Nice article. It brings to mind the following satire, from philosopher/sociologist Alasdair MacIntyre's "Against the Self Images of the Age" published in 1966 (!), a broadside against the kind of reductive and "value-free" social science in vogue then, as now:
There was once a man who aspired to be the author of the general theory of holes. When asked "What kind of hole-holes dug by children in the sand for amusement, holes dug by gardeners to
plant lettuce seedlings, tank traps, holes made by roadmakers ?" he would reply indignantly that he wished for a GENERAL theory that would explain all of these. He rejected ab initio the-as he saw it-pathetically common-sense view that of the digging of different kinds of holes there are quite different kinds of explanations to be given; why then he would ask do we have the concept of a hole? Lacking the explanations to which he originally aspired, he then fell to discovering statistically significant correlations; he found for example that there is a correlation between the aggregate hole-digging achievement of a society as measured, or at least one day to be measured, by econometric techniques, and its degree of technological development. The United States surpasses both Paraguay and Upper Volta in hole-digging. He also discovered
that war accelerates hole-digging ; there are more holes in Vietnam than there were. These observations, he would always insist, were neutral and value-free. This man's achievement has passed totally unnoticed except by me. Had he however turned his talents to political science, had he concerned himself not with holes, but with modernization, urbanization or violence, I find it difficult to believe that he might not have achieved high office in the APSA (American Political Science Association).
Footnote 1 “I am not optimistic that my fellow boffins will take kindly to me after this essay”.
Well you’ve given quite a few clues in your books and previous essays so fear not, my guess is most already know and hopefully are good with it. See if your UCL pass still works ;)
“How many legs would a dog have if you called a tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.” Abraham Lincoln.
Economics lost some of my respect when they tried to teach me about the "rational consumer." I don't believe there are such people. The seller will always know more about the product or service being sold. Therefore, the consumer starts off at an informational disadvantage. Then there are the emotions which can be swayed so easily. If they weren't, then advertising other than the plain facts would be useless. Since advertising is a multibillion dollar business, I don't see any evidence of the "rational consumer."
So IMHO, economics starts off on a very shaky hypothesis which makes its conclusions suspect.
" the emotional consumer" ... in today's world, we appear to be addressing 'wants' much more than 'needs'. Critical thinking tells us what we need, emotions tell us...
thank you, brian. excellent expose. the last paragraph is eye-opening. i hope policymakers read your work. and they should read your latest book, fluke. here it is:
"Every risk is amplified by overconfident authoritarian fools in power. "
As you've noted elsewhere 'seldom right; never uncertain'.
Boffin? Never heard the word--thank you! Anyone who throws in an Egon Schiele painting is doing the right thing. Do Klimt next? They say the good Austrians ( Popper, Wittgenstein) drive out the bad (Hayek, von Mises)
Hahaha! Diane Morgan has become almost an ambassador for British culture! You have to love that. Boffin is one of those words I grew up with in Hampshire and Hertfordshire and then found was equally well understood in the Highlands, so I thought it must be quite old but it seems not. It does have a beautifully eccentric ring to it that makes it very British somehow. But I can't find any reference to it predating Dickens so it seems to be relatively new. Since WWII the term has been used a lot to reflect the possibly insane confidence that our government actually consults and occasionally even employs people who have expertise in a particular field. 'The boffins in Whitehall have come up with something,' and such.
It is interesting that there is a Nobel Prize for the social sciences: The Nobel Prize in Economics. Many have referred to it as the “Dismal Science,” a phrase coined by Thomas Carlyle in 1849. The Nobel committee made its first award in 1969. Apparently, in 1975 the award was broadened to include the social sciences, of which economics is a part. I’d be curious to know how the theories/processes upon which the award has been made since 1969 have stood the test of time. For example, how is Milton Friedman’s theory doing?
It’s a great question—and the kind of thing that would make a fascinating research paper, too. There are surely plenty of theories from Nobel prizes in other sciences that have not stood the test of time — that’s how science progresses — but what’s different here is that nobody can agree in social science what has been proven right and what has been proven wrong, which is often very different from, say, chemistry or physics.
