Economist polls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

You're not going to find many conclusive single studies in any field. It's easy to dismiss the results of one study for theoretical/methodological/data reasons. It's much harder to dismiss a consistent stream of studies that have a similar result. You have a very simplistic understanding of how any science works, including the natural sciences.

---

My point is that Economic Science is just as malleable/fallible as Medical Science, because of the human variables that can't be totally controlled. A hard science like chemistry or physics can account for the human errors/manipulations; those facts are facts.

If it's much harder to dismiss data with a consistent stream of results....then we wouldn't have economists disagreeing with other economists about what's a recession or depression, if they're all the same or different, and what defines growth or a recovery. Like the article I linked. :bored:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by agamemnus

Only global warming comes to mind, Loki. The results of economics studies, at least for the general TV-viewing populace, are muddled, I think.

---

Well, since you're suggesting polls of economists, because they're all over the map and inconsistent.....maybe the problem isn't the tv-viewing or internet-reading populace? :p

I doubt the general TV-viewing populace reads Econometrica.

Sounds like an easy read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

My point is that Economic Science is just as malleable/fallible as Medical Science, because of the human variables that can't be totally controlled. A hard science like chemistry or physics can account for the human errors/manipulations; those facts are facts.

---

And evolution is just a theory too, right? Because last I checked, we don't have much control over non-human organisms either (other than mice I suppose).

Quote:

---

If it's much harder to dismiss data with a consistent stream of results....then we wouldn't have economists disagreeing with other economists about what's a recession or depression, if they're all the same or different, and what defines growth or a recovery. Like the article I linked. :bored:

---

You prove once again that you have absolutely no idea what economics is about. Hint: arbitrary thresholds that measure the strength of the economy are not it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by agamemnus

Sounds like an easy read.

---

It would help if people stopped assuming that Economics is the crap that gets written in the WSJ and NY Times.

If the goal is to have "better informed" economic policy (as stated in the OP)....then wouldn't you want "better informed" voters, including the tv-viewing and internet-surfing public?

Print newspapers are all but extinct, and people get their information digitally now. Sometimes that means tangentially, with news headlines that force the reader to choose between entertainment or 'hard' news. And they want it in small, easily digestible bites. Recall that's how USA Today got it's foothold.

Correct me if I'm wrong, aggie, but it seems you're wanting a reputable/reliable/professional group of economists who can make headline news that meets both academic/professional economist standards + gives the public the facts they need. If so, that's a pretty tall order.

Good luck with that. It takes me weeks to get pretty smart undergrads to understand the very basics of a regression (just what it means, not even how it's done). Teaching them to understand a study that doesn't use state-of-the-art methods would take half a dozen courses. Now apply that to the general public, which is neither as smart nor as committed to academic work.

Enjoy: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...e-1.x/issuetoc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

You prove once again that you have absolutely no idea what economics is about. Hint: arbitrary thresholds that measure the strength of the economy are not it.

---

Economics is a huge field with many sub-fields. My main point is that it's a soft science, because it can't ignore Sociology, Psychology, Philosophy, Politics, or other human behavioral influences. :donkey:

Quote:

---

It would help if people stopped assuming that Economics is the crap that gets written in the WSJ and NY Times.

---

Where would you draw the line, then? Even The Economist has gotten flak lately, for its seemingly-biased opinions. News Flash: we live in The Information Age, and The Digital Age. We also live in the Think Tank era, where academic economists try to make their living by conducting polls/surveys, data mining, analyzing, concluding, predicting, advising.

These academic and professional economists have some 'splaining to do. They were early with party invitations, plenty of spiked kool-aid and roller-coaster rides to the top. But once the ride hit the bottom, and the Bubble machine burst, and nearly everyone puked....they're fighting amongst themselves. They can't explain how to end the hang-over economy in logical terms. Just more priming the pump, asset inflation, drill baby drill, exuberance as rational....no matter who's behind the curtain.

:sour:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Good luck with that. It takes me weeks to get pretty smart undergrads to understand the very basics of a regression (just what it means, not even how it's done). Teaching them to understand a study that doesn't use state-of-the-art methods would take half a dozen courses. Now apply that to the general public, which is neither as smart nor as committed to academic work.

Enjoy: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...e-1.x/issuetoc

---

That just supports my point. Economic Science is similar to Medical Science. Biggest difference being that most "regular" people don't have an incentive to read sophisticated economic theory "studies"....but they DO have an incentive to read studies from Lancet, AJM, CDC, NIH. It's personal, and impacts their lives directly.

