Yep. Economics majors are more anti-social than non-econ majors. And taking econ classes also makes people more anti-social than they were before. It turns out, there’s quite a bit of research on this, nicely summarized here. Econ majors are less likely to share, less generous to the needy, and more likely to cheat, lie, and steal.
In one study, for example, economists Yoram Bauman and Elaina Rose noted the consistent finding that econ majors were less generous and asked whether the effect was do to selection (people who are anti-social choose to take econ classes) or indoctrination (taking econ classes makes one more anti-social). They found that both play a role.
Students at their institution — University of Washington — were asked at registration each semester if they’d like to donate to WashPIRG (a left-leaning public interest group) and ATN (a non-partisan group that lobbies to reduce tuition rates). Bauman and Elaina crunched the data along with students’ chosen majors and classes. They found that econ majors were less likely to donate to either cause (the selection hypothesis) and that non-econ majors who had taken econ classes were less likely to donate than non-majors who hadn’t (the indoctrination hypothesis).
What should we make of these findings?
Sociologist Amitai Etzioni takes a stab at an answer. He argues that neoclassical economics isn’t a problem in itself. Instead, the problem may be that there are no “balancing” classes, ones that present a different kind of economics. In other part of the academy, he argues — specifying social philosophy, political science, and sociology– there is “a great variety of approaches are advanced, thereby leaving students with a consolidated debasing exposure and a cacophony of conflicting pro-social views.”
Being exposed to a variety of views, including ones that question the premises of neoclassical economics, may be one way to make economists more honest and kind. And doing so isn’t just about sticking one to econ, it’s an issue of grave seriousness, as the criminal and immoral behavior of our financial leaders is exactly what triggered a Great Recession once… and could again.
Cross-posted at Pacific Standard.
Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.
Comments 203
Vivek — March 25, 2015
Fascinating. It isn't possible to access the first link (the summary) as it's only accessible to Occidental College students and staff. Could you provide a reference perhaps?
kieron George — March 25, 2015
My hypothesis would be that Economists donate money more carefully than to some prior unknown presented to them at registration.
I myself don't give to charities outside of Givewell's top charities, as to ensure the money I donate changes the most lives possible.
And if anyone cares about using money efficiently it's an economist.
Bill R — March 25, 2015
Congratulations on your most stupid and sophomoric post since your pseudo-defence of female genital mutilation. Please, PLEASE, don't tell me any of this "research" is paid for through taxes...or I'll vomit.
Grow up already.
O Cowart — March 26, 2015
Hmm. Seems like there are sociology trolls under the bridge... I'd also be interested in the links you provided to other research. My students have (anecdotally, of course) suggested some similar things about business school students. Regarding the 'indoctrination' hypothesis, it might be worth thinking about the fact that Business and Econ tend to encourage competitive and anti-social behavior through their grading structures.
Glen — March 26, 2015
So economists are less likely to contribute to a left-leaning interest group and a rent-seeking interest group (students who want lower tuition, which of course means larger subsidies from the taxpayers). And this makes economists "anti-social"? The authors of this study need to check their ideological biases.
Jason — March 26, 2015
This is incredibly bad sociology.
Clearly, there are a couple of obvious reasons that someone might refuse to donate to these causes without also being anti-social:
1. They might believe that if these organizations were to succeed, they would have negative social consequences.
2. They might believe that throwing money at causes does very little or nothing towards actually accomplishing the goals of those causes, even if the organizations' stated aims are good.
These are very glaring methodological problems.
Dave — March 26, 2015
You know what's smart? Linking to articles that can only be accessed if you can log in to Occidental's system. LOVE it when people do that!
Jonathan — March 26, 2015
This post tells me nothing about whether economists are anti-social, but it does tell me that at least one sociologist is anti-academic.
russnelson — March 26, 2015
Is this a serious paper or an early April Fool's posting?
russnelson — March 26, 2015
Here's a link to the Amitai Etzioni paper:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/socf.12153/full
atomic — March 26, 2015
I am often surprised in my economics class about the lack of effects models and studies have on actual, living people. Economics is mostly taught in a vacuum, without any real connection to events or consequences of such policies/models.
