I agree emotions are the probably the most important factor, especially in politics.
But even absent emotions, I find that most people struggle to think like an economist consistently. Even a moderate increase in cognitive load, or a shift in context, can interfere with their ability to apply economic reasoning.
For example, I don't think most people find thinking in trade-offs to be intuitive. They understand the concept plenty well in the abstract. But then you get in a business meeting and people say "let's be good at X, Y, and Z" and you say "we should probably neglect X so that we focus on Z" and if neglecting X is not a conventional thing to do then you will be met with confused looks. People are eventually forced to make trade-offs but they stumble into it more than it being a result of deliberate planning.
"Iād say 'X is intuitive' roughly means 'If you clearly state X to a person of average intelligence when they are calm, they quickly see that it is plausible.'ā
That is profoundly wrong. You are talking about logic, not intuition. Intuition means people get it without having to think about it or have it explained. See, for example, the great book The Design of Everyday Things, wherein the author explains that now matter how well something works, regardless of how logical it is, if it requires explanation for people to operate it, it's not intuitive.
Your mistake is confusing or conflating logic and intuition, whereas intuition is pre-cognitive, so pre-logical.
Economics certainly is logical. But intuitive? No, you only think so because you fail to make the crucial distinction between logic and intuition.
There is a sort of complementary case: When I started reading about economics, I immediately thought it made sense and led to sound policy preferences. I wonder how many people have that reaction? I wonder how common they are among economists?
āBasic economics makes psychologically normal humans angry and disgusted. Usually mildly, but the uglier the economic lesson, the more extreme the anger and disgust become.ā
IDK if your assertion about āpsychologically normal humansā is generally correct or not.
But I agree that it applies to almost all such humans who have been indoctrinated to believe in the opposite of the Tenth Commandment.
āIām open to almost any form of marketing that works. But sadly, none work well on psychologically normal humans, because they are too emotional.ā
I suggest marketing Garret Jonesā Tenth Commandment Club. It might take a few minutes, but I find it can be one of the best ways to get through to emotional normal humans.
I think what you are saying is true if you assume that logical argument is itself intuitive, however for the vast majority of people logic is completely unintuitive. Most people do not know how to evaluate whether an argument is valid or sound, and so even if an argument is completely logically straightforward they will not actually be able to understand it. I know Bryan plays board games, so I suspect he has also had the experience of explaining to people why some action is necessarily better or worse and the person just glazing over--statements like "x must the case give y" or "if x is the case then y necessarily follows" simply have no meaning for most people.
The emotions stem from having previous commitments to beliefs and frameworks about the world, that are part of identity and comforting or comfortable. Eg: landlords rich ppl who are lazy and greedy and only get wealth by exploiting noble hardworking renters. If children are taught economics concepts first before learning politics, they are not usually emotional about it.
Emotions are primal and reactive. They are the most effective means of manipulating people.
Teaching people to 'trust your feelings' induces them to rely on their emotional reactions.
Ideas like fairness anchor taught beliefs in the emotional sphere. The longer people hold these attachments the stronger the attachment as they conflate their identity with their beliefs.
Information that conflicts with their beliefs is seen as an attack on their identity.
It can take years for a person to realign their beliefs with reality.
>> I think itās fair to say that something is intuitive if someone without formal training in the area can think it through on their own.
> Thatās too high of a bar. Iād say āX is intuitiveā roughly means āIf you clearly state X to a person of average intelligence when they are calm, they quickly see that it is plausible.ā
The former is closer to how people normally use it, while you are taking some kind of Habermasian ideal deliberative politics type approach.
> The problem is that most are too emotional even to listen.
They wouldn't have to listen at all if they already intuitively understood it.
> Why would anyone have strong opinions about issues they havenāt thought about very carefully?
I agree emotions are the probably the most important factor, especially in politics.
But even absent emotions, I find that most people struggle to think like an economist consistently. Even a moderate increase in cognitive load, or a shift in context, can interfere with their ability to apply economic reasoning.
