The thing is that economists -- and every other practitioner of the "social sciences"-- are only providing one perspective of a complex topic -- human behavior -- that is perhaps best considered in diverse ways.*
this post) inspires me to suggest the following arrangement.
Highest and slowest to change is the layer of culture that we are born into and affects our perspectives and actions. Anthropologists study culture as the key to understanding the range and thrust of our behavior.
Just below are the political scientists, who study the formal and official bodies we use to govern ourselves.
Then come the sociologists, who study how group dynamics and identity affect our choices and behavior.
Going closer to the study of individual choice, cooperation and autonomy versus collection, we get the economists who think that individual (ir)rationality plays a big role.
Finally, at the most fleeting and individualistic level, we get the psychologists who try to understand how we internalize and rationalize what we do and don't do.
My big thought here is that it's not just useful, but crucial, that we get different disciplinary perspectives on "an issue" (formal employment, say) before rushing to "robust" conclusions.
What are your thoughts on this?
Bottom Line: The best part of working in an interdisciplinary environment is finding novel ways to understand what you
* The hard sciences and humanities are also complementary at approaching their "larger dimensions" of human existence.