People who are busy trying to stay alive, and find solutions to their health needs, are more likely to search for factual Medical Science information. They'll take that to their physicians and engage in mutual human decision making. Only after they're successful in doing that can they become educated "consumer economists", and demand more from the professionals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Economics is a huge field with many sub-fields. My main point is that it's a soft science, because it can't ignore Sociology, Psychology, Philosophy, Politics, or other human behavioral influences. :donkey:

---

And physics can't ignore math, therefore it's a soft science.

Quote:

---

Where would you draw the line, then? Even The Economist has gotten flak lately, for its seemingly-biased opinions. News Flash: we live in The Information Age, and The Digital Age. We also live in the Think Tank era, where academic economists try to make their living by conducting polls/surveys, data mining, analyzing, concluding, predicting, advising.

---

Newsflash: anything that's not peer-reviewed isn't "economics". The Economist doesn't do economics; it does policy.

Quote:

---

These academic and professional economists have some 'splaining to do. They were early with party invitations, plenty of spiked kool-aid and roller-coaster rides to the top. But once the ride hit the bottom, and the Bubble machine burst, and nearly everyone puked....they're fighting amongst themselves. They can't explain how to end the hang-over economy in logical terms. Just more priming the pump, asset inflation, drill baby drill, exuberance as rational....no matter who's behind the curtain.

:sour:

---

It's not their job. And once again, you're talking out of your behind. A vast majority of economists fight over methods, not the policy-oriented stuff that the Krugmans of the world partake it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

That just supports my point. Economic Science is similar to Medical Science. Biggest difference being that most "regular" people don't have an incentive to read sophisticated economic theory "studies"....but they DO have an incentive to read studies from Lancet, AJM, CDC, NIH. It's personal, and impacts their lives directly.

People who are busy trying to stay alive, and find solutions to their health needs, are more likely to search for factual Medical Science information. They'll take that to their physicians and engage in mutual human decision making. Only after they're successful in doing that can they become educated "consumer economists", and demand more from the professionals.

---

Then stop talking BS about a field that you've never read a single substantive piece of research in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

And physics can't ignore math, therefore it's a soft science.

---

Hey, at least physics gave us the bomb and MAD and all that jazz, it's not like politicians enabling and following economists would lead to untold ruin, global threats and the deaths of thousands

Oh

I see what you mean :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by agamemnus

International business, GGT.

---

So you're a Global Economist, and know that includes political economics, behavioral economics, and consumer economics. Might as well call yourself an international realtor, knowing that all Real Estate is local. Location, location, location. ;)

Economists have varying opinions about Real Estate and the Housing Bubble, and its relationship to the Great Recession and its recovery. I think those "professionals" are divorced from the real economy, because they've been living (for the most part) as dependents of an academic and/or political economy. Either as tenured professors, or entrenched in corporate favoritism, or political connections.

What do you think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

And physics can't ignore math, therefore it's a soft science.

---

Math isn't a soft science.

Quote:

---

Newsflash: anything that's not peer-reviewed isn't "economics". The Economist doesn't do economics; it does policy.

---

The Economist covers peer-reviewed international studies. Of course, it depends on which section you choose to read, to find the links between economics and policy. :donkey:

Quote:

---

It's not their job. And once again, you're talking out of your behind. A vast majority of economists fight over methods, not the policy-oriented stuff that the Krugmans of the world partake it.

Then stop talking BS about a field that you've never read a single substantive piece of research in.

---

Then feel free to explain "the job" of an economist. Oh wait, you can't. At least not until you figure out what type of economist they are. The policy-oriented "stuff" includes methodology, and vice versa.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Then feel free to explain "the job" of an economist.

---

(A) Unemployment, (B) nodding your head, or (C) confusing people so much with numbers that they just keep giving you money to keep doing it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Then feel free to explain "the job" of an economist. Oh wait, you can't. At least not until you figure out what type of economist they are. The policy-oriented "stuff" includes methodology, and vice versa.

---

I'll tell you once you tell me the difference between physics and engineering, or biology and epidemiology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by agamemnus

(A) Unemployment, (B) nodding your head, or (C) confusing people so much with numbers that they just keep giving you money to keep doing it!

---

A vast majority of economists do micro.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

I'll tell you once you tell me the difference between physics and engineering, or biology and epidemiology.

---

What are you trying to prove here? Physics is the study of natural laws, and engineering is the application side.

Quote:

---

And physics can't ignore math, therefore it's a soft science.

---

That is not the point GGT was making. If economics, which in our current day system it must, must draw from the data of soft sciences, then it in turn gains that taint, I guess you can say. Economicst to make themselves pure, tend to try to create homo economicus, which operates on some very basic axioms. However, in the real world to create a theory with strong predictive power, which is the metric to weigh any economic theory, it is needed to take into account the research in human behavior of the soft sciences. When you do this to create more accurate theories you gain the problem of all soft sciences. That is the current state of economics.


