What is Dual Interest Theory
“Virtues are swallowed up by self-interest as rivers are lost in the sea (attributed to La Rochefoucauld, in Hodgson, 1999, p. 139)”
“Selfishness beats altruism within groups. Altruistic groups beat selfish groups. Everything else is commentary (Wilson 2015, p. 23).”
“The Me needs a We to Be, and, without a Me there is no We?” (asked by Chris Andrew, University of Florida Colleague, after a deep and extended conversation about what would later become Dual Interest Theory. My answer: “Yes, you got it. You are seeing the joint Me & We.”)
“I get the price theory: that people are moved by price and property, the variables of prudence, price, profit—or, as I have called Max U’s motivations, the Profane. But the point here is that people are also moved by the S variables of speech, stories, shame, the Sacred … (McCloskey 2022, p. 102).”
“… (economists in general) are unwilling to bring ethics seriously into their history and their economics. As one of them said genially to me, ‘Ethics, schmethics’ … It’s hard to get through to economists on the point, so enamored are they of the Max U story of budget lines and incentives, which they have been taught since boyhood is a complete theory of choice (McCloskey 2016, pp. 192-193).”
“(every person must) humble the arrogance of … self-love (i.e. Max U), and bring it down to something which (the) other … can go along with (Smith, 1759/1790, loc 1714-1727).”
The substantive testing ground for an alternative theory is “…whether the proposed... is less burdened with empirical anomalies than alternative ones (Khalil 1998, p. 614)."
[Note: If you prefer reading a more stylized journal paper, written with the more heterodox economist in mind, here is one that is in process, see https://971b831c-a8d9-4115-9686-7303d610774a.usrfiles.com/ugd/971b83_20b1c361b3534e25a40a4ccb4ae3f431.pdf
Also, the latest formal paper is: Lynne, G. D. and Czap, N. V. “Towards Dual Interest Theory in Metaeconomics.” Journal of Interdisciplinary Economics (July 2023): 1-19] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/02601079231172366
And, the entire the entire post here in the Blog is also available as a downloadable pdf file
Preface: Most importantly, before we get started here, referring to the Khalil (1998) quote in the heading, Dual Interest Theory (DIT) in Metaeconomics after 3-decades of rigorous testing is less burdened with empirical anomalies because it represents the real, evolved Human who has a dual nature. The Human is about striking balance in the joint nature & nurture in the Human experience. And, it is said dual nature Human described by DIT who operates in the Real-World Economy, the Economy embedded within the Spaceship Earth system, not the Econ of Single Interest Theory (SIT) in Microeconomics.
Joint Nature & Nurture
The dual nature of Human and other mammalian (see Singer 2009) nature, which was fully reflected in the intuition of Adam Smith back in the 1700s, is now well documented in the science of paleontology (see Cory 1999) and evolutionary biology (Wilson 2015 quote at the top)… see https://www.metaeconomics.info/evolutionary-biology as well as behavioral and neuroeconomics science … see https://www.metaeconomics.info/based-in-behavioral-science The mammalian and especially the Human brain has evolved in Nature and is wired with the primal tendency to selfishness (ego-based self-interest, the only interest represented in SIT in Microeconomics). The capacity for selflessness (empathy-based other interest represented in DIT in Metaeconomics) is also an evolved part of Nature, but arises and is expressed through the empathy-based Nurture process, working to temper the primary driver of self-interest. Striking a good balance is how altruistic (empathy-tempered) groups beat selfish groups, as in finding good balance in the joint nature & nurture, selfishness & altruism, selfishness & selflessness, me & we, I & Thou, arrogance & sentiments, ego & empathy, self-interest & ethics, self & other-interest. Said balance is the reason the Human species as a group has survived and can in the future survive and remain viable: As Wilson (2015) says, everything else is commentary.
And, because DIT rests on solid empirical ground, some further motivation to continue into this post: DIT in Metaeconomics resolves both "the Adam Smith problem" which was about a joint Wealth & Sentiments and "the Chicago School problem” which is about self-interest without ethical reflection (see Liu, 2022, and the What Comes Next https://www.metaeconomics.info/post/what-comes-next-ala-adam-smith )."
