@ANDevereaux @MScott_King @NathanPGoodman @Roger_Koppl some economists replied to the piece … was a big thing on econtwitter https://t.co/UUc4bsWaTV
@pontus_rendahl This is the most I've written. What do you think? Should people write more on it? https://t.co/qr1yR3sYsj
3/ that they make it illegal for physics journals to publish econ papers😎 Look, I'm not going to tell you that the log utility is completely wrong. But do you really believe that we all have the relative risk aversion coefficient of exactly one?... https:
@llllvvuu Lots to unpack here. IMHO, the biggest flaw is the reliance on Ole Peters' stuff, which makes the whole thing pretty hard to process. I'll just quote @ben_golub on this one. And, yes, infinitesimal spreads are no good. But some points actually ma
@LoveOfEcon @ben_golub @MitokoJeremiah @keithwynroe It is definitely there - some behavioural economists wrote a response to Peters in Nature Physics where they point it out https://t.co/WYyu2uS4A7
@riccardoffff @ben_golub @BrianCAlbrecht can't find the non-paywalled version of this, but maybe you can find it based on the paywalled one https://t.co/wZDX0fM2t2
@manforoneseason @ben_golub Not a silly question. We summarize here. https://t.co/eBXAKSBnvS
This thread came a long while after I moved on from learning about ergodicity economics, but have been referred it now. RTing for later perusal.
@edwin_teejay @ole_b_peters @gmmengineer @evil_diad Ergodicity economics is not a faction, it’s a quack theory. The theory itself is essentially an extremely restrictive version of EUT, combined with some very confused ideas forcing a dynamic interpretati
@vectornomist Ole "I WILL DEVOTE MY LIFE TO ERGODICITY ECONOMICS, THE ONE TRUE ECONOMICS" Peters is a well-known crank. For example, https://t.co/PHhHnGwv6P
@IntuitMachine @keithfrankish @ole_b_peters Here is a very detailed response to his work. https://t.co/ai795arlxM
@MoneyMindMerle Make sure to look into the @ole_b_peters vs @jasndoc , Wakker & Wang debate in @NaturePhysics, and @ben_golub’s informative thread on the debate.
PS/ for anyone seeking background on this confused endeavor, https://t.co/hIKjUzSaMi
@JosephNWalker @ole_b_peters For those interested in how Peters's work comes across to experts https://t.co/hIKjUzSaMi
@JosephNWalker This is a good place to start.
@actualdrdoctor We've obliquely mentioned this: "kicking a person is not like kicking a rock". https://t.co/eBXAKSBnvS
RT @bechhof: @juliagalef @harry_renquist @SpencrGreenberg Useful thread here https://t.co/mozjsDQUBV
@juliagalef @harry_renquist @SpencrGreenberg Useful thread here
RT @ben_golub: A polite, scathing, and comprehensive reply by @jasndoc and coauthors to the "ergodicity economics" of @ole_b_peters. @Natu…
@alvinulido this is the refutation/comment on ergodicity: https://t.co/Hb0kGK8avP sometimes physicists just don't understand what the hell is happening in economics. this is coming from me, a former physics undergrad (with almost doing grad stud in physic
@pmbruera @constant_hevia @maffeigaston Acá les dieron parejo. https://t.co/TbnyI910hb
RT @GuilleAngeris: Academic spats are the best spats and you can’t tell me otherwise https://t.co/9VozRKj2Kl
Academic spats are the best spats and you can’t tell me otherwise
RT @j_jason_bell: Nice response to a paper that takes itself way too seriously: https://t.co/xRuh9zJT5a
RT @alupgg: @PabloAlcain Quizás te interese esta interacción entre físicos y economistas (y te saque un poco de tu muestra). https://t.co/I…
@PabloAlcain Quizás te interese esta interacción entre físicos y economistas (y te saque un poco de tu muestra). https://t.co/Iy8jugZg9v
RT @AnthonyLeeZhang: Largely agree with Ben's points here, some other thoughts... In physics, mathematical models are either basically cor…
@nonludic @ben_golub @alex_adamou @goldstein_aa Beware of scientism though. Read Hayek. The EE guys have dangerous physics envy, and even openly admit it. This review was excellent: https://t.co/VcakhST4vX
RT @nileshtrivedi: "Kicking a person is not like kicking a rock." A critique of the ergodicity economics argumentd that claimed by @ole_b_…
@MichaelKitces I recommend the following excellent thread by @ben_golub for a critical view on „Everything in economics is wrong“.
