
Unless You Are Spock, Irrelevant Things Matter in Economic Behavior (2015) - kercker
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/10/upshot/unless-you-are-spock-irrelevant-things-matter-in-economic-behavior.html
======
1123581321
Economics makes no claims about what items, experiences or feelings should be
demanded. It’s impossible to say that the students can’t value seeing a 95 on
their test or that workers shouldn’t value not touching their retirement
accounts. It’s actually a good thing when counterparties want to optimize
different variables because it reduces the need to compromise, as the author
brilliantly demonstrated in the anecdotes about test scoring and tax-
advantaged accounts, and this kind of negotiation is modeled by economists.

The cost of obtaining and trusting information also explains a lot of
“irrational” behavior, and it is modeled by economists.

Finally, I’ll note there are markets where buyers and sellers rationally
prefer money and consistently act on that preference — simple models are
sometimes useful, just like simple approaches in other fields.

~~~
Sangermaine
>Economics makes no claims about what items, experiences or feelings should be
demanded.

You are simply incorrect about this. The author of this piece, Richard Thaler,
just won the Nobel Prize in Economics (let me cut the pedants off: yes, I know
it's the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences) for his decades of work
addressing the implicit and explicit assumptions of traditional economic
theory, which largely presumed perfectly rational "Homo economicus" actors, as
the article notes.

That idea of rationality, and rationality over all other concerns, still holds
a lot of sway in economic discussions. You'll see it come up a lot here on HN,
for that matter.

You might take a look at Thaler's work before presuming to lecture him on
economics.

~~~
1123581321
I know who the author is. Any time that you have an opinion about a
controversy in a field, you are going to agree with and disagree with some
famous people. We can respect that we know less than the lead voices in
controversies and still participate in them.

I can certainly agree that there are economists who stick to simple models
when they shouldn't, but there is simply too much written that addresses the
problems in the op-ed to discount the field of economics as too simple or
focused on too few variables.

------
gumby
Econ students or not the prof should have failed the complainers for not
understanding "the material" (in this case the clear scoring rubric).

I remember a physics exam of the sort "here are three questions; you have four
hours answer one". I couldn't answer any so just struggled for a while on the
first; I ended up with 25% for work shown and, to my astonishment, the only
passing grade.

(BTW the big lesson from that, which has been useful all my professional life,
is "show your work". It means I can come back to it later, or I can
collaborate with / ask for help from another person, who can show me where I'm
a bozo or forgetting something or need to learn something).

------
gt_
Another example of why even the more open minded and critical of the
humanities crowd has such a difficult time taking economists seriously.

~~~
matt4077
Oh the humanities!

...the open-minded and critical among that crowd–and I do know that they are
plentiful–know that this idea of economists dealing exclusively in abstract
models, and denying "soft" factors like emotions or differences in preferences
was never true. It's a straw man, as exemplified by the recipient of today's
Nobel.

~~~
gt_
I never said they are plentiful.

