Economics is the grammar of life? Seems more like astrology to me.
I remember a professor of economics at LSE many years ago, (probably on one of his more gloomy days, and with a few pints in him) posed the following thought experiment to me in a pub.
"Imagine you're the president of the US and you are worried about Iran's nuclear programme (this dates the story!). So you call a physicist, a historian, and an economist to give you some advice on policy. The physicist explains nuclear enrichment, what Iran would need to develop nuclear capability, what they would need to buy etc. The historian explains the modern history of Iran, how they have reacted to the West in the past, fall of the Shah, effects of Islam etc. The economist explains the micro and macro economics of the Middle East, the current markets etc."
Then he asked, is the economists advice more like the historian or the physicist?
The moral of the story: Economists can ruin any social gathering :-)
I understand your skepticism, in particular if with "economics" the content of standard economic textbooks come to your mind. My point is not so much to defend economics as it is done but to defend the language of optimisation theory and game theory, its key methodological tools, as the grammar of life. I acknowledge in my book that evolution does not always lead to perfectly optimal designs, but evolutionary pressure is likely to most often lead to designs that are best suited for their environment. So looking for the optimal/best response explanations often provides a great key to understand behaviour. See for instance this explanation of reference-dependence I posted last year: https://www.optimallyirrational.com/p/its-not-a-bug-its-a-feature-revisiting. In a few weeks, I am going to start a series on happiness--what it is, how it works--with this adaptive perspective. I encourage you to check it out then.
I actually have a second hand story about this. I was working for Robert Cialdini when the Wikileaks thing happened. Apparently the US military had been trying to reverse engineer his influence work to "torture" prisoners, and he was devastated by this, he has never knowingly done a days work for the military in his life.
Martin Seligman on the other hand was happily giving lectures at Westpoint about learned helplessness :-( I had soured on him by that point but still :-(
HI, I have learn so much from your work and I wish you well in all your future reading and writing.
I am curious on what gaps and avenues are there opened up by Minds Make Societies (2018) by Pascal Boyer and A Theory of Everyone (2023) by Michael Muthukrishna for you to continue travellling? what's unsaid or unfinished?
Thanks! Both books have the same unifying perspective based on evolutionary thinking. Boyer has a more cognitive science slant, while Muthukrishna has a more cultural evolution slant. My perspective is more grounded in the tools of optimisation theory and game theory. I see these different approaches as compatible and focusing on different aspects of the topics discussed. I recommend these two books; they're great. They can help provide a coherent background for many of the things I discuss on this Substack.
I guess your upcoming book on game theory, optimisation and decisionwould be a great counterpoint to "Hidden Games: The Surprising Power of Game Theory to Explain Irrational Human Behavior by Moshe Hoffman and Erez Yoeli"
and "You've Been Played How Corporations, Governments, and Schools Use Games to Control Us All" by Adrian Hon
Economics is the grammar of life? Seems more like astrology to me.
I remember a professor of economics at LSE many years ago, (probably on one of his more gloomy days, and with a few pints in him) posed the following thought experiment to me in a pub.
"Imagine you're the president of the US and you are worried about Iran's nuclear programme (this dates the story!). So you call a physicist, a historian, and an economist to give you some advice on policy. The physicist explains nuclear enrichment, what Iran would need to develop nuclear capability, what they would need to buy etc. The historian explains the modern history of Iran, how they have reacted to the West in the past, fall of the Shah, effects of Islam etc. The economist explains the micro and macro economics of the Middle East, the current markets etc."
Then he asked, is the economists advice more like the historian or the physicist?
The moral of the story: Economists can ruin any social gathering :-)
Hi James,
I understand your skepticism, in particular if with "economics" the content of standard economic textbooks come to your mind. My point is not so much to defend economics as it is done but to defend the language of optimisation theory and game theory, its key methodological tools, as the grammar of life. I acknowledge in my book that evolution does not always lead to perfectly optimal designs, but evolutionary pressure is likely to most often lead to designs that are best suited for their environment. So looking for the optimal/best response explanations often provides a great key to understand behaviour. See for instance this explanation of reference-dependence I posted last year: https://www.optimallyirrational.com/p/its-not-a-bug-its-a-feature-revisiting. In a few weeks, I am going to start a series on happiness--what it is, how it works--with this adaptive perspective. I encourage you to check it out then.
I was really into Martin Seligman back in the day, and then slowly went off him over the years, so I'm looking forward to your take on happiness!
Although I'm not sure I would ask an economist for advice if I wasn't happy. Surely that's Gwyneth Paltrow's job :-)
I actually have a second hand story about this. I was working for Robert Cialdini when the Wikileaks thing happened. Apparently the US military had been trying to reverse engineer his influence work to "torture" prisoners, and he was devastated by this, he has never knowingly done a days work for the military in his life.
Martin Seligman on the other hand was happily giving lectures at Westpoint about learned helplessness :-( I had soured on him by that point but still :-(
Interesting. The takes of the series of posts will definitely be distinct from Seligman's positive psychology.
HI, I have learn so much from your work and I wish you well in all your future reading and writing.
I am curious on what gaps and avenues are there opened up by Minds Make Societies (2018) by Pascal Boyer and A Theory of Everyone (2023) by Michael Muthukrishna for you to continue travellling? what's unsaid or unfinished?
Thanks! Both books have the same unifying perspective based on evolutionary thinking. Boyer has a more cognitive science slant, while Muthukrishna has a more cultural evolution slant. My perspective is more grounded in the tools of optimisation theory and game theory. I see these different approaches as compatible and focusing on different aspects of the topics discussed. I recommend these two books; they're great. They can help provide a coherent background for many of the things I discuss on this Substack.
That's great,
I guess your upcoming book on game theory, optimisation and decisionwould be a great counterpoint to "Hidden Games: The Surprising Power of Game Theory to Explain Irrational Human Behavior by Moshe Hoffman and Erez Yoeli"
and "You've Been Played How Corporations, Governments, and Schools Use Games to Control Us All" by Adrian Hon
Here's an interview of adrian with Anne Helen https://annehelen.substack.com/p/how-did-we-get-so-obsessed-with-streaks
have you read these books? any thoughts/contra?
I know Moshe and Erez very well. Their book is great. Very similar perspective indeed. I don't know the other one, I will check it out, thanks.