Adam Smith and Chicago “Problem” Easily Resolved with DIT
Metaeconomics resolves both problems by seeing that Adam Smith saw a joint self & other as a moral sentiments driven-interest, and, it transcends the self-interest only focus of the Chicago School by bringing ethics represented in the shared other-interest back into the analytical system. Metaeconomics transcends the Chicago School by seeing the joint and nonseparable character of self & other as the moral and ethical interest, the ethic shared with the other tempering the inherent excesses of the more primal self-interest. Metaeconomics is about the Human with their ethics left in.
DIT is the Theory Needed in the Core of Humanomics
So, Metaeconomics also lends support and gives credence to the emerging Humanomics, as McCloskey and Carden (2020, p. 176) refer to it, ".. an economics with the humans and their ethics left in.” Metaeconomics is such an economics: The Ethic is brought into view in the construct of the shared (empathy-based) other-interest. Adam Smith practiced Humanomics. The Ethic is about the other virtues, represented in justice which takes courage and temperance, shorn up by faith, hope, and love (see McCloskey 2006; Review in Khachaturyan and Lynne 2010). Also, see Lynne (2020, 2025), which integrates the Humanomics coming out of Smith and Wilson (2020), McCloskey and Carden (2020) using DIT in Metaeconomics. The latter is a Humanomics with a theory, as represented in DIT.
Said other virtues are represented in the shared other-interest along path 0M in Figure 1 working to temper the virtue of prudence represented in the self-interest along path 0G in Figure 1. The best path 0Z emerges. And, temperance is a virtue, too, especially when combined with courage in self-command over the more primal self-interest in prudence-only. Adam Smith saw the key role of virtues, the ethics, and would likely have found DIT of use in integrating the ego in the Wealth of Nations and the empathy in the Moral Sentiments, as in seeing the jointness, nonseparability of Wealth & Sentiments (integrating Smith 1776/1789 & Smith 1759/1790).
For more on the emerging notion of Humanomics, which could benefit from the powerful abstraction that is DIT, see McCloskey and Carden (2020), McCloskey (2021, 2022), who build in part on Smith and Wilson (2019). For how Metaeconomics specifically overlaps with Humanomics, see Lynne (2020, esp. Chapter 7 Financial Policy: Tempering Excessive Greed; also, see the Leave Me Alone Blog … see https://www.metaeconomics.info/post/leave-me-alone-and-i-ll-make-you-rich especially the Appendix at the end of the Details. Also, see Lynne (2025) --- overview at https://www.metaeconomics.info/post/cargo-cult-economics-to-metaeconomics --- for suggestions on the future directions in Humanomics.
Metaeconomics is Built on a Solid Foundation in Science & Humanities (the latter bringing the Human Sciences, especially Ethics)
So, because DIT in Metaeconomics is built on the empirical reality of how the brain has evolved, relating to how the reflective and thus rational mind must always be seeking good balance in self & other-interest, nature (ego) and nurture (empathy), it resolves many old puzzles and paradoxes that cannot be adequately explained using SIT in mainstream Microeconomics. DIT easily explains why people vote, donate blood, run into burning buildings to save a stranger, and, even explains more mundane day-to-day choices like why do people tip. SIT has to conclude no rational person would do any of said things: DIT clarifies it is rational because of the joint payoff in the domain of doing the right thing, the shared other (empathy-based ethics)-interest, in good balance with self-interest payoffs. See the Metaeconomics Blog for more applications, with many new insights into current problems.
So, if intrigued, the technical details for DIT as a transcendent over SIT analytical system are next. And, for a quick look at Mathematical Metaeconomics, in particular the Humanomics version of it, see https://www.metaeconomics.info/profane-sacred-and-the-law .
Technical Details of Dual Interest Theory
DIT in Metaeconomics was first proposed in Lynne (1995, 1999). For an overview reflecting the current state of it, see Lynne (2020, Lynne and Czap 2023). Work continues, especially in the ongoing, experimental laboratory based research program reflected in Czap et al (2018) working to test DIT. The research explores the possibility of joint, nonseparable, interdependent self & other-interest arising due to nonallocable inputs in production and supply, and nonallocable goods in consumption and demand. The following demonstrates how nonallocable inputs and goods can be considered in standard isocurve models.
Dual Interest in Production and Supply: Joint Isoquants
We start with production, supply, and isoquant considerations. We focus on the inputs and (see Figure 1), with being a bundle of inputs like seed, fuel, fertilizer and land, and a bundle of conservation related inputs like conservation tillage. These inputs are used to produce corn for the Market on path 0G and to produce wildlife who also live in and around the corn field, for general use by everyone, such as hunters, bird watchers, with these uses reflected generally by Community : Government (the “:” meaning an Inclusive, Empathy-based Government) using the same farmland, on path 0M (Figure 1).