When looking at homo economicus, economics is pure, when looking at more detailed explantory power there are elements of soft sciences in economics. I think GGT statement is defendable.

Quote:

---

And physics can't ignore math, therefore it's a soft science.

---

On your analogy with math. That's simply not true. Math doesn't care about physics, if we coincidentally are helpful so be it. We are more interested in understanding logical systems and their conclusion, which includes the axioms that govern our physical reality. I always view physics just a subset of logical mathematical thinking. More to the point mathematics, like most men, is almost always hard, and it's one hard science borrowing from another. There is no "this data is unrepeatable/unreproducable and therefore the information it tells us isn't as reliable" that can very well be true in psychology.

I take it you also believe that biology is not a science? Nor pretty much anything but physics and chemistry (certainly not climatology!)?

Let me ask you, does smoking cause cancer? Does radiation cause cancer? On what basis do you hold these beliefs?

Quote:

---

Let me ask you, does smoking cause cancer? Does radiation cause cancer? On what basis do you hold these beliefs?

---

I said it was a soft science, and yes they are inferior to hard sciences. I still take them seriously just not as strongly.

So you don't take the claim about smoking as seriously? How about chemicals in drinking water or in produce?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

And physics can't ignore math, therefore it's a soft science.

---

Epic pattern-recognition fail.

Let's try again, pick the odd one out:

Quote:

---

Sociology, Psychology, Philosophy, Politics, Mathematics

---

Yeah, economics is not a real science because it's too similar to other fields that are assumed off the bat to not be scientific. And if I a priori define all countries whose name start with S as crapholes, then we can safely conclude that Sweden is a craphole simply by merit of being a country that begins with an S.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Yeah, economics is not a real science because it's too similar to other fields that are assumed off the bat to not be scientific. And if I a priori define all countries whose name start with S as crapholes, then we can safely conclude that Sweden is a craphole simply by merit of being a country that begins with an S.

---

What I'm trying to say is that you epically failed to interpret GGT's post, not that GGT was correct in her characterisation or her reasoning. I am, however, fairly sure her characterisation of those other disciplines as being "soft sciences" (which is not the same as "not real science") is one that many/most scientists and philosophers of science would consider--at first glance--to be relatively fair and accurate. Good luck trying to find remotely similar support for--or appreciation of--your retarded counter-example. That's not to say that consensus guarantees truth, of course, but it may help evaluate whether or not your counter-example is retarded (98% of hard scientists and philosophers of science would say that it is). In the future, when someone points out one of your epic failures to read and interpret a post (and it will happen many many times) feel free to just say "thanks, sorry, my bad" instead of thinking that you're being encouraged to spout more of the same stupid.

http://bama.ua.edu/~sprentic/607%20Diamond%201987.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

What I'm trying to say is that you epically failed to interpret GGT's post, not that GGT was correct in her characterisation or her reasoning. I am, however, fairly sure her characterisation of those other disciplines as being "soft sciences" (which is not the same as "not real science") is one that many/most scientists and philosophers of science would consider--at first glance--to be relatively fair and accurate. Good luck trying to find remotely similar support for--or appreciation of--your retarded counter-example. That's not to say that consensus guarantees truth, of course, but it may help evaluate whether or not your counter-example is retarded (98% of hard scientists and philosophers of science would say that it is). In the future, when someone points out one of your epic failures to read and interpret a post (and it will happen many many times) feel free to just say "thanks, sorry, my bad" instead of thinking that you're being encouraged to spout more of the same stupid.

---

It certainly doesn't help her case that she cited philosophy.

My problem is not the fact that economics is similar to those fields (because it is), but rather the claim that using information from other fields makes you as weak as those fields. Just because field x has weak standards doesn't mean that field y can't borrow some insights from field x but apply a stronger set of standards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

It certainly doesn't help her case that she cited philosophy.

My problem is not the fact that economics is similar to those fields (because it is), but rather the claim that using information from other fields makes you as weak as those fields. Just because field x has weak standards doesn't mean that field y can't borrow some insights from field x but apply a stronger set of standards.

---

You won't get any disagreement from me there :o I would like to point out that, although the term "soft science" is often used as a pejorative, shoddiness or "weak standards" aren't necessarily the characteristics that make a discipline a soft science (see article for a more eloquent author's take on the differences).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

You won't get any disagreement from me there :o I would like to point out that, although the term "soft science" is often used as a pejorative, shoddiness or "weak standards" aren't necessarily the characteristics that make a discipline a soft science (see article for a more eloquent author's take on the differences).