I agree, but am not optimistic. Many eminent social scientists have made equality powerful critiques, and yet the folly continues, driven by career incentives and a fundamentally flawed model of social science.
We urgently need a better paradigm of social science.
I suggest a further paradigm shift, which is to see all institutions as both a) living experiments and b) ‘dynamic theories’ - equivalent to theories in the natural sciences.
Thus an institution like McDonald’s makes explicit predictions of its results (as you advocate), which are tested in real time, peer-reviewed in stock markets, by business analysts and on the high street. Leaders of this social experiment systematically work on their model (dynamic theory) to get consistent or better results. (See Unwrapping the McDonald's model: An introduction to dynamic social theory, Journal of American Culture, V46/3 2023 https://doi.org/10.1111/jacc.13467)
This is not an argument for McDonaldization: on the contrary – there are better models – but for studying real world social experiments and embedding appropriate research methods into our institutions to help practitioners and citizens improve outcomes.
The core idea is deceptively simple, but seeing it requires a mental shift, as with the ambiguous images of an old/young woman or duck/rabbit.
I think this approach has potential to make professional social sciences more useful, and used, by policy-makers and citizens. I’ve written a lengthy peer reviewed paper in the forlorn hope it might have some credibility, but mainly to develop my thinking - it still needs work and feedback is welcome.
(Read pre-proof version here https://bit.ly/SocialModelv8 ‘Social Models as Dynamic Theories: How to Improve the Impact of Social and Political Sciences’ – it will be published in Frontiers in Political Science. DOI: 10.3389/fpos.2024.1443388 - The Supplementary Materials include a ‘Manifesto for Social Science’ on some implications for teaching and research aimed at improving impact.
The idea of treating all institutions as social experiments and ‘dynamic theories’ builds on the work of practice-orientated social scientists, who are mostly undervalued or neglected in academic social science.
Humanity’s biggest and most urgent problems are social and political. There is a lot of excellent research which could help people solve them. But our flawed model of social science means they are unlikely to make much difference, while the real-time social experiments by Trump, Musk, Bezos, Zuckerberg, McDonalds and the like will continue to have more impact.
Thanks for the articles - will read them - lots of interesting ideas in your comments! Some of the problem is a lack of skin in the game. Predictions would also help with that.
I agree with everything, but am not optimistic. Many eminent social scientists have made equality powerful critiques, and yet the folly continues, driven by career incentives and a fundamentally flawed model of social science.
We urgently need a better paradigm of social science.
I suggest a further paradigm shift, which is to see all institutions as
1. living experiments
2. ‘dynamic theories’ , and the equivalent to theories in the natural sciences.
Thus an institution like McDonald’s makes explicit predictions of its results (as you advocate), which are tested in real time, peer-reviewed in stock markets, by business analysts and on the high street. Leaders of this social experiment systematically work on their model (dynamic theory) to get consistent or better results. ( See Unwrapping the McDonald's model: An introduction to dynamic social theory, Journal of American Culture, V46/3 2023 https://doi.org/10.1111/jacc.13467)
This is not an argument for McDonaldization: on the contrary – there are better models – but for studying real world social experiments and embedding appropriate research methods into our institutions to help practitioners and citizens improve outcomes.
The core idea is deceptively simple, but seeing it requires a mental shift, as with the ambiguous images of an old/young woman or duck/rabbit.
I think this approach has potential to make professional social sciences more useful, and used, by policy-makers and citizens. I’ve written a lengthy peer reviewed paper in the forlorn hope it might have some credibility, but mainly to develop my thinking - it still needs work and feedback is welcome.
(Read pre-proof version here https://bit.ly/SocialModelv8 ‘Social Models as Dynamic Theories: How to Improve the Impact of Social and Political Sciences’ – it will be published in Frontiers in Political Science. DOI: 10.3389/fpos.2024.1443388 ,
It argues that our current model of social science falls far short of its potential, while offering an alternative approach.
The idea of treating all institutions as social experiments and ‘dynamic theories’ builds on the work of practice-orientated social scientists, who are mostly undervalued or neglected in academic social science.
The SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS include a ‘Manifesto for Social Science’ on some implications for teaching and research aimed at improving the impact of social science.
Humanity’s biggest and most urgent problems are social and political. There is a lot of excellent research which could help people solve them. But our flawed model of social science means they are unlikely to make much difference, while the real-time social experiments by Trump, Musk, Bezos, Zuckerberg, McDonalds and the like will continue to have more impact.
Thanks again - and I got your email - will read all these articles. It’s very encouraging to see concrete proposals of dealing with some of these issues, though I fear that both of us will be ignored by the mainstream who, as you say, don’t take the fundamental problems seriously enough.
Back when economic theory revolved around a “reasonable man”, a friend of mine told me that “no one makes a rational decision; everyone makes emotional decisions then they rationalize”. He was an Econ and Poly-Sci major that eventually received a PhD but made his mark in motivational speaking and not Academia. I once felt his assertion was the exception but the older I get the more I agree with it being the norm. I’m not sure how one plugs a “lizard brain” factor into Social Science research but maybe that’s a tweak that’s worth considering.
It’s not just the profession to blame. As a non-elbow-patched boffin, I want to highlight that the second I make some narrow, evidence-based claim in public, I get asked by policy makers and journalists to predict completely unknowable outcomes in unrelated settings. It is maddening.
I have a painstaking study of the productivity implications of adopting AI in manufacturing, and as soon as I conclude, the next question is always “what about the services sector?”😳
Well written as usual. I echo another comment about not being that optimistic that social science will be able to come to the rescue to the threats that you point out.
Your piece reminds me of the parable of the six blind men, describing an elephant. Each one is partly right but they are all wrong.
Like you say 8 billion emotional humans are quantum squared. I don’t blame social science shying away from the prediction telling business. That might be better suited to the folks with crystal balls.
Not sure then how social science can have impact other than amongst themselves.
If anyone can change that though, it would be you!
A appropriate quote for this essay “economics is fundamentally harder than physics because unlike planets people can think and their behavior can change as a result.” J. Doyne farmer
Me as well. I got that quote from his book “making sense of chaos” my favorite quote from that book is by far: “Randomness is a subjective concept that depends on one’s state of understanding. Better science and better technology can make something that seems random become predictable.”
I will be at a Political Science conference for the next 2 days and just wondering how I can spot the boffins? Would asking if they can explain the rebel equation be sufficient?😊
Really interesting. It isn't just in Social Science RESEARCH that we see these problem. We also see it humungously in "Social Science" propaganda. Looking at the "McNamara Fallacy" I suddenly had a name for all the destructiveness of anti DEI fervor.
DEI is mostly about expanding searches for job applicants (along with apparently some condescending "education" so people in the company won't trash those who were minorities that got recruited and hired.)
So take 2 folks for a data entry opening. Advertised widely. Two are more skilled than the rest. Both are skilled well above whatever levels the job requires. Person B is faster and more accurate than Person A. But person B is also clearly an arrogant twit likely to cause disruption among coworkers if hired. If Persons A & B are both white males, everyone admits choosing A was a logical thing to do. But if person A happens to be female, or worse, minority--all hell breaks loose. Must have been race based, that decision. If Person A is a pilot, people go on about "not wanting to fly with a Black/female pilot
American society is being dismantled in the name of "social science" myths.
Basically, we're living through the proof of the failure of the grand evolutionary experiment in biological intelligence that could foresee the results of its actions and modify its behavior to change that result to one less harmful.
