Psychologist has wrong theory of economists

Psychologist Explains Why Economists—and Liberals—Get Human Nature Wrong

In his 2012 book, The Righteous Mind, New York University social psychologist Jonathan Haidt explored why so many perfectly intelligent people have misread human nature– and not just economists, but plenty of psychologists and even (shocker!) people who identify as politically liberal. For him, the key to getting to know ourselves properly lies with moral psychology, a newish strain that pulls together evolutionary, neurological, and social-psychological research on moral emotions and intuitions.
As Haidt sees it, we are creatures driven by moral intuition and attuned to both our personal interests as well as what’s good for the groups with which we identify. He points out that in order to thrive, we have to appreciate our complex, interactive natures and see each other more clearly and empathetically – an observation that may be especially useful at a time when threats like climate change and the concentration of money and power threatens all of us, no matter who we are or what groups we belong to. At the moment, we aren’t doing such a good job of this.

The psychologist wants to explain homo economicus on a deeper level.  That is not the job of the economists, and the shrink is barking the wrong tree.

The crap he spouts in my boldface is mainly wishful thinking.  Homo economicus does a few simple things, most of which can be boiled down to one maxim, everyone avoids the long line. Make the everything and we get  good description of everything in nature.

So, how can man's mental processes be so complex, yet his economics behavior so simple? The system is scaled for economies of gain, and thus leaves little room for complex mental processes when making economic decisions.

The best explanation for the failure of the economists is his desire to philosophize which leaves him or her trapped in their priors.