331–340 of 386 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Economists work from assumptions All models start with givens…
Which is fine, as long as your assumptions are good models of reality. When your assumptions are essentially articles of faith your models tend to be about as good as the guys who interpret patterns in chicken bones.
"Ordinary people—who watched their rent, groceries, and gas bills skyrocket—saw a profession more invested in protecting Democratic policy narratives than in telling the truth. The result is a self-inflicted torching of trust." This post is ridiculously partisan. The head of the Fed was Republican, the majority of the Fed has always been Republican, the money-printing response to the Covid-19 pandemic began in 2020 w…
> the majority of all economists are Republican citation for that please? quick Gemini work gives me the opposite so could you please back that up? Federal Reserve Economists: A 2022 analysis of voter registration data found the ratio of Democrat to Republican economists at the Federal Reserve System to be 10.4 to 1. American Economic Association (AEA) Members: Studies have found the D:R ratio among AEA members to be…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is fine, as long as your assumptions are good models of reality. When your assumptions are essentially articles of faith your models tend to be about as good as the guys who interpret patterns in chicken bones.
You need assumptions exactly for the things which cannot be tested against reality. Otherwise why assume rather than measure?
You need a model to design an experiment.
This is how all science is done. You hypothesize. Then experiment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s scary that: 1. Our top researchers are wasting their time and energy promoting projects for grants. 2. Any attempt by the public to oversee or guide these grants is thwarted by smart people. 3. If you try to learn more about where the money is going or what’s being counted as science people on HN will call it “anti-intellectual propoganda”.
You have no idea what you are talking about, and yes you are buying into (or actively promoting) anti-intellectualism. >1. Our top researchers are wasting their time and energy promoting projects for grants. There are all kinds of scientists, some do the research, some do the writing, some do the grantsmanship. Getting money to fund an idea is not lesser than, it is often the hardest part. It takes understanding an c…
I actually lived it, so thanks for your understanding and consideration.
> Getting money to fund an idea is not lesser than, it is often the hardest part.
Difficulty is not value. Extremely talented people are doing arbitrary waste work!
And you’re right - promotors aren’t lesser. They are greater - more valued in academic job placement and promotion.
> There is a tremendous amount of publicly available oversight at every step,
Did you miss the prior comment? The existing oversight is ineffective. Researchers see it as a hoop to jump through.
> If you ask, scientists will leap at the chance to tell you what they did
Personal communication is not systematic public reporting.
Also professors tend to use a two job approach: stuff they like, and stuff that’s important for their career. Unless I attend a specialized conference I won’t hear about the latter, except in a form crafted for public reception. That’s the one that gets grants.
> Again. Its all public info. Its all publicly presented.
There is public info - but it’s a facade. It’s constructed with the goal of appeasing the public requirements.
> yes you are buying into (or actively promoting) anti-intellectualism.
Name calling.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have no idea what you are talking about, and yes you are buying into (or actively promoting) anti-intellectualism. >1. Our top researchers are wasting their time and energy promoting projects for grants. There are all kinds of scientists, some do the research, some do the writing, some do the grantsmanship. Getting money to fund an idea is not lesser than, it is often the hardest part. It takes understanding an c…
> Please. PLEASE. I am begging you. Learn about a subject before forming an opinion about it. I actually lived it, so thanks for your understanding and consideration. > Getting money to fund an idea is not lesser than, it is often the hardest part. Difficulty is not value. Extremely talented people are doing arbitrary waste work! And you’re right - promotors aren’t lesser. They are greater - more valued in academic j…
Grants are hard, not because of admin/paperwork, but because coming up with a novel idea is hard and convincing others to fund it is harder.
The people leading the grants are the ones creating and guiding the ideas. They set the agenda.
A tech CEO doesn't spend their days coding minor bug fixes, in the same way a PI doesn't spend their days doing lab work. They are leaders, who are occupied getting funding and setting the direction.
>Did you miss the comment we are replying to? The existing oversight is ineffective. It’s just a hoop for the professor to jump through.
It's not ineffective though, and an excess of PhDs is not a collapse, it is a boon.
>Personal communication is not systematic public reporting.
You have absolutely no clue how much public reporting is involved in grants. Just a complete ignorant comment right here.
>There is public info - but it’s a facade. It’s constructed with the goal of appeasing the public requirements.
Conspiracy bullshit. Take your meds.
>Also professors tend to use a two job approach: stuff they like, and stuff that’s important for their career.
Wrong. Every PI I know does the stuff they like, and they get it well funded, because they are the best in the world at what they do.
>I actually lived it, so thanks for your understanding and consideration.
You post about tech and programming and call yourself a "software engineer".
>yes you are buying into (or actively promoting) anti-intellectualism. >Name calling.
Good. You should feel ashamed for the way you are acting.
