tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post422163583331698587..comments2024-03-28T05:14:02.071-05:00Comments on The Grumpy Economist: What you believe depends on where you stand, apparently. John H. Cochranehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04842601651429471525noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-34482659148699391502020-11-01T19:05:55.741-06:002020-11-01T19:05:55.741-06:00If you want enjoyable reads on this, Taleb's &...If you want enjoyable reads on this, Taleb's "Fooled By Randomness" is fun and Kahneman's "Thinking Fast, Thinking Slow" is thicker but super accessible for readers with all levels of technical training. In particular Kahneman's studies with Amos Tversky over the years looked at this topic and started with professors of statistics who themselves failed to apply probability correctly in making actual decisions.<br />In my personal opinion, any economist would, can and probably does find their work completely legit without having to go down the entire behavioral econ rabbit hole.Chris Ballhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09391871073007427216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-19728487585801326172020-10-31T16:08:54.022-05:002020-10-31T16:08:54.022-05:00No, it really wasn't.No, it really wasn't.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-49194098689945281452020-10-30T15:46:47.895-05:002020-10-30T15:46:47.895-05:00Worthy of a read
https://pcl.stanford.edu/researc...Worthy of a read<br /><br />https://pcl.stanford.edu/research/2015/iyengar-ajps-group-polarization.pdf<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-40275120243538628972020-10-30T14:27:27.289-05:002020-10-30T14:27:27.289-05:00This doesn't seem to match the "who do yo...This doesn't seem to match the "who do you think your neighbor is voting for?" question. More people think their neighbors are voting for Trump than Biden (even among Democrats). That should lower the perceived probability of Biden winning.Me, who else?https://www.blogger.com/profile/08630992388708347274noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-88480998302984931202020-10-30T10:05:53.109-05:002020-10-30T10:05:53.109-05:00Yahoo Finance's "Daily Briefing" sta...Yahoo Finance's "Daily Briefing" states this morning that "[t]he most important companies have never been more important."<br /><br />And one wonders why academics labor so long and so hard to educate us that we might better avoid the perils of the "information age". Is it, then, any wonder that researchers find such interesting gems as the one displayed in the bar chart featured so prominently in the article above?<br /> Old Eagle Eyehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05270080708077871311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-24660162747066317602020-10-30T09:30:13.826-05:002020-10-30T09:30:13.826-05:00Surely people do assess the probability of their a...Surely people do assess the probability of their automobile breaking down during the daily commute in the same fashion as they compute the likelihood of their favored political candidate winning at the polls on election day. <br /><br />If people have perfect information, they are more likely to offer a more informed guess as to the the probable outcome of the polls on election day, or the likelihood that their old clunker will make it to work and back that day. This is not to say that perfect foresight guarantees an unbiased estimate of the future outcome. It is the rare individual who is perfectly objective and unbiased, for our hopes and prejudices do intervene most of the time. "To err is human, to forgive is divine." (a. s.) <br /><br />Of course, that is what the paper did indeed find in the end: Better information improved the subject's estimate of the probability of success (or failure) of his/her favored candidate, or likelihood of the old clunker malvis it into the office on time that day! <br /><br />Quel surprise. Old Eagle Eyehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05270080708077871311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-35674042691710759252020-10-29T20:22:00.293-05:002020-10-29T20:22:00.293-05:00The link to the cited paper at SSRN is broken.
Try...The link to the cited paper at SSRN is broken.<br />Try:<br /><br />https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3720679Old Eagle Eyehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05270080708077871311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-62051029687788348352020-10-29T08:52:00.601-05:002020-10-29T08:52:00.601-05:00Agree with the basic point that asking people to m...Agree with the basic point that asking people to make probability assessments is a waste of time and never elicits what a statistician would remotely regard as a "probability". It is akin to going door to door and asking people for their view on whether space-time is really curved. How can they provide an answer to a question they clearly don't even grasp?<br /><br />The working paper is a good example of "research" that takes something that is completely obvious and then labels it as a "puzzle" because the result does not accord with a strict and logical interpretation even though the survey respondents do not use logic or any well-defined probabilistic construct in providing their responses. seancamphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17275512455731466914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-19129505367863518982020-10-29T07:33:14.340-05:002020-10-29T07:33:14.340-05:00I think you've got it right: this more likely ...I think you've got it right: this more likely proves the difficulty most people have thinking in terms of probability, as opposed to some deeper point about the nature of partisan thinking.<br /><br />In my own experience even very smart people struggle to think in terms of probabilities unless they work in a field where it matters, or have a hobby where it matters (e.g., poker). Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-48757767967760837072020-10-29T05:55:08.673-05:002020-10-29T05:55:08.673-05:00"So, I can forecast with 100% probability, th..."So, I can forecast with 100% probability, the libertarian revolution is coming in 2024!"<br /><br />From your mouth to God's ears.Michael Gorbackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05789268342873061299noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-70604803847392360072020-10-28T20:47:51.531-05:002020-10-28T20:47:51.531-05:00Some years ago I did a deep dive into Canadian str...Some years ago I did a deep dive into Canadian street level politics - out there knocking on doors and talking to voters. I found that voters across the spectrum generally actually agreed in broad terms on the outcomes they wanted. However they disagreed about what the current facts were. And they disagreed about the mechanisms at work in the economy and in society so they disagreed on what the effects of various policies would be. <br /><br />The agreement on goals was encouraging. The disagreement about mechanisms was a challenge. The disagreement about the facts of the current state of the country was a shock. Absalonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09131268683451462949noreply@blogger.com