tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post2481675402383624536..comments2024-03-18T22:32:52.802-04:00Comments on Noahpinion: A new age of econ imperialism is comingNoah Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comBlogger50125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-38838965067452188912016-10-01T14:20:42.501-04:002016-10-01T14:20:42.501-04:00A bit late for the party, but I want to point out ...A bit late for the party, but I want to point out that economic sociology, especially the part concerning social network analysis, is doing a lot of empirical research. Like, network analysis only recently that economists have started to explore (for example, Matthew Jackson).Rafael Galvãohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11157054230089977432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-4850532450425122722016-09-08T06:14:27.962-04:002016-09-08T06:14:27.962-04:00Interesting response by Fabio Rojas on the org the...Interesting response by Fabio Rojas on the org theory blog. <br />https://orgtheory.wordpress.com/2016/05/18/economics-and-sociology-part-cdlxvii-comments-on-a-blog-post-by-noah-smith/<br />Daniel McArthurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06436453708652569365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-59173799313938869942016-04-19T13:55:36.827-04:002016-04-19T13:55:36.827-04:00Actually, there is, for example, when people used ...Actually, there is, for example, when people used to think women couldn't be intelligent enough to be scientists, mathematicians, from a biological standpoint, that "biotruth" got falsified, same for them being too "emotional" to be judges. Similarly for the intelligence of black people.<br />It might hold true from a statistical stantpoint which might be influenced by the base biology to some extent, which interacts with many variables of the social context, but such statistic difference seems to vary depending on it.<br />About the feminism circles, I dunno how that could be falsifiable, for example, as one could name manospherian circles which also orstracize the dissent with terms like "mangina", which doesn't contraddict your claim, but sure it's not less frequent, but some "anti p.c." people call it argumenting, while calling it ostracism is the "adverse" field does it, which also applies to some feminists or people concerned with social justice.<br />It's also falsifiable, of course the more radical feminist social stance that everything is socially constructed, as well as the biotruth abuse of part of the "manosphere" so lets see both sides.<br />Mind also that some of the hate and division in sides comes from both of them hating on eachother strawmen idea which have of them, equating all of them with extremists.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-79357237544377529012016-04-18T17:35:18.797-04:002016-04-18T17:35:18.797-04:00" It is simply not true that humans and socie..." It is simply not true that humans and societies are not governed by laws akin to the laws of physics..."<br /><br />I didn't quite make that argument and your point is as much assertion as is mine.<br /><br />HenryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-1604996137559592002016-04-18T11:10:38.286-04:002016-04-18T11:10:38.286-04:00This is a very frustrating blog post as it complet...This is a very frustrating blog post as it completely mischaracterizes much of current sociology. Firstly, sociology is very empirical. Open up any of the flagship sociology journals and you will find without pretty much any exception the articles will be empirical. Second, I think even most economists proceed cautiously with experimental evidence (issues of external validity etc). Third, do not forget it was sociologists who championed the social survey now widely-used by economists (and others), not to mention social network analysis - so please give sociologists at least SOME credit. I agree perhaps sociological theory could improve since it could be in danger of atheoretical p-value hacking, but I think this is common across all (social) sciences.UK Sociologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17414262288689406411noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-51197244690273324202016-04-16T19:00:29.166-04:002016-04-16T19:00:29.166-04:00I'm sorry, but you're simply trying to def...I'm sorry, but you're simply trying to defend a very indefensible position. It is simply not true that humans and societies are not governed by laws akin to the laws of physics, they might be highly probabilistic and incredibly complex and tough to approximate, but arguing that they don't exist is basically impossible...