In conversation with

Exordium

The Strangeness of the Discipline

A Good Scientific Conversation

Economists Are Human, Too

The vehemence of the disagreements is intensifying and the social context in which they are being aired is becoming less genteel. George Stigler (1911-1991) was an Good Old Chicago economist who was as fluent with biting humor as Solow. Both were brilliantly, if cuttingly, entertaining. An MIT economist once presented a paper on efficiency wages at Chicago — how brave of the man, as Chicago is not inclined to entertain notions about imperfections in the labor market. The poor fellow started guilelessly by wondering whether he should stand or sit at the table to present. "With a paper like that," Stigler offered casually, "I'd do it under the table."

The passions that underlie such biting remarks are not always negative. Exclamations like Wow! Neat! Great! I love it! How exciting! are far removed from the image of the dispassionate and detached scientist but are not atypical of economic theorists.

Passionate as economists can be, they are also good for gossip. When economists confer, their conversations usually evolve along three stages. The first topic is other economists. Who got tenured, divorced, left the profession? Who got into a duel with another economist? The textbook advance was how much?! — These are the most important items and usually last for the social hour. (Imagine how many hours of non-economic conversation McCloskey's gender change caused.) What one is up to in economics comes second. Colleague to colleague talk. Mutual appraisal of each other's work. In this setting, do not stumble around. "She has no idea what she's doing..." will circulate quickly. For scientists, economists are unusually eager to share, eager to be considered. Rarely is a new theory kept secret. Like any other human, economists seek approval and are proud of their work. Only after these two areas are settled do economists talk about the economy. Even then, they do so rather timidly. Academic economists — who are quite eloquent in speaking about the economy in academia — are not inclined to real world economic discourse in a social setting with their colleagues. Economists who work for, say, the Fed or the IMF, are less reticent, but then again, continual writing and reading about events in the real economy is what they get paid for.

The fact that the gossip comes first verifies that economists are social beings. They experience marital anguish, celebrate births, seek professional approval, commiserate with failure and applaud accomplishment. Parties are organized for Nobel Prize winners. Conferences are opportunities to share findings and get to know each other better. They are, quite simply, human. As such, they have inner circles and, especially in academics, judge each other implicitly by their university affiliations, the amount of respect given their particular school of thought, and what other academicians have to say about their work. Gossip may not seem to belong in science but in economics it is influential.