It’s the extreme rigour with which they perceive themselves, and the sentiment I’ve always seen of, “I know how the world works, it’s money”
I don’t see the need for the condescension. My background was in biology, I spoke to another friend about how competition is inefficient and cooperation is more fruitful from an ecological (read: natural science) standpoint. And he started to debate me, my claims are empirical, they don’t rely on axioms on what human nature is as argued by philosophers of old (not hating on them, it’s the superficial interpretation some econfolk seem to have which is what I find erroneous) and what it means to be rational. I did not bother to try and explain, the Um, akshully they came at me with was so off-putting.
Ah but you see, you failed to take into account my economic model that says you’re wrong! Nevermind the fact that my model fails to represent reality in all but the most constructed tests, that’s not important.
It’s the extreme rigour with which they perceive themselves
To get into any econ PhD program essentially requires a math degree. Which is funny because afaik the only other programs that might require that much math are like, physics and math itself.
They then proceed to develop all these intense models, which is what they say the math is needed for. And yeah, sure, the models themselves are complex. But they’re all bullshit. It’s like building some quantitively rigorous model that “proves” intelligent design or that climate change is a hoax. Just because you use a lot of high level math doesn’t mean you’re actually using that math in a correct or useful way.
It’s the extreme rigour with which they perceive themselves, and the sentiment I’ve always seen of, “I know how the world works, it’s money”
I don’t see the need for the condescension. My background was in biology, I spoke to another friend about how competition is inefficient and cooperation is more fruitful from an ecological (read: natural science) standpoint. And he started to debate me, my claims are empirical, they don’t rely on axioms on what human nature is as argued by philosophers of old (not hating on them, it’s the superficial interpretation some econfolk seem to have which is what I find erroneous) and what it means to be rational. I did not bother to try and explain, the Um, akshully they came at me with was so off-putting.
Ah but you see, you failed to take into account my economic model that says you’re wrong! Nevermind the fact that my model fails to represent reality in all but the most constructed tests, that’s not important.
To get into any econ PhD program essentially requires a math degree. Which is funny because afaik the only other programs that might require that much math are like, physics and math itself.
They then proceed to develop all these intense models, which is what they say the math is needed for. And yeah, sure, the models themselves are complex. But they’re all bullshit. It’s like building some quantitively rigorous model that “proves” intelligent design or that climate change is a hoax. Just because you use a lot of high level math doesn’t mean you’re actually using that math in a correct or useful way.
Epicycle models of the solar system were also mathematically complex; at least those approximated real-world patterns.