Comments on: Hip Orthodoxy http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/30/hip-orthodoxy/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Sun, 22 Nov 2009 07:34:27 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Walt http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/30/hip-orthodoxy/comment-page-2/#comment-198878 Walt Mon, 04 Jun 2007 03:42:51 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/30/hip-orthodoxy/#comment-198878 Notsneaky engages with heterodox ideas about 100 times more than his fellow economists. Notsneaky engages with heterodox ideas about 100 times more than his fellow economists.

]]> By: engels http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/30/hip-orthodoxy/comment-page-2/#comment-198874 engels Mon, 04 Jun 2007 02:42:20 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/30/hip-orthodoxy/#comment-198874 Radek, it is lazy and stupid to dismiss an entire subfield because of misgivings about the personal qualities of some of its practicioners. And scientific advance depends on people taking risks with new ideas which in all probability will not come to anything. Radek, it is lazy and stupid to dismiss an entire subfield because of misgivings about the personal qualities of some of its practicioners. And scientific advance depends on people taking risks with new ideas which in all probability will not come to anything.

]]> By: notsneaky http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/30/hip-orthodoxy/comment-page-2/#comment-198858 notsneaky Sun, 03 Jun 2007 21:37:15 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/30/hip-orthodoxy/#comment-198858 Engels, I think you're missing the point. There are many paths to truth and hey, we don't even know if some possible paths aren't dead ends. It takes considerable amount of time and effort just to keep up with all the newest research in one's field. Nothing about stupidity or laziness there. Engels, I think you’re missing the point. There are many paths to truth and hey, we don’t even know if some possible paths aren’t dead ends. It takes considerable amount of time and effort just to keep up with all the newest research in one’s field. Nothing about stupidity or laziness there.

]]> By: engels http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/30/hip-orthodoxy/comment-page-2/#comment-198815 engels Sun, 03 Jun 2007 08:41:47 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/30/hip-orthodoxy/#comment-198815 <i>I think a good bit of why “mainstream economists” don’t pay much attention to heterodox view is simply that the signal extraction problem is so severe. The signal to noise ratio ain’t that high. There’s good heterodox folks who have important things to say but the group, being heterodox, also tends to attract a lot of cranks, folks with axes to grind, bruised egos and just plain ideologous who have no clue as to what they’re talking about. In those circumstances it just becomes really costly for your average mainstream economist to weigh through all that to in order to seperate the wheat from the shaff. So most stick to what they know works decently well.</i> Radek, your "average mainstream economist" appears to be about as interested in the truth of his beliefs as the average shamen circa 1000BC. I have to say that the economists I know are not as lazy and stupid as your comment implies, but in any case it's fortunate that not everybody adopts your strict cost-benefit approach to the pursuit of truth or we would still be rubbing sticks together to make fire. I think a good bit of why “mainstream economists” don’t pay much attention to heterodox view is simply that the signal extraction problem is so severe. The signal to noise ratio ain’t that high. There’s good heterodox folks who have important things to say but the group, being heterodox, also tends to attract a lot of cranks, folks with axes to grind, bruised egos and just plain ideologous who have no clue as to what they’re talking about. In those circumstances it just becomes really costly for your average mainstream economist to weigh through all that to in order to seperate the wheat from the shaff. So most stick to what they know works decently well.

Radek, your “average mainstream economist” appears to be about as interested in the truth of his beliefs as the average shamen circa 1000BC. I have to say that the economists I know are not as lazy and stupid as your comment implies, but in any case it’s fortunate that not everybody adopts your strict cost-benefit approach to the pursuit of truth or we would still be rubbing sticks together to make fire.

]]> By: engels http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/30/hip-orthodoxy/comment-page-2/#comment-198812 engels Sun, 03 Jun 2007 07:51:34 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/30/hip-orthodoxy/#comment-198812 <i>Actually I found your point a little bizarre, which maybe why my response was a little weak.</i> Okay, I'll have to remember use that one next time I say something silly. <i>Not more simply, differently.</i> Not true. They are both simpler <i>and</i> different, as I'm sure you would agree if you thought about it for a second. For the last time, it really isn't a powerful criticism, nor is it news, <i>merely</i> to point out that idealised economic agents "behave very differently to real human beings". Actually I found your point a little bizarre, which maybe why my response was a little weak.

Okay, I’ll have to remember use that one next time I say something silly.

Not more simply, differently.

Not true. They are both simpler and different, as I’m sure you would agree if you thought about it for a second. For the last time, it really isn’t a powerful criticism, nor is it news, merely to point out that idealised economic agents “behave very differently to real human beings”.

