Also this week: bet your beliefs about replication, what’s on your blackboard, and more
A prediction market with cash prizes for predicting which social and behavioral science studies will replicate. Based on previous prediction market results, I wonder if it might be fairly hard to win prizes, because there are already some widely-known, effective rules of thumb for predicting which studies will replicate (e.g., “priming studies don’t replicate”). Hard to win money in a prediction market in which everyone has the same, decent information. Which I guess is the point–they want to find out if anyone can do better than just applying rules of thumb? (ht Marginal Revolution)
NYT opinion piece on the underrepresentation and bad experiences of black women in economics.
Some very good background on Elizabeth Warren’s academic career. To become a Harvard Law School prof as a woman in the 1970s, coming from her background, and to do so while taking both teaching and research seriously, is enormously impressive.
Wait, climate scientists and international policy negotiators who expect severe climate damage and have little confidence in current mitigation efforts are more likely to oppose geoengineering? I wish I knew more about why. The linked article identifies a couple of reasons, but can they really be the full story? Note that you should not infer anything about my own views on geoengineering from the fact that I linked to this.
If only Cormac McCarthy could rewrite everyone’s academic papers.
A photo essay on mathematicians’ blackboards.
Happy Fat Bear Week. 🙂