Just 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 hu

Just 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.