Undeniable proof!

[Pekka]

Kid, right, but you can still go to the statistics and see what the current behaviour is, consuming wise .

But yeah, you do have a point.

When it gets to the art of it, you need the 'sense' part. Like poker, you can play it with pure math skills, with a good strategy, you can outplay most people. However, then when it gets to the really big shots, it just isn't that simple anymore. Then you need a new set of skills to stay on top of things. You're still recognizing patterns, and calculating odds and taking calculated risks, but at the end, the very skilled top players can be very unpredictable and it goes to a human mind wargames.

[ZEE]

i agree

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by Kidicious


No. Game theory is the perfect case in point to show that you need to understand how people behave to be a good economist. Do you seriously claim its just about mathematics?

Yes.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Pekka
Kid, right, but you can still go to the statistics and see what the current behaviour is, consuming wise .

But yeah, you do have a point.

When it gets to the art of it, you need the 'sense' part. Like poker, you can play it with pure math skills, with a good strategy, you can outplay most people. However, then when it gets to the really big shots, it just isn't that simple anymore. Then you need a new set of skills to stay on top of things. You're still recognizing patterns, and calculating odds and taking calculated risks, but at the end, the very skilled top players can be very unpredictable and it goes to a human mind wargames.

Pekka, like what for example. It seems to me that the most important advancements in economics have resulted because someone thought about how stupid people were being about something and being about to articulate about the truth of the matter. Sure they used mathematics in their arguments but it wasn't the mathematics that created the breakthrough.

[laurentius]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse




Yeah, god forbid we actually provide quantitative descriptions of a complex system.

No, nothing wrong with that. I mean something different. However complex, the overly formal, strerile models in neo-classical economics are not enough.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by laurentius
And this is part of the problem with economics these days. It has become too mathematized. It has become too much explainatory and less understanding.

More mathematics just means that thinking in the field has become more rigorous. And if you aren't going to think properly, why think at all?

So it's a good thing

[Pekka]

And it's basically just levels. Everyone plays at their own level. Why would you go and be the worst 205 pounder and get beat up, if you can drop down to 185 and kick ass?

It moves from another abstract level to another. When you know the basics, you can always move higher and higher. But same goes for scientific fields, for example in computer science people who can't program talk about variables, methods and loops. People who can program a bit talk about the structure, the cohesion etc. People who are decent at it talk about efficiency, integration and selling the ****ing thing.

Usually the less details you go at means the more you can handle, the abstractions are simpler, however, if you do not know the cold truth behind them, then you are librul artist, just like Hitler, started as a painter, moved into bigger and better things, like world domination. Isn't that what you guys usually fall into in the defensive mode? That "I'm your boss". Depends. If you read philosophy, you're not my boss. You'll struggle with installing software we created for you.

Sure, we need your input making our creations better, more usable. We can make the 'one magic button' that does it all, so you don't have to learn.

[Pekka]

Kid, sure, but I never claimed it was the breakthrough.

[ZEE]

dont argue with pekka... you'll lose AND end up with a headache

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by VetLegion


Yes.

The big break though of game theory is the idea that decisions are made with regard to what agents think other agents will make. How did this come about through pure mathematics?

[Pekka]

aahz, I don't think that's correct, since if you argue with MtG, everyone loses collectively.

Where is MtG anyway?

[VetLegion]

Pekka, don't dis filosofy too quickly. Some guys in that field were able to wipe the floor with any mathematician you threw their way. For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wittgenstein

Of course, I'm not saying it's the norm in the field today

[Kidlicious]

@ Pekka

[ZEE]

pekka...
you are the man.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by VetLegion


More mathematics just means that thinking in the field has become more rigorous. And if you aren't going to think properly, why think at all?

So it's a good thing