5 ms·

Obnoxious. The other "Falsehoods Programmers Believe" taught me things I didn't know and pointed out mistakes I'd made in the past. This is just a load of patro

Obnoxious. The other "Falsehoods Programmers Believe" taught me things I didn't know and pointed out mistakes I'd made in the past. This is just a load of patronising progressive preaching which teaches me nothing.

jerf 8y ago
These aren't specifically progressive. I know, because I'm not, and I agree that these are all wrong, at least in their most absolutist form. Where you get political, subjective, and tend to fall into the next layer of oversimplification is when you use these things as premises... "People are not rational economic actors, therefore..." That's when you get in trouble. (Actually, that's one of my favorites... "People are not rational economic actors, therefore other people's irrational-by-definition choices must be substituted for the original irrational choices." What label you stick on the "other people" doesn't change the fundamental nature of the proposition.) I'd also add something like "economic jargon does not exist and can be ignored". Both "rational actor" and "efficient market" are often conflated to mean something more like "intelligent and moral actor" and "moral market", neither of which work. What they mean in economics is a more mathematical idea, and is related to the plain English sense of the word, but definitely not strongly enough related that you can substitute the plain English meaning of the word and then proceed to do logic on it, let alone substitute entirely different concepts.
defaultprimate 8y ago
Yeah, over half of them are just plain wrong too lol
- pavel_lishin 8y ago
  Which ones?
  - defaultprimate 8y ago
    3 & 4 are blatantly false. Economics isn't concerned with morality or demographics (beyond the study of their statistical facts). Concerning these, the question should arise: What do these statements even mean? The Efficient Market Hypothesis has consistently held true, especially in the long term and with respect to indexes and mutual funds. Some of the implications and conclusions drawn from the hypothesis are audacious, but the hypothesis itself is sound. https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ecri/2013/238253/ https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ecri/2013/238253/ http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijsp/article/view/17911 http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijsp/article/view/1... Price is absolutely a indication of cost and/or value, at the time of exchange. Rational Choice Theory is empirically sound https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-soc-071811-145441 https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-soc-07... https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0951692899011002001 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0951692899011002001 Although Classical Economics is empirically shakey is some respects, Neoclassical are not
    - CharlesColeman 8y ago
      > 3 & 4 are blatantly false. Economics isn't concerned with morality or demographics (beyond the study of their statistical facts). I don't think that's correct. Economic theories make statements about the distribution of resources, which is an intensely moral question. They also tend to be tightly wrapped up with political ideology, which makes them even more moral.
      - defaultprimate 8y ago
        It isn't though, it's entirely objective.
        CharlesColeman 8y ago
        > It isn't though, it's entirely objective. That's an extraordinarily strong claim that requires some extraordinary evidence and exposition. When economics intersects with politics, business, laymen, or reality I think it only has pretensions of objectivity.
        defaultprimate 8y ago
        Subjective conclusions and actions based on objective data do not make the data any less objective.
      - Nasrudith 8y ago
        Those are implications really - as are political ideologies based upon what people do with it. Similarly demographics are a reflection of current society - it doesn't tell you /why/ it is the case. Pointing out that the true father may have implications for a family and society but that doesn't make genetics a moral question.
        defaultprimate 8y ago
        Really appreciate this comment. It's succinct and eloquently states the sentiment I was trying to express.

jerf 8y ago

These aren't specifically progressive. I know, because I'm not, and I agree that these are all wrong, at least in their most absolutist form. Where you get political, subjective, and tend to fall into the next layer of oversimplification is when you use these things as premises... "People are not rational economic actors, therefore..." That's when you get in trouble. (Actually, that's one of my favorites... "People are not rational economic actors, therefore other people's irrational-by-definition choices must be substituted for the original irrational choices." What label you stick on the "other people" doesn't change the fundamental nature of the proposition.) I'd also add something like "economic jargon does not exist and can be ignored". Both "rational actor" and "efficient market" are often conflated to mean something more like "intelligent and moral actor" and "moral market", neither of which work. What they mean in economics is a more mathematical idea, and is related to the plain English sense of the word, but definitely not strongly enough related that you can substitute the plain English meaning of the word and then proceed to do logic on it, let alone substitute entirely different concepts.

defaultprimate 8y ago

Yeah, over half of them are just plain wrong too lol

pavel_lishin 8y ago
Which ones?
- defaultprimate 8y ago
  3 & 4 are blatantly false. Economics isn't concerned with morality or demographics (beyond the study of their statistical facts). Concerning these, the question should arise: What do these statements even mean? The Efficient Market Hypothesis has consistently held true, especially in the long term and with respect to indexes and mutual funds. Some of the implications and conclusions drawn from the hypothesis are audacious, but the hypothesis itself is sound. https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ecri/2013/238253/ https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ecri/2013/238253/ http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijsp/article/view/17911 http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijsp/article/view/1... Price is absolutely a indication of cost and/or value, at the time of exchange. Rational Choice Theory is empirically sound https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-soc-071811-145441 https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-soc-07... https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0951692899011002001 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0951692899011002001 Although Classical Economics is empirically shakey is some respects, Neoclassical are not
  - CharlesColeman 8y ago
    > 3 & 4 are blatantly false. Economics isn't concerned with morality or demographics (beyond the study of their statistical facts). I don't think that's correct. Economic theories make statements about the distribution of resources, which is an intensely moral question. They also tend to be tightly wrapped up with political ideology, which makes them even more moral.
    - defaultprimate 8y ago
      It isn't though, it's entirely objective.
      - CharlesColeman 8y ago
        > It isn't though, it's entirely objective. That's an extraordinarily strong claim that requires some extraordinary evidence and exposition. When economics intersects with politics, business, laymen, or reality I think it only has pretensions of objectivity.
        defaultprimate 8y ago
        Subjective conclusions and actions based on objective data do not make the data any less objective.
    - Nasrudith 8y ago
      Those are implications really - as are political ideologies based upon what people do with it. Similarly demographics are a reflection of current society - it doesn't tell you /why/ it is the case. Pointing out that the true father may have implications for a family and society but that doesn't make genetics a moral question.
      - defaultprimate 8y ago
        Really appreciate this comment. It's succinct and eloquently states the sentiment I was trying to express.