Douglas MacKenzie — March 26, 2015
Its pretty obvious that one can be social without contributing to these two organizations- one could contribute to the humane society or to cancer research instead. Its also pretty obvious that one can believe in a different way of being social, other than donating. What may not be so obviously wrong to some is the claim that "a different kind of economics" may help. There are only two kinds of economics: correct economics and false economics. "other types" of economics (Marxist, structuralist) are as scientific as Ouija boards.
jtkennedy — March 26, 2015
"Instead, the problem may be that there are no “balancing” classes, ones that present a different kind of economics."
What *problem*?
Why is it a *problem* that economics students were less likely to donate to these two causes?
zjohn — March 26, 2015
Is this repasted from The Onion or something??
How sophomoric....
Carlos André Góes — March 26, 2015
An economist would have presented confidence intervals to see if the differences are statistically significant given the sample.
Lisa_Wade — March 27, 2015
Links fixed. Commence hating the post. :)
Liberal Professor: If You Understand Economics, You Are Likely to be a Bad Person | PUNDIT PRESS — March 29, 2015
[…] was her finding in an article she published this week, titled “ARE ECONOMICS MAJORS ANTI-SOCIAL?” The first word in the piece was simply, […]
Child Sociology Prof Pretending to be Important (Cali Edition) | clever nicknames — March 30, 2015
[…] was her finding in an article she published this week, titled “ARE ECONOMICS MAJORS ANTI-SOCIAL?” The first word in the piece was simply, […]
Elmar17 — March 31, 2015
Any academic should be embarrassed to present an article such as this.
Jake Smith — March 31, 2015
I wonder what the "balancing" classes would be like. I suppose bio majors should also take classes in theology, and pre-med students should take classes in homeopathy. You know, to balance them out. That, to me, is the real definition of propaganda and indoctrination.
R Greenswell — March 31, 2015
No wonder people think that sociology, anthropology, and pretty much all disciplines that end in "studies" are totally devoid of rigor. Did you stop to think that maybe, just maybe, they were simply less likely to support leftist political groups? Or is it the case that a small amount of critical thinking is too difficult to handle when one is constantly busy deconstructing the effects of late-capitalist phallocentric patriarchy on the trisexuals of Lower Elbonia or whatever it is that sociologists do these days (which seems to be anything and everything EXCEPT trenchant, useful social analysis)?
Grumpy Guy — March 31, 2015
"Professor of Sociology": Purveyor of yet more Socialist baloney. University Leftists are a pimple on the ass of humanity.
Maard — March 31, 2015
False Equivalency: The results show that those with an understanding of economics are "Conservative." Conservatism does not equate to being anti-social.
The Evil Economist — March 31, 2015
They hate us cause they ain't us!
Claude — March 31, 2015
If
you're going to publish, either learn to proofread or hire someone who
knows how to do it. The phrase is 'due to selection' not 'do to
selection.' Although I'm sure she's looking for someone or some group to 'do to' and
the 'do' is both unpleasant and unwanted.
PavePusher — March 31, 2015
Author is a fucking idiot.
Matt — March 31, 2015
Would a study this biased even pass at the Jr high science fair?
Mean Economist — March 31, 2015
Proof that it's possible to be both a Ph.D. and a complete idiot, from my alma mater.
Beowulfe — March 31, 2015
/Facepalm.
Leave it to a nutty left wing progressive to declare anyone who doesn't support kooky progressive policies bad people.
Homo Economicus — March 31, 2015
Seriously?! Are you for reals? This is just embarrassing. You should rethink your life.
GeorgeDance — March 31, 2015
Being unwilling to donate to those two groups (both of which sound like lobbies for more government spending and higher taxes) does not equal a general unwillingness to 'share'; just to not 'share' with those people. Nor do I see how it equals a propensity to 'lie, cheat, and steal'. Perhaps the author can explain in a follow-up post how she reached those conclusions, since she didn't do that here.
Curious — March 31, 2015
Asking students whether they'd like to donate to a leftist group or a tuition lobby is not a valid design to measure "pro-sociality." This is a great example of political bias in social science, where being a leftist is conflated with being "pro-social" or morally good.
