One of my biggest pet peeves is when people retort or dismiss someone by calling them an armchair economist. I think that you never know where wisdom may reside, and they don’t need to be intellectually savvy in books to make an extremely great point and have a good opinion. Obviously, reading makes one more informed and wiser to a certain extent, but there are still limits to consuming books and academic papers.
I also recognize the important role of empirical evidence, and being on-site, meaning like a surveyor, or an ethnographer, getting their hands dirty, doing the dirty work, going on the ground to gather evidence. A balance between abstract thinking and reflection (armchair approach), and if it is required for the job, to either enhance it and for experience, going to the site and experiencing the observations for yourself for evidence is ideal for social scientists.
My preferred research method approach is being absorbed into the topic I’m researching, immersed in the community and anything semi-related to it, which is closer to participant observation, as I’m also a part of the subject(s) I’m studying, at the same time, able to detach and reflect on the experience. I found that it’s one of the most enriching experiences in conducting your own research. This is more for the area of anthropologists/sociologists.
To reiterate again: One of the most ignorant dismissals is calling someone an “armchair economist,” as if valuable insights can only come from direct experience. Einstein didn’t need to travel to space to develop the theory of relativity—he used thought experiments, rigorous study, and deep understanding of physics while working as a patent clerk. Likewise, serious economic analysis doesn’t require running a central bank or trading on Wall Street; it requires a grasp of theory, data, and logical reasoning. People have no idea how much time I have spent studying economics/finance/history, and more. It’s a lot. I’m not claiming to be an expert.
I humbly reject the label of an expert and don’t seek validation. I’m sorry I don’t have a degree in Economics. I have a degree in Sociology, and have taken courses related to economics. I know what I know because I know, and know when someone doesn’t know, or usually know where they got their ideas from. One does not only need to be limited to books or even attend university. You can fast track a lot of learning through countless videos, discussions with peers, podcasts, forums, websites, audiobooks, documentaries, and cinematic Hollywood films. Anything with sources and data.
I asked ChatGPT to come up with some satirical jokes and comebacks to the naysayers of the armchair approach.
ChatGPT: Here are some jokes, satirical takes, and sharp comebacks for those who dismiss “armchair scientists” or “armchair economists”:
Jokes & Satire:
- “Armchair economist? Oh, I’m sorry, I forgot that Newton personally wrestled gravity before coming up with his laws of motion.”
- “Einstein was just a patent clerk when he developed relativity. Should we dismiss him as an ‘armchair physicist’ because he wasn’t personally surfing black holes?”
- “Armchair thinkers? You mean like the ancient Greeks who literally sat around thinking and somehow invented democracy, philosophy, and geometry? Yeah, what losers.”
- “Imagine telling a historian they need to have personally lived through the Roman Empire to understand it. ‘Sorry, you weren’t there, bro. How do you even know Julius Caesar existed?'”
- “By this logic, only chefs can talk about food, only pilots can discuss aerodynamics, and only doctors can understand medicine. So I guess if you get sick, don’t Google your symptoms—just hope you naturally absorb medical knowledge by osmosis.”
Comebacks:
- “Oh, I see. So unless someone has personally experienced something, they can’t understand it? Okay, tell me exactly what it’s like to be a medieval knight. No? Didn’t think so.”
- “By your standard, Einstein should’ve been dismissed because he wasn’t an astronaut. Darwin should’ve been ignored because he didn’t personally evolve into a fish. Do you hear yourself?”
- “So only real-world experience matters? Cool, let’s fire all economists, scientists, and engineers and replace them with random people who have ‘been through it.’ That should go well.”
- “Did Shakespeare actually fight in a war before writing Henry V? Did Orwell need to live in a dystopia before writing 1984? No? Guess their work is meaningless too.”
- “Calling someone an armchair scientist is like dismissing a chess grandmaster for not having been a medieval knight. The game is about strategy, not swinging a sword.”
These should cover a mix of humor, satire, and sharp retorts for any situation where someone tries to shut down intellectual discussions with the lazy “armchair” insult.
Social Scholarly 