The Bias Bias in Behavioral Economics

Re:The Bias Bias in Behavioral Economics by jerf on Tuesday February 12, 2019 @09:32AM (#19143713)

"Because when any politician gets on their hind legs to bray about rational actors and efficient markets, they sure as hell aren't talking about "utils" to the taxpayer, are they?"

Do you even mean this as a serious argument? Can your favorite field survive politician's (politician, from "polis", city, and "-tician", "person": 1. professional liar 2. scumbag 3. one who professionally holds office) handling of their terminology?

Nor can I find it a terribly serious argument that "common people", i.e., people who aren't in the field and don't know the definition, don't know the definition. That's just shy of begging the question, except there's a small sliver of people "in the field" who don't yet know the definitions, called students.

I'm trying my best to unpack your words into some sort of actual argument but I can't find it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Bias Bias in Behavioral Economics by thaumasiotes on Wednesday February 13, 2019 @12:38AM (#19150732)

> politician, from "polis", city, and "-tician", "person"

I know you didn't really mean this, but polit/ic/ian -- "polit" is from polis, city; "ic" is a Greek adjective-forming element; and "an" or here "ian" is a Latin adjective-forming element. "Polit" is the only part of the word that bears any semantics (in the etymology). The Greek root for person would be "anthrop", which isn't present.

(The root for "man", an adult male, is "andr", which is why it's so hilarious to Italians that English speakers think Andrea is a girl's name.)

[ Parent | on HN ]