4 ms·

Economics students learn about mathematical games and how to use resources; they also learn stats which it appears the author is completely ignorant of... Sayin

Economics students learn about mathematical games and how to use resources; they also learn stats which it appears the author is completely ignorant of... Saying that being more aware makes us greedier is idiotic. We understand the rules better. Correlation != Causation I mean that. There is seriously no information here which can be formulated into any reasonable hypothesis. The links to most of the data are pay walled. "Adam Grant" seems to have his doctorate in Psychology-- which doesn't surprise me given the complete lack of proof. Looking at his Wiki page it appears he doesn't have anything even related to statistical analysis. So I guess we'll be "feeling" this one out. Anecdotal evidence like this is why Economists, Math, and the hard sciences make fun of Psychology. Economics is such a massive subject well beyond money and greed that I think this sort of hyperbolic headline only helps keeps the masses ignorance. Go to any modern school of Economics and you'll be quite surprised when you get to the "institutional section," for starters. Enrollment is psychology is probably down, or he lost some funding. This is an article from an idiot/marketer/businessman.

dang 12y ago
This comment starts out as a shallow dismissal, rejecting the article with generic hand-waves, and then nose-dives off topic. The article may be wrong but is not unsubstantive, and it appears to describe work done by many researchers. It deserves better. A better discussion would engage seriously with specifics. "Seriously" implies making less wild claims and trying to substantiate what one says. There's a grain of a specific response here: the claim that the links don't point to data that can be inspected. But that doesn't mean the work is worthless, just that academic paywalls are a problem. We did change the linkbaity title (probably not the work of the author) to a sentence from the article, and added a question mark, in the hope of dampening this sort of reaction.

dang 12y ago

This comment starts out as a shallow dismissal, rejecting the article with generic hand-waves, and then nose-dives off topic. The article may be wrong but is not unsubstantive, and it appears to describe work done by many researchers. It deserves better. A better discussion would engage seriously with specifics. "Seriously" implies making less wild claims and trying to substantiate what one says. There's a grain of a specific response here: the claim that the links don't point to data that can be inspected. But that doesn't mean the work is worthless, just that academic paywalls are a problem. We did change the linkbaity title (probably not the work of the author) to a sentence from the article, and added a question mark, in the hope of dampening this sort of reaction.