<br /><br />To argue that they don't exist is to argue that anything, literally anything, can happen. Luis Augustohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17574787433969840143noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-1274655969554182892016-04-12T01:48:21.079-04:002016-04-12T01:48:21.079-04:00Anthro has positioned itself firmly with history a...Anthro has positioned itself firmly with history and archaeology, methodologically. It'll do fine. <br /><br />These three are much more scientific than the rest of the "social sciences" already, largely because they do not attempt to make grand predictive theories, and instead focus on the question of "so, what was going on" -- which is a hard question!Nathanaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-81608250523394606092016-04-12T01:46:06.708-04:002016-04-12T01:46:06.708-04:00What's actually winning is biology. Biochemis...What's actually winning is biology. Biochemistry, epidemiology, ecology...<br /><br /><br />Biology is the actual science here, and it's eventually going to overtake all the "social sciences".<br /><br />It already destroyed most of criminology, though criminology hasn't admitted it yet, along with destroying theories by economists and sociologists:<br /><br />I refer, of course, to the lead poisoning - crime link.<br /><br />http://www.ricknevin.com/<br /><br /><br />Enough of psychology is actually serious neurobiology that it's going to be well ahead of the rest of the social sciences. Economics... will take a while.Nathanaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-72647515231728936992016-04-10T19:13:32.022-04:002016-04-10T19:13:32.022-04:00That may or may not be so, but mathematical rigor ...That may or may not be so, but mathematical rigor is paramount and economic insight eschewed.<br /><br />HenryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-1755186135264827272016-04-10T16:56:43.654-04:002016-04-10T16:56:43.654-04:00"Mathematicians" assumes they went beyon..."Mathematicians" assumes they went beyond 2nd- or 3rd-year undergraduate math. Most economics profs have less competence in math than community college engineering graduates.I Will Never Accept The Terms of Servicehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09422355923256894207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-48672218961001231072016-04-10T16:52:58.308-04:002016-04-10T16:52:58.308-04:00Over 90% of all American sociology Ph.D.s work as ...Over 90% of all American sociology Ph.D.s work as sociometricians because the world only needs a few dozen social theorists. Thing is, in sociology, the theorists actually read the sociometricians, while apparently no economics prof has ever bothered to look at data.<br /><br />Sociologists also have a comprehensive exam based on the 100-200 most important books and articles in their field: meanwhile, no economist has ever even read Ricardo, otherwise he'd realize Ricardo didn't actually believe in that Ricardian equivalence nonsense.<br /><br />One of these is a scholarly field and the other is Republican nonsense.I Will Never Accept The Terms of Servicehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09422355923256894207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-46372829062711636442016-04-10T10:15:37.679-04:002016-04-10T10:15:37.679-04:00I just want to jump in here and point out that &qu...I just want to jump in here and point out that "see Salganik, Dodds and Watts (2006)" is a thing you can actually do! I googled it and a full 19-page .pdf file came up as the first result. (I assumed it would be paywalled for us non-academics....)<br /><br />Quite wonderful to find it accessible. Thanks!drwerewolfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17269175252875799774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-23895296085575772872016-04-09T15:45:57.502-04:002016-04-09T15:45:57.502-04:00New age economics in ten bullet points
• Economic...New age economics in ten bullet points<br /><br />• Economics is a failed science. It consists actually of political and theoretical economics. Political economics is scientifically worthless.<br /><br />• Psychology, sociology, behaviorism, political science, geopolitics, history, anthropology, evolutionary theory, institutionalism, law, ethics, philosophy are NOT economics. The valid results of these independent disciplines are taken into economics by way of multidisciplinary cooperation if needed.<br /><br />• Economics is NOT about human nature/behavior/action but about the evolution of the economic system as a whole.<br /><br />• Partial analysis is of extremely limited value and in most cases runs directly into the fallacy of composition. Microfoundation will therefore be replaced by macrofoundation.<br /><br />• Systemic (= new) economics determines first of all the objective Profit Law because it is pivotal to all of economics. Who does not understand what profit is has no idea how the actual economy works.<br /><br />• Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism — all four got profit wrong. These approaches are scientifically worthless.<br /><br />• Economics has nothing to offer to other disciplines because it has produced not much, if anything, of scientific value since Adam Smith. The representative economist cannot even tell the essential difference between income and profit.<br /><br />• The ongoing paradigm shift consists methodologically in the move from the behavioral axiomatic foundations of the four failed approaches to structural axiomatic foundations.<br /><br />• People who have not realized in the old age that maximization-and-equilibrium is scientific garbage will not be admitted to the new age because of proven scientific incompetence.