Interesting Mankiw Post.

[MorgieLilly]

Greg Mankiw's Blog: Good Academic, Bad Human Being

[econsd]

I have read that one before and absolutely agree with it. He puts many things like that into perspective.

[MorgieLilly]

Can people name Nobel Prize winners who are very happy? I don't know enough to know counter examples.

[MorgieLilly]

I'm also interested in why this is true, if it is true. I would think the best economists have experiential understanding of being a human. How can you have good intuition for interesting questions if you are that miserable?

[publicecon]

I think you can make this argument for any sort of highly competitive career. For example, wall st executives, world class violin players, olympic athletes, etc. We all have the possibility of excelling in one thing if we devote ALL our time to it. The real challenge is leading a balanced life :)

[MorgieLilly]

But I think economics is different, isn't it? I mean, we're studying society...we should be a part of it in a more well rounded way. Intuition is important, I think.

[publicecon]

That's what I initially thought, but reading this book gave me a different impression. Amazon.com: The Making of an Economist, Redux (9780691125855): David Colander: Books. It seems as economics tries to become a "harder science" there are people who can get published by just tweaking mathematical models that don't require any intuition about how humans operate.

 

I'm not saying I agree with this view. I was originally attracted to economics because of this humanistic aspect and I think there are great economists who have great intuition for how society works. However, I don't think this is necessary to become a successful academic.

[Mark_B]

Imo, most of what is produced by academic economics is of interest only to itself.

 

Pretty sad indictment.

[eigenman]

Imo, most of what is produced by academic economics is of interest only to itself.

 

Pretty sad indictment.

 

My favorite part about indictments of economists and economics is that they're typically thoughtful and informed, written by people with a profound understanding of the field.

[treblekicker]

But I think economics is different, isn't it? I mean, we're studying society...we should be a part of it in a more well rounded way. Intuition is important, I think.

ha! god no, so much of economics, even the more policy oriented models are so incredibly detached from the outside world, let alone culture! i mean, look at the heart of economics -- rationality. any defender of rational choice will scream at the top of their lungs that this is purely normative and in no way positive (but complication exists, obviously). and anyone who has thought about something beyond economics should be able to quickly dismiss perfect rationality as the ultimate abstraction from societal existence. even some of the "fixes" to rationality could be indicted as such...

[eigenman]

ha! god no, so much of economics, even the more policy oriented models are so incredibly detached from the outside world, let alone culture! i mean, look at the heart of economics -- rationality. any defender of rational choice will scream at the top of their lungs that this is purely normative and in no way positive (but complication exists, obviously). and anyone who has thought about something beyond economics should be able to quickly dismiss perfect rationality as the ultimate abstraction from societal existence. even some of the "fixes" to rationality could be indicted as such...

 

I've always thought rationality is a good place to start trying to understand behavior. Modify it to forms like ecological rationality as appropriate, but almost anything is more informative than saying "well people are just crazy" and leaving it at that

[Gerter]

I've always thought rationality is a good place to start trying to understand behavior. Modify it to forms like ecological rationality as appropriate, but almost anything is more informative than saying "well people are just crazy" and leaving it at that

 

Is anyone suggesting that as an alternative?

[treblekicker]

I've always thought rationality is a good place to start trying to understand behavior. Modify it to forms like ecological rationality as appropriate, but almost anything is more informative than saying "well people are just crazy" and leaving it at that

but it isn't just a starting point! any tweaks must either fulfill the normative implications of perfect rationality, further refine the axiomatic approach, or justify (in obtuse economic ways) why stochastic dominance, etc. aren't met. moreover, you say it is just a starting place, yet entire bodies of literature depend critically on the completeness, transitivity, and continuity axioms (let's not even talk about EU theory!).

 

and bayesian and bounded rationality are empty in their own ways, as well.

[treblekicker]

and there are alternatives to perfect rationality that are both plausible and do not posit that people are just crazy. a little known field called psychology (have you heard of it?) is one of them...

[discreetcharm]

ha! god no, so much of economics, even the more policy oriented models are so incredibly detached from the outside world, let alone culture! i mean, look at the heart of economics -- rationality. any defender of rational choice will scream at the top of their lungs that this is purely normative and in no way positive (but complication exists, obviously). and anyone who has thought about something beyond economics should be able to quickly dismiss perfect rationality as the ultimate abstraction from societal existence. even some of the "fixes" to rationality could be indicted as such...

 

i hope you never took a real microeconomics course...no theorist relies on people being "rational"

[eigenman]

Is anyone suggesting that as an alternative?

 

That's a fair point, I'm sorry -- I didn't intend to hoist up a straw man.

 

and there are alternatives to perfect rationality that are both plausible and do not posit that people are just crazy. a little known field called psychology (have you heard of it?) is one of them...