RT @ole_b_peters: Following the NP publication https://t.co/vB4JVaeLfS, @jasndoc et al wrote this comment https://t.co/aJuVg4dJM1 I felt…
@AmitEcon @PietroOrtoleva @ElliotLip Response to the paper referenced is https://t.co/tbFlkoY03h
@swardley In general, one should be careful of wandering into a new field and assuming you've spotted a fatal flaw. https://t.co/U4z2b7NmRv
@ole_b_peters @EE_2021 Super interesting debates on the way ...Que Calor! Looking fwd! https://t.co/tgQ1eNM7Iz https://t.co/e2FPG4DQo4
this is a good thread by @ben_golub but I'd also like to make clear that Peters is very much a crank, and is using an extremely deceptive mathematical trick (and strawman) as a part of his analysis and... I do literally mean a trick. https://t.co/oycFVjc
That's the spirit!
@oldvillagesage @eigenrobot A concise response is in the quoted thread https://t.co/R3f1W8Qx5h
this is a thread summarizing the counterargument from economists who are standing together to refute these claims made by @/ole_b_peters in the Nature article. https://t.co/YNbBaEC6xP
This is a really cool move! Looking forward to it. If my lockdown schedule permits I’m there 🤞🏻
Following the NP publication https://t.co/vB4JVaeLfS, @jasndoc et al wrote this comment https://t.co/aJuVg4dJM1 I felt we were talking past each other https://t.co/URkr9zvOij So we invited the authors to speak at our conference, and Peter Wakker kindly
Nice response to a paper that takes itself way too seriously: https://t.co/xRuh9zJT5a
RT @AnthonyLeeZhang: Largely agree with Ben's points here, some other thoughts... In physics, mathematical models are either basically cor…
@jahskillen For clarification of these issues, see https://t.co/UFuGbTVBhi
"Kicking a person is not like kicking a rock." A critique of the ergodicity economics argumentd that claimed by @ole_b_peters , @nntaleb and others
@SakiBigio and this reply from Mr. @ben_golub seems more complete than the one I mentionned above : https://t.co/fwUeAqJD1p
RT @sbuhai: 200% https://t.co/YgUA1JURZs
@jeuasommenulle far from being an econ theorist, but I think Hexel might be confused about expected utility theory, which does not assign individuals the average over outcomes. This is a more detailed take. https://t.co/TDgSWIvoDz
RT @micheleboldrin: Credo che gli addetti ai lavori potranno apprezzare questo piccolo scambio. Richiede un po' di attenzione e competenze…
RT @4misceldah: Nice thread. It does bring to mind a general question. When lazy arrant nonsense is granted a big megaphone, and there is…
I saw the original paper floating around a couple days back, and I really didn't understand why the reporting saw it as some fundamental challenge to economics. There are gaps in evolution but we don't dismiss all of biology because of it.
I’m pretty sure that @ole_b_peters could go line-by-line and destroy this. Whoever wrote this either completely misunderstands EE, or is being deliberately obtuse. Utility functions are often ad hoc, and prospect theory merely adds epicycles. @alex_adamou
RT @micheleboldrin: Credo che gli addetti ai lavori potranno apprezzare questo piccolo scambio. Richiede un po' di attenzione e competenze…
Credo che gli addetti ai lavori potranno apprezzare questo piccolo scambio. Richiede un po' di attenzione e competenze tecniche.
RT @AnthonyLeeZhang: Largely agree with Ben's points here, some other thoughts... In physics, mathematical models are either basically cor…
Nice thread. It does bring to mind a general question. When lazy arrant nonsense is granted a big megaphone, and there is not even a glimmer of new insight to the idea, is it best to reply—which risks adding further to the buzz—or ignore?
After this great thread with a strong rebuttal of much in "Ergodicity Economics". . . (1/2) https://t.co/G5oak2kT7Y
Very relevant!