Nice article. It brings to mind the following satire, from philosopher/sociologist Alasdair MacIntyre's "Against the Self Images of the Age" published in 1966 (!), a broadside against the kind of reductive and "value-free" social science in vogue then, as now:
There was once a man who aspired to be the author of the general theory of holes. When asked "What kind of hole-holes dug by children in the sand for amusement, holes dug by gardeners to
plant lettuce seedlings, tank traps, holes made by roadmakers ?" he would reply indignantly that he wished for a GENERAL theory that would explain all of these. He rejected ab initio the-as he saw it-pathetically common-sense view that of the digging of different kinds of holes there are quite different kinds of explanations to be given; why then he would ask do we have the concept of a hole? Lacking the explanations to which he originally aspired, he then fell to discovering statistically significant correlations; he found for example that there is a correlation between the aggregate hole-digging achievement of a society as measured, or at least one day to be measured, by econometric techniques, and its degree of technological development. The United States surpasses both Paraguay and Upper Volta in hole-digging. He also discovered
that war accelerates hole-digging ; there are more holes in Vietnam than there were. These observations, he would always insist, were neutral and value-free. This man's achievement has passed totally unnoticed except by me. Had he however turned his talents to political science, had he concerned himself not with holes, but with modernization, urbanization or violence, I find it difficult to believe that he might not have achieved high office in the APSA (American Political Science Association).
A savage and amusing critique!
Footnote 1 “I am not optimistic that my fellow boffins will take kindly to me after this essay”.
Well you’ve given quite a few clues in your books and previous essays so fear not, my guess is most already know and hopefully are good with it. See if your UCL pass still works ;)
“How many legs would a dog have if you called a tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.” Abraham Lincoln.
What's the old joke? If you lined up every economist in the world head to foot, they still wouldn't reach a conclusion. 😆
ah, but--every 5-7 feet-- they would reach another theory. As well, every layer would be quite oonvinced of it's solidity/firmness.
Don't ask why, but at this point insert story of elephant being designed by blind people.
Economics lost some of my respect when they tried to teach me about the "rational consumer." I don't believe there are such people. The seller will always know more about the product or service being sold. Therefore, the consumer starts off at an informational disadvantage. Then there are the emotions which can be swayed so easily. If they weren't, then advertising other than the plain facts would be useless. Since advertising is a multibillion dollar business, I don't see any evidence of the "rational consumer."
So IMHO, economics starts off on a very shaky hypothesis which makes its conclusions suspect.
Thoughts anyone?
" the emotional consumer" ... in today's world, we appear to be addressing 'wants' much more than 'needs'. Critical thinking tells us what we need, emotions tell us...
thank you, brian. excellent expose. the last paragraph is eye-opening. i hope policymakers read your work. and they should read your latest book, fluke. here it is:
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/fluke-brian-klaas/1143636542?ean=9781668006535
"Every risk is amplified by overconfident authoritarian fools in power. "
As you've noted elsewhere 'seldom right; never uncertain'.
Boffin? Never heard the word--thank you! Anyone who throws in an Egon Schiele painting is doing the right thing. Do Klimt next? They say the good Austrians ( Popper, Wittgenstein) drive out the bad (Hayek, von Mises)
Boffin is a word that I have adopted because I like it and it sounds funny but I admit that I first heard it from Philomena Cunk.
Hahaha! Diane Morgan has become almost an ambassador for British culture! You have to love that. Boffin is one of those words I grew up with in Hampshire and Hertfordshire and then found was equally well understood in the Highlands, so I thought it must be quite old but it seems not. It does have a beautifully eccentric ring to it that makes it very British somehow. But I can't find any reference to it predating Dickens so it seems to be relatively new. Since WWII the term has been used a lot to reflect the possibly insane confidence that our government actually consults and occasionally even employs people who have expertise in a particular field. 'The boffins in Whitehall have come up with something,' and such.
It is interesting that there is a Nobel Prize for the social sciences: The Nobel Prize in Economics. Many have referred to it as the “Dismal Science,” a phrase coined by Thomas Carlyle in 1849. The Nobel committee made its first award in 1969. Apparently, in 1975 the award was broadened to include the social sciences, of which economics is a part. I’d be curious to know how the theories/processes upon which the award has been made since 1969 have stood the test of time. For example, how is Milton Friedman’s theory doing?
It’s a great question—and the kind of thing that would make a fascinating research paper, too. There are surely plenty of theories from Nobel prizes in other sciences that have not stood the test of time — that’s how science progresses — but what’s different here is that nobody can agree in social science what has been proven right and what has been proven wrong, which is often very different from, say, chemistry or physics.
