Some advice about how to avoid getting hoodwinked by mainstream economics.

Blair Fix

A few weeks ago, evolutionary biologist [David Sloan
Wilson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Sloan_Wilson){target="_blank"
rel="noopener"} contacted me about an essay series he's editing called
*Advice for an Aspiring Economist*. The series aims to give advice to
students who are interested in learning 'evonomics' --- economics from
an evolutionary perspective. It will be published in [*This View of Life
Magazine*](https://evolution-institute.org/this-view-of-life/){target="_blank"
rel="noopener"} and in
[*Evonomics*](https://evonomics.com/){target="_blank" rel="noopener"}.

To my surprise, Wilson asked me to contribute an essay. I'm honored for
two reasons. First, I still consider myself an 'aspiring economist'.
(I'm hardly an established academic.) Second, David Sloan Wilson is one
of my intellectual heroes. For decades he's battled against academic
orthodoxy, promoting the idea that groups are an important unit of
natural selection. Today, his ideas are widely accepted. Sociality, many
scientists now believe, cannot evolve without group selection.

Back to economics. Here's my contribution to Wilson's series: advice for
an aspiring economist.

::: {style="text-align:center;"}
✹ ✹ ✹
:::

One of my favorite criticisms of the economics discipline is this:

> ... \[Economics\] provides an outstanding example of the "*you can't
> get there from here*" principle in academic cultural evolution. It
> will never move if we try to change it
> incrementally.[^1^](#fn1){#fnref1 .footnote-ref}

This criticism comes not from an economist, but from an evolutionary
biologist --- David Sloan Wilson. My advice to an aspiring
(evolutionary-minded) economist is to remember Wilson's words: *you
can't get there from here*.

Here's what I mean.

If you learn economics as it's taught in most universities, you'll find
it difficult to think in evolutionary terms. The reason is simple.
Mainstream (neoclassical) economics treats humans as *asocial* animals
--- 'self-contained globules of desire'.[^2^](#fn2){#fnref2
.footnote-ref} Unfortunately, this asocial model is wrong. Looking at
human evolution, it's clear that we're a *social* species. Actually,
we're more than that. Humans are the most social of all mammals. Our
group-forming ability is rivalled only by the social insects (ants,
bees). Humans, in short, are *ultra-social*.[^3^](#fn3){#fnref3
.footnote-ref}

Because mainstream economics treats humans as asocial, it's a thought
barrier to doing evolutionary science. As such, my advice is to *not*
learn economics as it's taught in most universities.

This advice may seem odd. Isn't it like telling a chemistry student to
skip *Chemistry 101*? Actually, no. It's like telling a chemistry
student to skip *Phlogiston 101*.

Never heard of phlogiston? That's because it's a [long abandoned
theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory){target="_blank"
rel="noopener"}. In the 18th century, scientists proposed that
combustion was caused by the release of a fire-like substance called
'phlogiston'. The problem was that nobody could detect this mysterious
element. Instead, scientists discovered *oxygen*. And so phlogiston
theory was abandoned in favor of the oxygen theory of combustion.

Today, chemistry students don't learn phlogiston theory. Science
pedagogy has moved on. Unfortunately, economics pedagogy has not. If you
take *Economics 101*, you're learning the social-science equivalent of
phlogiston theory --- 19th-century ideas that should have been (but were
not) abandoned. So if you're an aspiring economist, skip the phlogiston
theory. Skip *Economics 101*.[^4^](#fn4){#fnref4 .footnote-ref}

That brings me back to Wilson's statement: 'you can't get there from
here'. The 'here' is both a *theory* and a *place*. You can't use
mainstream (neoclassical) economics to understand human genetic and
cultural evolution. So if you want to do evonomics, you need to dump
neoclassical theory. The catch is that you can't dump neoclassical
theory if you study in an economics department. That's because in most
econ departments, neoclassical theory is the core pedagogical canon.
It's required learning.[^5^](#fn5){#fnref5 .footnote-ref}

### Find a safe space

So what is an aspiring (evolutionary-minded) economist to do? I
recommend finding a safe space to learn economics outside a traditional
economics department. There are a few options.

