= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
taw comments on Disclosure vs. Bans: Reply to Robin Hanson - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (56)
The main bias one can find here is "not being able to see past your favourite economic model" bias which most opponents of abusive term bans have. Market efficiency is a neat concept, but it's nothing more than that. It models reality only very roughly. This bias is ridiculously pervasive among economists.
I think there's probably an equally pervasive "they're wrong because they won't look outside of their view of the X" bias.
Somehow I find it with economists more often than with any other profession. Here's relevant post about this phenomenon on today's Marginal Revolution.
You should bet against economists about the predictive accuracy of their models. If you can do better, you'll be rich.
That's pretty much what Nassim Taleb did, and he reportedly made a killing in the recent crisis.
I'm curious, has anyone figured out the average gain made by individuals who intentionally relied on the standard predictive models? It's at least possible in principle that those individuals gained enough by using their models to justify their use.