---

I don't have a problem with the term soft science. My problem was with GGT's guilt by association.

Quote:

---

Yeah, economics is not a real science because it's too similar to other fields that are assumed off the bat to not be scientific. And if I a priori define all countries whose name start with S as crapholes, then we can safely conclude that Sweden is a craphole simply by merit of being a country that begins with an S.

---

Not what anyone's saying. I accept almost all the results of psychology, sociologys, and economics. I would not accept the premise of your example.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...nd.single.html :o

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/10...-vs-gut/191001

Taking odds on which of the two methods of prediction the GGTs of the world prefer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

I'll tell you once you tell me the difference between physics and engineering, or biology and epidemiology.
A vast majority of economists do micro.

---

I said there are different types of economists, depending on their sub-specialty and education, and how they apply "economics" in real life. It's not just divided into macro or micro, but often both, and incorporates other soft sciences like Behavior/Psychology. An analogy in medicine would be an MD who can practice medicine right out of med school, or the PhD MD who practices Psychiatry, but neither would be doing open heart surgery.

I also said economists incorporate hard sciences (like math, statistics) in their field, but that doesn't make Economic Science a hard science. That is all. :bored:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...nd.single.html :o

---

tl;dr - summary?

Democrats use advanced statistics and theories from the social sciences to come up with their models for turning out the vote and persuading the persuadable, while Republicans use techniques that are several decades old and rely on "common wisdom". Needless to say, the Democratic efforts are far more successful (and quite possibly cheaper). Oddly enough, the NY Times was impressed by the "advanced methods" of the GOP (which shows you how knowledgeable journalists are).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...lver-backlash/

There was a similar fight in poli sci about 40 years ago, and the traditionalists (those who rely on "intuition", "common wisdom", "gut feelings", and "history") got trounced and now make up a tiny minority of the field. Funny how people still refuse to believe that human behavior is quantifiable and at least somewhat predictable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Democrats use advanced statistics and theories from the social sciences to come up with their models for turning out the vote and persuading the persuadable, while Republicans use techniques that are several decades old and rely on "common wisdom". Needless to say, the Democratic efforts are far more successful (and quite possibly cheaper).

---

It is a plausible perspective and narrative. It is not necessarily accurate or true thereby.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

It is a plausible perspective and narrative. It is not necessarily accurate or true thereby.

---

The Democrats have been nice enough to measure the effects of their efforts. We have no reliable way of knowing whether the Republican efforts have any effect. The very fact that the latter have done little to answer this question is not a good sign. We do know that the GOP is doing things that have been proven not to work by the Democrats...

But maybe they work on [almost-]Republicans because Republicans are weird and dumb :mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Funny how people still refuse to believe that human behavior is quantifiable and at least somewhat predictable.

---

Key word being "somewhat". They're trying to predict US voter behavior in an increasingly volatile and rapidly changing world. Those margin of errors try to include unexpected events, but that's nearly impossible. Consulates get torched, attempted terrorist acts thwarted, hurricanes flood subways, 8 million without electricity, etc.

Undecided or swing voters may see "The role of Government" and federal spending in a different light, on the heels of any massive event or disaster.

Except no one's claiming the ability to predict things perfectly. I don't know about you, but I'd rather know something with 80% certainty than to not know it at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Except no one's claiming the ability to predict things perfectly. I don't know about you, but I'd rather know something with 80% certainty than to not know it at all.

---

Right, I'm just saying that expectations of all these polls, models, data, and predictive powers should be put in perspective. As you say, some 'conventional wisdom' can be false because it's based on outdated premise. iirc, you were wrong about the youth vote in 2008, claiming that students aren't likely voters, and dismissed Ron Paul's growing influence in the GOP. ;)

I'm 99.99% certain that pollsters and demographers will continue to do evermore polls/surveys, analysts will continue to make their predictions, media will treat them as fact or spin them as political, and campaigns will spend millions of dollars for the data-mining and adverts. I'm 100% skeptical that means better candidates, more choices for voters, or a well-informed electorate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Key word being "somewhat". They're trying to predict US voter behavior in an increasingly volatile and rapidly changing world. Those margin of errors try to include unexpected events, but that's nearly impossible. Consulates get torched, attempted terrorist acts thwarted, hurricanes flood subways, 8 million without electricity, etc.

Undecided or swing voters may see "The role of Government" and federal spending in a different light, on the heels of any massive event or disaster.

---

True, but it may be easier to say, with relatively great certainty, whether or not these things are likely to be enough to change the outcome.