One option is to study at a 'heterodox' economics department. ([Here's a
list of such
departments](http://heterodoxnews.com/hed/study-programs.html){target="_blank"
rel="noopener"}.) Heterodox departments are open to pluralist ideas and
generally skeptical of neoclassical theory. These departments may not
explicitly teach evolutionary ideas, but if you adopt an evonomics
approach, you probably won't encounter pushback.

Another option --- one that I chose --- is to learn economics in an
interdisciplinary department. I studied in the [Faculty of Environmental
Studies](https://euc.yorku.ca/programs/){target="_blank" rel="noopener"}
at York University (Toronto). Students and professors in the department
came from many different academic niches. I found the interdisciplinary
environment both safe (for unorthodox ideas) and
stimulating.[^6^](#fn6){#fnref6 .footnote-ref}

Here's what I like about interdisciplinary programs. First, they're
designed to be *open*. You can usually take courses from any department.
(I took courses in ecology, sociology, and political science, among
others.) Second, you'll be around people with diverse ideas. Budding
economists need to interact not only with other social scientists, but
with biologists, ecologists, and other natural scientists. In an
interdisciplinary program, you can do so daily. That stops you from
getting stuck in an academic 'silo'.

Studying economics in an interdisciplinary environment does have some
downsides --- not for doing *science*, but for advancing your *career*.
If you dream of working in a university economics department, getting an
interdisciplinary education is potentially career limiting. Economics
departments tend to hire people who received a 'traditional'
(i.e. neoclassical) economics training. (This revolving door is a big
reason why the economics discipline is slow to change.) So if your goal
is to be an economics professor, know that studying in an
interdisciplinary program limits your options.

That being said, an interdisciplinary training also opens new doors.
There's a growing number of interdisciplinary programs where you could
teach evonomics. And outside academia, the general public hungers for
new economic thinking. For the past forty years, public discourse has
been dominated by individualistic dogma. There has never been a greater
need to remind people that humans are a social species, and that we've
evolved to be so.

### Majestic and practical

One of the beautiful things about evolutionary thinking is that it's
both majestic and practical.

Let's start with the majestic. Humans are a social species --- that much
you probably know. But do you know the evolutionary history of our
sociality? It extends deep into our past --- far beyond what you might
think. The evolution of sociality starts not with social animals like
ourselves, but with *social cells*. Your body is not a single entity,
but rather a group of cells that have evolved to cooperate. All
multicellular organisms are similar --- an evolved group of cooperating
cells.

We can go deeper still. Your cells are composed of *social organelles*.
Eukaryotic cells (like yours) are the result of an ancient merger of
social prokaryotes. One prokaryote became the cytoplasm and nucleus. The
other became the mitochondria --- the cell powerhouse. Going still
deeper, these organelles are composed of social molecules that somehow
(at the dawn of life) managed to 'cooperate'.[^7^](#fn7){#fnref7
.footnote-ref}

Human sociality, then, is part of a long social lineage among life on
Earth. Organisms that were once autonomous started to cooperate in
groups. Sometimes these groups became so coherent that we think of them
as 'individuals'. It's a story that has repeated countless times over a
billion years. And humans are part of it. When I study economics, I try
to keep this majestic history in mind.

What about practical problems? Perhaps surprisingly, the deep history of
sociality is of practical importance. All social animals --- whether
human or otherwise --- must solve a basic problem. For groups to
succeed, group members must act *prosocially*. The problem is that
within groups, it's usually best for individuals to act *selfishly*.
Among social animals, then, there's a clash between individual interest
and group interest. David Sloan Wilson and E.O. Wilson call this clash
'the fundamental problem of social life'.[^8^](#fn8){#fnref8
.footnote-ref}

Successful social animals have all solved this fundamental problem. They
have suppressed self interest (at least to some degree) and promoted
prosociality. The question is *how*?

In some animals (like ants), it seems clear that prosociality is
instinctual. But in other animals (like humans) prosociality must be
*nurtured*. What norms and institutions best foster human cooperation?
We're only beginning to answer this question.[^9^](#fn9){#fnref9
.footnote-ref} But what seems clear is that this question should form
the foundation of economics.

