I've been following the author for a while now (no personal connection), and I'm taken with the ideas. Mainly because it's never seemed right to me that economi

I've been following the author for a while now (no personal connection), and I'm taken with the ideas. Mainly because it's never seemed right to me that economics' "rational person" doesn't resemble anyone in the real world. [0] also out today explains it starting from a concrete example: > the coin toss game seems worth playing because equal probability of a 50% gain and a 40% loss are no different from a 5% gain.* > Why people don't choose to play the game, seemingly ignoring the opportunity to gain a steady 5%, has been explained psychologically-- people, in the parlance of the field, are "risk averse". But according to Peters, these explanations don't really get to the root of the problem, which is that the classical "solution" lacks a fundamental understanding of the individual's unique trajectory over time. You can also get his full lecture notes at [1]. [0] https://www.santafe.edu/news-center/news/fix-economic-theory-changes-everything-gambles-inequality-ponzi-schemes https://www.santafe.edu/news-center/news/fix-economic-theory... [1] https://ergodicityeconomics.com/lecture-notes/ https://ergodicityeconomics.com/lecture-notes/