They should have included a conservative cause, and perhaps a libertarian one. This study measures willingness to donate to leftist causes, and perhaps the gullibility necessary to donate to a lobby trying to reduce tuition.
Mature students won't necessarily assume that lowering tuition is a worthy cause – perhaps especially those that know some economics and have a more systematic worldview, one that extends beyond their own immediate concerns. Note also that most students do not pay tuition out of their own pockets – parents, loans, grants, and scholarships cover the vast majority. But to the extent they do pay, or will in the future because of loans, lowering tuition wouldn't necessarily make sense to them.
Actually, is donating to a tuition lobby supposed to be pro-social or anti-social? It seems like selfish behavior, meant to reduce costs, though you'd have to be dimwitted to donate to such a lobby since a smart student knows that there is virtually zero chance tuition will actually be lowered – i.e. that the group will be successful in its lobbying, or successful soon enough to impact future tuition payments for oneself, like next year or the year after that. Higher education is a third-party payer system, which means prices tend to go up more than the rest of the economy, because the consumer/student isn't usually the one who pays. It's paid by third parties, which reduces price pressure. I've never heard of a university reducing tuition.
This was not a credible scientific study.
John Ash — March 31, 2015
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I think she means anti-stupid.
Dr. Robert T. Uda — March 31, 2015
This article reminds me of a spoof article I once wrote regarding a cricket. In conducting the study, I placed the cricket on the tabletop and clapped my hands. The cricket immediately jumped a long distance. Then, I surgically removed a leg and clapped my hands again. The cricket jumped a good distance but shorter than the first one. I then surgically removed another leg and repeated the process again. The cricket jumped a shorter distance than the one before. Finally, in the limit, upon removing all of the cricket's legs, the cricket did not move when I clapped my hands for the last time. Therefore, I concluded that the cricket's hearing became less and less until finally when all legs were removed, the cricket became totally deaf and did not jump at all! Now, this is the kind of illogical thinking this Occidental College professor possesses, and she is teaching our young students that kind of logic. These liberal professors are why our kids are dumb down so much that they sound idiotic on Watter's World on Bill O'Reilly's television show, which is very sad. Professor Bob Uda, Ph.D.
Dr. Robert T. Uda — March 31, 2015
After all, Obama attended Occidental College. That’s why he is the way he is, i.e., lie, cheat, and steal. He doesn’t help his destitute family members with a single penny. When he attended Occidental, he learned from Liberal professors like this Dr. Lisa Wade who warped his mind. As a researcher, Dr. Wade is dangerous. She is the type of liberal who fabricates a conclusion and then gathers the data to prove her conclusion. I cannot believe this woman is teaching and screwing up the minds of our young college students. Prof. Bob Uda, Ph.D.
If liberals understood economics, they wouldn’t be liberals | The First Street Journal. — March 31, 2015
[…] was her finding in an article she published this week, titled “ARE ECONOMICS MAJORS ANTI-SOCIAL?” The first word in the piece was simply, […]
Briana — March 31, 2015
Your article reads like something written by a villain from an Ayn Rand novel. Additionally, your post has two spelling/grammar errors (paragraphs 2 and 4, respectively). Not to mention the glaringly obvious bad assumptions in your quoted study. Perhaps you should balance out your sociology with some remedial statistics and English classes.
"The most fundamental fact about the ideas of the political left is that
they do not work. Therefore we should not be surprised to find the left
concentrated in institutions where ideas do not have to work in order to
survive." - Thomas Sowell (an economist)
Cromulent — March 31, 2015
Maybe, just maybe, taking econ classes sharpens the brain a little and makes one skeptical of hard left schemes. Too bad.
Cg — March 31, 2015
So, I'm sitting here trying to decide which point to present, when I had a epiphany:
Why in the world would I place importance on such a ridiculous, numbskull statement? It deserves no rebuttal. Rebuttal is for intelligent, insightful theory and opinion. All this deserves is a response on the level from whence it came.
So, with that in mind, here is my response.
God. You're such an bone-headed douche.
Peter McIlhon — March 31, 2015
Ladies and gentlemen: "Higher" education in America. I weep for the future.