 

My background is in biology, not psychology, and so I can't speak as someone really informed about the field; but I think pointing to psychology as a template is a little rich. What useful stories about human behavior have emerged from that line of inquiry? I think the logic of evolutionary psychology is compelling (though the evidence is thin), but that's about it.

[dreck]

I think the thread is getting a little off-topic...

I don't know how likely Mankiw is to win a Nobel Prize someday (probably fairly likely), but he ranks very highly on every citation index I've seen. And yet he counsels people not to pursue this objective single-mindedly. One of the following would therefore be true:

1) Mankiw is an exception to the rule, a genius who can afford a social life. Which would beg the question, how many exceptions can there be?

2) The conjecture that only super-focused academics will be Nobel-worthy is false. It is better in all ways to be a well-rounded person.

3) Mankiw is giving advice he doesn't follow himself.

 

I like the second a lot better.

 

I think we ought to be careful when trying to figure out whether the best economists understand people the best. Often, the discipline rewards those who develop complex quantitative models which may seem very distant from human behavior. On the other hand, though, sometimes the that complexity comes from successfully modelling some brilliant, intuitive idea.

 

And finally, the nature of happiness (which psychologists have revealingly re-named "subjective well-being) makes it very difficult to compare satisfaction between people. Mankiw makes a good point, but ultimately each person should seek what makes them happiest, whether that's being a super-focused academian or not. Based on the research, though, winning a Nobel Prize (or other recognitions) should have very little impact on long-term happiness. What matters more is how much you enjoy the work that gets you there.

[treblekicker]

That's a fair point, I'm sorry -- I didn't intend to hoist up a straw man.

 

 

 

My background is in biology, not psychology, and so I can't speak as someone really informed about the field; but I think pointing to psychology as a template is a little rich. What useful stories about human behavior have emerged from that line of inquiry? I think the logic of evolutionary psychology is compelling (though the evidence is thin), but that's about it.

give the wikipedia article on behavioral economics a cursory reading...

[treblekicker]

i hope you never took a real microeconomics course...no theorist relies on people being "rational"

i would say the same of you, except more specifically, have you not taken a serious first course in micro theory?

[discreetcharm]

i would say the same of you, except more specifically, have you not taken a serious first course in micro theory?

 

what part of utility theory, game theory, welfare economics, assumes people are rational?

[AREStudentHopeful]

There's quite a bit of utility theory that assumes rationality. This is one of the main reasons behavioral economics came about (read Thaler's Toward a positive theory of consumer choice). I'm not saying that there aren't some useful parts of these branches of micro that do assume some type of rationality (or continuity or transitivity, ect.); they just have their applicable limits.

 

Back to OP's main topic. I think that Mankiw is suggesting the second point that dreck made. There are many Nobel prize winners that had families, had a variety of hobbies and led a well-rounded life. Look at people like Tyler Cowen who have multiple hobbies, read tons of literature (non-economics literature, that is) and still are very successful economists. Admittedly, these people we're talking about have some hefty brain power, but I think that just shows that the brain is what is needed for these kind of accomplishments; not a dysfunctional, unenjoyable life.

[dreck]

what part of utility theory, game theory, welfare economics, assumes people are rational?

 

Edit: I deleted what I said, I would much rather we stay on topic than argue the obvious point that most theory assumes rationality.

[Mr.Stochastic]

Ive heard that Krugman never ever works weekends? I have also read somewhere that he stated in his dissertation that it wouldnt have been finished without the help of agatha christie and the like.

 

I also discussed similiar topics with my rec writer, a mit phd, and he urged me to try to restrain myself from too much work in order to produce better research when in grad school and that the people at MIT in his days who only worked ended up with lower productivity.

 

It is also my experience that my marginal productivity when I work more than 12-14 hours a day may days in a row actually turns out negative, and I actually strongly believe that I will get more done if work around 10, and take some time to work out and cater to my hobbies.

[treblekicker]

what part of utility theory, game theory, welfare economics, assumes people are rational?

well, in the neoclassical sense, the existence of a utility representation (and even more so for a vN-M representation). yes, there are tons of relaxations out there (of transitivity and independence, specifically) that will get you some sort of representation. so yes, rationality isn't necessary, but for so many canonical existence proofs (e.g. of a walrasian or nash equilibrium) rational preferences are assumed. and even though these results can be achieved without those axioms, so often are economists who require these existences okay with accepting perfect rationality.

[tm_member]

Theorists don't really need to have any kind of life to be successful, applied people do. Applied Economics research depends solely on observing some real world issue and trying to find a model or data to help understand/describe it.

 

There is no one-size-fits-all approach to anything. Anything.