For example, I don't think most people find thinking in trade-offs to be intuitive. They understand the concept plenty well in the abstract. But then you get in a business meeting and people say "let's be good at X, Y, and Z" and you say "we should probably neglect X so that we focus on Z" and if neglecting X is not a conventional thing to do then you will be met with confused looks. People are eventually forced to make trade-offs but they stumble into it more than it being a result of deliberate planning.
"Iād say 'X is intuitive' roughly means 'If you clearly state X to a person of average intelligence when they are calm, they quickly see that it is plausible.'ā
That is profoundly wrong. You are talking about logic, not intuition. Intuition means people get it without having to think about it or have it explained. See, for example, the great book The Design of Everyday Things, wherein the author explains that now matter how well something works, regardless of how logical it is, if it requires explanation for people to operate it, it's not intuitive.
Your mistake is confusing or conflating logic and intuition, whereas intuition is pre-cognitive, so pre-logical.
Economics certainly is logical. But intuitive? No, you only think so because you fail to make the crucial distinction between logic and intuition.
Definitions of intuitive.
Merriam -Webster: "the power or faculty of attaining to direct knowledge or cognition without evident rational thought and inference"
Cambridge Dictionary: "based on feelings rather than facts or proof:"
Etymology online:"n, "insight, direct or immediate cognition, spiritual perception," originally theological"
There is a sort of complementary case: When I started reading about economics, I immediately thought it made sense and led to sound policy preferences. I wonder how many people have that reaction? I wonder how common they are among economists?
āBasic economics makes psychologically normal humans angry and disgusted. Usually mildly, but the uglier the economic lesson, the more extreme the anger and disgust become.ā
IDK if your assertion about āpsychologically normal humansā is generally correct or not.
But I agree that it applies to almost all such humans who have been indoctrinated to believe in the opposite of the Tenth Commandment.
āIām open to almost any form of marketing that works. But sadly, none work well on psychologically normal humans, because they are too emotional.ā
I suggest marketing Garret Jonesā Tenth Commandment Club. It might take a few minutes, but I find it can be one of the best ways to get through to emotional normal humans.
I think what you are saying is true if you assume that logical argument is itself intuitive, however for the vast majority of people logic is completely unintuitive. Most people do not know how to evaluate whether an argument is valid or sound, and so even if an argument is completely logically straightforward they will not actually be able to understand it. I know Bryan plays board games, so I suspect he has also had the experience of explaining to people why some action is necessarily better or worse and the person just glazing over--statements like "x must the case give y" or "if x is the case then y necessarily follows" simply have no meaning for most people.
The emotions stem from having previous commitments to beliefs and frameworks about the world, that are part of identity and comforting or comfortable. Eg: landlords rich ppl who are lazy and greedy and only get wealth by exploiting noble hardworking renters. If children are taught economics concepts first before learning politics, they are not usually emotional about it.
Emotions are primal and reactive. They are the most effective means of manipulating people.
Teaching people to 'trust your feelings' induces them to rely on their emotional reactions.
Ideas like fairness anchor taught beliefs in the emotional sphere. The longer people hold these attachments the stronger the attachment as they conflate their identity with their beliefs.
Information that conflicts with their beliefs is seen as an attack on their identity.
It can take years for a person to realign their beliefs with reality.
>> I think itās fair to say that something is intuitive if someone without formal training in the area can think it through on their own.
> Thatās too high of a bar. Iād say āX is intuitiveā roughly means āIf you clearly state X to a person of average intelligence when they are calm, they quickly see that it is plausible.ā
The former is closer to how people normally use it, while you are taking some kind of Habermasian ideal deliberative politics type approach.
> The problem is that most are too emotional even to listen.
They wouldn't have to listen at all if they already intuitively understood it.
> Why would anyone have strong opinions about issues they havenāt thought about very carefully?
As Robin Hanson has pointed out, there is a norm AGAINST thinking deeply about things people believe should be obvious. https://www.overcomingbias.com/p/automatic-normshtml
> As Ben Stein hilariously showed in Ferris Buellerās Day Off, the typical economist is a poor teacher
https://www.overcomingbias.com/p/fictional-evidehtml
As that was a fictional highschool, he wasn't even a fictional professor.
Game, set and match!