DJR — April 1, 2015
Maybe the scientists who think choosing not to make a donation is "antisocial" are the ones who should be taken to task.
drunicusveritas — April 1, 2015
Economics is merely the study of markets.
Sociology, apparently, is indoctrination. I'm sure the sociology and social justice theories put forth by such luminaries as Marx, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao were noble causes, flawed only in their delivery but sound in theory. They didn't understand economics, either.
She also forgot to mention how all business people are cheats, all men are rapists, all whites are bigots, and all religious people are fools.
Derek Ward | Well, No One I Know… — April 1, 2015
[…] For today’s bullshit story, we have a sociology professor complaining that economics majors – and even those who have just take economics – are bad people. […]
“Jeigu turite supratimą apie ekonomiką, esate blogas žmogus” – L. Wade | Žymantas Baranauskas — April 1, 2015
[…] was her finding in an article she published this week, titled “ARE ECONOMICS MAJORS ANTI-SOCIAL?” The first word in the piece was simply, […]
Richard Stanford Brown — April 1, 2015
That awkward moment when.. can't tell if fail-tier research or god-lvl satire.
Hmm? — April 1, 2015
The commentators around the web have pointed out the absurdity of this evidence. The choice of the two groups to contribute to is stunningly biased. As with much of this literature attacking conservatives as having 'authoritarian personalities' or attacking disciplines perceived as conservative, confirmation bias is rife. The fact that Wade considers this a good study is shocking. Sociology is really in a bad state, I suppose. Too mush social justice and noxious theory, too little methodological competence. Perhaps Wade should read the paper by John Haidt and other on the negative impacts of ideological bias in social psychology. She may see herself in it.
etg — April 1, 2015
"...asked whether the effect was do to selection"
Apparently proofreading is a hard thing to due.
LindaF — April 1, 2015
This does NOT prove that Econ majors are anti-social, but it DOES prove that the author of this piece doesn't understand math, and the trade-offs necessary in a functioning economic system.
BTW, the refusal to donate may have more to do with the Leftist leanings of the requesting donation organization. Or, alternately, the "mathy" understanding that, with approximately $47k tuition a year, the student doesn't have a lot of loose change available.
jacknine — April 1, 2015
To quote Hayek, if socialists understood economics, they wouldn't be socialists.
James Simpson — April 1, 2015
How did you ever get a PhD with such mindless logic? How about this: econ students are more likely to recognize the utter waste of squandering scarce monetary resources on worthless or destructive leftist non-profits. The question was loaded from the start. It is only a pitiful demonstration of widespread student ignorance that more students didn't hit the "no" button in response to this tripe.
Ray Cathode — April 1, 2015
Yeah, read the study, it judged the econ majors as anti-social because the wouldn't give to liberal/progressive causes - they knew better! The implicit premise of the study appears to be: 'If you don't give my buddies money, you're evil!'. The same premise as the author - 'If you don't agree with me you are dishonest, selfish and evil!' - which she tops off with a self-righteous smirk.
“Economics Is a Form of Brain Damage” | Drawnlines Politics — April 1, 2015
[…] The latest installment of the leftist rage against economics comes from sociologist (stop giggling) Lisa Wade of Occidental College (where Obama attended to two years don’t forget), who argues that economists are “anti-social.” […]
Robert Yowell — April 1, 2015
This may apply to Paul Krugman, but not to actual human beings.
BruceMajors4DC — April 1, 2015
Hilarious. She wants an index of banned books, especially those that show the destruction and foolishness of her policies. This woman is a further argument for the defunding of academia. She should never receive a tax dollar, and probably not a private dollar either. She should be mopping floors and not promoting fascism and disinformation.
WalkingHorse — April 1, 2015
How very Orwellian of professor Wade: one is antisocial if one understands that which is to be consumed must first be produced by the effort and resources of someone to create it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTFV9w4B0eg
Dan Nelson — April 1, 2015
Do they teach logic to Sociology majors? Taking Economics classes makes them more anti-social? My head hurts.
GOPcongress — April 1, 2015
A truly BALANCED study would also find out if Sociology majors contributed to "free market" or "patriot" causes. I would wager it would be non-existent.
