https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2023/01/10/fields-where-it-matters-that-theres-no-there-there-fields-where-you-can-thrive-on-b-s-alone-and-everything-in-between/ Skip to primary content Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science Search [ ] [Search] Main menu * Home * Authors * Blogs We Read * Sponsors Post navigation If we're against parsimony, what are we for? Fields where it matters that "there's no there there," fields where you can thrive on B.S. alone, and everything in between Posted on January 10, 2023 9:52 AM by Andrew Seeing this desperate attempt by Tyler Cowen to cover for crypto scams (his list of "falls in status" includes silly items such as "Mrs. Jellyby," bizarre items such as "Being unmarried (and male) above the age of 30," and "Venture capital," but, oddly enough, not "Crypto" itself) made me think that smart people are overrated. Let me put it this way: if you're a smart astrologer, you're still not gonna be able to do "real" astrology, which doesn't exist. To say it slightly differently: it's easy to promise things, especially if you have a good rep; you have to be careful not to promise things you can't deliver. It doesn't matter how smart James Watson's friend was; he didn't have that promised cancer cure in two years. As the saying goes: Saying it don't make it so. I could go around telling the world I had a solution to all the problems of MRP, and some people might believe me for awhile--but I don't have such a solution. I can see how Cowen in his above-linked post doesn't want to believe that crypto is fundamentally flawed--and maybe he's right that it's a great thing, it's not like I'm an expert--but it's funny that he doesn't even consider that it might be a problem, given the scandal he was writing about. All this got me thinking: in what fields of endeavor does it matter that you're just B.S.-ing, and in what fields can you get away with it? Sports: Chess cheating aside, if you don't got it, you don't got it. Public relations can get you endorsement contracts but not the coveted W. Yes, you can get lucky, but at the highest levels, only the best players can get lucky enough to win. Science: You can have a successful scientific career based on a deft combination of B.S., promotion, and academic politics--just ask Trofim Lysenko, or Robert Sternberg--but you won't be producing successful science. That said, you can do good science even with terrible theories: as I like to say, often the house is stronger than its foundations. I've heard that Isaac Newton learned a few real things even while trying in vain to convert lead into gold, and, at a much lower level, my colleagues and I have had spinoff successes from some of our overly-ambitious statistical failures. Literature: Here, being smart, or inspired, will do the trick. Consider Philip K. Dick, who believed all sorts of weird things which he transmuted into wonderful literature. Finance: This one's somewhere in between. With a good line of B.S. you can do well for a long time, even until the end of your life (for example, Jack Welch); other times you'll get caught out, as with the recent crypto scandal. Often I think of this great line that Craig delivered to Phil one day in high school. They were arguing about something, and Craig concluded with, "You may be winning the argument, but that doesn't mean you're right. It just means you're better at arguing." That was a good point. A good debater can persuade with a bad position. That doesn't suddenly make the position correct. And sometimes it can be a bad thing to be too good a debater, or to be too insulated--personally or financially--from people who can present the opposite view. As discussed above, it depends on what field you're working in. This entry was posted in Economics, Literature, Miscellaneous Science , Sports, Zombies by Andrew. Bookmark the permalink. 