Producing at the least cost, maximum profit point A in response to the feedback from the Market, i.e. maximizing self-interest profits, results in supplying a large quantity of corn represented in isoquant N3 and a very small amount of wildlife represented in isoquant S1. In contrast, if this farm worked to maximize wildlife, the result would be point C, with a large amount of wildlife represented in S3, a large payoff in other-interest, and a very small amount of corn represented in N1, a very small payoff in self-interest. There would be little to no monetary payoff at point C, in that hunting and bird watching are not generally Market goods --- generally no one person has a private property in the wildlife --- and the Government, as representative of the Community, the common/public property owner, does not generally supply wildlife at a price P, but rather with a tax t. So, what will the farmer do?
Price P Evolves Out of the Larger Context
of Evolving Value O
Well, it depends upon the larger context, what price P signals are coming out of the Market reflected in Figure 1 and what value O is coming out of the Community: Government as reflected in Figure 2. Also, the value O will often be brought into Figure 1 space through tax T, paying taxes to bring the best mix in the private & public. The possibilities frontier RoRo in Figure 2 is derived from moving along the capital constraint curve RoRo in Figure 1; notice how areas outside of the elliptical area defined by paths 0G and 0M (Figure 1) are irrational, as depicted by the positive slopes on the RoRo possibilities frontier (Figure 2). We also now see that if the Value O of wildlife is viewed as zero (so, then, also unwilling to pay tax T to help provide for and protect wildlife), then the Oo of S = 0, slope of the Value Oo (and slope of the possibilities frontier Vo) curve is zero. The choice is point A in both Figures 1 and 2. Also, if corn is not highly valued, as in a hunting or wildlife preservation frame, then the favored Oo of S is very large, as indicated by the negative infinity slope of the curve at point C: Lots of wildlife will run in the corn fields, and little corn will be produced
It is also, then, economically irrational to not consider both interests in the rational zone between the two paths 0G and 0M. Ironically, maximizing self-interest on path 0G, as SIT in Microeconomics teaches, is not economically rational (nor is maximizing other-interest on path 0M).
SIT in Microeconomics Points to Economic Inefficiency
In fact, ironically, SIT in Microeconomics always suggests an economically inefficient point A. Very little wildlife would be produced, even though generally, when people are asked, a shared other-interest is expressed --- some value O --- in having at least some wildlife traveling with the farmers and food consumers on this Spaceship Earth. So, what do? SIT in Microeconomics pointing as it always does, implicitly, to pure capitalism --- so, everything is privately owned, there is no public property such as in wildlife --- would call for creating private property in the wildlife, with said owners then negotiating with the farmer, and paying the farmer the price for having wildlife in the corn fields. In this case, we would see a price P evolving for both corn and wildlife, shifting the higher interests toward some value Oo in Figure 2, resulting in some choice like B in Figure 1.
Even more intriguingly, SIT in Microeconomics because it sees only a self-interest at work, does not even have the S set of wildlife production curves in the analytical lens, unless the resource is privately owned. It is a make believe analytical system, in that corn and wildlife are inherently joint products, inherently a common/public property. Microeconomics framing, using SIT, presumes, implicitly, without empirical test that the inputs on a farm would be completely allocable between these two processes, presuming complete independence between corn and wildlife production.
DIT Recognizes the Other Forum(s) Give Context to the Market Forum
DIT in Metaeconomics would lead in a quite different direction, especially because it sees corn and wildlife as joint products, due to nonallocable inputs, and that another Value O system beyond the system giving price P may also be at work. The natural system, in effect, causes the two processes to be interdependent, inputs allocated within the natural system, with the farmer having very limited control, in that both products use the same spaceship earth system, simultaneously. Also, real people have Value O (and generally agree to pay a tax T represented in Government to bring it forward) beyond the price P expressed in Markets, and, often prefer keeping such things as wildlife as a public property, as in Market & Government.
