That it reached conclusions quite different from what the ordinary uninstructed person would expect, added, I suppose, to its intellectual prestige. That its teaching, translated into practice, was austere and often unpalatable, lent it virtue.

The above is a quote from John Maynard Keynes reproduced from Paul Krugman’s blog. While Krugman uses it to explain the puzzling call for interest rate hikes, made by certain economists, I think it is equally applicable to a wide range of fields whose practitioners often seem to suffer from acute Physics envy. Their solution was often mimicry of the results (of Physics), if not the method: the very act of positing counter-intuitive theses (similar to some of those of Physics) or prescriptions accrues intellectual prestige, irrespective of whether these results can stand analytical examination or were even analytically arrived at in the first place.

A good example is the natterings of Larry Summers (unsurprisingly, another economist) on the ability of women to do advanced mathematics… on which question Summers is, with great show of regret, pessimistic. This opinion is offered without much analysis but instead explicitly justified by appeal to toughness and the need to accept unpalatable conclusions. Unsurprisingly, Summers has found a strong defender in Steve Pinker, the leader of the evolutionary psychology pack whose arguments similarly are high on radical claim and calls for dealing with “reality”.