3 ms·

Bryan's boss weighed in on this today: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2022/02/no-one-cared-about-bryans-spreadsheets.html https://marginalre

Bryan's boss weighed in on this today: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2022/02/no-one-cared-about-bryans-spreadsheets.html https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2022/02/no... He says the education researchers who might audit this don't because Bryan is an outsider in that field.

giantg2 5y ago
That, and some other reasons. Personally I think the lack of (political) splash/impact would be the biggest driver.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
Fomite 5y ago
Honestly, as a researcher in another field who on occasion gets asked to "audit" people's thoughts, it's a return on investment problem. Doing something carefully enough to actually be worthwhile is (especially for someone's wall of madness spreadsheet) many hours of work. There's no real outcome where it's helpful for the auditor. They don't get paid. No one got tenure checking over someone's Rogue Outsider Spreadsheet. People doing economic analysis should understand incentives. What he has actually discovered is the same thing that makes writing quality scientific code so difficult - no one cares but you, so those unit tests your writing need to bring you some inner satisfaction.
- lucb1e 5y ago
  > People doing economic analysis should understand incentives. For all we know it's just game theory. By doing X (pretending to be surprised, posting about how nobody cares about the math), the other party might do Y in response (someone is triggered enough and does go through the work). It might not add up economically, but that might be lost from sight. Or maybe it does add up now that publicity is in the mix. (I don't necessarily believe that the author is truly being deceptive, but neither would I argue they must necessarily have understood one economic area because of work in another; if I'm understanding your point correctly.) For what it's worth, I did not know this, so your comment was helpful to me at least. I did not realize it matters whether you're "in the field" or not, thinking that good contributions are welcomed equally as being good contributions.
  - Fomite 5y ago
    "I did not realize it matters whether you're "in the field" or not, thinking that good contributions are welcomed equally as being good contributions." It's not necessarily 'in the field' - I, for example, happily review things from economists, ecologists, epidemiologists, computer scientists, or mathematicians. It's more "Here's my massive, probably undocumented spreadsheet - thoughts?" has a very low Bayesian prior for "Worth my time".

giantg2 5y ago

That, and some other reasons. Personally I think the lack of (political) splash/impact would be the biggest driver.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

Fomite 5y ago

Honestly, as a researcher in another field who on occasion gets asked to "audit" people's thoughts, it's a return on investment problem. Doing something carefully enough to actually be worthwhile is (especially for someone's wall of madness spreadsheet) many hours of work. There's no real outcome where it's helpful for the auditor. They don't get paid. No one got tenure checking over someone's Rogue Outsider Spreadsheet. People doing economic analysis should understand incentives. What he has actually discovered is the same thing that makes writing quality scientific code so difficult - no one cares but you, so those unit tests your writing need to bring you some inner satisfaction.

lucb1e 5y ago
> People doing economic analysis should understand incentives. For all we know it's just game theory. By doing X (pretending to be surprised, posting about how nobody cares about the math), the other party might do Y in response (someone is triggered enough and does go through the work). It might not add up economically, but that might be lost from sight. Or maybe it does add up now that publicity is in the mix. (I don't necessarily believe that the author is truly being deceptive, but neither would I argue they must necessarily have understood one economic area because of work in another; if I'm understanding your point correctly.) For what it's worth, I did not know this, so your comment was helpful to me at least. I did not realize it matters whether you're "in the field" or not, thinking that good contributions are welcomed equally as being good contributions.
- Fomite 5y ago
  "I did not realize it matters whether you're "in the field" or not, thinking that good contributions are welcomed equally as being good contributions." It's not necessarily 'in the field' - I, for example, happily review things from economists, ecologists, epidemiologists, computer scientists, or mathematicians. It's more "Here's my massive, probably undocumented spreadsheet - thoughts?" has a very low Bayesian prior for "Worth my time".