So, with this starting point, DIT in Metaeconomics might point, empirically, to offering some Government programs funded by tax T, making for payments to farmers, the Value O reflected in the shared other-interest between farmers and everyone else, to provide for some wildlife habitat on their farms. Given enough political attention to the problem, and the willingness to pay the taxes represented in tax T by hunters and bird watchers (and tax T paid by others --- the consumers of corn as well as others willing to pay tax T in support) to produce the money for the farmer payment, the Government could in effect reflect the Value O of wildlife relative to the price P of corn. With payments reflecting shared Value O, the payments coming from collections of tax T, the farmer might shift a bit toward path 0M, perhaps moving to path 0Z, and arriving at point B. In fact, if the payment for wildlife habitat is high enough, reflecting the high Value O hunters and bird watchers often place on using this aspect of the private property, in effect the common property in wildlife, overall profits coming from the Market price & Government payments could be identical at both points A and B.
Another scenario also suggested as an empirical question by DIT in Metaeconomics would have the Government require, mandate wildlife production, without any financial compensation, at point B. That is, Government as a representative of the public interest in the level of Value Oo (Figure 2) might mandate that farmers move at least to point B (Figure 1), without any payment to do so. Profit would be considerably less, with hunters and bird watchers having a "free ride" while the farmer pays all the cost. Farmers would likely not be very pleased, either, as liberty and freedom have been sacrificed for wildlife production.
Metaeconomics would also, on another empirical path, suggest the farmer could be nudged to become mindful of the Value Oo (Figure 2), the overall shared other (internal to the farmer, but shared with others "downstream" of the farm)-interest the farmer has in a viable, sustainable spaceship earth system. It is possible the farmer, too, sees wildlife as part of the aesthetics, the environment in living on the farm, made better by having wildlife on the land, too, in addition to the corn. Acting on gains in the other-interest, the farmer might voluntarily move over from path 0G to path 0Z (Figure 1), sacrificing a bit of corn production on N2 < N3, while increasing wildlife production to S2 > S 1. The farmer may find a more peaceful existence, a more fulfilling life, less amiss, at point B rather than point A (in both Figures 1 and 2), perhaps feeling less Phoolish (after Akerlof and Shiller, 2015): In fact, in our research experience on conservation practices (see Lynne et al., 2016, for a summary; also see Chapter 8 in Lynne, 2020, which also includes the latest research since 2016) farmers were often found disappointed that "the Market made me do it", i.e. the Market sends only price signals for corn and sends no signals about wildlife, so, to survive, point A is chosen, even though point B is preferred. Farmers are not only economically inefficient at point A, but also quite unhappy.
Also, as the quote at the start suggests, the virtues can be swallowed into the self-interest, too, as in path 0M being swallowed into the new path 0Z, which now appears like a self-interest path, albeit now a virtuous path. In effect, path 0G and 0M converge into one path 0Z --- the two sets of isoquants converge into one set --- which Frisch (1965, p. 273) referred to as complete coupling. If the two isoquants have converged, it will appear as in Microeconomic renditions using SIT, as though there is only one set of isoquants; unfortunately, it would be very misleading to in effect "hide" the moral dimension, to hide the ethic at play.
DIT Points to Three Different Scenarios Involving the Market & Government
Notice, too, that in the three SIT in Metaeconomics styled analyses, wildlife are retained as a common (public) property, with the Government bringing the value O of wildlife into the mix, involved in the first case with payments, voluntarily accepted or not; controlling, in the second case, with the farmer not having a choice; and, with complete liberty and freedom on the part of the farmer in this third case. That is, in this last case, Government nudging (or, specific nudging by the hunters and bird watchers themselves) could bring about free choice by the farmer, or not, in producing some wildlife. Metaeconomics using DIT suggests these kinds of cases need to be examined with an empirically based approach, and pragmatism brought to bear in the end.
In fact, the reality since the 1930s, here in the US, has been an application of all three Metaeconomics approaches. Government while representing the Community has been operating to represent the overall societal interest of Value Oo, and is using tax T dollars to in effect pay for wildlife through tax T paid by both producers (including the farmers) and consumers. The tax T supports funding of the US Farm Service Agency and payments from the Agency to the farmer, to bring about point B outcomes. We have also dabbled a bit with controls, as in conservation compliance in order for a farmer to receive crop subsidy payments, requiring point B choices. Government, through the US Natural Resource and Conservation Service and the US Cooperative Extension Service, has also engaged in encouraging --- nudging--- farmers through technical support and educational programming to join the Community of conservation farmers.