Back to you, the aspiring economist. Do you marvel at the deep history
of our evolved sociality? Do you also want to improve humanity's lot? If
so, the economics discipline needs you. Help move the field beyond its
obsession with individualism. What awaits you is not fame or fortune,
but the satisfaction of making the world a better place.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

#### Support this blog

Economics from the Top Down is where I share my ideas for how to create
a better economics. If you liked this post, consider becoming a patron.
You'll help me continue my research, and continue to share it with
readers like you.

[![patron_button](https://i0.wp.com/economicsfromthetopdown.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/supporter_button-1.png?w=220&ssl=1){.size-thumbnail
.wp-image-1180 .aligncenter decoding="async" attachment-id="1180"
permalink="https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/patron_button/"
orig-file="https://i0.wp.com/economicsfromthetopdown.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/patron_button.png?fit=434%2C102&ssl=1"
orig-size="434,102" comments-opened="1"
image-meta="{\"aperture\":\"0\",\"credit\":\"\",\"camera\":\"\",\"caption\":\"\",\"created_timestamp\":\"0\",\"copyright\":\"\",\"focal_length\":\"0\",\"iso\":\"0\",\"shutter_speed\":\"0\",\"title\":\"\",\"orientation\":\"0\"}"
image-title="patron_button" image-description="" image-caption=""
medium-file="https://i0.wp.com/economicsfromthetopdown.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/patron_button.png?fit=300%2C71&ssl=1"
large-file="https://i0.wp.com/economicsfromthetopdown.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/patron_button.png?fit=434%2C102&ssl=1"
recalc-dims="1"}](https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/membership/){target="_blank"
rel="noopener"}

------------------------------------------------------------------------

#### Stay updated

Sign up to get email updates from this blog.

:::: {.jetpack_subscription_widget}
##  {#section .widgettitle}

::: {.wp-block-jetpack-subscriptions__container}
Email Address

Keep me up to date
:::
::::

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[![](https://i0.wp.com/economicsfromthetopdown.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/by.png?w=150&ssl=1){.aligncenter
decoding="async"
recalc-dims="1"}](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/){rel="license"}  
This work is licensed under a [Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
License](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/){rel="license"}.
You can use/share it anyway you want, provided you attribute it to me
(Blair Fix) and link to [Economics from the Top
Down](https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/).

------------------------------------------------------------------------

\[Cover image:
[Pixabay](https://www.pexels.com/photo/black-and-white-blackboard-business-chalkboard-356043/){target="_blank"
rel="noopener"}\]

