Re: [AG-GOuFP] Experimentelle Studien: VWL-Studium produziert Soziopathen

[moneymind <moneymind AT gmx.de>]

Yup, genau. Heute nennt man es "Normalität" - sagen wir besser: "der 
"ganz normale" Wahnsinn", der sich direkt daraus ergibt, daß sich "die 
Menschen" als freie und gleiche Rechtssubjekte / Eigentümer aufeinander 
beziehen ... die Konzepte, die ihnen am heiligsten sind, sind die direkte 
Quelle des "ganz normalen" Wahnsinns ... der Entfremdung eben.

David Finsterwalder schrieb:

> Und die Erklärung der "Volkskrankheit Depression": 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNnITu0_OeI
>
> Als Marx mal noch cool war nannte man das "Entfremdung"
>
> 2015-02-16 22:57 GMT+01:00 David Finsterwalder 
> <d.finsterwalder[at]gmail.com 
> http://mailto:d.finsterwalder%5Bat%5Dgmail.com>:
> > Vollkommen passend dazu ;-) http://xkcd.com/610/
> >
> > 2015-02-16 19:11 GMT+01:00 moneymind <moneymind[at]gmx.de 
> > http://mailto:moneymind%5Bat%5Dgmx.de>:
> > > Warum ich das poste: ich stimm dem zu, aber ich hab manchmal das 
> > > Gefühl, um zum Soziopathen zu werden, braucht man gar nicht 
> > > akademische Ökonomie zu studieren. Es genügt, im deflationären 
> > > Kapitalismus und der TINA-Propaganda ums Überleben kämpfen zu müssen.
> > >
> > > Das System selbst und die neoliberale Propaganda macht uns alle zu 
> > > kleinen Soziopathen und Sozialdarwinisten - und noch dazu im 
> > > "Eigeninteresse".
> > >
> > > Und machmal hab ich das Gefühl, schon die dauerhafte Beschäftigung 
> > > mit dem Ökonomie-Thema ist überhaupt nicht gut für den je eigenen 
> > > Geisteszustand und ein schlechter Einfluß. Man muß verdammt 
> > > aufpassen, was diese Denke mit einem macht und ganz bewußt 
> > > gegensteuern.
> > >
> > > Varoufakis macht vor, daß (und wie) das gehen kann. Und die 
> > > Gegenstrategie kann nur sein: KOOPERATION.
> > >
> > > Gegenseitiges Niedermachen dagegen, sich gegenseitig "Unsinn" und 
> > > ähnliches an den Kopf zu werfen, bringt nicht nur nix, sondern sollte 
> > > ganz einfach nicht toleriert werden.
> > >
> > > Wenn ihr versteht, was ich meine.
> > >
> > > moneymind schrieb:
> > > > /
> > > > Aus einem Interview von Phil Pilkington (PP) mit Yanis Varoufakis (YV):
> > > >
> > > > YV : There have been some interesting studies that reveal how common 
> > > > decency and ‘other’-regarding norms are weeded out of students of 
> > > > economics very early in their undergraduate career. Take the example 
> > > > of the generalised prisoner’s dilemma below:
> > > >
> > > > Young men and women are given some money (e.g. $10) and asked to 
> > > > contribute (each one separately from the rest, and in perfect 
> > > > anonymity) all or part of it to a common purse. Then, the contents of 
> > > > the purse are multiplied by the factor of, say, three and the contents 
> > > > redistributed among all of them independently of their contribution. 
> > > > Clearly, the best outcome for the group is that each contributes all 
> > > > of his or her windfall to the common purse and, that way, each gets a 
> > > > return three times as large. The problem here is that there is a 
> > > > temptation to let others contribute while you do not (since that way 
> > > > you get your share of three times of their contributions and, to boot, 
> > > > you have also kept your own money).
> > > >
> > > > What we find in experimental studies involving real students, who play 
> > > > the above game with real money, is something quite startling: students 
> > > > of economics were significantly less willing to contribute to the 
> > > > common purse. Moreover they were more pessimistic about the prospects 
> > > > that others would contribute! So the question arose: Is it that 
> > > > economics attracts the less cooperative, more ruthless young persons? 
> > > > Or is it that exposure to economics makes them relatively more 
> > > > ruthless, pessimistic and aggressive?
> > > >
> > > > To find out, the experiments were repeated separately for first 
> > > > semester first year undergraduates (before they were 
> > > > ‘contaminated’ with economics or other subjects) and for students 
> > > > who had just graduated. Guess what: Amongst the fresh(wo)men who 
> > > > played the game, the ones that had chosen to major in economics did 
> > > > not behave differently to the rest. They were equally willing to 
> > > > contribute. Therefore no evidence was found supporting the hypothesis 
> > > > that economics attracts misanthropes. On the other hand, amongst 