DIT Sees a Clear Role for both the Market & Government
Also, we have not, historically, since the formation of the US in 1776, favored the Microeconomics using SIT approach which requires absolute, private property ownership in wildlife. So, why do we cling to SIT in Microeconomics, when we have the DIT in Metaeconomics alternative? That is, DIT practically speaking, just works better in explaining what is ongoing, and suggests what to do about it, in realistic terms, based in empirical reality for what is pragmatic. It seems in reality that both farmers and consumers have generally viewed the Value O of wildlife on a higher plane from the price P for corn, as depicted at points like B in Figure 2. Humans prefer some public/common property in wildlife, seeing it simply ensures the Spaceship Earth system works better, pragmatically speaking. Favoring public property does not mean that some private property in such products, goods like wildlife is not desirable, but it does put it into perspective.
Metaeconomics using DIT highlights the empirical question(s) about the best mix of private & public-property, the best mix of market & government, as related to the question of the best balance in corn & wildlife-production, without presuming which way is best. Lynne et al (2016) points to how balance in self & other-interest, ego & empathy, market & government has resulted in farmers adoption of soil and water conservation practices, as well as providing solid empirical support for DIT in Metaeconomics. Further empirical support coming out of serious inquiry in the humanities (human sciences) also lends support to DIT (see Lynne 2025). For the Mathematical Metaeconomics of jointness represented in overlapping isoquants, see Lynne (1988; 2006b; 2020, in the Appendix). Also, for the latest form of the Mathematical Metaeconomics as related to the notion of joint and balanced pursuit of the profane & sacred with a little help from the Law see https://www.metaeconomics.info/profane-sacred-and-the-law .
Dual Interest in Consumption and Demand: Joint Indifference Curves
As suggested in Inspired ( https://www.metaeconomics.info/inspiration ) also see Lynne, 2020), the work by Frisch (1965) stirred the imagination about how jointness in production arising from the reality of nonallocable inputs could also perhaps exist in consumption as arising from the real possibility of nonallocable goods. Lynne (1995) demonstrates, for the first time, and fully developed in Kalinowski, Lynne, and Johnson (2006), how this might work, with two sets of overlapping indifference curves. The set of indifference curves N representing the self-interest are shown as overlapping with the set of indifference curves S representing the other(shared with others, and internalized within the own-self)-interest (Figure 1). The set F evolves out of the egoistic-hedonistic tendency in humans. The set S evolves out of the empathy-sympathy-sentiments and perhaps even compassion tendency in humans.
So, think of it, in simple terms, as an ego-set F around path 0G and an empathy-set S around path 0M, representing the dual nature of the Human, reflected in the way the brain evolved. Ego & empathy evolved, and became jointly intertwined within the brain. And, it is not just in Humans: The research in which empathy was discovered as a structural and functional part of the brain, the mirror neurons research, was in the study of the macaque monkey (again, see Singer 2009). The family dog, too, has the capacity for being in empathy-with family members. Ego & empathy is in play in all the mammals, in varying degrees, and, perhaps even in other creatures. Yet, the reptiles seem to have mainly what we would call ego in the mammals: No empathy-based nurturing is generally found in the reptiles. Research continues.
Also, the set S , then, reflects the moral dimension, the moral community arising out of the larger ethical system. Also, in terms of attaching these ideas to the notion of an ethical system, the virtues, the set F represents the virtue of prudence; the set S represents especially the virtue of temperance, but also includes the other virtues represented in courage, justice, faith, hope and love. The set S, then, evolves out of a continually evolving moral community reflecting these virtues, which also evolve in content over time. Empathy is the starting point: The moral community embedded within an empathy based ethical system is the outcome.
DIT Suggests Many Sacred Sets of Shared Other-Interest
The notion of an empathy-set S also means there could be many sets S , many different sets of other-interest, more than one community, competing for individual attention and consideration. In fact, there could easily be dozens of set S indifference curves in this space, e.g., the sets associated with immediate family, extended family, work associates, club memberships, religious affiliations, political party, state, nation, all travelers on spaceship Earth, to list a few. Dual Interest Theory --- self & other-interest jointly intertwined in the own-interest --- sees the individual charged with rationally considering how to respond to each such set while seeking balance on some path 0Z.
Just like in Microeconomics with only set F, Metaeconomics also posits that individuals maximize their own-interest. The theory is still about the individual seeking outcomes for own-self, not for others, just as in Microeconomics. The difference is the own-interest now involves not only self-interest represented in set F but also the interest one shares with others as reflected in set S . The set S is still entirely within the own-self, internal to the individual.
