WEBVTT NOTE Conceptual Traps of Pedagogic Metaphors In a Praxeological Science 1 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:06.160 I'm going to be talking for about fifteen minutes on pedagogic metaphors and I guess it's my 2 00:00:06.160 --> 00:00:11.600 fervent hope that the next fifteen minutes will bring a little warmth and sunshine into 3 00:00:11.600 --> 00:00:18.200 your day, but we shall see. 4 00:00:18.200 --> 00:00:24.080 The last fifty years or so has seen an avalanche in scholarly publications on the cognitive 5 00:00:24.080 --> 00:00:28.160 of Role of Metaphor. 6 00:00:28.160 --> 00:00:35.980 Now in the sciences, including economics obviously, metaphors seem to be applauded as a means 7 00:00:35.980 --> 00:00:43.720 to truth and insight, but it is rarely acknowledged that metaphors can also mislead. 8 00:00:43.720 --> 00:00:46.060 So what do we mean by metaphor? 9 00:00:46.060 --> 00:00:51.920 Now linguists have provided actually dozens of definitions, none of which are particularly 10 00:00:51.920 --> 00:01:03.920 But a typical definition would describe the metaphor as the use of a subsidiary subject to make an enlightening reference to a primary subject. 11 00:01:03.920 --> 00:01:11.920 The intended purpose of the metaphor, obviously, is to convey some sort of an insight into an abstract concept. 12 00:01:11.920 --> 00:01:19.920 Now, for example, if our primary subject is a hypothetical firm and its production decisions, 13 00:01:19.920 --> 00:01:27.420 A typical metaphor would be a mathematical function expressing a relationship, a mathematical 14 00:01:27.420 --> 00:01:35.140 relationship between output and the factors of production required to achieve that output. 15 00:01:35.140 --> 00:01:39.980 But more generally we can say that many metaphors in economics include diagrammatic or mathematical 16 00:01:39.980 --> 00:01:45.480 expressions intended to give the impression that one has gained some insight into an economic 17 00:01:45.480 --> 00:01:46.480 concept. 18 00:01:46.480 --> 00:01:53.480 Now, these metaphors become the cognitive framework in learning and thinking about economic concepts, 19 00:01:53.480 --> 00:01:57.480 all thought to be central to the discipline of economics. 20 00:01:57.480 --> 00:02:04.480 But more often than not, these metaphors remain cognitive habits throughout our professional lives. 21 00:02:04.480 --> 00:02:09.480 And over time, the metaphorical basis of these concepts can be forgotten. 22 00:02:09.480 --> 00:02:20.480 The metaphor becomes real, and to the extent that metaphors become so entrenched in our thinking, they set conceptual traps. 23 00:02:20.480 --> 00:02:33.480 Now, economics as a praxeological science is based on the simple axiom that human beings are able to act rationally to choose means to attain subjectively chosen ends. 24 00:02:33.480 --> 00:02:42.480 Now obviously there is no human action without the process of human thought, none of which of course is observable. 25 00:02:42.480 --> 00:02:50.480 Yet traditional training in economics often appeals to visual metaphors in attempting to convey the nature of economic concepts. 26 00:02:50.480 --> 00:03:02.480 The paradox is that if a visual metaphor is successful in conveying an insight into these abstract concepts, 27 00:03:02.480 --> 00:03:10.080 Concepts and now here I'm talking about diagrams, equations, mathematical functions and models. 28 00:03:10.080 --> 00:03:16.640 To the extent that the metaphor is successful, it already runs the risk of denying the praxeological 29 00:03:16.640 --> 00:03:25.480 subjective nature of human choice. The conceptual trap here of course is the illusion of objectivity. 30 00:03:25.480 --> 00:03:31.760 Now while metaphors are critical in economic reasoning, in a praxeological context metaphors 31 00:03:31.760 --> 00:03:37.400 need to be viewed more skeptically. We need to keep in mind that all action is a result 32 00:03:37.400 --> 00:03:43.160 of conscious, subjective thought on the part of the actor. So we can ask what pedagogic 33 00:03:43.160 --> 00:03:50.800 metaphors are useful in conveying legitimate insight into economics. We can also ask what 34 00:03:50.800 --> 00:03:59.520 metaphors are likely to set conceptual traps. Now, in 2007, the Quarterly Journal of Austrian 35 00:03:59.520 --> 00:04:05.960 and Economics published a paper by Peter Phillips titled Mathematics, Metaphors and Economic 36 00:04:05.960 --> 00:04:14.500 Visualization. In this paper, Phillips argued enthusiastically about the benefits of visualization 37 00:04:14.500 --> 00:04:23.600 yielded by mathematical and diagrammatic metaphors in economics. But in so doing, Phillips largely 38 00:04:23.600 --> 00:04:31.600 have really ignored the metaphorical, excuse me, the praxeological nature of economic science. 39 00:04:31.600 --> 00:04:38.600 Now, potentially misleading metaphors are numerous, but I'm just going to mention a very few here today. 40 00:04:38.600 --> 00:04:44.600 And, they of course, include the indifference curve mappings, the supply and demand functions, 41 00:04:44.600 --> 00:04:49.600 which we're all familiar, and the production function. 