21 thoughts on "Fields where it matters that "there's no there there," fields where you can thrive on B.S. alone, and everything in between" 1. [6aad202c]Jag Bhalla on January 10, 2023 10:07 AM at 10:07 am said: It's possible Andrew missed an opportunity here, since Cowen's field, economics is clearly one in which B.S.ers can thrive. For instance, William Nordhaus won a Nobel equivalent for modelling that would fail in undergrad physics: see "Whatever economists are up to, it isn't like physics modeling." https://undark.org/2021/11/11/ its-time-we-stop-listening-to-economists-on-climate-change/ Nordhaus's "logic" & curve-fitting has generated "spectacularly stupid projections" https://www.openmindmag.org/articles/ bad-math-is-steering-us-toward-climate-catastrophe Reply | 2. [1f18fa8c]Adede on January 10, 2023 11:33 AM at 11:33 am said: At the risk of sounding cynical, I think politics is an area where you thrive on B.S. alone. Another one is sales. Hmmm....maybe they are not unrelated? Reply | + [34bf]somebody on January 10, 2023 1:21 PM at 1:21 pm said: Politics is a little different because by definition it is a kind of shared fiction. As David Graeber puts it It is the peculiar feature of political life that within it, behavior that could only otherwise be considered insane is perfectly effective. If you managed to convince everyone on earth that you can breathe under water, it won't make any difference: if you try it, you will still drown. On the other hand, if you could convince everyone in the entire world that you were King of France, then you would actually be the King of France. There is currently in Democratic systems a loose coupling to policy, but it is loose and is by no means inherent. There's a long history of people persuading by a supposed divine right to rule. Even in a BS heavy field like, say, finance, returns are coupled to the discounted future cash flows of an asset. If everyone in the world undervalues an asset, you can buy it at a discount. Even if they never change their minds, you'll profit on the dividends or buybacks. Of course, these are in the end contracts enforced by law and therefore politics. Reply | o [d1de]Mark on January 10, 2023 2:43 PM at 2:43 pm said: The use of "everyone in the world" does not make for a meaningful argument. Reply | # [34bf]somebody on January 10, 2023 3:36 PM at 3:36 pm said: The point is that no matter how many people you convince you can breathe underwater, it is still a false statement. Whereas there is a finite number of people you have to convince to actually be king. Do you disagree that a critical mass of people believing you are the king does, by definition, make you the king? 3. [373d6c3f]JM on January 10, 2023 11:57 AM at 11:57 am said: "too insulated--personally or financially--from people who can present the opposite view" People who present the opposite view is one thing, it's certainly good to have some kind of force to push against to test your ideas. But I think the point here is that if your field primarily impacts people and ideas (debate, politics, literature, finance, some kinds of science) then you can go very far on BS, but if your field interacts with the physical world (sports, engineering, other kinds of science) BS doesn't help you much at all. Physics doesn't care about your charm. Reply | + [4d4d]gec on January 10, 2023 12:17 PM at 12:17 pm said: Physics doesn't care about your charm... ...unless you're a quark! Reply | o []Anonymous on January 10, 2023 3:09 PM at 3:09 pm said: For the win! Reply | # [86ed]Martha (Smith) on January 10, 2023 4:46 PM at 4:46 pm said: +1 4. [4829b049]Blackthorne on January 10, 2023 12:11 PM at 12:11 pm said: This whole thing reminds me of the first half of Plato's Gorgias. Any field where persuasion can be used to thrive will allow one to succeed on BS alone. Some classic examples that come to mind are Marketing, Journalism, Blogging, Consulting, etc. Really though at the top of any field there is room for outsized rewards due to BS alone. No one can make it into the NBA without a certain level of ability/skill but if you're currently an NBA player and you can persuade LeBron James there's a chance the Lakers will throw you a big bag of money to play for them. Similarly I imagine if you don't have the ability you'll quickly be kicked out of a Michelin Star kitchen, but if you're already a top chef people will throw some money your way even if your skills have atrophied. Reply | + [d918]Richard F on January 10, 2023 12:47 PM at 12:47 pm said: I wonder if "resting on one's laurels" is distinct from or a special case of B.S. Reply | + [d1de]Mark on January 10, 2023 2:58 PM at 2:58 pm said: "Any field where persuasion can be used to thrive will allow one to succeed on BS alone." There is no field that does not rest on a certain amount of persuasion. But it does not follow that one can succeed on BS alone. And one person's BS is another's truth. Kendi is thriving