Sacred Framing has Nothing to do with Other-regarding Preferences
Also, an aside: It has nothing to do with other-regarding preferences, or interdependent utility, notions that have been offered as "fixes" to the Microeconomics focus on only N. The own-interest is just now broadened to reflect both tendencies in human nature. Like Angyal (1965) pointed out, humans have the tendency to want autonomy (i.e. ego driven self-interest) and homonomy (i.e. empathy driven other-interest, connectivity with something outside the self-interest). Angyal also adds that we often face heteronomy, too, when outside control is asserted. Heteronmony is often necessary when self-discipline, self-command fails, like in releasing way too much greenhouse gas, burn to much carbon fuel, which damages the Spaceship. Ironically, some heteronomy to deal with people lacking in self-discipline is essential to ensure freedom and liberty to choose balance in autonomy & homonomy, self & other-interest for everyone else. Using the greenhouse gas case, some environmental regulation of the few is essential to provide for the freedom and liberty to have a sustained Spaceship Earth system for everyone else, including --- ironically--- the regulated.
To help understand the workings of two sets of joint indifference curves, for purposes of understanding how maximizing self & other-interest --- a broader version of own-interest --- might work, think of a good q1 having recycle content and good q2 as being produced only from new resources (this case was examined in Kalinowski, Lynne, and Johnson, 2006, and highlighted again in Lynne, 2020). Each good gives payoff in both the domain of self-interest N and other-interest S. For example, at the Microeconomics based solution to this choice, given income level RoRo, the consumer maximizes self-interest only at point A (Figure 1). Said point is usually best achieved without buying much in the way of recycle content goods, due to p1/p2 being relatively lower; at point A, the consumer enjoys level N3 of payoff in the self-interest, but also receiving some payoff in the other-interest represented by S1.
Metaeconomics suggests, however, that many consumers would not be happy at point A, having not paid attention to the conscience, the impartial spectator as Adam Smith describes it. That is, other Value O on a higher plane is at work, as depicted by Oo in Figure 2. That is, moving along RoRo in Figure 1, we can generate the RoRo consumption possibilities frontier VoVo in Figure 2. The impartial spectator within the consumer, the conscience concerned with recycling, would be represented by the Value Oo isocurve, which suggests that not only p1/p2 (and the absolute prices of both) is relevant to the choice. Indeed, using the Adam Smith notion, after having been in the state of the impartial spectator (basically empathizing with the need to recycle), the consumer chooses instead to move to point B (in both Figures 1 and 2). A bit of self-interest is sacrificed, as is the other-interest (as it is not maximized, either), now enjoying N2 and S2.
Consumption is About Maximizing the Own-interest Composed of a Joint Self & Other-Interest
In effect, Metaeconomics points to maximizing the joint self & other-interest, the broadened own-interest, while sacrificing a bit of each interest (new meaning of altruism, which is now more than just sacrifice in self-interest) at point B. Substantively more good q1 with recycle content is purchased, even though the p1/p2 ratio (and absolute levels of each of p1 and p2) suggests buying very little to none. This kind of choice was empirically documented in Kalinowski, Lynne, and Johnson (2006, see especially Table 1; also see Chapter 4 in Lynne, 2020), with this tendency increasing as consumers identified more fully with the shared (with others) interest in recycling. For the Mathematical Metaeconomics of jointness represented in overlapping indifference curves see Lynne (2006a), and, again, the new derivations using profane & sacred at https://www.metaeconomics.info/profane-sacred-and-the-law .
Intriguingly, it is also possible, as the quote at the beginning suggests, that the virtues represented on path 0M could be "swallowed" by the new, more virtuous self-interest on path 0Z. In effect, as a person works to do the right thing, set F and set S converge into a new set, lying completely on top of each other. It would appear, like in Microeconomics using SIT, that the consumer has just one set of indifference curves. It would be very misleading, however, as the underlying moral dimension, the underlying empathy-based ethical system, that moved the old (ego-based) self-interest to the new set of indifference curves associated with path 0Z would be hidden from view. In effect, the moral dimension, and the Community that would produce it, would be hidden in the analytical system. Hiding the moral dimension which represents the larger ethical system, leads to the rightful claim that Microeconomics is at best amoral.
