Economics as the Solution to Cognitive Dissonance

By Daniel Miessler on September 30th, 2007: Tagged as Economics | Logic | Philosophy

Scott Adams just wrote an interesting piece about how he thinks economists have a unique way of seeing the world. First, he loosely defines an economist as someone who seeks explanations for why things happen. I like that, and it fits with my favorite economist’s view as well (Malcolm Gladwell).He then goes on to explain why economists are especially immune to cognitive dissonance:

I studied economics in college. One thing I’ve noticed is that other people who have studied economics tend to think a similar way. Some of the similarity is probably because it takes a certain kind of person to be interested in economics in the first place. But I’m convinced that the study of economics changes brains in a way I can identify after about five minutes of conversation. In particular, I think the study of economics makes you relatively immune to cognitive dissonance.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonanceThe primary skill of an economist is identifying all of the explanations for various phenomena. Cognitive dissonance is, at its core, the inability to recognize and accept other explanations.
I’m oversimplifying, but you get the point. The more your brain is trained for economics, the less it is susceptible to cognitive dissonance, or so it seems.

I like the way Scott thinks.:

  • http://jonsnetwork.com/ Jon Robinson

    I would have to agree with that, particularly if you are talking about Austrian economics. Some of the brands of economics use “science” to endorse or justify certain government policies and regulations. The Austrians start from this axiom that humans act by using means to obtain ends. Their ends are individualistic and self-centered. The Austrians do not claim to know unrevealed individual preferences nor do they deduce the need for government interventionism in the market. Acting man is able to create working arrangements with other acting men that benefit all involved.

  • http://jonsnetwork.com Jon Robinson

    I would have to agree with that, particularly if you are talking about Austrian economics. Some of the brands of economics use “science” to endorse or justify certain government policies and regulations. The Austrians start from this axiom that humans act by using means to obtain ends. Their ends are individualistic and self-centered. The Austrians do not claim to know unrevealed individual preferences nor do they deduce the need for government interventionism in the market. Acting man is able to create working arrangements with other acting men that benefit all involved.

  • http://www.stevengharms.com/ Steven G. Harms

    Here’s a thought about economics as a science.

    When was the last time that you heard an economist say ” we were wrong on that point “.

    :: crickets ::

    There’s always some “unforeseen boundary condition” or “except well this one time” that comes up so very, very often in economist’s explanations of why their theory’s predictive power was simply wrong.

    Unlike science where the wrong thing gets disowned from time to time, economics seems to behave more like a religion ( and thus, perhaps, the immunity to cognitive dissonance ), when what’s predicted fails there’s always an explanation.

    Any study where your theory lacks predictive power that is routinely incorrect should not dance under the name “science”. Nota bene, few schools include economics in the college of natural science – for this reason?

  • http://www.stevengharms.com Steven G. Harms

    Here’s a thought about economics as a science.

    When was the last time that you heard an economist say ” we were wrong on that point “.

    :: crickets ::

    There’s always some “unforeseen boundary condition” or “except well this one time” that comes up so very, very often in economist’s explanations of why their theory’s predictive power was simply wrong.

    Unlike science where the wrong thing gets disowned from time to time, economics seems to behave more like a religion ( and thus, perhaps, the immunity to cognitive dissonance ), when what’s predicted fails there’s always an explanation.

    Any study where your theory lacks predictive power that is routinely incorrect should not dance under the name “science”. Nota bene, few schools include economics in the college of natural science – for this reason?

  • Pingback: AmyVanDonsel.com - Blog Archive » Interesting Bits for Tuesday October 9


Top

Popular

Information Security / Technology

Politics

Philosophy & Religion

Technology & Science

Culture & Society

Miscellaneous

Arguments

Projects

Collections

Twitter

What I'm Reading

Favorite Books and Essays

Top Blog Categories

Inputs