I've been following the author for a while now (no personal connection), and I'm taken with the ideas. Mainly because it's never seemed right to me that economics' "rational person" doesn't resemble anyone in the real world.

[0] also out today explains it starting from a concrete example:

> the coin toss game seems worth playing because equal probability of a 50% gain and a 40% loss are no different from a 5% gain.*

> Why people don't choose to play the game, seemingly ignoring the opportunity to gain a steady 5%, has been explained psychologically-- people, in the parlance of the field, are "risk averse". But according to Peters, these explanations don't really get to the root of the problem, which is that the classical "solution" lacks a fundamental understanding of the individual's unique trajectory over time.

You can also get his full lecture notes at [1].

[0] https://www.santafe.edu/news-center/news/fix-economic-theory...

[1] https://ergodicityeconomics.com/lecture-notes/

Does Nassim Nicholas Taleb have a HN account because I’d love to hear what he has to say about this paper.

This is not a direct reference to the linked Nature article (which is essentially a review article, I think), but Taleb is definitely a fan of Peters' work [1].

[1] https://medium.com/incerto/the-logic-of-risk-taking-107bf410...

tl dr

lots of economics uses models that don't deal well the realities of time, because it makes the math a lot harder.

Dealing with the reality of time and path dependence makes the models a lot more complex, but often more accurate.

> because it makes the math a lot harder.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetlight_effect