as an academic and public "intellectual", even though he's peddling unadulterated cant. Reply | 5. [f6309846]OliP on January 10, 2023 12:36 PM at 12:36 pm said: I suppose this is all linked to both the credulity and the investedness of the audience. I think you can get quite far in science with B.S. and disingenuity because the stats/philosophy literacy is quite low in many areas, and because many established people are heavily invested in the status quo (e.g. thoughtless NHST, unrepresentative samples, etc.) Reply | 6. [a23b335e]John Hall on January 10, 2023 12:37 PM at 12:37 pm said: Tyler is very smart, but - of course - that doesn't mean he is always right. I generally agree with you on Finance, but it's a pretty big field. We can debate about luck vs. skill, but money being on the line helps provide a barometer for measurement. When you're talking insurance, banking, or asset management, losing money will eventually tell you when you're wrong. That's not to say that some people can attract a lot of investors and earn big fees in spite of performance that isn't strong enough to justify the fees, but it's a competitive industry and the unskillful tend to lose market share over time. If money isn't on the line, then it's harder to figure out what the barometer is. For instance, a sell-side strategist might be wrong 9 times out of 10, but people may still pay for his research if he is right 1 time out of 10 when no one else is right. That model tends to be more prone to BS. But even then, the sell-side strategist is usually employed by a brokerage firm who has money on the line and if people don't value the strategist's opinion, then they will do less trading with the firm (typically). So money is on the line, but it's a bundle of decisions and the relationship isn't quite as strong as for the insurance company, bank, or asset manager. Reply | + [2685]Jonathan (another one) on January 10, 2023 4:31 PM at 4:31 pm said: Bloomberg's Matt Levine often points out that the skill in running a hedge fund is not knowing how to make financial returns at the hedge fund.... it's convincing people to invest in the fund and not withdraw money from the fund. Financial returns are one component of the argument hedge fund managers have, of course, but they are only one component of the gestalt of hedge fund investing. The great managers (in terms of their personal enrichment) are the ones who can convince people to stay in the fund even when returns are weak. Reply | 7. [fdbcd85f]chipmunk on January 10, 2023 1:04 PM at 1:04 pm said: "smart people are overrated" Ha! That's why we have science in the first place! Smart people are wrong a lot, and they make a lot of bad mistakes. But that's the least of our problems. Our biggest problem is that dumb people are **far** more overrated than smart people, there are **far** more of them, and right now they're working hard every day to ensure dumbness is safe from criticism and incompetence is protected from just rewards. Let's get rid of uni entrance exams! Let's get rid of grades! Smart people don't do any better than dumb people in society! Education testing can't tell us anything about who will be successful (in the social mob)! It has to stop!! A five minute video will double your lifetime earnings!! Dumbness is the new smartness, America! All you need in 'Merca to rise to the top of the US government is a phys ed degree and three years experience teaching pre-school! Reply | 8. [538c478d]Dale Lehman on January 10, 2023 1:40 PM at 1:40 pm said: Two thoughts: 1. Where would you put art and music? 2. There is a parallel to one (of the many) flaws of NHST. "Bad" evidence (meaning you reject the null of no effect), but that doesn't mean your alternative hypothesis is correct. Reply | 9. [0ed444b0]Raghu Parthasarathy on January 10, 2023 1:49 PM at 1:49 pm said: I've long been annoyed by the existence of punditry in general -- the swarm of commentators on politics, economics, etc., who churn out lots of words, who are never assessed on their accuracy and who, when they are, are usually found lacking. (My new favorite: the endless commentary on AI by people who have never written a computer program or fit parameters to data.) I wonder: why do people listen to so much of this? But sometimes I think that the B.S. is like the sound of wind through trees or a rushing stream, background white noise that isn't meant to have any meaning; it's