was too elliptical in saying that economics is a branch of psychology. > Perhaps I > should've said, economic should be considered a minor branch of psychology, > because > so much of our behavior -- both investment behavior and consumption behavior > -- is > clearly at variance with the rational behavior assumed by economists. Keynes' > expression, animal spirits, should have made economists aware of such things, > but > Keynes' influence is long gone.
economics _should_ learn from psychology, but typically does not. frankly, economics should be seen as a branch of sociology, since it deals with interpersonal relationships and human-made institutions within a subset of society called the "economy." Economists typically practice sociology poorly, partly because topics such as social psychology and sociology are ignored. Instead of being involved in two-way trade with other social researchers, economists tend to follow Gary Becker, imposing economic notions on other fields. This happens _despite_ the fact that economists preach the glories of the mutually-beneficial nature of voluntary exchange. -- Jim Devine / "In the years since the phrase became a cliché, I have received any number of compliments for my supposed ability to 'think outside the box.' Actually, it has been a struggle for me to perceive just what these "boxes" were — why they were there, why other people regarded them as important, where their borderlines might be, how to live safely within and without them." -- Tim Page
