Comments on: … and then listening to it http://crookedtimber.org/2005/05/23/a-human-approach-to-economic-behaviour/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Sun, 22 Nov 2009 08:33:20 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: seth edenbaum http://crookedtimber.org/2005/05/23/a-human-approach-to-economic-behaviour/comment-page-1/#comment-72799 seth edenbaum Thu, 26 May 2005 03:22:41 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2005/05/22/a-human-approach-to-economic-behaviour/#comment-72799 When I get into the subway in the morning I walk into a crowd, often bunched near the doorways, leaving space in the middle of the train. A scientific study of group behavior might be used to develop train designs that limit this behavior, but it would also help if people were taught to be more observant and aware of each other. Science, or rather the Chicago school of socioeconomic behavioral studies- is that good enough?- reduces everyone to the level of mass idiocy, in the name of democracy and freedom. What is created by this however, is a sort of hard superiority of the rational mind. I much prefer the soft superiority of the sympathetic imagination, the sort of mind that is aware of the others in the room. I prefer human to technical knowledge When I get into the subway in the morning I walk into a crowd, often bunched near the doorways, leaving space in the middle of the train. A scientific study of group behavior might be used to develop train designs that limit this behavior, but it would also help if people were taught to be more observant and aware of each other. Science, or rather the Chicago school of socioeconomic behavioral studies- is that good enough?- reduces everyone to the level of mass idiocy, in the name of democracy and freedom. What is created by this however, is a sort of hard superiority of the rational mind. I much prefer the soft superiority of the sympathetic imagination, the sort of mind that is aware of the others in the room. I prefer human to technical knowledge

]]> By: Conchis http://crookedtimber.org/2005/05/23/a-human-approach-to-economic-behaviour/comment-page-1/#comment-72629 Conchis Tue, 24 May 2005 16:16:02 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2005/05/22/a-human-approach-to-economic-behaviour/#comment-72629 While I agree that "when Levitt starts analyzing the non-equilibriating processes in baby-names, he’s really not being an economist in the sense that Becker and Samwick define ‘being an economist", I would argue that the problem is with Becker's and Samwick's characterisation of economics as concerned only with equilibirum. (Indeed, Andrew has already taken some heat for his rather restrictive definition of economics in comments on his blog.) Economics, particularly the bits that deal a lot in game theory, would have no particular problem with cyclic, non-equilibrium behaviour that the baby naming case seems to exhibit, provided that it still conforms to a particular type of explanation as to why there's no equilibrium: the structure of preferences and incentives don't allow it. Without having read Levitt's actual work on this myself, it seems that that's exactly the sort of explanation that's going on here. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) The point that Levitt's more than just Becker on steroids is well taken. But I think it's also important to stress that Becker's (30-year old) say so doesn't mean that what he's doing is outside the scope of what most economists are comfortable with these days. While I agree that “when Levitt starts analyzing the non-equilibriating processes in baby-names, he’s really not being an economist in the sense that Becker and Samwick define ‘being an economist”, I would argue that the problem is with Becker’s and Samwick’s characterisation of economics as concerned only with equilibirum. (Indeed, Andrew has already taken some heat for his rather restrictive definition of economics in comments on his blog.)

Economics, particularly the bits that deal a lot in game theory, would have no particular problem with cyclic, non-equilibrium behaviour that the baby naming case seems to exhibit, provided that it still conforms to a particular type of explanation as to why there’s no equilibrium: the structure of preferences and incentives don’t allow it. Without having read Levitt’s actual work on this myself, it seems that that’s exactly the sort of explanation that’s going on here. (Correct me if I’m wrong.)

The point that Levitt’s more than just Becker on steroids is well taken. But I think it’s also important to stress that Becker’s (30-year old) say so doesn’t mean that what he’s doing is outside the scope of what most economists are comfortable with these days.

]]> By: Henry http://crookedtimber.org/2005/05/23/a-human-approach-to-economic-behaviour/comment-page-1/#comment-72617 Henry Tue, 24 May 2005 14:20:18 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2005/05/22/a-human-approach-to-economic-behaviour/#comment-72617 Sebastian, as your comment implies, the word equilibrium is a little vague (and indeed within economics itself covers a family of related concepts/refinements). It's been years since I read any chaos theory popularizations (and that's about as far as I ever got with chaos theory), but from my distant memory, I'm not sure if there's even that kind of equilibriating going on here. Which is to say that as soon as one solution (baby names) becomes attractive enough to the less well off, it _ipso facto_ becomes less attractive to the more well off, and you get another (equally temporary) process of reconvergence on another name. I'm not sure if there are any good mathematical models of this kind of process - but as noted, am not an expert. Andrew - will include a link to your post. Sebastian, as your comment implies, the word equilibrium is a little vague (and indeed within economics itself covers a family of related concepts/refinements). It’s been years since I read any chaos theory popularizations (and that’s about as far as I ever got with chaos theory), but from my distant memory, I’m not sure if there’s even that kind of equilibriating going on here. Which is to say that as soon as one solution (baby names) becomes attractive enough to the less well off, it ipso facto becomes less attractive to the more well off, and you get another (equally temporary) process of reconvergence on another name. I’m not sure if there are any good mathematical models of this kind of process – but as noted, am not an expert.

Andrew – will include a link to your post.

]]> By: Andrew Samwick http://crookedtimber.org/2005/05/23/a-human-approach-to-economic-behaviour/comment-page-1/#comment-72600 Andrew Samwick Tue, 24 May 2005 02:35:36 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2005/05/22/a-human-approach-to-economic-behaviour/#comment-72600 Thank you, Henry, for a very perceptive critique of my post on <i>Freakonomics</i>. I follow up in a new <a href="http://voxbaby.blogspot.com/2005/05/freakonomics-on-crooked-timber.html" rel="nofollow">post.</a> Thank you, Henry, for a very perceptive critique of my post on Freakonomics. I follow up in a new post.

]]> By: Sebastian Holsclaw http://crookedtimber.org/2005/05/23/a-human-approach-to-economic-behaviour/comment-page-1/#comment-72595 Sebastian Holsclaw Tue, 24 May 2005 00:16:40 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2005/05/22/a-human-approach-to-economic-behaviour/#comment-72595 Isn't the name issue closer to a strange attractor style of equilibria than the standard model of equilibria? Isn’t the name issue closer to a strange attractor style of equilibria than the standard model of equilibria?

]]> By: Henry http://crookedtimber.org/2005/05/23/a-human-approach-to-economic-behaviour/comment-page-1/#comment-72591 Henry Mon, 23 May 2005 21:32:13 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2005/05/22/a-human-approach-to-economic-behaviour/#comment-72591 Thanks! sorted. Thanks! sorted.

]]> By: Vance Maverick http://crookedtimber.org/2005/05/23/a-human-approach-to-economic-behaviour/comment-page-1/#comment-72585 Vance Maverick Mon, 23 May 2005 20:15:02 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2005/05/22/a-human-approach-to-economic-behaviour/#comment-72585 You need to mark that block quote in some way.... You need to mark that block quote in some way….

]]>