]]> By: Cian http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/30/hip-orthodoxy/comment-page-2/#comment-198789 Cian Sat, 02 Jun 2007 21:21:46 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/30/hip-orthodoxy/#comment-198789 Engels, Actually I found your point a little bizarre, which maybe why my response was a little weak. Economics doesn't remove human nature. Rather it uses in its models actors that are supposed to be representative of human beings, but behave very differently to real human beings (as in wealth of evidence in other fields contradicting it). Not more simply, differently. Not really a problem if economists want to play with toy worlds, but if they're going to pretend this stuff means anything... You could build models with more sophisticated actors (though you'd also have to ditch the idea of a representative actor for many situations), but so far don't seem to have done so. I also find the idea of static equilibrium rather silly, but that's a seperate problem I guess. Engels,
Actually I found your point a little bizarre, which maybe why my response was a little weak.
Economics doesn’t remove human nature. Rather it uses in its models actors that are supposed to be representative of human beings, but behave very differently to real human beings (as in wealth of evidence in other fields contradicting it). Not more simply, differently. Not really a problem if economists want to play with toy worlds, but if they’re going to pretend this stuff means anything… You could build models with more sophisticated actors (though you’d also have to ditch the idea of a representative actor for many situations), but so far don’t seem to have done so.

I also find the idea of static equilibrium rather silly, but that’s a seperate problem I guess.

]]> By: engels http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/30/hip-orthodoxy/comment-page-2/#comment-198761 engels Sat, 02 Jun 2007 09:18:29 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/30/hip-orthodoxy/#comment-198761 <i>I think you mean Jon Elster, not David.</i> Actually, no I was thinking of Buddy Roemer, or Randy Cohen. I think you mean Jon Elster, not David.

Actually, no I was thinking of Buddy Roemer, or Randy Cohen.

]]> By: engels http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/30/hip-orthodoxy/comment-page-2/#comment-198759 engels Sat, 02 Jun 2007 09:09:31 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/30/hip-orthodoxy/#comment-198759 Cian - I'm not completely sure what you mean when you say "economics has removed human nature from the models" but as far as I see you are just repeating what EJH said above. I think this is wrong for the reasons I already gave. You haven't given any reason for why it should be a particular problem for economics that it makes assumptions about its objects of study which are "inaccurate". Cian – I’m not completely sure what you mean when you say “economics has removed human nature from the models” but as far as I see you are just repeating what EJH said above. I think this is wrong for the reasons I already gave. You haven’t given any reason for why it should be a particular problem for economics that it makes assumptions about its objects of study which are “inaccurate”.

]]> By: Club Troppo » Don't call me hetero, says Quiggin http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/30/hip-orthodoxy/comment-page-2/#comment-198744 Club Troppo » Don't call me hetero, says Quiggin Sat, 02 Jun 2007 03:20:42 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/30/hip-orthodoxy/#comment-198744 [...] Crooked Timber, Henry Farrell agrees with [...] [...] Crooked Timber, Henry Farrell agrees with [...]

]]> By: seth edenbaum http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/30/hip-orthodoxy/comment-page-2/#comment-198700 seth edenbaum Fri, 01 Jun 2007 19:18:32 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/30/hip-orthodoxy/#comment-198700 Another person who conflates realism and idealism. It's the realist in you that hates Chomsky, Mr DeLong, and the idealist who's left to find an explanation. Life is conflict. If you're going to play the wise-ass here then you should at least back it up with something. Talk me about the brilliance of Tyler Cowen. Another person who conflates realism and idealism. It’s the realist in you that hates Chomsky, Mr DeLong, and the idealist who’s left to find an explanation.
Life is conflict.

If you’re going to play the wise-ass here then you should at least back it up with something. Talk me about the brilliance of Tyler Cowen.

]]> By: Brad DeLong http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/30/hip-orthodoxy/comment-page-2/#comment-198696 Brad DeLong Fri, 01 Jun 2007 18:36:52 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/30/hip-orthodoxy/#comment-198696 I thought nobody responded to Seth's comment on Tyler because it was a Godwin's Law violation... I thought nobody responded to Seth’s comment on Tyler because it was a Godwin’s Law violation…

]]> By: seth edenbaum http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/30/hip-orthodoxy/comment-page-2/#comment-198687 seth edenbaum Fri, 01 Jun 2007 17:27:00 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/30/hip-orthodoxy/#comment-198687 I supppose we can end this up <a href="http://crookedtimber.org/2007/03/02/china-and-democracy/" rel="nofollow">here</a>. But if no one responded to my comments on Cowen, I'd like to think that's because there isn't one to make. I supppose we can end this up here.
But if no one responded to my comments on Cowen, I’d like to think that’s because there isn’t one to make.