<br /><br />• Scientific imperialism will put an end to economics as cargo cult science.<br /><br />Egmont Kakarot-HandtkeAXEC / E.K-Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10402274109039114416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-30044098466741768642016-04-09T12:33:30.698-04:002016-04-09T12:33:30.698-04:00The best known work by economists in the last quar...The best known work by economists in the last quarter-century or so is <i>Freakonomics</i>, and most of the topics are sociology. They have nothing to do with money. Teachers changing students' test answers, race and class in the choosing of names for kids, sumo wrestlers taking a dive, parenting and education, abortion and crime. The authors may call themselves economists, but is this economics?<br /><br />As from fields outside of economics has shown, stereotypes are hard to extinguish -- confirmation bias, availability bias, etc. Hence persistence of the economists' stereotype of sociology as all jargon. If you think sociologists don't create models and run regressions, thumb through an issue of the ASR. Jay Livingstonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03797268351984440375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-14882938579526082072016-04-08T13:40:58.344-04:002016-04-08T13:40:58.344-04:00"harsh sentencing could substitute for consis..."harsh sentencing could substitute for consistent law enforcement."<br /><br />If harsh sentencing, and the death penalty in particular, worked then we would see serial killers and per-meditated murder re-locate or commute to states that do not have the death penalty. Absalonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09131268683451462949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-68659470060512329472016-04-08T13:37:43.860-04:002016-04-08T13:37:43.860-04:00Why stop at the other social and behavioural scien...Why stop at the other social and behavioural sciences? The biological and geosciences could do with a dose of economic rigour too.richardtolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14239680555557587153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-81231229778064183912016-04-08T07:04:30.508-04:002016-04-08T07:04:30.508-04:00From mathiness to empiriness: forget it!
Comment o...From mathiness to empiriness: forget it!<br />Comment on Noah Smith on ‘A new age of econ imperialism is coming’<br /><br />Since Adam Smith, economists are too incompetent for science but smart enough to borrow manners and tools from successful disciplines. The result comes as no surprise : “Suffice it to say that, in my opinion, what we presently possess by way of so-called pure economic theory is objectively indistinguishable from what the physicist Richard Feynman, in an unflattering sketch of nonsense ‘science,’ called ‘cargo cult science’.” (Clower, 1994, p. 809)<br /><br />Pure economic theory in all variants from General Equilibrium to RBC and DSGE, and from Keynes to post-Keynesianism, is a failure. Yet, science consists of TWO elements: “Research is in fact a continuous discussion of the consistency of theories: formal consistency insofar as the discussion relates to the logical cohesion of what is asserted in joint theories; material consistency insofar as the agreement of observations with theories is concerned.” (Klant, 1994, p. 31)<br /><br />Eureka! there seems to be a way out of the impasse: fact-free model bricolage has not worked, so let us try the theory-free application of sophisticated statistical tools. True to form, economists mess it up again, because the ONLY way to get out of a failed approach is a paradigm shift.<br /><br />But, the fact of the matter is: “A new idea is extremely difficult to think of. It takes a fantastic imagination.” (Feynman, 1992, p. 172) Economists lack scientific imagination since Adam Smith, but they are just smart enough to use tools that have been developed elsewhere.<br /><br />Economists have no clue at all about what the new paradigm could look like: “There is another alternative: to formulate a completely new research program and conceptual approach. As we have seen, this is often spoken of, but there is still no indication of what it might mean.” (Ingrao et al., 1990, p. 362)<br /><br />To apply the latest powerful statistics package on the latest powerful hardware is NOT a paradigm shift. It is just another dog and pony show for the general public, signaling ‘we are at the forefront of research’. This is tried and tested crisis communication since the gold makers: Yes, sadly, the last big idea exploded into our face as all the others before, but NOW the breakthrough is just around the corner.<br /><br />For everybody who is aware of economists’ track-record of consistent failure Noah Smith’s hallucination of future triumph is an empty promise/threat that can merely serve as pep-talk for disoriented losers.<br /><br />The economics paradigm shift will not come from scientifically retarded people who expose themselves with “most of what I and many others do is sorta-kinda neoclassical because it takes the maximization-and-equilibrium world as a starting point” (Krugman).