Economists and EQSQ
Yes, I know, betraying my own interests by returning to the subject of economists so soon. But we have another datum concerning where we should place economists in our EQSQ personality tests. Or, rather, the results from those personality tests that would lead us to conclude that the testee might (note, might, not will) be a good economist.
As we’ve noted before economics seems to be something that attracts those with the male type brain, with the higher spatial skills and abstract modelling abilities that go with that. Today’s reinforcement of our supposition comes not from Brian Caplan’s research into why men appear to both know more economics and like the subject better but from Lynne Kiesling again. We start with Alex Tabarrok at Marginal Revolution:
My wife is going away for a couple of weeks and the kids are at camp. “Won’t you be lonely?,” she asked, “The house will be so quiet.” Before I could properly think it through I replied, “Oh no, I’ll enjoy the peace and quiet.” I could tell immediately that this was not the right answer.
No, that isn’t, as the more perceptive readers will note, quite what you say to the love of your life at the prospect of being deprived of her company for a couple of weeks. Or not too often, at least. I then, at my economics blog, noted that economists can be less than, how shall we put this, tactful. When a factory closes, or tens of thousands put out of work, or interest rates rise making mortgages more expensive for everyone, economists have been known to say “Great, just what needed to happen” which isn’t, you might note, all that empathic of them.
Lynne, as above, notes that she has been known to make comments similar to Alex’s to her husband: …and perhaps economists are a bit lacking in tact …
We’ve studied an entire two pieces of data in our attempt to uncover whether economists are systemizing or empathizing and both seem to agree: with typically male attributes in pattern and spatial recognition and a definite lack of tact (another name for which is empathy). Yes, definitely male brain types, systemizers.
July 21st, 2006 at 12:29 am
Perhaps the systemizing mind makes a good economist only for the moment. Eventually, with resources dwindling, economists will be required to have high EQs, not just in the sense of empathizing with other humans, but empathizing with life, with all living things. In this sense, perhaps the ‘male’ mind will be forced to think more like the ‘female’ mind.
To take it further, the ‘male’ mind might only be a systemizer because the systemizing mind, more than the empathizing mind, has the capacity to make money. And even with the many gender-equality changes we’ve witnessed, the male still predominately makes more money than the female.
Right now, as it stands, the economy is still, still growing (regardless of periods of recession). But what happens when the recession never ends? This seems inevitable, given that we are living on a single planet. Or, as said by 1970 Nobel Prize recipient, Alexandr Solzhenitsyn (a male):
“a dozen maggots can’t go on and on gnawing the same apple forever…if the Earth is a finite object, then its expanses and resources are finite also…Society must cease to look upon ‘progress’ as something desirable. ‘Eternal progress’ is a nonsensical myth. What must be implemented is not a ‘steadily expanding economy’ but a zero growth economy, a stable economy. Economic growth is not only unnecessary but ruinous.â€
A similar perspective is given by Herman Daly (also a male), a real life economist. Mr. Daly, who does not go as far as compare us to maggots, puts it more mildly:
“It’s really been only in the last 200 years that growth has been a part of our lives…Prior to that, on an annual basis, growth was negligible. The idea that we must either grow or die is just not supported by history and I think that the contrary is much more likely: if we continue to grow, then surely we will die.â€
And on that ‘happy’ note, I’ll conclude with this thought: If everyone, female and male, was a giant outdoor umbrella, it is my hope we all, female and male, would have poles that tilt.
July 26th, 2006 at 5:49 pm
Poles that tilt I like, the economics less so. The problem with the analysis is that an assumption is being made that economic growth requires the consumption of more resources. Not so I’m afraid. Economic growth is actually the application of human intelligence to resources, to add ever more value to them. GDP, the way we measure growth is actually the value added in an economy, not the amount of resources consumed.
By applying intelligence to a resource we create value: more value equals growth. So imagine a world where we use all resources sustainably. Recycle everything, only use solar power and so on. Can we still have economic growth? Yes, indeed we can, as people invent new things which add greater value to those resources.
I know that’s not what we normally get told but it is in fact true.
August 4th, 2006 at 7:32 am
I agree that economic growth does not “require†consumption of more resources, to a point. We could probably greatly reduce resource consumption and still experience growth, but I’m not sure about the more positive alternative. Nonetheless, wouldn’t it be wonderful if this was the mantra of economic thought? But this, at the moment, is the ‘hard’ route (before, as Al Gore points out, glaciers melt and the ocean floods much of the inhabited earth).
But I have found several definitions of “economic growth†that contradict the mantra, including:
“A positive change in the level of production of goods and services by a country over a certain period of time.†(www.investorwords.com)
“Reflects the increase in the production of goods and services over time and is often used as a measure of increased material well-being generated through economic activity.†(www.smartstate.gld.gov.au/strategy/strategy05_15/glossary.shtm)
And, the definition of “product�
“Merchandise: commodities offered for sale.†(www.wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn)
And “commodities�
“Articles of commerce or products that can be used for commerce. In a narrow sense, products traded on an authorized commodity exchange. Types of commodities include agricultural products, metals, petroleum, foreign currencies, financial instruments and indexes to name a few.†(www.strebelcpa.com/resources/glossary.htm)
August 4th, 2006 at 7:36 am
I should have restated that I appreciate Tim’s ideal of ‘economic growth,’ even if I do think it somewhat impossible. Still, I would be more than open to accepting such a belief in my sense of the economy. But do all agree? For this question, I’ll add just two more definitions of “economic growthâ€:
“If there is economic growth this year, more goods and services have been produced this year than last year.†(www.nationalpriorities.org/budgetpages/glossary.html)
“Given the way the world now does business, the size of the economy is the best single measure of the mounting pressure on the earth’s environment. It combines the effects of both population growth and rising individual consumption to give us a sense of how much the pressure is increasing.†(www.edcnews.se/Research/EcoEconomy-All.html)
August 4th, 2006 at 4:02 pm
Well, yes and no Lucy. Boring economics bit coming up here but still let’s all stretch our intelligence a little, eh? What we actually measure is GDP (Gross Domestic Product). This is NOT, despite what people think, a measure of resources used, nor is it a measure of all the production. It is a measure of the value added in the economy. So, if I take some sand and put it into glass and make an egg timer GDP has increased by, say, $3, the value of the egg timer. If I use the same sand to make a computer chip worth $600 (and yes, that is what they’re made from) then GDP has increased by $600. So we can have huge differences in economic growth while using exactly the same resources. It’s the human intelligence that lets us work out how to make the chip that does it.
February 20th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
[...] However, the one little further part that our EQSQ personality tests can explain is also there, even though the reporter is unaware of it. There’s a shortage of (for example) female economics professors : as we know that’s something of a male brain subject so we would actually expect this. There’s also a shortage of men in nursing: again, as we know, a very female brain subject. Isn’t it just great when the real world accords with the theory? college degrees economics female professors gender gap higher college personality tests [...]