]]> By: Henry http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/30/hip-orthodoxy/comment-page-2/#comment-198679 Henry Fri, 01 Jun 2007 16:42:56 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/30/hip-orthodoxy/#comment-198679 I consider them personal because they show every sign of being so, especially wrt John Holbo, where you've made a series of rather incoherent criticisms that are undeniably personal (e.g. your peculiar insinuations about the fact that he lives in Singapore). Your comments often read like extracts from an internal monologue - it may be that there is some consistency or underlying argument being made, but it certainly escapes me (and judging from puzzled reactions and non-reactions I suspect it escapes others too). I consider them personal because they show every sign of being so, especially wrt John Holbo, where you’ve made a series of rather incoherent criticisms that are undeniably personal (e.g. your peculiar insinuations about the fact that he lives in Singapore). Your comments often read like extracts from an internal monologue – it may be that there is some consistency or underlying argument being made, but it certainly escapes me (and judging from puzzled reactions and non-reactions I suspect it escapes others too).

]]> By: seth edenbaum http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/30/hip-orthodoxy/comment-page-2/#comment-198678 seth edenbaum Fri, 01 Jun 2007 16:38:36 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/30/hip-orthodoxy/#comment-198678 I wonder (and I do so consistently) at the ability of people to respond to complex ethical and moral questions with claims of technical proficiency. In Tyler Cowen such claims result in a sensibility that is almost Eichmanesque. The moral seriousness of political realism comes not from the understanding that idealism is wrong in any absolute sense but that it is mistaken in a temporal one. It's not a question therefore of keeping your hands clean but of knowing how and when they become dirty. Realism is not a technical philosophy: one can be a realist and wish that it were not necessary. A classical economist could teach his or her children that the acquisition of wealth was less than noble, but that you need to protect yourself. This again is not technical, only the ideology of optimism, (another temporal rather than absolute category) has made it so. The discussion of <a href="http://crookedtimber.org/2007/06/01/heterodoxy-is-not-my-doxy/" rel="nofollow">John Quiggin's post</a> on heterodoxy are interesting. You consider my <i>non-technical</i> comments personal, "meta" and therefore uninteresting, but all I'm doing is contexualizing what others have said. If you don't like the context you should take it up with them. I wonder (and I do so consistently) at the ability of people to respond to complex ethical and moral questions with claims of technical proficiency. In Tyler Cowen such claims result in a sensibility that is almost Eichmanesque.

The moral seriousness of political realism comes not from the understanding that idealism is wrong in any absolute sense but that it is mistaken in a temporal one. It’s not a question therefore of keeping your hands clean but of knowing how and when they become dirty. Realism is not a technical philosophy: one can be a realist and wish that it were not necessary. A classical economist could teach his or her children that the acquisition of wealth was less than noble, but that you need to protect yourself. This again is not technical, only the ideology of optimism, (another temporal rather than absolute category) has made it so. The discussion of John Quiggin’s post on heterodoxy are interesting.

You consider my non-technical comments personal, “meta” and therefore uninteresting, but all I’m doing is contexualizing what others have said. If you don’t like the context you should take it up with them.

]]> By: Henry http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/30/hip-orthodoxy/comment-page-2/#comment-198663 Henry Fri, 01 Jun 2007 15:20:07 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/30/hip-orthodoxy/#comment-198663 Seth - wouldn't it make life easier for everyone if we just stipulated that you don't like John Holbo, you don't like Brad DeLong, you don't like Franco Moretti etc etc, and left it at that? A substantial amount of your comments seem to be off-topic excursions into broad ranging philosophical musing that don't have much obvious point beyond identifying, again and again, the people on your enemies list. I've no doubt that this is personally entertaining, but I don't really think it constitutes contribution to an ongoing conversation. Seth – wouldn’t it make life easier for everyone if we just stipulated that you don’t like John Holbo, you don’t like Brad DeLong, you don’t like Franco Moretti etc etc, and left it at that? A substantial amount of your comments seem to be off-topic excursions into broad ranging philosophical musing that don’t have much obvious point beyond identifying, again and again, the people on your enemies list. I’ve no doubt that this is personally entertaining, but I don’t really think it constitutes contribution to an ongoing conversation.

]]>