.

[Gustaf]

I'm not sure what this sentence is supposed to say. Thinking like what kind of an economist? As someone who actually know a lot of economists I can say that I don't think any of them think the way it's described here.

[Gustaf]

As a social sciences student, I have realized how much the cancer of economic thinking has spread throughout this field of study. What I hate, more than the ideological framework in itself (which is an interesting perspective in itself), is the smug, self-satisfied and downright authoritarian belief held by its proponents that their economic rationality is the only rationality, that they got it all figured out, and that everybody else is just unable to see the truth because their judgment is clouded by silly things like norms and values ...

It's this delusion of grandeur that makes homo economicus theory one of the most dangerous ideas of the 21st century.

I'm sorry, Antonio, but please get off your high horse. Don't be so combative unless you can describe a set of norms that predicts annualized quaterly GDP growth within 0.3 percentage points.

What the hell does this have to do with anything? Just because you can predict GDP growth doesn't mean you have found the explanation to every single human or social phenomenon ever.

I firmly believe that the main reason non-economists hate on economics is because they fundamentally misunderstand what it is. They think it's psychology. They think that economics is trying to answer the question "Why did I buy that banana today?" But it isn't. It's trying to answer questions like "Why does X number of bananas get sold every day in the US?" Or "Why is the price of a banana X dollars?"

Economic models don't explain every single human ever because it's not supposed to do that.

[Gustaf]

I firmly believe that the main reason non-economists hate on economics is because they fundamentally misunderstand what it is.

Which is to say because other, morally stupider non-economists also misunderstand what it is and treat it as some sort of weird fetish object, and it's that understanding of 'what economics is' that becomes the public image of the discipline.

I don't know that I've ever encountered that sort of person so I can't really comment on that. But I get the opposite quite a lot.

[Gustaf]

As a social sciences student, I have realized how much the cancer of economic thinking has spread throughout this field of study. What I hate, more than the ideological framework in itself (which is an interesting perspective in itself), is the smug, self-satisfied and downright authoritarian belief held by its proponents that their economic rationality is the only rationality, that they got it all figured out, and that everybody else is just unable to see the truth because their judgment is clouded by silly things like norms and values ...

It's this delusion of grandeur that makes homo economicus theory one of the most dangerous ideas of the 21st century.

I'm sorry, Antonio, but please get off your high horse. Don't be so combative unless you can describe a set of norms that predicts annualized quaterly GDP growth within 0.3 percentage points.

What the hell does this have to do with anything? Just because you can predict GDP growth doesn't mean you have found the explanation to every single human or social phenomenon ever.

I firmly believe that the main reason non-economists hate on economics is because they fundamentally misunderstand what it is. They think it's psychology. They think that economics is trying to answer the question "Why did I buy that banana today?" But it isn't. It's trying to answer questions like "Why does X number of bananas get sold every day in the US?" Or "Why is the price of a banana X dollars?"

Economic models don't explain every single human ever because it's not supposed to do that.

You're missing the point. Nobody is attacking economists for doing their job as economists (I mean, there would be some legitimate criticism to voice against how some economists have been doing their job in the past 30 years, but that's besides the point). The problem is that a few economists - but also an awful lot of non-economists - have decided that the conceptual tools and theoretical framework of modern microeconomics can be applied to every social science, from sociology to politics, to psychology etc. Basically, you can do away with "subjective" notions like ideology or socialization and examine everything in terms of interest maximization, rational choice and game theory. That is a very dangerous trend.

I know it's not necessarily what the OP meant, but I believe the term "thinking like an economist" shouldn't be used for a way of thinking that is not at all common among economists.

While your point is a little vague here I actually do think sociology would benefit from doing some actual science work and not limiting itself to 5 interviews and an ideological narrative as a substitute for real research (yes I'm a bit prejudiced, but it's so much fun to make fun of sociology ).