4 ms·
Yet most non-economists would have predicted exactly this. If it's astonishing to you, well, perhaps you've had the misfortune to learn to think like an economi
by aussiesnack 4y ago
Yet most non-economists would have predicted exactly this. If it's astonishing to you, well, perhaps you've had the misfortune to learn to think like an economist (ie. poorly & very muddy about normative vs actual).
- nequo 4y agoIt would be possible to respond to your comment in earnest but ad hominem like this is more of a psychological cushion than an invitation to genuine discussion.
- aussiesnack 4y agoIn what world is a daft attempt to psychoanalyze your interlocutor not ad hominem? My comment was snarky but not remotely playing the man. I meant it quite literally as a criticism of the thinking at issue. Economistic thought is riddled with confusion, and being surprised that scientists don't behave normatively (ie. not as those engaged in peer review are "supposed to") exhibits perfectly one variant of said confusion. I'm not 'astonished' that non-blinded peer reviewers are influenced by social status. No-one I know would be surprised at all, let alone 'astonished'.
- hedora 4y ago> I'm not 'astonished' that non-blinded peer reviewers are influenced by social status. I am astonished, in the same way I would be astonished to find out that papers that smell like fish are more likely to be accepted for publication at the majority of peer reviewed venues, and that the reason is that reviewers for those publications let their house cats stack rank the submissions.