The method of Austrian economics is praxeology, fundamentally grounded upon the action axiom. The axiom’s most popular justification is the performative contradiction inherent in attempting to refute it: to deny action is itself an action. Despite this logical strength, Ludwig von Mises acknowledged the importance of winning the “battle of ideas” to preserve the foundations of liberty. Hence, attempts to undermine it require forceful opposition. In this spirit, this article addresses the remarkable absence of human action as an explicit focus in sciences concerning human nature, at least outside economics.
Besides economics, the most influential domain of science relevant to this topic is psychology. Psychology has historically been dominated by frameworks that characterize humans as passive reactors, guided predominantly by external stimuli and subconscious processes. Three core assumptions of these bottom-up frameworks include:
- The blank slate: the mind as an empty vessel entirely shaped by environmental conditioning;
- Subconscious determinism: behaviors primarily driven by subconscious, automatic processes rather than deliberate decision-making;
- Outside-in perspective: cognitive and behavioral processes triggered solely by external stimuli rather than proactive internal strategies.
Each of these assumptions has faced substantial theoretical and empirical challenges, yet continues to influence generations of social scientists engaged in the battle of ideas.
Theoretical and Empirical Failure of Bottom-Up Frameworks
Behaviorism exemplifies the tabula rasa assumption, conceptualizing the human mind as passively molded by environmental influences without innate structures. However, behaviorism quickly reached theoretical dead-ends, unable to explain human behaviors without invoking internal, strategic mechanisms such as memory, preferences, and goals as hidden premises. Empirical evidence further undermines behaviorist applications. Clinical outcomes—especially for treatments based on behaviorist principles—have remained stagnant, and in some cases, might have been harmful, notably in interventions for autism. Efforts to rebrand and tweak behaviorist methods have repeatedly failed to yield breakthroughs.
The assumption of subconscious determinism—popularized in various cognitive theories and psychoanalysis—similarly faces critical issues. Influential paradigms emphasizing automatic processing—like classical dual-process models—increasingly acknowledge limitations in explaining attention, decision-making, and adaptive behaviors. The work of psychologist Adrian Wells has since his (with colleague Gerald Matthews at George Mason University) 1994 book Attention and Emotion consistently shows the difficulty of inferring subconscious processing behind psychological phenomena, highlighting instead strategic processing as a more coherent explanation.
The outside-in perspective—asserting that cognitive processes are mere reactions to external stimuli—encounters significant empirical and theoretical challenges. Neuroscientist György Buzsáki’s “inside-out” framework compellingly argues against passive external processing by emphasizing that the brain actively constructs experiences through action rather than passively accumulating external sensory input. This proactive, internally-driven model aligns closely with the Misesian framework and significantly undermines outside-in assumptions, due to its consistency with known facts of how the brain works from experimental studies. For example, it has repeatedly been shown that action limits and focuses man’s perception, rather than the other way around.
In contrast, recent developments in psychology have shifted toward frameworks explicitly acknowledging intentionality and strategic decision-making. Metacognitive Therapy (MCT) exemplifies this transition, explicitly recognizing human beings as intentional, goal-directed strategists rather than passive reactors. MCT’s significant empirical successes demonstrate the practical effectiveness of approaches grounded in intentional action and strategic reasoning. With better description, comes better prescription. MCT constitutes the first real breakthrough in clinical psychology for decades, spurring a natural increase of interest in the so-called “top-down” perspective, meaning a view of human psychology that starts from man’s strategic decision-making and its consequences, rather than viewing behavior as a product of primarily environmental circumstances.
The broader psychological literature further reinforces this strategic, action-based perspective. Decision-making theories, especially those highlighting heuristic reasoning, intentional planning, and goal-directed behaviors, make it increasingly untenable to sustain a bottom-up perspective. The cumulative empirical evidence supports the view of human cognition as proactive, strategic, and inherently action-oriented.
Implications for an Action-Based Framework
The growing empirical and theoretical support for strategic and intentional perspectives in psychology decisively challenges bottom-up, passive models. This shift profoundly aligns psychological insights with core principles of Austrian economics, reinforcing praxeology’s foundational axiom of purposeful human action. It underlines the realism in causal realism and emphasizes that no one is fooling themselves when recognizing the self-evident nature of human action.
As psychology embraces intentionality, strategic reasoning, and agency as central to understanding human behavior, the theoretical gap between Austrian economics and psychological science narrows significantly. Truth should be evident from all angles and if it isn’t, there’s probably something wrong with the angle rather than the truth.
Conclusion
Although logically self-evident, the action axiom is further bolstered by the recognition of action’s central role in human nature within the empirical sciences. Psychology’s shift towards intentional, strategic frameworks not only validates praxeological assumptions but also offers an intellectually robust basis for a coherent understanding of human nature with action at its core.