42 00:04:49.600 --> 00:05:04.600 Now in forgetting about the metaphorical nature of these analytical constructs, economists can be drawn into research agenda that are implicitly reliant on assumptions of measurability and unwarranted absence of change. 43 00:05:04.600 --> 00:05:16.600 However, these metaphors have no significance apart from the immediate subjective choice of individual human beings. 44 00:05:16.600 --> 00:05:26.600 Now, Austrian economists, of course, have not dealt with these issues without necessarily acknowledging the metaphorical basis of the concepts. 45 00:05:26.600 --> 00:05:34.600 In some cases, the Austrians have redefined metaphors in such a way that they have more praxeological legitimacy. 46 00:05:34.600 --> 00:05:39.600 In other cases, they've been able to develop new metaphors. 47 00:05:39.600 --> 00:05:48.600 Now Murray Rothbard, for example, jettisons the indifference curve mapping by noting that indifference cannot be the basis for action. 48 00:05:48.600 --> 00:05:57.600 Following Mises, Rothbard employs as a metaphor the hypothetical unified single scale of relative rankings of value. 49 00:05:57.600 --> 00:06:07.600 Now one might also add here, and this is just a personal view, that there has probably never been a human being on the face of the earth 50 00:06:07.600 --> 00:06:11.600 that has ever made a decision within the context of indifference curve mappings. 51 00:06:11.600 --> 00:06:15.600 That's just me, of course. 52 00:06:15.600 --> 00:06:20.600 Now other examples include the supply and demand curves. 53 00:06:20.600 --> 00:06:25.600 Now these curves are meant to have an ex-ante significance, 54 00:06:25.600 --> 00:06:30.600 that is ex-ante before the fact, in the sense that both the supply schedule and the demand schedule 55 00:06:30.600 --> 00:06:35.600 are intended to indicate the quantities of a good that would be supplied or demanded 56 00:06:35.600 --> 00:06:39.760 are demanded as a function of the market price. 57 00:06:39.760 --> 00:06:42.680 But as Mises has noted, quote, 58 00:06:42.680 --> 00:06:46.520 it is important to realize that we do not have any knowledge 59 00:06:46.520 --> 00:06:50.040 or experience with respect to the shape of these curves. 60 00:06:50.040 --> 00:06:54.040 Always what we know is only the market price. 61 00:06:54.040 --> 00:06:57.120 That is, not the curves, but only the point 62 00:06:57.120 --> 00:06:59.680 at which we interpret the intersection 63 00:06:59.680 --> 00:07:02.440 of the supply and demand function. 64 00:07:02.440 --> 00:07:17.440 That's an end of quote. In other words, the quantities here have no objective existence apart from the prospective, and I emphasize the word prospective, subjective choices made by individuals at a particular moment in time. 65 00:07:17.440 --> 00:07:24.440 Similar comments can be directed toward the neoclassical production function. 66 00:07:24.440 --> 00:07:43.440 Now the neoclassical production function, and I guess I'll just throw in a brief definition here, it's a mathematical expression intended to define a relationship between output and the factors of production required to achieve that output. 67 00:07:43.440 --> 00:07:51.440 It's presented as a set of technological relationships that are intended to have universal validity. 68 00:07:51.440 --> 00:07:56.600 But here again we have a metaphor that has absolutely nothing to do with the 69 00:07:56.600 --> 00:08:02.720 decision of an individual enterprise. However, if the production function is 70 00:08:02.720 --> 00:08:09.440 viewed as a set or range of individual production plans that the entrepreneur, 71 00:08:09.440 --> 00:08:14.560 for example, might choose, well then we have a metaphor that has some 72 00:08:14.560 --> 00:08:22.320 some praxeological significance, some praxeological relevance, and one that has a great deal to 73 00:08:22.320 --> 00:08:26.560 do with the decisions faced by the individual firm. 74 00:08:26.560 --> 00:08:32.120 Now Murray Rothbard in general certainly gets to the heart of the issue in observing that 75 00:08:32.120 --> 00:08:39.480 the mathematical function is totally dismissive of free will and hence out of place in a praxeological 76 00:08:39.480 --> 00:08:51.320 Science. I want to mention the Hayekian Triangle and the Triangle is a 77 00:08:51.320 --> 00:08:55.040 device first presented by Murray Rothbard in the thirties in a book 78 00:08:55.040 --> 00:09:02.880 entitled Prices and Production and it's intended to introduce time into a 79 00:09:02.880 --> 00:09:11.880 with Structure of Production and showing the time that must elapse between the commitment 80 00:09:11.880 --> 00:09:16.720 of resources to the final output that is ultimately achievable. 81 00:09:16.720 --> 00:09:21.720 Now I think we can widely acknowledge that Roger Garrison has been able to glean numerous 82 00:09:21.720 --> 00:09:27.200 valid and interesting insights into the use of the Hayekian Triangle. 