Physicists don’t love economists, and other revelations

My speech Friday to the assembled geniuses at the Hertz Foundation Symposium in Santa Clara went okay, I think. It was my first-ever PowerPoint presentation, and there was a fraught moment beforehand where my laptop and the projector simply would not—despite the efforts of several first-rate physicists and mathematicians who sprang to my aid—communicate. But then another laptop was brought in and it all worked. I felt like my talk, a short-hand version of The Myth of the Rational Market, rambled and went on for too long—the $100 I spent at Cartoonbank notwithstanding. But as soon as I stopped, everybody wanted to ask questions, make comments, etc. We could have gone on for hours. (You can see a little bit of the Q&A here.)

The hard-science types who populated the conference (the Hertz Foundation gives fellowships to “exceptionally talented individuals studying in the applied physical, biological and engineering sciences”) turned out to be extremely dubious of the claims of academic economics and finance. This wasn’t really that big a surprise, but I was still a little taken aback at the heat with which some of the Hertzians dissed the economists. I eventually fell back on the standard defense: economics is harder than physics. According to one guy in the audience, Max Planck once said the same thing. So it must be true.

Another interesting subtext was that a big minority of the Hertz fellowship recipients have worked in quantitative finance (of the 20-odd people I spoke with, three were current or former employees of D.E. Shaw & Co.), while another big minority are furious at how many talented people have been sucked out of physics, mathematics, and the like into finance. But maybe that’s about to change.

Full disclosure: I didn’t get a speaking fee, but the Hertz Foundation did pay my way (or at least will if I ever get around to sending in an expense report).

Related Topics: Wall Street & Markets
  • Latest on Business

    LM Otero / AP

    Senate Approves Hike in Airline Security Fees

    (WASHINGTON) — A Democratic-controlled Senate panel Tuesday approved a $2.50 increase in airline security fees that would double the per-passenger fee for those taking nonstop flights.

    Why Greece Isn't Leaving the Eurozone YetSlate

    Associated Press

    Stocks Rally Further in Run-up to EU Summit

    MOSCOW — Global stocks enjoyed one of their best days in weeks on Tuesday ahead of a summit of European leaders that’s expected to be dominated by calls to boost economic growth.

    Europe remains the focus of attention across all financial markets in the run-up to the June 17 Greek election that could go a long way to determining the country’s membership of the euro as well as the future of the single currency zone.

  • Brew

    Seriously? Econophysics is the next big thing! Check out Victor Yakovenko’s (UMD) work. I know a number of other up and coming economists that are also working in this area.

  • mbirchmeier

    If that question in that video was typical, I’d hazard to say the heat in the questions is due to the cultural difference between economists and those in the ‘applied physical, biological and engineering sciences’. The burden of proof, or even the foundation for what constitutes a good or valid idea, in these two realms varies considerably.
    .
    If you’re in a similar situation again, instead of falling back on “Economics is harder than physics” you might want to try “Economics is different from physics”. Methodologies are much different, Economics is a much (statically) noisier science, while in physics it’s much easier to eliminate noise and isolate variables. This difference cascades though experiments, theories, even conclusions.
    .
    -MBirchmeier

  • donthelibertariandemocrat

    Just one thought: In math, physics, and logic, which I studied, you learn that a lot depends, in proofs, say, on the assumptions you make. Sometimes, when I read economists, the assumptions about human behavior seem asinine. No amount of formalization can overcome asininity. I’m not saying that all economics is like this, but, a fair amount seems to assume behaviorism, a theory I don’t think very highly of. Perhaps this is why I find Behavioral Economics so interesting. It could also just be difficult to identify the assumptions behind certain economic theories.

blog comments powered by Disqus