just some sensory stimulation. The point of some fields, perhaps, is to provide white noise. That, then, is why one can get away with B.S. Reply | + []jd on January 10, 2023 1:56 PM at 1:56 pm said: I agree with the first sentence, but I'm a lot more cynical about B.S. I don't think it's white noise. People use it for a reason - to get something they otherwise couldn't get when they have nothing to offer, or to get something because they know it works even if they do have something to offer. Reply | 10. [d1deed36]Mark on January 10, 2023 2:47 PM at 2:47 pm said: "Literature: Here, being smart, or inspired, will do the trick. Consider Philip K. Dick, who believed all sorts of weird things which he transmuted into wonderful literature." There are surely a lot of smart and inspired people who tried and failed to thrive as authors. Reply | 11. [c732e6f1]JSA on January 10, 2023 4:01 PM at 4:01 pm said: Cowen was one of the earliest mainstream economists to make substantive public criticism of crypto, and is not a maximalist by any measure. Some of his softened stance around DeFi specifically may have come from being influenced by a16z, SBF, etc. Reply | Leave a Reply Cancel reply Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked * [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Comment * [ ] Name [ ] Email [ ] Website [ ] [Post Comment] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] D[ ] * Art * Bayesian Statistics * Causal Inference * Decision Theory * Economics * Jobs * Literature * Miscellaneous Science * Miscellaneous Statistics * Multilevel Modeling * Papers * Political Science * Public Health * Sociology * Sports * Stan * Statistical computing * Statistical graphics * Teaching * Zombies 1. Martha (Smith) on Fields where it matters that "there's no there there," fields where you can thrive on B.S. alone, and everything in betweenJanuary 10, 2023 4:46 PM +1 2. Jonathan (another one) on Fields where it matters that "there's no there there," fields where you can thrive on B.S. alone, and everything in betweenJanuary 10, 2023 4:31 PM Bloomberg's Matt Levine often points out that the skill in running a hedge fund is not knowing how to make... 3. JSA on Fields where it matters that "there's no there there," fields where you can thrive on B.S. alone, and everything in betweenJanuary 10, 2023 4:01 PM Cowen was one of the earliest mainstream economists to make substantive public criticism of crypto, and is not a maximalist... 4. somebody on Fields where it matters that "there's no there there," fields where you can thrive on B.S. alone, and everything in betweenJanuary 10, 2023 3:36 PM The point is that no matter how many people you convince you can breathe underwater, it is still a false... 5. Anonymous on Fields where it matters that "there's no there there," fields where you can thrive on B.S. alone, and everything in betweenJanuary 10, 2023 3:09 PM For the win! 6. Mark on Fields where it matters that "there's no there there," fields where you can thrive on B.S. alone, and everything in betweenJanuary 10, 2023 2:58 PM "Any field where persuasion can be used to thrive will allow one to succeed on BS alone." There is no... 7. Mark on Fields where it matters that "there's no there there," fields where you can thrive on B.S. alone, and everything in betweenJanuary 10, 2023 2:47 PM "Literature: Here, being smart, or inspired, will do the trick. Consider Philip K. Dick, who believed all sorts of weird... 8. Howard Edwards on If we're against parsimony, what are we for? January 10, 2023 2:44 PM I worry that leaving parsimony out might be parsimonious, whereas leaving it in might not. 9. Mark on Fields where it matters that "there's no there there," fields where you can thrive on B.S. alone, and everything in betweenJanuary 10, 2023 2:43 PM The use of "everyone in the world" does not make for a meaningful argument. 10. jd on Fields where it matters that "there's no there there," fields where you can thrive on B.S. alone, and everything in betweenJanuary 10, 2023 1:56 PM I agree with the first sentence, but I'm a lot more cynical about B.S. I don't think it's white noise.... 11. Raghu Parthasarathy on Fields where it matters that "there's no there there," fields where you can thrive on B.S. alone, and everything in betweenJanuary 10, 2023 1:49 PM I've long been annoyed by the existence of punditry in general -- the swarm of commentators on politics, economics, etc.,... 