Bryan Caplan  

You Call This Atomism?

PRINT
Current Event Hooks... Around our Library...

I'm puzzled where Arnold gets the idea that I'm an "atomist." Was it Tyler who wrote this?

Perhaps the greatest truth about human nature that you do not find in the typical economics textbook is that people are sheep. Most human beings don't like to be different from the others around them; they want to fit in - to look, sound, and act "normal."
No, it was me - and I've said things like this more than once.

I also don't know where Arnold got the idea that mine "is a world of individuals, engaged in first-order self-interested behavior or, when they appear to be behaving irrationally, engaged in signalling." Here's what I wrote in The Myth of the Rational Voter:

Dropping false analogies between shopping and voting restores our intellectual flexibility, making the conflict between theory and common sense less daunting. But how can the conflict be resolved? We do not have to turn our backs on economics. It is only necessary to broaden its understanding of human motivation and cognition.

Economists usually presume that beliefs are a means to an end, not an end in themselves. In reality, however, we often have cherished views, valued for their own sake. As Shermer puts it, "Without some belief structure, however, many people find this world meaningless and without comfort."... Letting emotions or ideology corrupt our thinking is an easy way to satisfy such preferences. Instead of fairly weighing all claims, we can show nepotism toward our favorite beliefs.

As for Robin, he's likely to speak up for himself, but my guess is that he'll embrace a compatibilist view: People imitate other people because it signals loyalty/social intelligence/predictability/etc. And isn't there a lot of truth in that?

P.S. Arnold is dead on target to write:

Cowen would worry about potential adverse effects on the social equilibrium. Cutting out a few percentage points of deadweight loss is not such a great idea if it sends society careening toward an equilibrium of cheating and corruption. Having said that, it is rarely the case that one can draw a clear connection between good economic policy and bad social cohesion.
Frankly, this is just Tyler being paranoid again. The sky is not falling, and social cohesion is not going to break down.


Comments and Sharing





TRACKBACKS (3 to date)
TrackBack URL: http://econlog.econlib.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/743
The author at Freedom Democrats in a related article titled Is Hayek the "right way" writes:
    Follow me: Economist Dani Rodrik, writes an [Tracked on August 6, 2007 6:19 PM]
COMMENTS (3 to date)
Unit writes:

I find Tyler's prediction quite unsubstantiated. In countries with large government intervention cheating and corruption are endemic and well-documented. How can one predict that reducing government intervention will increase cheating and corruption is a mystery to me.

Matt writes:

People immitate each other, in economic theory, because of economies of scale. Or, more formally, the greatest average return comes when one invests with the aggregate. It is the rich man who notices the exceptions.

Robin Hanson writes:

Bryan is right; I do "embrace a compatibilist view."

Comments for this entry have been closed
Return to top