<br /><br />Dear sociologists, you have nothing to fear. Economists cannot tell until this day how the economy works and you can beat them on their own turf before they get their new age pants on (2015).<br /><br />Egmont Kakarot-Handtke<br /><br />References<br />Clower, R. W. (1994). Economics as an Inductive Science. Southern Economic Journal, 60(4): 805–814.<br />Feynman, R. P. (1992). The Character of Physical Law. London: Penguin.<br />Ingrao, B., and Israel, G. (1990). The Invisible Hand. Economic Equilibrium in the History of Science. Cambridge, MA, London: MIT Press.<br />Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2015). How the Intelligent Non-Economist Can Refute Every Economist Hands Down. SSRN Working Paper Series, 2705395: 1–6. URL<br />http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2705395.<br />Klant, J. J. (1994). The Nature of Economic Thought. Aldershot, Brookfield, VT: Edward Elgar.AXEC / E.K-Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10402274109039114416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-80361226037628447282016-04-08T01:45:35.759-04:002016-04-08T01:45:35.759-04:00Oh man. RCTs have only recently taken off in recen...Oh man. RCTs have only recently taken off in recent years among in terms of econ lit share. And sociology isn't exactly stuck in the 1970s debates about functionalism etc anymore, though every time someone points that out...another econ blogger and/or asst prof without a RePEc listing hinthint lists the same Fourcade paper as proof that they're just jealous relics who can't appreciate their hella rad regressions. It's like an econjobsrumors post up in here!That's Me in the Office, Losing My Prescriptionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15933929768050016937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-41521453397776736382016-04-07T19:18:37.808-04:002016-04-07T19:18:37.808-04:00"That's okay: economists don't unders..."That's okay: economists don't understand that either."<br /><br />Most don't - that's because they have been trained as mathematicians.<br /><br />HenryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-17268407604077700732016-04-07T15:39:46.446-04:002016-04-07T15:39:46.446-04:00nothing economic about this imperialism. this is j...nothing economic about this imperialism. this is just Don Rubin statistics invading additional social science fields, having successfully colonized most of applied econ already.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-76889199232726684462016-04-07T13:55:43.323-04:002016-04-07T13:55:43.323-04:00It wasn't too long ago that you chided Cochran...It wasn't too long ago that you chided Cochrane for arguing on behalf of growth-oriented policies. IIRC the gist of your post was, in all of your snark, we'll keep trucking right along a predictable growth trajectory as a result of steady technological growth.<br /><br />Now you claim empiricism holds new keys. So, if policy has little impact on growth, aside from the North Korea crash 'n burn scenario, what good is empiricism?<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09445489809839987633noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-9529507564310292832016-04-07T11:03:52.178-04:002016-04-07T11:03:52.178-04:00Economics models start out with a spherical cow as...Economics models start out with a spherical cow assuming the existence of a can opener. Any sociologist who took an undergrad Reasoning class will be able to simply reply, "you're not modelling anything that actually exists". I Will Never Accept The Terms of Servicehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09422355923256894207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-90046791703693390202016-04-07T11:00:54.970-04:002016-04-07T11:00:54.970-04:00That's okay: economists don't understand t...That's okay: economists don't understand that either.I Will Never Accept The Terms of Servicehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09422355923256894207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-86925630856413841772016-04-07T11:00:04.901-04:002016-04-07T11:00:04.901-04:00Heh. Economics hasn't even experienced the emp...Heh. Economics hasn't even experienced the empirical revolution of the social sciences yet, much less the postmodern revolution. I predict they get whooped like a red-headed stepchild.I Will Never Accept The Terms of Servicehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09422355923256894207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-65153192469264351832016-04-06T20:50:56.163-04:002016-04-06T20:50:56.163-04:00"As empirical evidence becomes the gold stand..."As empirical evidence becomes the gold standard for social science arguments"<br /><br />Here's the problem with empiricism in the social sciences that physicists and mathematicians don't seem to understand. It would appear that the laws that govern physical systems are invariant across time. The same cannot be said for the social sciences. What works today, may not work tomorrow.<br /><br />Henry<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com