12. Dale Lehman on Fields where it matters that "there's no there there," fields where you can thrive on B.S. alone, and everything in betweenJanuary 10, 2023 1:40 PM Two thoughts: 1. Where would you put art and music? 2. There is a parallel to one (of the many)... 13. somebody on Fields where it matters that "there's no there there," fields where you can thrive on B.S. alone, and everything in betweenJanuary 10, 2023 1:21 PM Politics is a little different because by definition it is a kind of shared fiction. As David Graeber puts it... 14. chipmunk on Fields where it matters that "there's no there there," fields where you can thrive on B.S. alone, and everything in betweenJanuary 10, 2023 1:04 PM "smart people are overrated" Ha! That's why we have science in the first place! Smart people are wrong a lot,... 15. Richard F on Fields where it matters that "there's no there there," fields where you can thrive on B.S. alone, and everything in betweenJanuary 10, 2023 12:47 PM I wonder if "resting on one's laurels" is distinct from or a special case of B.S. 16. John Hall on Fields where it matters that "there's no there there," fields where you can thrive on B.S. alone, and everything in betweenJanuary 10, 2023 12:37 PM Tyler is very smart, but - of course - that doesn't mean he is always right. I generally agree with... 17. OliP on Fields where it matters that "there's no there there," fields where you can thrive on B.S. alone, and everything in betweenJanuary 10, 2023 12:36 PM I suppose this is all linked to both the credulity and the investedness of the audience. I think you can... 18. Anoneuoid on If we're against parsimony, what are we for?January 10, 2023 12:27 PM Here is a good one. It turns out people have even worked out an equivalent "Hollow Earth" model (not only... 19. gec on Fields where it matters that "there's no there there," fields where you can thrive on B.S. alone, and everything in betweenJanuary 10, 2023 12:17 PM Physics doesn't care about your charm... ...unless you're a quark! 20. Blackthorne on Fields where it matters that "there's no there there," fields where you can thrive on B.S. alone, and everything in betweenJanuary 10, 2023 12:11 PM This whole thing reminds me of the first half of Plato's Gorgias. Any field where persuasion can be used to... 21. JM on Fields where it matters that "there's no there there," fields where you can thrive on B.S. alone, and everything in betweenJanuary 10, 2023 11:57 AM "too insulated--personally or financially--from people who can present the opposite view" People who present the opposite view is one thing,... 22. Adede on Fields where it matters that "there's no there there," fields where you can thrive on B.S. alone, and everything in betweenJanuary 10, 2023 11:33 AM At the risk of sounding cynical, I think politics is an area where you thrive on B.S. alone. Another one... 23. Anoneuoid on If we're against parsimony, what are we for?January 10, 2023 11:01 AM The best model is a matter of convenience. If you only really need the sun, moon, and stars for navigating... 24. Jag Bhalla on Fields where it matters that "there's no there there," fields where you can thrive on B.S. alone, and everything in betweenJanuary 10, 2023 10:07 AM It's possible Andrew missed an opportunity here, since Cowen's field, economics is clearly one in which B.S.ers can thrive. For... 25. Daniel Lakeland on If we're against parsimony, what are we for? January 10, 2023 9:42 AM Whether zebras or horses makes more sense depends a lot on which part of the world you're in. If you're... 26. Jens on If we're against parsimony, what are we for?January 10, 2023 8:10 AM While trivially true, the calories in vs calories out model doesn't give much insight. How did Bill Gates got so... 27. Phil on If we're against parsimony, what are we for?January 10, 2023 2:32 AM Yeah, OK, Copernicus got twisted up in knots because he insisted on uniform circular motion for the planets. What I... 28. John N-G on Roald Dahl vs. Ethel Rosenberg; Winkler advances January 10, 2023 12:39 AM I'm applying the superposition principle. Dahl could give a great lecture on Rosenberg but not vice versa. So I'm with... 29. Anoneuoid on If we're against parsimony, what are we for?January 9, 2023 10:14 PM The Copernican model is simpler than epicycles, and turned out to be right. The Copernican model not only had epicycles,... 