(see  The Smart Fraction Theory of IQ and the Wealth of Nations  at

What is the difference in the the cognitive biases of the different disciplines?

1) Engineering and engineers
2) Computer science and computer scientists,
3) Economics and economists (statistics)
4) Physics and physicists
5) Mathematics and mathematicians?

How would you stack-rank these five by:

i) The weight given to understanding of human hubris vs human rationality?

ii) The use of obscurant versus operational language

iii) The use of platonist versus naturalistic language.

iv) The requirement that people adapt to new knowledge, versus adapt technology to suit the needs and wants of people?

v) The tendency to favor statist versus libertarian solutions?

Now, we have to understand some variations in the data. Mostly it’s a hierarchy of IQ. But Economists usually skew lower than the other disciplines because a) they are paid less, and b) the criteria for what is called an economics degree varies a lot. (It is very hard to make less than 100K as a computer scientist. It is very easy to make 150K. And not difficult to make 200K.) Given the damned rigor of the discipline I find this sort of thing interesting.
I am educated as a fine artist, in Art Theory. (The philosophy of art and art history). Essentially as an art critic. Art just isn’t generally good enough to critique any more. Although the art-craft movement is still creative and beautiful. The movie business is the great sucking sound for artistic talent in America. And art has become a lower middle class occupation with an upper proletarian work force. It is not in the least bit aristocratic.