"Ordinary people—who watched their rent, groceries, and gas bills skyrocket—saw a profession more invested in protecting Democratic policy narratives than in telling the truth. The result is a self-inflicted torching of trust." This post is ridiculously partisan. The head of the Fed was Republican, the majority of the Fed has always been Republican, the money-printing response to the Covid-19 pandemic began in 2020 w…
Chris Brunet is part of the Canadian turned American Alt-Right movement having been a worked at the Daily Caller and "The American Conservative" [0]. Sort of like a Canadian and less sharp Oren Cass, and basically the same ideological pipeline that created "Rebel News". He attempted a pre-doc at UChicago but didn't stand out, and had similar issues at his other conservative employers along with his personality. One o…
Tangentially, none of them call themselves “alt-right” anymore; this label was imposed upon three disparate movements (techno-commercialists, ethno-nationalists, and theonomists), rather than one that emerged organically. It was never a particularly popular label on /pol/ or Frog Twitter, for example.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Please. PLEASE. I am begging you. Learn about a subject before forming an opinion about it. I actually lived it, so thanks for your understanding and consideration. > Getting money to fund an idea is not lesser than, it is often the hardest part. Difficulty is not value. Extremely talented people are doing arbitrary waste work! And you’re right - promotors aren’t lesser. They are greater - more valued in academic j…
>Difficulty is not value. Extremely talented people are doing arbitrary waste work. Grants are hard, not because of admin/paperwork, but because coming up with a novel idea is hard and convincing others to fund it is harder. The people leading the grants are the ones creating and guiding the ideas. They set the agenda. A tech CEO doesn't spend their days coding minor bug fixes, in the same way a PI doesn't spend thei…
Yes, we are in agreement. That's why promoters are so valuable.
> in the same way a PI doesn't spend their days doing lab work.
This large workforce of Phd's protecting the time of the PI also represents a massive allocation of young intelligent talent, and that's part of my concern.
> an excess of PhDs is not a collapse, it is a boon.
It's difficult to talk about demand for required credentials. A large percentage is foreigners securing visas to work in the US.
> You have absolutely no clue how much public reporting is involved in grants. Just a complete ignorant comment right here.
> Conspiracy bullshit. Take your meds.
I think researchers put a great deal of care into public reporting. And I think they use their intellect to construct a story conducive to their careers. Who doesn't?
I am aware of researchers who use a technique where they get funding for a project that is basically finished, and use the funds for more speculative research. TTheir sources of funding expect more predictability than they can realistically provide. Wouldn't you say that represents a gap in the public's visibility?
> Every PI I know does the stuff they like
I don't doubt they are passionate and driven. I'm saying something different. When you are in the thick of establishing yourself you have to care more about what system cares about (this is maybe your situation?), and modern competition makes this all encompassing. But the book they write in sabbatical tends to look different than their official title.
> they get it well funded, because they are the best in the world at what they do.
How would we falsify this statement?
> You post about tech and programming and call yourself a "software engineer".
PhD to software engineer is a common career path.
> Good. You should feel ashamed for the way you are acting.
Name calling doesn't sound intellectual to me. I choose not to reciprocate.
EDIT: to focus on my personal beliefs and not yours.
UCSD this year said they are not taking any new math PhD students due to the fiscal situation. The world of academia is in more flux than I've seen in recent memory.
We've been producing far more PhD graduates than we need for decades. Each year a relative few get jobs (e.g., university professor) appropriate to the training, while the rest are unceremoniously dumped by the railroad track to fend for themselves. Same for MS, BS, BA et al. Overall we have far more highly-trained people than we need for most all degree programs. It's not like the USA needs a butt-load of "math PhD'…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Chris Brunet is part of the Canadian turned American Alt-Right movement having been a worked at the Daily Caller and "The American Conservative" [0]. Sort of like a Canadian and less sharp Oren Cass, and basically the same ideological pipeline that created "Rebel News". He attempted a pre-doc at UChicago but didn't stand out, and had similar issues at his other conservative employers along with his personality. One o…
Why do you believe the alt-right was Canadian in origin? I was under the impression that it originated in the US. Tangentially, none of them call themselves “alt-right” anymore; this label was imposed upon three disparate movements (techno-commercialists, ethno-nationalists, and theonomists), rather than one that emerged organically. It was never a particularly popular label on /pol/ or Frog Twitter, for example.
"Ordinary people—who watched their rent, groceries, and gas bills skyrocket—saw a profession more invested in protecting Democratic policy narratives than in telling the truth. The result is a self-inflicted torching of trust." This post is ridiculously partisan. The head of the Fed was Republican, the majority of the Fed has always been Republican, the money-printing response to the Covid-19 pandemic began in 2020 w…
Sound souls don’t go into certain professions. One doesn’t just go into porn, and one doesn’t just find themselves at the Federal Reserve. Your soul is already blasted before you head down these paths.
We never got soulful outputs from these professions because they are a void, no return.