Thread by @chris_m_neill

Huh, I'm an economist & by some definitions a humanist. But this def'n of humanist seems odd. I think: let's have a read; may learn stuff!

https://twitter.com/Undercoverhist/status/1018823786525753344

First line asks what are you doing right now? Hey I know the answer: reading to learn stuff! [Econ translation: investing in human capital.]

To be honest, I also enjoy reading (econs: consumption) and am probs procrastinating (econs: irrational - maybe hyperbolic discounting?)

But this is not the correct econ answer, I am told. No, the correct econ answer is I am signalling - Robin Hanson says, so it must be true!

Tyler Cowen agrees and adds 90% of behaviour in rich places is signalling. Heads are shaken: how can econs reduce behaviour to one type?

Story so far: Hanson & Cowen's nutty views = economics, showing that econs overgeneralize.

[We pause for a short break while I recover.]

Damn it, was assured it gets better after the Hanson tripe. I had stopped at para 4. I am now up to para 10 (1379 words) and we're still on Hanson = economics. Talks about GMU arg that education = signal/indoctrination but misses that GMU gang think this pits them against econs.

But ok, fine, it will get better!

Onto para 11: "The issue here is one of overreach: taking an argument that has
worthwhile applications and extending it further than it usefully goes."

No, seriously, come on, you have got to be shitting me.

Taking a break right there.

Before I restart, something I agree with: "The idea that Maya Angelou’s career amounts to nothing more than a writer shaking her tail feathers to attract the attention of a dominant male is not just misleading; it’s actively embarrassing." Yep - many econs think Hanson's awful.

But final sentence in P.10 (formerly incorrectly labeled 11): econ "reduces complex, diverse behavior to simple rules."

Yep! Econs try to identify commonalities/stat regularities to understand choices. Simplifying a complex world to understand a part is pretty common in science.

So if your def'n of a humanist is "someone who thinks each person is entirely unique, so there is no point looking for commonalities in human behaviour" - which AFAICT is the definition used here - then humanists must think economics is abject nonsense.

(So too, of course, must be psychology, sociology, political science, etc. But I do think focusing on econ is fair - we can get "needlessy messianic" about our ability to explain everything.)

But the article doesn't define humanism. It mentions "humanis*" twice: both times to mock a Finance prof trying to bridge the gap between finance and the humanities - ie for doing exactly what the article criticizes econs for not doing.

So far, I'm not up with these humanists.

But I don't think the article is really talking about humanists. It more commonly mentions econ as in opposition to or needing to learn from "the humanities".

Not even all of the humanities, tbh: the main concern seems to actually be about realist fiction (3 mentions).

So that's kind of odd. Is anyone arguing that economics is in some way better than fiction? Is there a campaign by economists to get people to "put down the 19th C novels", as the article's imagined humanists are advising the Finance Prof to do?

(Aside: also odd is that the article is very realist-fiction imperialistic. I assume that Lanchester got the reference I threw in earlier - if not, he really should read more sci-fi, which ponders deep questions in the human condition: SO Ursula Le Guin
roommagazine.com/interview/fant… )

Back to real Para 11, which alerts us to a book by Morson and Schapiro (Morton Schapiro, so every time I read "Morson and" before "Schapiro" I want to correct it), called "Cents and Sensibility", a title which has surely been used before and if not I am kicking myself.

The article says M&S identify 3 things economists who tend to be hedgehogs (eg Gary Becker) not foxes (eg Leo Tolstoy) miss:
1. culture
2. stories
3. ethics

M&S apparently suggest a solution: econs should broaden their study into "the humanities, particularly realist fiction".

That brings us to the book by Finance Prof Mihir Desai which claims: "Viewing finance through the prism of the humanities will help us to restore humanity to finance."

Lofty goal!

Lanchester should be on board right? Wrong. As noted earlier, he says Desai is doing it wrong.

I too find the notion that "The story of General Motors and Fisher Body ... is, for economists, Anna Karenina, Middlemarch, and Jane Eyre all rolled in one" hilarious. And it's definitely an eg of an econ overstating a case: srsly I can't imagine more than a few econs think this.

But saying Desai shouldn't bother thinking about 19th C novels because of a quirky* viewpoint is surely the opposite of what Lanchester argues humanism is all about - which involves embracing the quirky and different views/behaviours/likes/emotions?

Lanchester's conclusion is "The realist novel is a solemn enemy of equations ... Perhaps I’m only talking about myself, and this is .. [not] a general truth, but I think that if I committed any further to economics I would have to give up writing fiction."

Here I should mention studying economics doesn't seem to prevent people from writing fictionMarshall Jevons springs to mind: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_…

And I discovered Russ Roberts (GMU!) has also written some econ fiction (GMU again!): "The Invisible Heart: An Economic Romance"

And OK, you may be unimpressed by those (I have copies of the Marshall Jevonses, I do not think I have the heart to read The Invisible Heart), I submit Vikram Seth: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikram_Se…

We are mostly going to specialize - most economists won't be novelists & vice versa.

But maybe economists don't read novels enough and are missing opportunities to learn from them? Pfui. They're constantly talking what they're reading.

Diane Coyle: enlightenmenteconomics.com/blog/index.php…

Noah Smith: noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2013/05/scienc…

Tyler Cowen: marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolu…

Kadambari Shah: qz.com/1275281/the-mo…

Michael Watts: amazon.com/Literary-Book-…

But surely no-one who read and loved, say, VS Naipaul, would ever write down abstract models that purport to help explain human history in a single equation.

Oh whoops, except maybe Bob Solow: minneapolisfed.org/publications/t…

But maybe the problem is econs read, but only draw narrow lessons for economics. Do econs read Tolstoy and just miss all the stuff about humanity?

To ask the question is to answer it: of course not. Economists, Lanchester's humanist would do well to remember, are people too.

Speaking of Tolstoy, even he didn't mind generalizing a bit, iirc

Anyway, at least one good thing has come of reading this tripe.

Cents and Sensibility is on my summer reading list.
As is this fun-sounding review I came across while googling: Mary Catherine Harrison, ECONOMICS AND ETHICS IN THE VICTORIAN NOVEL
jstor.org/stable/2388290…

Will add to what I've got on the ereader:

. Weapons of Math Destruction
. Tax, Order & Good Government
. Give&Take @stillots1 (just added a couple of days back)
. Book of Negroes
. Who Fears Death
. A Town Like Alice (again)

I mean, I could add War&Peace, Brothers Karamazov, Voss - it was 30 years ago I last read them, in high school, so they prob read differently now.

Oh, shit, now I'm totes doing what I wasn't at the start - signalling.
Did I learn stuff? Nope. Not even what a humanist is.