User talk:BigK HeX/Archive 3

"Natural" experiments and mainstream economics

If you know anything about economics you would know that mainstream economists do not use experiments to arrive at their theories. They assume away most of reality, state a few assumptions (such as EMH) and then seek to derive nice conclusions from their static equilibrium equations. Only Kahneman and Tversky actually made the effort to test some of these assumptions - and ironically the mainstream assumptions didn't hold up when tested! Your edit isn't as good as this one. I would bow to your edit if you could name one "natural experiment" Keynes undertook in his General Theory. If you can't you may wish to reinstate my version. Cheers.

A) If you're trying to say that natural experiments are not utilized within mainstream economics, then feel free to come right out and say that.

B) How exactly does a "Keynes challenge" somehow lead to the suggestion that I should reconsider my edit..... not sure if you're shooting for a false dilemma or hasty generalization or some strange cherry picking fallacy there. BigK HeX (talk) 09:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

A) Natural experiments are not GENERALLY utilized within mainstream economics. There, I've said it. They do use empirical analysis but not (generally speaking) natural experiments. There's a difference between the two I'm sure you'd understand.

B) If mainstream economics does use natural experiments, then you'd expect it to be littered throughout the literature. Economic Experiment number 132.243.234.526 etc. It's a pretty sweeping statement. If the "Bible" for most mainstream macro economists doesn't contain any (or many) "natural experiements" (and is just a rambling tract of BS) then I think this bolsters my argument in (A) above. There is no false dilemma. My "challenge" is the outgrowth of your sweeping generalization ("mainstream economists use natural experiments"). That's the "hasty generalization". If you'd said "mainstream economists on occasion use natural experiments" I'd be on weaker ground. You didn't. So I'm not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.48.28 (talk) 23:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• "If you'd said "mainstream economists on occasion use natural experiments" I'd be on weaker ground."

As you were likely aware when you started this talk page section, the text reads "natural experiments are often used in mainstream economics." If you have a specific complaint relevant to that text, then feel free to actually lay it out. BigK HeX (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

"Often" ≠ "Occasionally". I'm sure a man of your linguistic abilities understands the distinction. I note there is no reference to verify that mainstream economists "often" use natural experiments in the text either. The statement is simply false as it currently stands. That's why it's unref'd. Curiously, no one has asked for a cite. I would - if I was not banned and Wiki-stalked by Keynesian zealot LK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.105.43.40 (talk) 08:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

"Often" ≠ "Occasionally". I'm sure a man of your linguistic abilities understands the distinction.

Why don't you go ahead and lay out the distinction for me. Extra points if you do so with clarity. You win the game if you have a coherent explanation that uses numbers to quantify your "distinction." BigK HeX (talk) 10:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you just trying to keep me on the line so you can trace my calls? Get real. "Often" means frequently, many times. Occasionally does not. Often is an exaggeration. Occasionally is arguably an exaggeration. But at least it's more accurate than often. Better simply to say mainstreamers use "empirical analysis" which we can all agree on. They rarely use natural experiments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.105.43.40 (talk) 10:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps English isn't your first language or something (or perhaps you just like for people to read what you type). Anyways, whether you think most individual economists "rarely use natural experiments" or not is irrelevant to the statement similar to "natural experiments are often used in mainstream economics." We know that you grant at least 1 natural experiment to have existed and that you don't think there have been "enough", but unless you care to point out exactly what numerical value you think is the minimum cutoff for the "often" qualifier (thus moving this conversation into more objective territory), I find it pretty pointless to argue your subjective opinion versus mine on the topic of this qualifier. BigK HeX (talk) 12:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If ever proof was needed about the questionable quality of "economics" editors on WP (who remain after others have been barred) this should take the cake. Individual economists "added up" equals (necessarily) the economics profession as a whole. If all individual economists rarely (or never) use natural experiments, then it logically follows that the group doesn't either. To say that one natural experiment has occurred (perhaps the Tversky stuff?) and that then justifies your "often" wording borders on the bizarre. It's certainly misleading. But then, who said WP's description of economics is accurate given the quality of those (LK, JQ, BigK) who remain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.105.43.40 (talk) 23:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Ohh... and great cite by the way. You've really ref'd your statement well. I'm surprised you could dig up such an accurate ref for the statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.105.43.40 (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

English cannot be your first language, if you somehow believe that I suggested that "one experiment justifies the term 'often.'" I have nothing further to say, so long as you continue building strange strawmen, and ignoring the content of my replies. I clearly believe the value is high enough --- cites are for material with legitimate dispute, not someone who wants to do a bunch of hand-waving over some disagreement with "action X has often been performed within group Y" because it supposedly conflicts with the idea that "individuals of group Y only occasionally perform Action X".