While Mathematical Metaeconomics in Consumption was first fully developed in Lynne (2006a), As alluded to earlier, McCloskey (2022) stirred further development and refinement of the matter of Mathematical Humanomics. McCloskey (2022) speaks to the frame of the Profane and the Sacred: Metaeconomics as a Humanomics with DIT at the core of it, clarifies the Profane is ongoing in the Market Forum represented in Figure 1 while the Sacred is ongoing in the Other Forum of Figure. See Balancing the Profane & Sacred, with Some Help from Law … again at https://www.metaeconomics.info/profane-sacred-and-the-law with the Details accessible in a paper available on that page using mathematics to demonstrate the balancing.
Notion of Altruism Now Broadened
Also notice that path 0Z --- the path of peace, economic efficiency, and overall happiness) --- points to the essential need for a bit of sacrifice in the payoff in both domains of interest. Altruism is dual sacrifice, and, sacrifice in both domains is essential to peace and economic efficiency, and the resulting happiness.
Resolve the Old Debate about Incommensurability
We can also now resolve the matter of commensurability, and the real possibility that the dual interests are incommensurable, in the old debate about "pushpins and poetry." Microeconomics based in Neoclassical Economics, which in turn rests in Utilitarian Philosophy, sees the profane material world (pushpins) no different from the less tangible sacred world (poetry), and thus an individual can simply do the tradeoff along some possibility frontier RoRo, arriving at whatever point A, B or C that emerges from the tradeoff analysis. If we put goods q1 and q2 on the axes, the tradeoff is strictly decided in the market by the p1/p2 ratio; in the Utilitarian view, the problem is solved, which also leads to claiming that price P is value O, and value O is price P, with everything completely commensurable in price P terms. Not.
Other philosophies see this quite differently, seeing generally a hierarchy of incommensurable value, with Value O of sacred poetry not on the same plane as price P of profane pushpins. In fact, higher order Value O evolving in Other Forums might work to in effect override the price P evolved in the Market Forum, with the Value O coming out of the higher order. Said higher order is represented in the many Other Forums, in Community, and, at a larger scale, like that represented in the US Administrative, Legislative and Judicial branches of Government. The higher order value O evolves Community : Government (i.e., Community-wide value O represented in an inclusive Government). In this kind of philosophy, Value O in the Other Forums works to temper and condition the price P in the Market. We might suppose, too, that price P in the Market Forum could influence the Value O in the Other Forum(s). In said case, price P and Value O (albeit not in price P terms, but would be represented in tax T) would not be commensurable. Price P and value O are not measurable on the same terms.
For more discussion of said matters, as well as the resolution of many other puzzles and paradoxes left behind by SIT, see Lynne (2020) as well as Lynne and Czap (2023). The Metaeconomics Blog … see https://www.metaeconomics.info/blog , too, points at new DIT based insights into many contemporary problems and issues, giving new insights not possible using SIT.
Mathematical Metaeconomics
Again, while the figures are useful, some may prefer the formal Mathematical Metaeconomics. For the mathematics, see Lynne, 2006a,b (and the Appendix in Lynne, 2020). Also, see the Mathematical Economics of the profane & sacred https://www.metaeconomics.info/profane-sacred-and-the-law --- constructs suggested by Deirdre McCloskey (see Lynne 2025 for a review of the trilogy represented in McCloskey 2006, 2010, 2016, as well as the 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022 books), pointing to Metaeconomics as a Humanomics with DIT at the core of the framework. DIT gives analytical substance to the notion of striking balance in the joint profane & sacred, incentive & ethic. It is not just about the profane incentive as SIT claims. The sacred ethic must temper the profane, the ethic must temper the incentive for economic viability and efficiency in a humane economic & social system as made clear in the Mathematical Meteconomics of DIT. It is what true classical liberalism going back to the enlightenment is all about. See the Metaeconomics Blog for more details.
References
Akerlof, G.A. and Shiller, R.J. 2015. Phishing for Phools: The Economics of Manipulation and Deception. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Angyal, A. 1965. Neurosis and Treatment: A Holistic Theory. New York: The Viking Press.
Cory, G. A., Jr. (1999). The Reciprocal Modular Brain in Economics and Politics. New York, Kluwer Academic/Plenum publishers.
Cory, G. A. (2006a). "The Dual Motive Theory." Journal of Socio-Economics 35(4): 589-591.
