In thinking about the nature of economics as a discipline (as of the year 2020), I find the distinction of lumpers vs. splitters illuminating. The terminology of lumpers and splitters is especially easy to understand in zoology and botany. In that context, “lumpers” are zoologists and botanists who make a career out of showing that types that were thought to be distinct species are really one species; “splitters” in that context are zoologists and botanists who make a career out of showing that what was thought to be one species is really many species.

In a broader sense, a “lumper” is someone who tries to explain many phenomena as being in some deep sense similar and arising from similar forces. A “splitter” who someone who emphasize how each different phenomenon is its own type of thing, different from other phenomena.

As a Research Professor (and now Emeritus Research Professor) at the University of Michigan’s Survey Research Center, I had the privilege of rubbing shoulders with many psychologists (mostly social psychologists who do experiments). I learned that it takes a long time to learn how to translate between disciplines as different in their cultures as economics and psychology when talking face to face as opposed to simply reading a journal article. But the effort was worth it. I would not be on the track for studying happiness and subjective well-being more generally that I am on if it weren’t for most of a year’s worth of weekly get-togethers between the famous psychologist Norbert Schwarz and the economists Bob Willis and me. (It was either in 2004-2005 or in 2005-2006.)

Having rubbed shoulders with psychologists as well as, of course, many economists, I think it is true that, psychologists tend to be splitters, while economists tend to be lumpers. Economists usually try their best to explain new phenomena with small modifications of old theories. Psychologists like to try to show that a new phenomenon they have identified is a new type of thing and are happy to develop a new theory for that new thing.

One reason I have been thinking about lumping and splitting lately is how much I have been enjoying learning Shirzad Chamine’s Positive Intelligence tools. You can read about Positive Intelligence in my post “On Human Potential.” Shirzad is definitely a lumper. He talks about his Positive Intelligence framework as an “operating system” that can be used as a basis to deal with many issues. As an economist, Shirzad’s tendency toward lumping, even in this psychological area, is quite congenial to me, and I suspect would be congenial to other economists.