30. Clyde Schechter on If we're against parsimony, what are we for? January 9, 2023 9:43 PM "I think the Law of Parsimony, as originally intended, is nothing more than a simple logical statement about reverse causation... 31. Phil on If we're against parsimony, what are we for?January 9, 2023 9:03 PM Occam's Razor does have some empirical basis in physics and related fields. The Copernican model is simpler than epicycles, and... 32. Kevin Nelson on If we're against parsimony, what are we for? January 9, 2023 8:49 PM Physics PhD here. IMHO that is an extremely difficult question that's still open. There are plenty of cases where parsimony... 33. Jonathan (another one) on If we're against parsimony, what are we for?January 9, 2023 8:00 PM Thanks, Matt. This is well done. There is also the famous med school diagnostic expression: "If you hear hooves, think... 34. Christian Hennig on If we're against parsimony, what are we for? January 9, 2023 6:06 PM Apart from the case of physics I mentioned in my posting above, for me science, modelling, even theorising, is never... 35. Christian Hennig on If we're against parsimony, what are we for? January 9, 2023 5:54 PM "[In theoretical physics,] parsimony becomes a desired attribute because the symmetry of parsimonious theories is not just elegant but signals... 36. Ben on If we're against parsimony, what are we for?January 9, 2023 4:22 PM You bring up Alpha Zero, which seems kinda interesting here. I think the "Zero" part in the name references that... 37. Daniel Lakeland on If we're against parsimony, what are we for? January 9, 2023 4:01 PM In general no-one does models of "every conceivable channel". But what is going on is there's a spectrum of importance,... 38. Matt Skaggs on If we're against parsimony, what are we for? January 9, 2023 3:48 PM In his previous blog linked above, Andrew wrote: "I've never seen any good general justification for parsimony. (I don't count... 39. Daniel Lakeland on If we're against parsimony, what are we for? January 9, 2023 3:43 PM So I went there and did a search for "voting" and the very first thing that comes up is you... 40. Peter Dorman on If we're against parsimony, what are we for? January 9, 2023 1:33 PM Simple models seem more general, and they often are in an approximate sense, but in another they're more restrictive. Every... 41. chipmunk on If we're against parsimony, what are we for?January 9, 2023 12:55 PM "In practice, I often use simple models--because they are less effort to fit and, especially, to understand. But I don't... 42. jd on God is in every leaf of every tree (bathroom scale edition) January 9, 2023 12:49 PM Yes, when I was training myself or training clients for road bicycle racing, the main worry with a power meter's... 43. Andrew on If we're against parsimony, what are we for?January 9, 2023 12:15 PM Zhou: See the wonderful quote from Radford Neal. The short answer is that if your complicated model is performing worse,... 44. Tom Passin on If we're against parsimony, what are we for?January 9, 2023 12:06 PM On a mundane level, to estimate variance from a sample, you normally divide the sum of squares by (n -... 45. Zhou Fang on If we're against parsimony, what are we for?January 9, 2023 12:05 PM What about the curse-of-dimensionality/bias-variance-tradeoff type arguments? More parsimonious models frequently have better performance characteristics. 46. jd on If we're against parsimony, what are we for?January 9, 2023 11:57 AM Using parsimony as a rule would seem ill advised, but in practice it seems to often work out to be... 47. Jonathan on If we're against parsimony, what are we for?January 9, 2023 11:49 AM Depends on what kind of science you're trying to do. The research culture in economics prioritizes isolating and measuring specific... 48. Ben on If we're against parsimony, what are we for?January 9, 2023 11:35 AM If parsimony refers to favoring simplicity to complexity, then I believe the author is missing the point of something like... 49. John Richters on If we're against parsimony, what are we for? January 9, 2023 11:04 AM "There's a phrase often attributed to Einstein but probably apocryphal" The smart money has it that this is the (ahem)... 50. Anoneuoid on If we're against parsimony, what are we for?January 9, 2023 10:40 AM If you want to make progress in social science theories I'd guess models need to be somewhere between one and... Proudly powered by WordPress