> > > > graduates those with an economics training stood out from the rest: 
> > > > they were much less likely to contribute, and more pessimistic about 
> > > > the others. The conclusion is inescapable: a training in economics 
> > > > significantly increases the probability that a person becomes less 
> > > > sociable, more aggressive, less cooperative; in short, miserable.
> > > >
> > > > Why and how is this indoctrination taking place? The answer is simple: 
> > > > Economists are all about creating determinate models; ‘closed’ 
> > > > models that predict behaviour. To do this, they need to assume a 
> > > > particularly narrow minded form of rationality (which I call 
> > > > ‘instrumental rationality’): you are rational to the extent that 
> > > > you deploy your means efficiently in the pursuit of given objectives. 
> > > > When a young person is told repeatedly that to be rational means to be 
> > > > ruthlessly instrumental (i.e. to treat others as a means to one’s 
> > > > own ends), and that contributing in this game is for sissies (or, more 
> > > > ‘scientifically’, irrational), is it any wonder that a training in 
> > > > economics makes young persons more brutish and nastier?
> > > >
> > > > The end result is that youngsters with a heightened sense of civic 
> > > > responsibility either drop out of economics, in a bid to retain it, or 
> > > > manage gradually to shed it; to adopt ‘instrumental rationality’ 
> > > > in their own daily life and mindset. Suddenly, the models begin to 
> > > > shape the modellers, rather than the other way round. It is a subtle 
> > > > process of change that turns economists into simulacra of themselves 
> > > > in a hopeless pursuit of ‘closed’ models that validate their own 
> > > > sad ‘conversion’. Seen from a different perspective, *what we have 
> > > > here is a remarkable Darwinian process that guarantees the survival 
> > > > and dominance, within economics departments, of the anti-social, aka 
> > > > instrumentally rational, fools.*
> > > >
> > > > As for the Crisis and its effects on economics students and 
> > > > departments, I am afraid it has done nothing to ameliorate this 
> > > > Darwinian mechanism within existing economic departments. The norms of 
> > > > instrumental reasoning are so powerful that not even the earthquake of 
> > > > the Crisis has had the power to unsettle them. I have a hunch, 
> > > > however, that what the Crisis will do is speed up further the rate of 
> > > > decline in the number of youngsters interested in studying economics. 
> > > > This is the good news. The bad news is that they will not turn to 
> > > > other social studies but to pseudo-disciplines like marketing, 
> > > > business, advertising etc.
> > > >
> > > > PP: That’s fascinating, let’s continue to run with this for a 
> > > > moment. If what you say is true – and I believe the evidence is 
> > > > unquestionable in this regard – then economics is not a science 
> > > > whatsoever. It more so resembles a school of morality or even a 
> > > > philosophical cult. The old Greek Stoics spring to mind. They were a 
> > > > school of philosophy that not only taught certain ideas but demanded 
> > > > that their followers live these ideas in their day-to-day lives. But 
> > > > in economics the students aren’t even told that they’re signing up 
> > > > for a moral vision, a sort of religion or belief system, they’re 
> > > > told that they’re being initiated into an objective science. Perhaps 
> > > > you could reflect a little in that direction and its implications?
> > > >
> > > > YV: Quite so. It is a priesthood that truly believes it is not a 
> > > > priesthood but, rather, a community of scientists. (Quelle: Interview 
> > > > Phil Pilkington mit Yanis Varoufakis 
> > > > http://yanisvaroufakis.eu/__2012/03/01/an-interview-with-__naked-capitalisms-phil-__pilkington-on-our-book-modern-__political-economics-part-a/)/ 
> > > > http://yanisvaroufakis.eu/2012/03/01/an-interview-with-naked-capitalisms-phil-pilkington-on-our-book-modern-political-economics-part-a/)/
> > > --
> > > AG-Geldordnung-und-__Finanzpolitik mailing list
> > > AG-Geldordnung-und-__Finanzpolitik AT lists.__piratenpartei.de 
> > > http://mailto:AG-Geldordnung-und-Finanzpolitik%5Bat%5Dlists.piratenpartei.de
> > > https://service.piratenpartei.__de/listinfo/ag-geldordnung-__und-finanzpolitik 
> > > https://service.piratenpartei.de/listinfo/ag-geldordnung-und-finanzpolitik