SPKorn — April 1, 2015
My conclusion: We have an over-supply of sociology professors
Dewey — April 1, 2015
This explains SO much as to why the Left hates classical economics. If you understand Economics, you detest Socialism, and understand it to be the road to ruin. A true understanding of Economics reaffirms Capitalism. Might as well show Dracula the Cross.
Rick Joseph — April 1, 2015
Talk about selfishness and greed, the cost for an undergraduate degree has risen over 1000 percent since the early 1980s, yet it's significance in regard to income levels has diminished over the same period. These institutions, particularly the most expensive, have merely become indoctrination centers for the Left, and only those who graduate with business and economics degrees would not buy their lies. Precisely why those like Ms. Wade are out to discredit them...they are not Leftists like her. The dirty little secret is that those who have graduated from those institutions and worked in the Whitehouse and on Wall Street and think like her, are the ones who have been destroying America with their socialist big government intervention and spending.
In most legitimate studies, those business people and economists Ms. Wade derides for not giving to her Liberal Pet causes and are predominantly conservative, give far more to charity than Ms Wade and her Liberal friends. Liberals believe in funding their pet charities with other people's money via the heavy hand of big Government, an immoral and anti-social practice.
DamnCat — April 1, 2015
"...the problem may be that there are no “balancing” classes, ones that present a different kind of economics."
Indeed. I've long felt that the problem with geography classes is that they don't balance their teachings with classes that present the earth as flat. And don't get me started on the exclusively heliocentric astronomy department fascists!
meh130 — April 1, 2015
The immediate issue I see with the Bauman Rose study about donating to WashPIRG and ATN, is it assumes donating to WashPIRG and ATN is a valid test. In other words, donating to WashPIRG and ATN is a correct or acceptable action. Two narrow charities is a very small sample, which could be explained by a number of other reasons. WashPIRG is leftist, and econ students might be more centrist, rightist, or libertarian. ATN may be non-partisan, but that drops the sample size to one. Econ students might believe due to their studies charities are economically inefficient, or at least worth of research prior to donating.
If I went to the sociology department at Occidental to raise money for Samaritan's Purse or the Salvation Army, I might not get many contributions. If I drew academic conclusions from that, they might not be valid.
Lance Combs — April 1, 2015
Reading this made me dumber.
J_Waller — April 1, 2015
Notice, she does not mention giving to: Red Cross, Good Will, Salvation Army, homeless shelters, animal shelters, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Big Brothers/Sisters, Boys clubs, parks, donations of food, hospitals, local hunger campaigns, disaster victims, etc., etc., etc. She might as well say that some one who did NOT invest in Solyndra was bad person. The basic issue is, you donot throw good money after bad. When you give, you give to organizations that actually use the money to help whatever cause they are supporting.
Teacher_in_Tejas — April 1, 2015
Please pardon me, it's been a long time since formal Logic 101, but isn't this a tautology? "Money should be given to these two liberal causes because they are "good." Hence not giving money to those causes makes one "not good?
Madmax — April 1, 2015
My analysis of the findings of this study tell me that Econ majors are the smarest people on campus! They know that leftist politics is a lose-lose proposition.
Madmax — April 1, 2015
Thats smartest!
Barry — April 1, 2015
Wonder if I could prove Sociology majors are anti-social by showing they are unwilling to donate to The California Right to Life Committee?
Henrietta — April 1, 2015
This is a really shitty methodology. Whoever ok'd this should feel ashamed for it.
John Ash — April 1, 2015
Funny that you would delete the most incisive comment here. It violated no standards, but obviously must have hit a nerve.
It is indeed pretty obvious that the only thing this study shows is that liberals have no understanding of the scientific method, logic or reasoning and simply want to find any evidence, even if delivered via UFO, that everyone else is the problem.
A-Train — April 2, 2015
lolololol what a bunch of garbage for mental midgets.
conspiracygirl — April 2, 2015
Maybe half-witted progressive sociology professors should take some economics classes too -- and earn something about the economic futility of their desire to coerce their brand of do-goodism upon others. Maybe after learning a a few facts they could stop conflating their "good intentions" with good results.