Anyways, I have little inclination to continue quibbling vagaries with you so if your next reply does not propose a value or something a lot more OBJECTIVE to go with your complaint of how the "often" qualifier does not apply, I'll not have any further comments to add here. BigK HeX (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Define "legitimate dispute". If you can find one cite (ONE!) that confirms your assertion, then I'd let this go. But you haven't, because you can't. Your dismissiveness betrays your weakness. To top it off, somehow you've conflated my apparently questionable linguistic abilities with your obligation to provide a cite. The two are (I know this comes as a surprise to you) unrelated. Logic could not have been your favorite subject at school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.105.43.40 (talk) 07:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

An insult about logic from someone who's been engaging in an dispute based on the idea that, "If all individual economists rarely (or never) use natural experiments, then it logically follows that the group doesn't either."

....as if it'd be "illogical" to state that "deaths in car accidents happen often in the US" because it supposedly conflicts with the idea that "individual Americans rarely contribute to the death toll from car accidents." [And it might help to note that, in this analogy, the individual contribution is so rare that an American could contribute at most only ONCE to this total (by dying).]

To highlight it's absurdity, we could apply that great wisdom from above and we'd get, "If individual Americans rarely (or never) die in car accidents, then it logically follows that the group doesn't either" --- to be sure, a masterpiece of logic (in the face of the fact that few would dispute a description that "US car deaths occur often").

Your 'logic' (and your trademark zealous defense of it) has amused me.

Anyways, I'm done with this topic now, but if you have anymore hand-waving to do in the future, feel free to drop-by once again. Thanks for the entertainment! BigK HeX (talk) 13:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Your analogy is false. First, individuals are often involved in car accidents - that's why as a group car drivers are more prone to accidents than non-car drivers. Second, you've shifted the context in your example to justify the "individual doesn't equal group" argument. Deaths from car accidents happen "often" - compared to what? You've shifted the context. You mean "compared to other types of death". Not other car activities. You've shifted the context. The individual = group characteristic still applies. If I said "A survey found that each and every one of the top 20 theoretical physicists is not interested in physical experiments and is rarely found in the lab" it logically follows that the top theoretical physicists (as a group) rarely conduct physical experiments. You could still say physical experiments are more often conducted by theoretical physicists than taxi drivers, but that's a completely different point. Here we are comparing Austrian economists with mainstream economists and you're attempting to point out that one (AS) doesn't use natural experiments and the other "often" does. When I ask for a cite, you can't provide one. You appear to agree that individually mainstreamers very rarely utilize natural experiments (hence the lack of examples). But somehow you are now saying that the individuals "added up" doesn't equate to a characteristic of the group itself. Compared to what? Taxi drivers? Or Austrian School economists? You are all over the shop with your reasoning. Simply provide a cite, stick it in the article and I'll shut up. You can't, so you play silly games. How you get up in the morning and shave and just get around amazes me. But then how we live in the current monetary system without civilization imploding every 5-7 years amazes me even more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.49.97 (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You can type as many long-winded screeds as you like to try to justify your poor logic -- what's "false" is not my analogy, it's the nonsensical foundation of your argument that is false [that The individual = group characteristic still applies]. The bottom line is that the statistics of an ensemble can certainly be described differently than its individual components --- of course, you'll continue to feign ignorance to that simple fact (which is expected since you've shown little ability to admit the errors in your thinking, even when clearly pointed out).

Also, for you to complain about "context" is even more nonsensical .... being that the text in dispute is within the context of the Austrians' untenable claim that basically implies that the number of useful economic experiments is (and forever will be) zero.

... and P.S., citations are easy. If it gets any sensible dispute, I'll be sure to cite it. But of the hordes of pedantic Austrian "zealots" who watch that page, no one had challenged it -- perhaps because it's hardly a point of legitimate dispute.

But, I've indulged your amusing hand-waving about "Often ≠ Occasionally" for a bit too long now, so I'll finally have to leave you to your crusade on the matter --- "Never give up," does seem to be your motto, after all (even if you have to shred the principles that you're crusading for in order to do so). Anyways, the last word will be all yours. Go! BigK HeX (talk) 23:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me do your job for you. This is the best I can find on natural experiments and economics. It clearly states that there are difficulties with this approach and its use is questionable in economics but is used at the fringes when the opportunity arises. Hardly a ringing endorsement of your view. Why you can't just provide a cite to shut me up is beyond me. Why you can't change it to "often use empirical analysis" is beyond me. Then again, why we live in the current insane debt-based monetary system is beyond me so the world is a confusing place to me right now. And yes, there are lots of contexts within which group characteristics can be treated differently from individual (deaths from car accidents happen often, skin cancer deaths from tanning salons are quite high (despite few individuals getting cancer), bankruptcies happen often everyday (though few people experience bankruptcy themselves) etc etc). But I know you won't "get" the context issue, so I won't bother persuing it. This merely re-confirms in my mind that there are a lot of crazy people out there in WP world and insane Keynesians are numerous (despite Keynesianism failing always and everywhere) because stupid people multiply and group together in herds to protect themselves against the truth.

I'm done with the main issue you raised, but I guess I'll address one of your comments. (And, anyways, it looks like you've said in so many words that you've found evidence that my edit is justifiable, though, of course, you're not going to come out and say that.)