My first answer when a someone (particularly a journalist) tries to play rhetorical tricks/compound questions around a statistical/technical point they do not understand is: IGNORE. When they keep going, my second answer:
Category: BS Busting
THE DEATH OF ACADEMIA: peer-review creates citation rings of high ignorance. The epidemiological models developed by @stephen_wolfram , his son, & @dzviovich in 1 or 2 afternoons were light years ahead of models by academia w/zillions of “peer reviewed” crap. As to finance… I like the peer-review system. It is necessary, but never sufficient. Also depends what you call “peers”. Peer-review of decision science papers in psychology is worthless.
Why are you accusing him of “low self-esteem”? How can you make an inference on someone’s mental attributes and why is it relevant to pathologize him in an argument instead of offering your counterpoint? This is what I call BS vending.
Peer review is often necessary but v. highly insufficient; gives cover to unrigorous crap. There are citation rings. Imagine passing a review on risk by an ignorant psych like @PTetlock who still doesn’t know the difference betw probability & expectation or point estimate & EVT. I use peer review but find it insufficient
BS spotting du jour. Throughout history, we’ve ben quarantining “healthy” and “unhealthy” people. For the very reason that we only know ex post whether they are healthy or not. There is this illusion that the economy is harmed by the reaction to the virus rather than by the virus. In fact, if anything, it is harmed by the lack of EARLY reaction to the virus.
BS vendor will BS vend.
So @JimmySecUK whose specialty is “Security / MENA / Politics / Foreign Policy” and @shashj “Defence Editor at @TheEconomist ” stand as arbiters of WHO can or cannot do probabilistic risk modeling. No, Tom, they don’t get that probabilistic risk modeling IS an academic specialty. So they bullshit from the outside thinking they can decide, not realizing that they THEMSELVES are unqualified to decide outside their domain.
I am not compassionate with BS vendors.
Something UK modelers (idiots) did not get with hospitalization that we traders and modelers in nonlinearities have know since (1997): The market is a large movie theater with a small door. Same for hospital capacity. Gabish?
Ioannidis got the reasoning completely BACKWARD. I mean reallllllly backward. In the real world, one must REDUCE RISK in the absence of reliable data, via the MOST ROBUST (model resistant) method. That’s the message of the INCERTO. The reason: Ioannidis understands the defects of models used in Medicine at 1st order, but doesn’t understand 2nd order effects/asymmetries. Being an academic, he doesn’t understand decision-making under uncertainty & which decision is harmed LESS from model error. #RWRI