Cory, G. A. (2006b). "A Behavioral Model of the Dual Motive Approach to Behavioral Economics and Social Exchange." Journal of Socio-Economics 35(4): 592 – 612.
Czap, N.V., Czap, H.J., Khachaturyan, M., Burbach, M.E., Lynne, G.D. 2018. Experiments on empathy conservation: implications for environmental policy. Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy 2 (2), 71–77.
Frisch, R. 1965. Theory of Production. Chicago: Rand McNally and Company.
Hodgson, R.G. 1999. Falsehood Disguised: Unmasking the Truth in La Rochefoucauld. Purdue University Press.
Kalinowski, C.M., Lynne, G.D. and Johnson, B. 2006. "Recycling As a Reflection of Balanced Self-Interest: a Test of the Metaeconomics Approach." Environment and Behavior 38 (3):333 – 355.
Khalil, E.L. 1998. "Interests and Commitments: Replies to Etzioni, Dolfsma, and van Staveren." De Economist 146: 613-618.
Liu, G.M. 2022. Adam Smith's America: How a Scottish Philosopher Became an Icon of American Capitalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Lynne, G.D. 1988. "Allocatable Fixed Inputs and Jointness in Agricultural Production: Implications for Economic Modeling: Comment." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 70 (4):948-949.
Lynne, G.D. 1995. "Modifying the Neoclassical Approach to Technology Adoption with Behavioral Science Models." Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 27 (July):67 – 80.
Lynne, G.D. 1999. "Divided Self Models of the Socioeconomic Person: the Metaeconomics Approach." Journal of Socio-Economics 28 (3): 267 – 288.
Lynne, G.D. 2006a. "On the Economics of Subselves: Toward a Metaeconomics." In Handbook of Contemporary Behavioral Economics, edited by M. Altman, 99-122. New York: M.E. Sharpe.
Lynne, G.D. . 2006b. "Toward a Dual Motive Metaeconomic Theory." Journal of Socio-Economics 35:634 – 651.
Lynne, G.D. 2020. Metaeconomics: Tempering Excessive Greed. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Lynne, G.D. 2025. “Cargo-Cult Economics to Metaeconomics: Toward a Humanomics with a Theory.” Review of Behavioral Economics (expected May 2025).
Lynne, G.D. and Czap, N.V. "Towards Dual Interest Theory in Metaeconomics." Journal of Interdisciplinary Economics (July), 2023.
Lynne, G.D., Czap, N.V., Czap, H.J., and Burback, M.E. 2016. "Theoretical Foundation for Empathy Conservation: Toward Avoiding the Tragedy of the Commons." Review of Behavioral Economics 3:245-279.
McCloskey, D. The Bourgeois Virtues: Ethics for an Age of Commerce. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2006.
McCloskey, D.N. 2010. Bourgeois Dignity: Why Economics Can't Explain the Modern World. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
McCloskey, D.N. 2016. Bourgeois Equality: How Ideas, Not Capital or Institutions, Enriched the World. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
McCloskey, D.N. 2019. Why Liberalism Works: How True Liberal Values Produce a Freer, More Equal, Prosperous World for All. New York: Yale University Press.
McCloskey, D.N. Bettering Humanomics: A New, and Old, Approach to Economic Science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2021.
McCloskey, D.N. Beyond Positivism, Behavioralism, and Neoinstitutionalism in Economics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2022.
McCloskey, D.N. and Carden, A. Leave Me Alone and I'll Make You Rich: How the Bourgeois Deal Enriched the World. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2020.
Singer, T. “Understanding Others: Brain Mechanisms of Theory of Mind and Empathy.” In: Glimcher, P.W., Camerer, C.F., Fehr, E. and Poldrack, R.A (Eds.). Neuroeconomics: Decision Making and the Brain. New York, NY: Elsevier, 2009.
Smith, Adam. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Cannan, E. (Editor). New York: Random House, 1776/1789 (digital access at www.feedbooks.com).
Smith, Adam. The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Macfie Rafael, D.D. and A.L. Indianapolis, Indiana: Liberty Fund, Inc., 1759/1790 (digital access at digireads.com).
Smith, V.L. and B.J. Wilson. Humanomics: Moral Sentiments and the Wealth of Nations for the Twenty-First Century. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2019.
Wilson, D.S. Does Altruism Exist? Culture, Genes, and the Welfare of Others. New Haven, CN: Yale University Press, 2015