Gregory Jensen — April 2, 2015
Hmmm? I've studied economics and I'm a priest and generally considered a pretty generous guy. Of course, I'm also not known for being a pushover.
Caren Smith — April 2, 2015
Learn to spell and use correct grammar before writing nonsense like this. Makes it more believable.
Cody Alan Reel — April 3, 2015
She's a joke.
Linky Friday #109 | Ordinary Times — April 3, 2015
[…] [M4] From Mad Rocket Scientist: According to this study, persons with an understanding of economics are less likely to contribute to a political organization or an org that is seeking to secure a taxpayer subsidy to lower tuition. And this makes them anti-social. […]
Pablo Hablo — April 3, 2015
Answer: Doubt it. Econ majors may become more insightful, but that sorry 'study' isn't designed to answer the question, only to rationalize the desired answer.
Better Questions:
Are Sociology Majors Anti-Intellectual?
Is a grasp of basic grammar a detriment to a career in Sociology?
Do Sociologists realize they play a critical role in fomenting 1984's nightmare vision?
ou110alum — April 4, 2015
Bec
Realworld Economist — April 4, 2015
Since the students weren't given the option of donating to a right-leaning group, the study might just show that economics majors were less left-leaning than other college students -- something that would come as no surprise to anyone who has ever gone to college. Of course, a left-leaning sociologist might consider leaning to the right equivalent to being anti-social. Or the result might simply say that economics majors don't think that economic outcomes should be determined by who has the best lobbyists and hence won't give to any lobbying group of any political persuasion.
A study finds that economics majors are more “antisocial”… because they won’t donate to left wing charities | Official site of DJ Michael Heath — April 4, 2015
[…] by Constitution4all [link] [2 […]
Brock — April 4, 2015
Good, we've discovered that young economists donate less to charities supporting left wing causes. Now do it again and replace that rent seeking charity (ATN) with a legitimately non-partisan charity like a children's hospital or animal shelter.
Johnny — April 4, 2015
I propose that we do a copycat study. We should go to a hippyish liberal arts college and ask [insert "oppressed" group] studies majors to donate to either the Mormon church, (an overwhelmingly conservative religious organization) or the NRA (a non-partisan organization that lobbies for a right wing cause). When we get absolutely nothing, we should conclude that [insert "oppressed" group] majors are antisocial.
Oh wait, that would be intellectually dishonest, wouldn't it?
Justin Lewis — April 5, 2015
Im sure the results of a single academic institution are applicable to society at large. I mean, it couldn't possibly be that the economics faculty at that particular school support a philosophy that isn't universal. We all know how sociology works, you look at one subculture spanning one tiny region and use it to make vast claims about everybody else in the world who has any similarity to them, right?
Tyler the Terrible — April 5, 2015
So she is a sociology professor from a school no one has heard of, is anyone surprised with the academic dishonesty?
The results should read: 'People who know about money don't want to throw their own into the garbage'.
Shocker.
Me — April 5, 2015
I assumed, at first, that this little scrap of an "article" was scrawled by a ten-year-old child or perhaps was a satire on the cretinization of academia. My amusement intensified when I discovered that the authoress is indeed a professor at Occidental College! She types "do to" instead of "due to"! Her final sentence contains a comma splice! And she begins her graffito with "Yep"! Do I really need to point out that it is a non sequitur to assert that those who take classes in economics do not necessarily know anything about economics? Does it truly need to be pointed out that familiarity with the system of capitalism does not necessarily imply subscription to the principles of capitalism?
Alex Boden — April 5, 2015
The brainwashing leftist propaganda Orwellian bullshit continues
Economics Makes You Mean « The Central Standard Times — April 6, 2015
[…] of Occidental College’s sociology professor Lisa Wade, who recently wrote that “Yep. Economics majors are more anti-social than non-econ majors. And taking econ classes also makes people more anti-social than they were before. It turns out, […]
Rob_88 — April 6, 2015
Anyone know where the "cheat, lie, and steal." part comes from?
GulfPundit — April 6, 2015
Economics majors are anti-social because they're less likely to support a left wing group and another that ignores the laws of economics? So I guess sociology majors are far more likely to believe their insipid opinions and baseless conclusions are actionable objective facts. Clearly they are statistically illiterate frauds who will shamelessly promote any intellectually dishonest tripe if it fits their agenda.