I agree, but am not optimistic. Many eminent social scientists have made equality powerful critiques, and yet the folly continues, driven by career incentives and a fundamentally flawed model of social science.
We urgently need a better paradigm of social science.
I suggest a further paradigm shift, which is to see all institutions as both a) living experiments and b) ‘dynamic theories’ - equivalent to theories in the natural sciences.
Thus an institution like McDonald’s makes explicit predictions of its results (as you advocate), which are tested in real time, peer-reviewed in stock markets, by business analysts and on the high street. Leaders of this social experiment systematically work on their model (dynamic theory) to get consistent or better results. (See Unwrapping the McDonald's model: An introduction to dynamic social theory, Journal of American Culture, V46/3 2023 https://doi.org/10.1111/jacc.13467)
This is not an argument for McDonaldization: on the contrary – there are better models – but for studying real world social experiments and embedding appropriate research methods into our institutions to help practitioners and citizens improve outcomes.
Successful social models are more likely to be adopted by politicians, practitioners and the public than proposals in the most rigorous academic journal: see ECPR blog for a short summary The power of a good example (https://theloop.ecpr.eu/the-power-of-a-good-example-social-models-offer-the-best-future-for-political-science/)
The core idea is deceptively simple, but seeing it requires a mental shift, as with the ambiguous images of an old/young woman or duck/rabbit.
I think this approach has potential to make professional social sciences more useful, and used, by policy-makers and citizens. I’ve written a lengthy peer reviewed paper in the forlorn hope it might have some credibility, but mainly to develop my thinking - it still needs work and feedback is welcome.
(Read pre-proof version here https://bit.ly/SocialModelv8 ‘Social Models as Dynamic Theories: How to Improve the Impact of Social and Political Sciences’ – it will be published in Frontiers in Political Science. DOI: 10.3389/fpos.2024.1443388 - The Supplementary Materials include a ‘Manifesto for Social Science’ on some implications for teaching and research aimed at improving impact.
The idea of treating all institutions as social experiments and ‘dynamic theories’ builds on the work of practice-orientated social scientists, who are mostly undervalued or neglected in academic social science.
Humanity’s biggest and most urgent problems are social and political. There is a lot of excellent research which could help people solve them. But our flawed model of social science means they are unlikely to make much difference, while the real-time social experiments by Trump, Musk, Bezos, Zuckerberg, McDonalds and the like will continue to have more impact.
Thanks for the articles - will read them - lots of interesting ideas in your comments! Some of the problem is a lack of skin in the game. Predictions would also help with that.
I agree with everything, but am not optimistic. Many eminent social scientists have made equality powerful critiques, and yet the folly continues, driven by career incentives and a fundamentally flawed model of social science.
We urgently need a better paradigm of social science.
I suggest a further paradigm shift, which is to see all institutions as
1. living experiments
2. ‘dynamic theories’ , and the equivalent to theories in the natural sciences.
Thus an institution like McDonald’s makes explicit predictions of its results (as you advocate), which are tested in real time, peer-reviewed in stock markets, by business analysts and on the high street. Leaders of this social experiment systematically work on their model (dynamic theory) to get consistent or better results. ( See Unwrapping the McDonald's model: An introduction to dynamic social theory, Journal of American Culture, V46/3 2023 https://doi.org/10.1111/jacc.13467)
This is not an argument for McDonaldization: on the contrary – there are better models – but for studying real world social experiments and embedding appropriate research methods into our institutions to help practitioners and citizens improve outcomes.
Successful social models are more likely to be adopted by politicians, practitioners and the public than proposals in the most rigorous academic journal: see ECPR blog for a short summary The power of a good example: social models offer the best future for political science (https://theloop.ecpr.eu/the-power-of-a-good-example-social-models-offer-the-best-future-for-political-science/)
The core idea is deceptively simple, but seeing it requires a mental shift, as with the ambiguous images of an old/young woman or duck/rabbit.
I think this approach has potential to make professional social sciences more useful, and used, by policy-makers and citizens. I’ve written a lengthy peer reviewed paper in the forlorn hope it might have some credibility, but mainly to develop my thinking - it still needs work and feedback is welcome.
