Talk:Homo economicus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is within the scope of the Economics WikiProject, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve economics-related articles..
Start rated as start-Class on the assessment scale
Low rated as low-importance on the importance scale

Contents

[edit] Etymology

It would be great to see an etymology of the term here- when did it appear, in what context, etc. It must post-date Veblen, who is mentioned here as having railed against homo economicus.

I looked in the Oxford English Dictionary and I updated the main page accordingly. If you can find the exact place where Veblen used the term, tell the OED and they'd probably be pleased to update their next edition. --GwydionM 13:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I have traced it back to Pareto (1906) and added the information. seglea 20:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Two economic historians, Joseph Persky and Julie Nelson, trace the term back to critics of John Stuart Mill. The English term seems to have predated the Latin form. I added a section on the history of the term. --Mankad 21:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rants?

Phewee, there's a bit of a rant happening on this page! - - :I don't see a lot of ranting. The only part that was NPOV was the following section which I have now replaced. - - ::But you can be taught economics formally for more than 5 years without being taught that work. (Try asking for your money back from a neoclassical tutor. Increasingly people drop out of economics after 1 year). See post-autistic economics network to change 1st year Economics at http://www.paecon.net/. The Economics Textbook Industry is also looking for textbooks which are neo-classical dominated only for the first 200 pages of 600. Otherwise Wikipedia Schumpterian Creative destruction will wipe them out! - - :mydogategodshat 21:25, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC) - - - ::That's exactly the bit of a rant to which I was referring. Much improved, thanks. Psb777 23:01, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC) - - :The article is still a rant, completely ignores NPOV, and was probably written by some pathetic sociology student so wrapped in his moral norms that he finds it offensive to suggest a model of rational behaviour not constrained by normative behaviour. -- 10:58, 20 October 2005

Accidentally removed this while updating, sorry. Now restored, I hope. --GwydionM 14:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ayn Rand

"Although not typically used this way, Homo economicus could probably also be used, with some degree of felicity, to critique the characters of Ayn Rand."

What the hell? A non-sequitur dig at Ayn Rand has no place in the Wikipedia. If you want to make a criticism, go ahead. What this looks like to me is a massive NPOV violation where someone read the article, drew a connection with their own flawed understanding of Rand, and decided to comment on it. Philwelch 16:24, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Presentation issues

By now, WP contains an impressive wealth of information on the controversy surrounding the model. I am afraid the criticisms and responses sections are somewhat confusing, though -- quite a few paragraphs may belong to the other section, or to both. I am wondering if, instead of splitting criticisms/responses, we could split by issue (e.g. empirical studies / sociology / intrinsic motivation / self-fulfilling prophecy / ...) and discuss the pros and cons per issue. Comments? Rl 14:27, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Rattus economicus

The concept of 'Homo Economicus' includes just those feelings that are common to people and to rats, along with other mammals and birds. So it should be Rattus economicus, a rat-race that is typically won by rats.

What's lacking from the model is sympathy, the vital human quality that allows people to work as a group even when any one of them could do better by cheating on the others.

This is explicable by natural selection, in as much as groups of hominids who sympathised would do better together than hominids who cheated each other. This would also require a strong reaction to cheats, but that too is very human.


--GwydionM 13:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Transendential rationalism

As well as ignoring human emotions, 'rational' economics makes bizarre assumptions about what people know. It is supposed that people on average know how their own best interests are served. How? Real business people find it hard work just to keep track of their own little bit of the economy. (If you look at managerial theory, it also has very little connection with what's taught as 'capitalism'. It is all about human relationships and how to encourage sympathy - tricky, since rather few people are inclined to sympathise with people who are richer and more powerful than they are.

When economists say 'rational', they actually mean 'let's leave out the actual imperfections of the world, to allow me to elaborate some fancy maths that might be valid for rat-like people who were also full of transcendential wisdom'. If this produces results that look nothing like the real world, it is hardly surprising.

--GwydionM 13:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Presentation issues

By now, WP contains an impressive wealth of information on the controversy surrounding the model. I am afraid the criticisms and responses sections are somewhat confusing, though -- quite a few paragraphs may belong to the other section, or to both. I am wondering if, instead of splitting criticisms/responses, we could split by issue (e.g. empirical studies / sociology / intrinsic motivation / self-fulfilling prophecy / ...) and discuss the pros and cons per issue. Comments? Rl 14:27, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] John Quidort

Is this true? If so, Quidort should be mentioned here. Sam Spade 23:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Smith

As far as polish wikipedia informs, the one who invented Homo economicus concept was Adam Smith. Why is he not mentioned in english version of that concept? cheers, Piotr


[edit] Economic Anthropology

Seems to me that if economists see themselves as empirical scientists and not a priori moral philosphers, rather than theorizing about "human nature" in a sort of empty abstract space, they could simply use a comparative approach to different types of social structures. Only features that are being found in all types of societies will qualify as being rooted in human nature; whatever varies over time in history and across different types of social structure can´t be just "natural" but has to be a result of social construction / organization / institutions /habits. Of course, economic anthropologists have provided empirical evidence against homo oeconomicus for decades, but for the most part, economicst haven´t even bothered looking at that evidence.

So I wasn´t really surprised to find a reference to economic anthropology in this article. I added 2 paragraphs to provide that missing argument (which seems a pretty strong and convincing one to me), and would like to ask why economists tend to be so uninformed about economic anthropology. --Thewolf37 02:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ethics

"Economic man is also amoral, ignoring all social values unless adhering to them gives him utility. Some believe such assumptions about humans are not only empirically inaccurate but unethical."

Can assumptions be "unethical"? An action or ideology, yes, but a mere fact taken for granted? --Lode Runner 07:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] The Trap - Documentary by Adam Curtis.

"....studies show that only 2 groups of people in society actually behave in a rational, self interested way (i.e.: like Homo Economicus) in all experimental situations. One is the economists themselves. The other, is psychopaths." [1] (Around the 58 minute mark). --85.92.186.210 12:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)