6 ms·
As far as the economist. I suspect he understands that they're theories, thus, to some extent guesses. Some data might support it, but does it hold true in ever
by selykg 3y ago
As far as the economist. I suspect he understands that they're theories, thus, to some extent guesses. Some data might support it, but does it hold true in every case? Probably not. Does it hold true in most cases? Maybe not. Would he bet money, effectively what a hedge fund does in my very limited experience here? Sounds like no.
This to me sounds like a simple example of he understands the limitations of his work!
As for your evolutionary biologist friend. Being interested in evolutionary biology does not mean you are inherently someone that wants to be a parent. These are very very different things. Besides, evolutionary biology impacts more than just humans, it impacts every species. Being a parent comes with a great responsibility. Someone could just as easily be a really big fan of dogs, but not want one because of the responsibility or the costs, or similar.
- xyzelement 3y agoYup, your explanation resonates with what I think are the superficial reasons society is accepting of both of these cases. You have to think a little bit deeper to feel why this might be problematic. If the economist weighs the risk to not put too much stock in these theories (no pun intended actually), why does he not likewise hesitate to teach these theories to his students? Like "I don't believe 100% that this is how the world works enough to bet my own money, but I am going to tell hundreds of students every year this is how the world works." The biologist story is subtler. One could argue that failure to become a parent signals that you deeply, fundamentally, don't get biology - despite your superficial interest and theoretical knowledge? Like, you may talk about zygotes all day but you failed to make one... Maybe the difference between economists and biologists vs financial advisors and engineers is that we expect the later to have skin in the game but for some reason allow the former to not have to.
- selykg 3y agoI don't really agree with any of that. You seem to be really trying hard to draw lines to make these seem more than they are. Economics is complicated because at a fundamental level you're trying to understand people and their decisions. Sorry but you're really never going to "solve" that problem. Stuff will forever be a theory. You are also assuming that the economist is teaching this and saying "this is how it works, it's 100% accurate" and not starting off with "this is a theory, and we work towards making it better over time with new data and new ideas." Just because something may not be 100% perfect does not mean you don't strive to improve what you have and you won't improve what you have if you just let it rot on the vine and not teach the next generation. The biology one is even more convoluted. Having an _interest_ in something does not mean you have to "be" the interest. A simple example, I work to live, not live to work. I am not my work. My work is only here to support me living my life. You are claiming that the biologist is a failure because they didn't want, or couldn't, create offspring despite their interest being in evolutionary biology. That's some kind of weird argument to make there man...
- gilleain 3y agoThe biologist example is, respectfully, ridiculous. Would you expect experts in criminal psychology to be serial killers?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ceejayoz 3y agoBy their standard, the world's foremost expert in fluid dynamics is a river.
- digging 3y agoJust stop pushing these theories. You're way off. > I don't believe 100% that this is how the world works enough to bet my own money, but I am going to tell hundreds of students every year this is how the world works This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what a good professor does. If the economist acts in this way, they have failed as a teacher, not as an expert in economics. Likewise I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of economics as a science - it's not one, and it sounds like the economist was making a quip at the predictive weakness of the field overall. > The biologist story is subtler. No, it's not. You're just having to push harder to keep it afloat. > One could argue that failure to become a parent signals that you deeply, fundamentally, don't get biology One would be wildly wrong to make that argument. Once again, I think this shows a deep lack of understanding on your part of the field itself and what it means to study a field. And also what it means to have a child as a human, honestly. > economists and biologists vs financial advisors and engineers is that we expect the later to have skin in the game but for some reason allow the former to not have to Is this not obvious? You're reaching very hard to dig at researchers in a way that indicates you don't know what research actually is. Or maybe you're defensive of the work you do? I shouldn't speculate too hard here or I risk also being this wrong.
- ubermonkey 3y ago>One could argue that failure to become a parent signals that you deeply, fundamentally, don't get biology This is complete and utter nonsense.
- abenga 3y ago> One could argue that failure to become a parent signals that you deeply, fundamentally, don't get biology - despite your superficial interest and theoretical knowledge? Like, you may talk about zygotes all day but you failed to make one... So farm animals understand biology better than the biologist does?
- synetic 3y agoIt was a joke (most likely) in the part of the economist. Self deprecation.
- varjag 3y agoTakes a finance guy to take it on face value.