### Notes

::: {.section .footnotes}
1.  [From David Sloan Wilson's [*The Neighborhood
    Project*](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10852303-the-neighborhood-project){target="_blank"
    rel="noopener"}.[↩](#fnref1){.footnote-back}]{#fn1}
2.  ['Globules of desire' is political economist Thorstein Veblen's
    mocking term for the economic model of human behavior. See Veblen's
    seminal essay [*Why is Economics not an Evolutionary
    Science?*](https://www.jstor.org/stable/1882952?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents){target="_blank"
    rel="noopener"}[↩](#fnref2){.footnote-back}]{#fn2}
3.  [Humanity's ultrasocial nature is a hot topic of research. Two good
    books on the subject are Peter Turchin's
    [*Ultrasociety*](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/27867828-ultrasociety){target="_blank"
    rel="noopener"} and E.O. Wilson's [*The Social Conquest of the
    Earth*](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/12918295-the-social-conquest-of-earth){target="_blank"
    rel="noopener"}.[↩](#fnref3){.footnote-back}]{#fn3}
4.  [It's not just renegades like myself who compare economic theory to
    'phlogiston'. Nobel-prize winning economist Paul Romer made the
    analogy in his essay [*The trouble with
    macroeconomics*](https://paulromer.net/trouble-with-macroeconomics-update/WP-Trouble.pdf){target="_blank"
    rel="noopener"}.[↩](#fnref4){.footnote-back}]{#fn4}
5.  [For a satire of life in a (mainstream) economics department, see
    Axel Leijonhufvud's essay [*Life Among the
    Econ*](http://www.ibiblio.org/philecon/life-econ-crop.pdf){target="_blank"
    rel="noopener"}.[↩](#fnref5){.footnote-back}]{#fn5}
6.  [Students of evonomics take note: York University, together with
    McGill University and University of Vermont, is currently hosting
    the [*Economics for the
    Anthropocene*](https://e4a-net.org/){target="_blank" rel="noopener"}
    graduate program. It aims to give an economics education that
    connects the ecological and economic realities of the
    [Anthropocene](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene){target="_blank"
    rel="noopener"}.)[↩](#fnref6){.footnote-back}]{#fn6}
7.  [The deep history of sociality is often called the ['major
    transitions in
    evolution'](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Major_Transitions_in_Evolution){target="_blank"
    rel="noopener"}. See John Maynard Smith and Eörs Szathmáry's book of
    the same name for an exposition. For an interpretation of these
    transitions using the theory of multilevel selection, see Samir
    Okasha's paper [*Multilevel Selection and the Major Transitions in
    Evolution*](https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/508102){target="_blank"
    rel="noopener"}.[↩](#fnref7){.footnote-back}]{#fn7}
8.  [See David Sloan Wilson and E.O. Wilson's essay [*Rethinking the
    theoretical foundation of
    sociobiology*](https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/522809){target="_blank"
    rel="noopener"}.[↩](#fnref8){.footnote-back}]{#fn8}
9.  [For research on how human groups suppress selfishness and promote
    altruism, see David Sloan Wilson, Elinor Ostrom, and Michael Cox's
    paper [*Generalizing the core design principles for the efficacy of
    groups*](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167268112002697){target="_blank"
    rel="noopener"}.[↩](#fnref9){.footnote-back}]{#fn9}
:::

### Further reading

::::::::::::: {#refs .references}
::: {#ref-leijonhufvud_life_1973}
Leijonhufvud, A. (1973). Life among the econ. *Economic Inquiry*,
*11*(3), 327--337.
:::

::: {#ref-okasha_multilevel_2005}
Okasha, S. (2005). Multilevel selection and the major transitions in
evolution. *Philosophy of Science*, *72*(5), 1013--1025.
:::

::: {#ref-romer_trouble_2016}
Romer, P. (2016). The trouble with macroeconomics. *The American
Economist*, *20*, 1--20.
:::

::: {#ref-smith_major_1997}
Smith, J. M., & Szathmary, E. (1997). *The major transitions in
evolution*. Oxford University Press.
:::

::: {#ref-turchin_ultrasociety:_2016}
Turchin, P. (2016). *Ultrasociety: How 10,000 years of war made humans
the greatest cooperators on earth*. Chaplin, Connecticut: Beresta Books.
:::

::: {#ref-veblen_why_1898}
Veblen, T. (1898). Why is economics not an evolutionary science? *The
Quarterly Journal of Economics*, *12*(4), 373--397.
:::

::: {#ref-wilson_neighborhood_2011}
Wilson, D. S. (2011). *The neighborhood project: Using evolution to
improve my city, one block at a time*. New York: Little, Brown &
Company.
:::

::: {#ref-wilson_generalizing_2013}
Wilson, D. S., Ostrom, E., & Cox, M. E. (2013). Generalizing the core
design principles for the efficacy of groups. *Journal of Economic
Behavior & Organization*, *90*, S21--S32.
:::

::: {#ref-wilson_rethinking_2007}
Wilson, D. S., & Wilson, E. O. (2007). Rethinking the theoretical
foundation of sociobiology. *The Quarterly Review of Biology*, *82*(4),
327--348.
:::

::: {#ref-wilson_social_2012}
Wilson, E. O. (2012). *The social conquest of earth*. New York: WW
Norton & Company.
:::
:::::::::::::


A few weeks ago, evolutionary biologist David Sloan Wilson contacted me about an essay series he’s editing called

 Advice for an Aspiring Economist

. The series aims to give advice to students who are interested in learning ‘evonomics’ — economics from an evolutionary perspective. It will be published in

 This View of Life Magazine

and in

 Evonomics

. To my surprise, Wilson asked me to contribute an essay.

Messaggi di Rogue Scholar

Advice for an Aspiring Economist