83 00:09:27.200 --> 00:09:42.200 Nonetheless, Walter Block and William Barnett have done a critical study noting fourteen different points of criticism, some of which have their bases in the praxeological nature of the underlying economics. 84 00:09:42.200 --> 00:09:50.200 Their paper is unusual. Well, first of all, it's unusual in the sense that it's about a hundred pages long. 85 00:09:50.200 --> 00:09:59.200 But it's also unusual in the sense that each author offers a separate contrasting perspective regarding the merits of the metaphor. 86 00:09:59.200 --> 00:10:16.200 Now, the more Austrian of the two authors, that is Walter Block, concludes that the Structure Production Triangle has enabled generations of Austrians to think more clearly about macroeconomic issues, which it has, obviously. 87 00:10:16.200 --> 00:10:23.200 Now the less Austrian of the two authors states that in addition to alienating mainstream economists, 88 00:10:23.200 --> 00:10:39.200 and I'm not so sure that's a negative, but the Hayekian Triangle fails as a pedagogic metaphor for reasons including the likelihood that it inculcates misleading analytical habits 89 00:10:39.200 --> 00:10:44.200 and that it ignores the immeasurable complexity of the real world economy. 90 00:10:44.200 --> 00:10:52.200 Now here again, I think that it's easy to expect way, way too much out of a metaphor. 91 00:10:52.200 --> 00:11:02.200 And the conceptual trap here lies in the extent to which the metaphor is presented and interpreted as something real. 92 00:11:02.200 --> 00:11:07.200 But the metaphorical nature of the triangle must always be kept upfront. 93 00:11:07.200 --> 00:11:13.600 Now I don't think that Roger Garrison or Frederic Hayek or Stanley Jevons for that matter meant 94 00:11:13.600 --> 00:11:20.400 the triangle to be used as anything other than a simple but useful pedagogic metaphor. 95 00:11:20.400 --> 00:11:25.280 Now William Barnett has gone on to suggest that the triangle itself might be more widely 96 00:11:25.280 --> 00:11:31.040 accepted if it were presented in a more mathematical form. 97 00:11:31.040 --> 00:11:36.080 But one might well note that mathematical economists are as trapped in their own habits 98 00:11:36.080 --> 00:11:44.080 of Metaphor-Forgetting and Entertaining Notions of Objectivity when None in Fact Exists. 99 00:11:44.080 --> 00:11:52.080 I just want to make a few general comments about the nature of conceptual traps. 100 00:11:52.080 --> 00:11:55.880 Most obviously, metaphors can encourage the notions that we are looking at something that 101 00:11:55.880 --> 00:11:58.760 can be measured or quantified. 102 00:11:58.760 --> 00:12:05.560 They tend to reinforce the idea that economics is an empirical science. 103 00:12:05.560 --> 00:12:10.480 Metaphors can also instill the impression that economic processes are static, preferences 104 00:12:10.480 --> 00:12:17.800 don't change, production processes are impervious to planning and innovation, and metaphors 105 00:12:17.800 --> 00:12:23.020 can also encourage the habit of thinking about markets as things or mechanisms that can be 106 00:12:23.020 --> 00:12:26.240 controlled or manipulated. 107 00:12:26.240 --> 00:12:31.180 To the extent that metaphors provide a framework for conceptual thought, they tend to lead 108 00:12:31.180 --> 00:12:37.140 lead one into thinking that efficiency and inefficiency are discernible and correctable, 109 00:12:37.140 --> 00:12:43.220 thus prompting the notion that some sort of intervention is justified or desirable. Metaphors 110 00:12:43.220 --> 00:12:48.460 that appeal to visualization can lead the student of economics into thinking that economic 111 00:12:48.460 --> 00:12:54.800 calculation in terms of value is possible. And finally, visual metaphors in economics 112 00:12:54.800 --> 00:13:00.940 can suggest that economic magnitudes or aggregates can be related to one another without 113 00:13:00.940 --> 00:13:05.480 without special reference to plans and actions of individuals. 114 00:13:05.480 --> 00:13:10.700 Such metaphors suppress a conscious awareness that economic events are motivated by a mental 115 00:13:10.700 --> 00:13:14.360 process of subjective choice. 116 00:13:14.360 --> 00:13:21.360 Now in closing, I want to just note that I don't think we want to try to teach economics 117 00:13:21.360 --> 00:13:24.240 without the use of metaphor. 118 00:13:24.240 --> 00:13:29.800 But the danger always is in thinking within the metaphor and viewing the metaphor as something 119 00:13:29.800 --> 00:13:34.800 This is a habit that linguists have referred to as metaphor forgetting. 120 00:13:34.800 --> 00:13:38.800 Now in this forgetting lies the danger of the conceptual trap. 121 00:13:38.800 --> 00:13:46.800 Now obviously if metaphors are to be employed in economics there must be a greater awareness of their limitations. 122 00:13:46.800 --> 00:13:58.800 I would argue that praxeology itself can act as a screen or a guide in rejecting or accepting certain metaphors in economics. 123 00:13:58.800 --> 00:14:07.200 Economics. So at that point, I'm sure you're anxious to hear more, but I must stop. So thank you for your attention.