Is my own experience an outlier or is it a different mechanism? I always felt that once I did something, that thing was taken, so my younger brothers didn’t want to do that thing anymore and searched for something else to focus on

And don't forget the abundance of violent crime

I guess the most space-saving way to pack 17 equally-sized squares into a single bigger square is a good example of such platonic horror

An Israeli friend once told me that they have an expression to describe a particular kind of person: “full throttle in neutral.” The jewish culture seems to great with such expressions

Econ is called the dismal science because it was anti-slavery early on, and some historian thought that was against the “natural order.” en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dis...

It's extremely useful -- for all tasks that can be independently checked (does the code work, does the cited paper actually make that point, etc.). Given the many errors the frontier versions still make on tasks that can be checked, I don't think it can be trusted on tasks that can't be checked yet

Same issue in switzerland. Bequests usually play the key role.

Someone who graduated from Stanford only about 10 years earlier than me told me that at the time there was a saying: "There are 2 kinds of econ professors. Those who marry their students, and those who marry their secretaries." Hard to imagine from todays point of view.

Almost all of the Julia Donaldson / Axel Scheffler books are great! There are many more, highly recommended!

The behavioral/experimental economist named Werner that I’ve known for a while is actually this guy: sites.google.com/view/peterwe... Surprising accumulation of Werners in the field!

I think it's asymmetric. If there's a flaw in a paper, every selection of referees has a good chance to detect it. Also, there are only a small handful of journals at each level, so you can't dip as many times as you'd like. Redrawing detects flaws, but prevents vetos. Or, yes, editors deciding.

If someone has some idiosyncratic beef with a paper (e.g. they don't like structural estimation in principle), but it keeps going to that person, that person acquires essentially a veto-right over the paper (I know some names). I think science works better if nobody has such a veto right.

... don't forget the climate change deniers in the earth science departments

Not sure this is what you mean, but there's a literature on good vs. bad control variables. Here's a great and very short article on it coauthored by one of the spearleaders of that literature, Judea Pearl: ftp.cs.ucla.edu/pub/stat_ser...

This is amazing!! Huge congrats! Great place for experimental economics!