4 ms·

"Human behavior and culture can change drastically, but standard econ tools still work." But they don't work, econ is not much better then throwing bones.

by pnutjam 10y ago

pzone 10y ago
Do you honestly believe that? Would you say "psychology is not much better than throwing bones" or "epidemiology is not much better than throwing bones?" Because the demands for statistical rigor in economics are far greater than in those fields. http://qje.oxfordjournals.org/content/by/year http://qje.oxfordjournals.org/content/by/year
- evgen 10y ago
  Statistically rigorous astrology is still bullshit, no matter how much curve-fitting you apply because the core premise is false. Most psychology, as we are now learning when people actually try to replicate experiments, is also bullshit. If economics is starting from equally flawed initial premises regarding individual choice and decision-making, as I and many others believe, then no amount of statistical rigor in the process will change the field from being a contived method of throwing darts and making grand claims about how much you understand dartboards and the aerodynamics of darts.
- mr_overalls 10y ago
  Well, economists like Deirdre McCloskey have argued that many empirical economic studies have been poorly reported, statistically-speaking. https://web.archive.org/web/20080625054144/http://www.econjournalwatch.org/pdf/ZiliakMcCloskeyAugust2004.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20080625054144/http://www.econjo...
mr_overalls 10y ago
I agree that there are many valid criticisms of neoclassical economics, ranging from assumptions of equilibrium and human rationality, to the emphasis on economic growth clashing with the reality of finite ecological resources on Earth. However, I'd ask if you typically expect a field of study to be perfect before you'd consider it useful? Do you expect psychology to completely understand the human brain before you'd seek help for substance abuse? Or for physicists to understand super-symmetry before you'd use a cell phone?

"Human behavior and culture can change drastically, but standard econ tools still work." But they don't work, econ is not much better then throwing bones.

by pnutjam 10y ago

"Human behavior and culture can change drastically, but standard econ tools still work." But they don't work, econ is not much better then throwing bones.

pzone 10y ago

Do you honestly believe that? Would you say "psychology is not much better than throwing bones" or "epidemiology is not much better than throwing bones?" Because the demands for statistical rigor in economics are far greater than in those fields. http://qje.oxfordjournals.org/content/by/year http://qje.oxfordjournals.org/content/by/year

evgen 10y ago
Statistically rigorous astrology is still bullshit, no matter how much curve-fitting you apply because the core premise is false. Most psychology, as we are now learning when people actually try to replicate experiments, is also bullshit. If economics is starting from equally flawed initial premises regarding individual choice and decision-making, as I and many others believe, then no amount of statistical rigor in the process will change the field from being a contived method of throwing darts and making grand claims about how much you understand dartboards and the aerodynamics of darts.
mr_overalls 10y ago
Well, economists like Deirdre McCloskey have argued that many empirical economic studies have been poorly reported, statistically-speaking. https://web.archive.org/web/20080625054144/http://www.econjournalwatch.org/pdf/ZiliakMcCloskeyAugust2004.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20080625054144/http://www.econjo...

mr_overalls 10y ago

I agree that there are many valid criticisms of neoclassical economics, ranging from assumptions of equilibrium and human rationality, to the emphasis on economic growth clashing with the reality of finite ecological resources on Earth. However, I'd ask if you typically expect a field of study to be perfect before you'd consider it useful? Do you expect psychology to completely understand the human brain before you'd seek help for substance abuse? Or for physicists to understand super-symmetry before you'd use a cell phone?