Thread by @NoahHaber

FWIW, having "grown up" in econ (and now spending 90% of my time in a different field entirely), this statement strikes me as a pretty accurate description of economists as a whole, and a major source of inter-field friction.

https://twitter.com/NeilLewisJr/status/1372756741335654404

I do think that there is something to the fungibility of a lot of econ-style frameworks and ways of approaching problems, BUT in combination with hyperconfidence it gets econs (including me) in trouble.

I've had to learn to unlearn a lot of that hyperconfidence.

Note: fungibility is NOT AT ALL the same thing as superiority, and I think that particular line may be where the error is.

I (clearly) think there is a HUGE amount of untapped value in bridging disciplinary gaps, as indicated on the fact that I've bet the farm on it.

There's also the reverse; some economists are much more prone to that kind of hyperconfident superior lane swerving than others, and they are VASTLY more visible than your median economist.

So many assume (wrongly, but not totally unreasonably) that every economist is like that.

So it's a real issue in both a general and localized sense, but perhaps leans a lot more local than many assume.

Honestly, the whole econ vs. epi "thing" over the past year has been really frustrating. So many missed opportunities for useful collaboration and cross-learning.

Also, please don't interpret this as being specific to Oster or her work. I realize that context matters, but this ^ ain't really about that.