RT @ben_golub: A polite, scathing, and comprehensive reply by @jasndoc and coauthors to the "ergodicity economics" of @ole_b_peters. @Natu…
RT @ben_golub: A polite, scathing, and comprehensive reply by @jasndoc and coauthors to the "ergodicity economics" of @ole_b_peters. @Natu…
RT @AnthonyLeeZhang: Largely agree with Ben's points here, some other thoughts... In physics, mathematical models are either basically cor…
This one-page criticism further strengthen the position of @ole_b_peters. It seems that there is no turning back. Don't forget to register for the online conference on ergodicity economics @EE_2021
A very nice thread to read.
Great thread
RT @Noahpinion: Thread. A rebuttal to the "ergodicity economics" of Ole Peters. https://t.co/5SwsUuGj60
RT @AnthonyLeeZhang: Largely agree with Ben's points here, some other thoughts... In physics, mathematical models are either basically cor…
This is great. I wonder who Nature, Lancet etc. ask to referee economics papers? Suppose Econometrica starts publishing high energy physics papers, wouldn't they ask expert physicists to review them?
Interesting thread
Sempat baca paper si Ole2 ini. Intuisi buat ilusi loss aversion menarik (saya udah lama kritik konsep itu), tapi klaim lainnya yang bombastis cocok digambarkan dengan komik XKCD ini. https://t.co/99XKNwsbLl
The paper and Ben Golub' comments both are relevant in the context of emerging uncertainties and difficulties in formulation of "static behavior".
RT @nik_wall: Thank you, @jasndoc, for this reply and @ben_golub for this enlightening thread. #EconTwitter https://t.co/uxrWtgMqwW
@rommel_jens This thread also summarizes some nice critiques of EE: https://t.co/0keViChlNE
RT @ProfJAParker: Fantastically put:
RT @nik_wall: Thank you, @jasndoc, for this reply and @ben_golub for this enlightening thread. #EconTwitter https://t.co/uxrWtgMqwW
Kicking a person is not like kicking a rock must be my fav quote.
RT @ben_golub: A polite, scathing, and comprehensive reply by @jasndoc and coauthors to the "ergodicity economics" of @ole_b_peters. @Natu…
RT @AnthonyLeeZhang: Largely agree with Ben's points here, some other thoughts... In physics, mathematical models are either basically cor…
RT @ben_golub: A polite, scathing, and comprehensive reply by @jasndoc and coauthors to the "ergodicity economics" of @ole_b_peters. @Natu…
@YanndeMey See https://t.co/BqURYCQ4Ln and https://t.co/HVYvvXh1IW for the debate.
RT @dvdolder: A nice thread on a recent debate between Econ and physics:
RT @AnthonyLeeZhang: Largely agree with Ben's points here, some other thoughts... In physics, mathematical models are either basically cor…
RT @AnthonyLeeZhang: Largely agree with Ben's points here, some other thoughts... In physics, mathematical models are either basically cor…
Great thread! I'll confess I'm reading with some schadenfreude, in that this is how folks in every other social science feel when economists write articles claiming no one has ever studied something that is, in fact, common knowledge in the relevant fiel
RT @AnthonyLeeZhang: Largely agree with Ben's points here, some other thoughts... In physics, mathematical models are either basically cor…
RT @AnthonyLeeZhang: Largely agree with Ben's points here, some other thoughts... In physics, mathematical models are either basically cor…
RT @yanoak: One of the few things more annoying than economists is physicists doing this https://t.co/cgonCKltEl https://t.co/bxnQzACYZx
RT @Simon_Mongey: Big "can you just go to the slide with the Bellman equation" energy
Helpful @ben_golub thread on the 'ergodicity economics' paper and its claims
RT @AnthonyLeeZhang: Largely agree with Ben's points here, some other thoughts... In physics, mathematical models are either basically cor…
RT @ShengwuLi: Economists should be open to new ideas from other fields. But ideas take time and attention to digest, and there’s an advers…
Ergodicity economics -> file under "scientific cranks"
RT @ben_golub: A polite, scathing, and comprehensive reply by @jasndoc and coauthors to the "ergodicity economics" of @ole_b_peters. @Natu…
RT @AnthonyLeeZhang: Largely agree with Ben's points here, some other thoughts... In physics, mathematical models are either basically cor…