Higher Educationâs Moral MonstersConspiracydesk.com | Conspiracydesk.com — April 10, 2015
[…] It’s reiterated in a recent blog post by sociology professor Lisa Wade, titled “Are Economics Majors Anti-Social?” (The first sentence of the post reads, in its entirety, […]
Lord Humungus — April 10, 2015
Remember when college was about open-mindedness and the free-flow of ideas? It still is, as long as you're a communist, militant leftist, race-peddler, or femnazi. I feel so sorry for kids entering college these days. They're put into generational debt with the most horrific collection agency on Earth, promised they'll be failures unless they pursue a degree - any degree, mind you. Then they're indoctrinated with hard left propaganda and told to be thankful for their Sociology or Women's Studies or Sandscript degrees. Then they're lucky to find a job at Starbucks, where at least they can use their indoctrination and Sociology degrees to argue race politics with their customers as they spiral deeper into debt.
Easyst17 — April 12, 2015
'Being exposed to a variety of views, including ones that question the premises of neoclassical economics, may be one way to make economists more honest and kind.'
You know it seems like if someone is going to push kind of narrative, they should put more time into an economic theory that actually makes sense while accomplishing the preconceived goal you appear to have in mind. Instead of just trying to bash the integrity of another field.
Sociologists seem to just be pissed that no economic theories seem to validate their fabricated worldview. Economics is explaining why liberal policies are bankrupting Chicago, Detroit, California, and Illinois, and Europe, while all Sociology is doing pushing emotion driven policy.
Ahmad Khalid Qadafi — April 12, 2015
When did socioimages get infected with a bunch of neo-libs? Icky....
newmalthus — April 13, 2015
Or Sociologists.
oooBooo — April 13, 2015
That's quite the ancient aliens leap there.
There are infinite reasons why econ majors might not make that sort of donation but it has to be the one the author suspects.
tchoakim — April 13, 2015
What a stupid study. Wonder what the results would have been if they had been asked to donate to the Salvation Army? Bet the results would be reversed.
The Bogosity Podcast » Bogosity Podcast for 20 April 2015 — April 19, 2015
[…] 1:01:48 – Idiot Extraordinaire: Lisa Wade http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2015/03/25/are-economics-majors-anti-social/ […]
windskisong — April 21, 2015
http://fee.org/freeman/detail/higher-educations-moral-monsters-2 is an excellent refutation of this article
Estudar economia torna alguém imoral? - Portal Libertarianismo — April 24, 2015
[…] as escolhas morais feitas por estudantes de economia. E foi reiterado em uma postagem intitulada “Are Economics Majors Anti-social? (“Os Economistas são antissociais?”) no blog da professora de Sociologia Lisa […]
reader — May 14, 2015
Ya'll do realize that Dr. Wade didn't conduct this research herself? She's just discussing it? So your hate should probably be directed towards the actual researchers that authored the studies being discussed (which include some economists).
Rocinante — December 30, 2015
Business leaders study finance and management with a limited study in economics. The fields of business and economics are different. This is like suggesting sociologists are corrupt and it's because they took intro to psych.
हिन्दी-सवाल-पत्रों.com — May 22, 2023
Our team is made up of professional writers and citizen journalists with a wide range of journalism interests who are committed about delivering education हिन्दी-सवाल-पत्रों.com updates in the public interest while maintaining transparency. Our reporting team plans to release the Education & Recruitment Update for all age groups and provide inside coverage to show the real picture of current occurrences. With news divided into categories including general, political, crime, sports, entertainment, education, and world, our goal is to meet the needs of people of all ages.
पुरानेमॉडलपत्र.com — May 22, 2023
writers who have come together for dedicated news coverage of latest happenings around the country (India). Our team comprises of professional writers & citizen journalists with diverse range of interest in Journalism who are passionate about publishing the Education पुरानेमॉडलपत्र.com Updates with transparency in general public interest. Our reporting team intends to publish the Education & Recruitment Update for all age groups and present the true picture of the recent events with the inside coverage.