What programmers can learn from economists: fundamentals and models

It's just a rant with very few valid points. First of all the author is confusing the readers by not making it clear the distinction between writing code as a hobbyist programmer vs writing code like a Computer Scientist. Computer Science first of all is more science than Economics. Theories in computer science have mathematical proofs behind them, the arguments he is making seem to be based on programming design patterns like Abstraction and so forth which are of course always debatable.

At the end[1] of the talk[2] at 30c3 by Eleanor Saitta and Quinn Norton, &quot;No Neutral Ground in a Burning World&quot;, an audience member suggested that people need spend time learning <i>basic historical knowledge</i> about crypto.<p><pre><code> It disturbs me that there are books about cryptographic algorithms, there are books about early days of hacking, but I talk to people younger than myself who are in their teens and twenties, and from the people I&#x27;ve talked to there is an astounding lack of awareness of say, the first crypto war. </code></pre> That&#x27;s bad enough, but Quinn&#x27;s reply is a simple, easy to understand, damning indictment of the sorry state of the modern software culture:<p><pre><code> Can everybody in the room who has some sort of computer science degree or related degree put up your hand? Keep your hands up. Now, everyone who read Claude Shannon in school put your hands down. So all of you are people with CS degrees who didn&#x27;t read Claude Shannon, one of the most fundamental voices in everything you do. </code></pre> Unfortunately, learning from history takes effort, so it&#x27;s a lot easier to simply cargo-cult programming &quot;knowledge&quot; instead of actually learning about these complex systems.<p>&gt; economists<p>They have their own problems with over-reliance on models. Mark Blyth&#x27;s description of the problem from the perspective from inside the field has quite a few similarities to the problems in programming.<p>&gt; models<p>On the subject of over-reliance on models - especially overly-complicated, buzzword-compliant models that cover up a total lack of actual research, innovation, or really anything worthwhile at all - I want to suggest listening[4] to the wonderful Tom Lehrer talk about Sociology.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=DWg2qEEa9CE#t=2367" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=DWg2qEEa9CE#t=2367</a><p>[2] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;opentranscripts.org&#x2F;transcript&#x2F;no-neutral-ground-burning-world&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;opentranscripts.org&#x2F;transcript&#x2F;no-neutral-ground-burn...</a><p>[3] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=hmWbkPezgtU" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=hmWbkPezgtU</a><p>[4] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=gfZWyUXn3So#t=37" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=gfZWyUXn3So#t=37</a>

&gt; The entrepreneurial hacker and the MIT-style hacker are two different beasts<p>subtle reference to <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.jwz.org&#x2F;doc&#x2F;worse-is-better.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.jwz.org&#x2F;doc&#x2F;worse-is-better.html</a>

Maybe not a primary component of economics, but its sad how little statistics is a part of CS. Dealing with things at scale makes statistics&#x2F;probability integral and many of the most interesting ML algorithms don&#x27;t come from CS backgrounds, but from statistics (Random Forests) and Convex Optimization (EE&#x2F;Math).

Why can&#x27;t I downvote posts? This is a baseless attack on programmers. He just claims that we can&#x27;t reason. Its obviously bullshit (colorful language intended and warranted).<p>I personally think economics may not be a science at all, since it is mainly based on models with very little physical evidence to back them up. Which I would hesitate to make a statement like that, or a rant with many of them, because obviously it is unfair and offensive to economists.

... appears to have been written by an economist. Is any other comment necessary?

Agreed. Where do I signup? What concrete steps should I take to break this cycle?

&gt; &quot;No one predicted this.&quot; Memorize this phrase.<p>&gt; Government jobs are very stable.<p>&gt; Apply math to all problems, regardless of the appropriateness. When two theories are in conflict, the one with more math wins, unless it conflicts with the interests of the people who are paying you.<p>&gt; Normal distributions. Everywhere.

It&#x27;s not called the dismal science for nothing.

Economics is pseudo-science. I refuse to recognize a man made construct as a valid scientific field. I used to argue with my BBA room-mate, I asserted markets were fixed, he would try to counter with law of demand. HA! Libor scandal, crude prices, utility price fixing honestly I could go on for days.