Thanks. That's a fair point about pushing things too far in the other direction, retreating to the mysterian possibility that there can be no scientific explanation of human behaviour. I don't think we're that mysterious. But there's a difference between social and exact sciences.

The problem with eocnomics is the acute physics envy, the pretense that economic knowledge is as mathematically precise and rigorous as the physicist's understanding of natural objects. Subjectivity does get in the way of that degree of precision.

I don't say a mathematical solving of human nature is impossible, but that kind of complete predictability and self-understanding would probably mark a transition to transhumanity. This would be a sci-fi scenario with apocalyptic consequences. Economists' floundering with political blind spots shows we're not there yet.

It sounds like you could write that longer, more detailed article on the economists' biases. I'd like to read it.