I don't think this is what Yoram was hoping for with his NYTimes piece:
For background on this, see here and note that my 2nd comment was deleted. I have attempted to “revise and resubmit” my comment, but I am also reposting my original comment here, as well as the “revise and resubmit” comment.
I've read all of the comments on the Econlib post and the Steve Landsburg post. I generally agree with the criticism, that the two charities weren't necessarily the best ones to test whether economics students are selfish (i.e., make donations with less frequency than non-economics students). One of the charities is "left-leaning" while the other lobbies for reduced tuition. Economics students may be less inclined to donate to the first charity if they are less likely to favor left-leaning policy and less likely to donate to the second if they are less likely to favor income redistribution to themselves and their parents. It may not have anything to do with being Grinches (I tried to make this point in my first post, but got lazy and deleted what I was unable to adequately say).
However, the commentors assume these ant-left preferences by the U of Washington students. Bu it seems their preferences is the missing piece of the research. This is especially true given (a) Washington is a liberal state and (b) the evidence concerning economist and economics student "selfish" behavior that Yoram describes (note that I haven't read any of these papers). Yoram's research seems to be a contribution to this area that raises further issues -- much like most other economics research articles -- and not "idiotic" as described by Landsburg (although, the descriptor might be intended for attaching to the NYTimes piece and not the JEBO article).
One thing that troubles me is the unnecessary harshness of the commenters (which adds meaning to Landsburg's post title). Yoram's deleted comment doesn't come close to some of the anti-Yoram remarks. Also, most of that stuff is from anonymous tough guys. I'm not a fan of harsh comments from anonymous tough guys (or gals, but the pseudonyms are masculine).
But what most troubles me is that someone calling themselves JohnW says this as, I can only imagine, an ignorant putdown:
What is an “environmental economist” anyway?
I'm wondering who is this JohnW anyway? Please be sure that it is not me since I don't leave anonymous comments.
More infuriating, the anonymous cosmologist says this:
Maybe the problem is that Yoram Bauman is described in the NYT as “an environmental economist”. That sounds a bit like an astrological astronomer, or a homeopathic doctor.
Someone calling themselves the "anonymous cosmologist" is dogging environmental economists?
Finally, someone who bravely comments with first name, last name and link to homepage comes to the rescue:
Anon cosmoslogist et al: Its nothing to do with being an environmental economist! I’m an “environmental economist” (i.e. an economist interested in the environment, among other things*) and I agree with Steve (though I haven’t read the original paper) – indeed, I tweeted much the same thing days back.
