I'm really hoping an economist offers to answer this question, because I've always wondered the same thing...

My guess is that it has something to do with economists' estimation of formal modeling as the pinnacle of scientific achievement, which they mimicked from physics. Economic theory tends to equal formal mathematical models. Within economics, the highest status goes to formal modelers. This is probably why Steven Levitt, despite his enormous influence outside of economics, isn't given the same status within the discipline.

Sociologists are more data-driven than economists. This doesn't mean that we don't appreciate formal modeling, but we tend to be suspicious of attempts to formalize arguments that aren't grounded in empirics.

Because I read the works of Immanuel Wallerstein in my junior tutorial when I was young?

Because the relative lack of formal modeling in sociology makes a substantial amount of sociological empirical work show correlation and then assume the causation is whatever the author wishes?

Because when sociologists venture across the line into economics, their analyses of economic questions strike us as stunningly naive and ignorant?

Bear in mind that the same thing happens in reverse. The extremely sharp Marion Fourcade-Gourinchas regards me as stunningly naive and ignorant because I believe that neoliberalism became a very strong current in 1990s policymaking because it had the stronger analytical case...

Just in case there were lingering doubts about the premise of the question ... thanks, Brad.

By the way, I agree with you that it runs both ways.

I just want to point out that Larry Solum's explanation is an essentially sociological one.

I'd agree with Brad's point about the naivete of sociologists regarding economists' theory and research. Economic sociologists are often guilty of creating strawmen economists who bear little resemblance to the real thing.

This misunderstanding and mischaracterization, which runs both ways, is partly due to the lack of conversation that occurs between the disciplines. I'll be the first to admit that economic sociologists don't read enough economics.

(originally in an email to Gordon)

Oh, the hierarchy of "sciences." It's the same reason that natural scientists think economists are stupid, chemists think biologists are stupid, physicists think chemists are stupid, and mathematicians think physicists are stupid. I exaggerate, of course.

On a more serious note, I think Thomas Kuhn actually explored this phenomenon somewhat in one of his works (not the famous Structure, though). If I remember to look it up, I will.

Sam: I don't think that Larry's explanation is sociological. If anything, it is philosophical, as he locates the cause of the precieved idiocy in the basic methodological and epistemological assumptions of each discipline.

Incidentally, all of the philosophers that I have met think that both sociologists and economists are stupid.

One of the nice things about being a lawyer (or a law professor) is that you get to be looked down on by all three groups. On the other hand, the pay and teaching load is better...

I would explore an answer to Gordon’s question that might be given by a social psychologist (at least a bad one). Economists are the alpha males of social science geeks. When it comes to quantitative analysis, they believe they are the best. They have passed through a series of ritual tests to weed out those among them who were not up to snuff. With their PhD work and their ongoing publications of articles, they exhibit their mastery of empirical and analytic methods. “We are smarter than you” is the implicit mantra of the academic economist.

There is only one problem. It is tough to maintain your position as an alpha male geek, particularly since there are so many very smart people in the world (last time I checked if the world population is over 6 billion than there are over 600,000 people who are in the top 0.01% percentile). So economists, as with any other group that has worked hard to establish its position and self-image, has to rely on other means to maintain the position they worked so hard to attain. We see one common defensive strategy: minimizing or lessening the characteristics of out groups. Other predictable, but annoying, defenses include keeping information and methods proprietary (not explicitly, but by relying on the “you wouldn’t understand” rationale, or by failing to document nomenclature in a way that would be transparent to an outside).

Do economists think sociologists are on average stupider than economists? Of course. You would too if you spent so much time fighting to prove that you were an accepted member within the group of the very smartest of social scientist, the economist.

Good trial lawyers I have known don't distinguish between economists and sociologists. Both frequently get their comeuppance in the courtroom, through cross-exam at trial or a Daubert hearing.

Apropos of some of the preceding comments, if you want a blast aimed at directly at all three groups (economists, sociologists and legal academics), try Mario Bunge, "In Praise of Intolerance to Charlatanism in Academia" 101-04 in The Flight From Science and Reason (P. Gross, N. Levitt & M. Lewis eds. 1996). Professor Bunge, a leading philosopher of science with training and experience in both disciplines, accuses many economists, sociologists and legal scholars of "pseudoquantification" and concludes that the mathematical versions of the three fields are in fact "pseudosciences."

Physicists think you're both stupid.

Gordon,

"#1 is patently ridiculous". Isn't it the most parsimonious explanation? SAT and GRE scores are highly correlated with IQ scores. What are the relevant GRE and SAT scores for economists and sociologists?

This is really funny...I really think it is stupid and a waste of time to argue about who is stupider than the other. Why can't people just cooperate to work together? Ultimately, all fields (natural science, social science, whatever) are endevours to understand the world better so we can make this dysfunctional world more *functional*. Debates like this is just to sooth the economists' bruised egos (likewise for the case of mathematicians and blah blah blah). I really don't see any need for the economists to attack social scientists if they are really so smart. Are they saying this because they feel threatened?