(Read pre-proof version here https://bit.ly/SocialModelv8 ‘Social Models as Dynamic Theories: How to Improve the Impact of Social and Political Sciences’ – it will be published in Frontiers in Political Science. DOI: 10.3389/fpos.2024.1443388 ,
It argues that our current model of social science falls far short of its potential, while offering an alternative approach.
The idea of treating all institutions as social experiments and ‘dynamic theories’ builds on the work of practice-orientated social scientists, who are mostly undervalued or neglected in academic social science.
The SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS include a ‘Manifesto for Social Science’ on some implications for teaching and research aimed at improving the impact of social science.
Humanity’s biggest and most urgent problems are social and political. There is a lot of excellent research which could help people solve them. But our flawed model of social science means they are unlikely to make much difference, while the real-time social experiments by Trump, Musk, Bezos, Zuckerberg, McDonalds and the like will continue to have more impact.
Thanks again - and I got your email - will read all these articles. It’s very encouraging to see concrete proposals of dealing with some of these issues, though I fear that both of us will be ignored by the mainstream who, as you say, don’t take the fundamental problems seriously enough.
Back when economic theory revolved around a “reasonable man”, a friend of mine told me that “no one makes a rational decision; everyone makes emotional decisions then they rationalize”. He was an Econ and Poly-Sci major that eventually received a PhD but made his mark in motivational speaking and not Academia. I once felt his assertion was the exception but the older I get the more I agree with it being the norm. I’m not sure how one plugs a “lizard brain” factor into Social Science research but maybe that’s a tweak that’s worth considering.
It’s not just the profession to blame. As a non-elbow-patched boffin, I want to highlight that the second I make some narrow, evidence-based claim in public, I get asked by policy makers and journalists to predict completely unknowable outcomes in unrelated settings. It is maddening.
I have a painstaking study of the productivity implications of adopting AI in manufacturing, and as soon as I conclude, the next question is always “what about the services sector?”😳
Well written as usual. I echo another comment about not being that optimistic that social science will be able to come to the rescue to the threats that you point out.
Your piece reminds me of the parable of the six blind men, describing an elephant. Each one is partly right but they are all wrong.
Like you say 8 billion emotional humans are quantum squared. I don’t blame social science shying away from the prediction telling business. That might be better suited to the folks with crystal balls.
Not sure then how social science can have impact other than amongst themselves.
If anyone can change that though, it would be you!
A appropriate quote for this essay “economics is fundamentally harder than physics because unlike planets people can think and their behavior can change as a result.” J. Doyne farmer
I’m friends with Doyne and admire his work greatly!
Me as well. I got that quote from his book “making sense of chaos” my favorite quote from that book is by far: “Randomness is a subjective concept that depends on one’s state of understanding. Better science and better technology can make something that seems random become predictable.”
I will be at a Political Science conference for the next 2 days and just wondering how I can spot the boffins? Would asking if they can explain the rebel equation be sufficient?😊
Give it a shot!
Really interesting. It isn't just in Social Science RESEARCH that we see these problem. We also see it humungously in "Social Science" propaganda. Looking at the "McNamara Fallacy" I suddenly had a name for all the destructiveness of anti DEI fervor.
DEI is mostly about expanding searches for job applicants (along with apparently some condescending "education" so people in the company won't trash those who were minorities that got recruited and hired.)
So take 2 folks for a data entry opening. Advertised widely. Two are more skilled than the rest. Both are skilled well above whatever levels the job requires. Person B is faster and more accurate than Person A. But person B is also clearly an arrogant twit likely to cause disruption among coworkers if hired. If Persons A & B are both white males, everyone admits choosing A was a logical thing to do. But if person A happens to be female, or worse, minority--all hell breaks loose. Must have been race based, that decision. If Person A is a pilot, people go on about "not wanting to fly with a Black/female pilot
American society is being dismantled in the name of "social science" myths.
Basically, we're living through the proof of the failure of the grand evolutionary experiment in biological intelligence that could foresee the results of its actions and modify its behavior to change that result to one less harmful.
Now add bad actors and complete incompetence to the mix…. 🙄