<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: ACADEMIC JOKES</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ginandtacos.com/2009/07/29/academic-jokes/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ginandtacos.com/2009/07/29/academic-jokes/</link>
	<description>OPIATE OF THE ASSES</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 00:57:01 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bakunin</title>
		<link>http://www.ginandtacos.com/2009/07/29/academic-jokes/comment-page-1/#comment-16773</link>
		<dc:creator>Bakunin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:35:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ginandtacos.com/?p=2260#comment-16773</guid>
		<description>Wait, so physicists think cans have lids?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wait, so physicists think cans have lids?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike</title>
		<link>http://www.ginandtacos.com/2009/07/29/academic-jokes/comment-page-1/#comment-16760</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Jul 2009 18:22:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ginandtacos.com/?p=2260#comment-16760</guid>
		<description>I see that Chris Mealy beat me to it, but &lt;a href=&quot;http://unspeak.net/a-natural-adjustment/#comment-4520&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this comment&lt;/a&gt; from dsquared is almost perfect:

===
Public choice theory I think it’s difficult to blame economists for - a couple of economics Nobel prizes got awarded for it, but it’s not really part of economics. It’s basically just right-wing prejudice turned into a theory - the entire intellectual content is in the initial assumption “1. We assume that all public officials are venial and self-seeking”, and thence to derive the entire right-wing worldview.

Game theory I think you have a lot more of a point with. Phil Mirowski’s book “Machine Dreams” is very good on the development of game theory. He raises the of-course-very-unserious-who-would-possibly-be-so-uncouth point that a) the key game theory concepts like Nash equilibrium describe the reasoning of a paranoid schizophrenic a lot better than that of a normal person and b) a surprisingly high proportion of the key figures in the development of game theory suffered from mental illnesses, and Nash himself was of course an actual paranoid schizophrenic.

Game theory is actually very good in predicting the outcomes of things like telecom spectrum auctions, which of course really means that it is a good way of predicting the behaviour of game theorists employed to solve game theory problems.
===

That last paragraph is so good.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I see that Chris Mealy beat me to it, but <a href="http://unspeak.net/a-natural-adjustment/#comment-4520" rel="nofollow">this comment</a> from dsquared is almost perfect:</p>
<p>===<br />
Public choice theory I think it’s difficult to blame economists for &#8211; a couple of economics Nobel prizes got awarded for it, but it’s not really part of economics. It’s basically just right-wing prejudice turned into a theory &#8211; the entire intellectual content is in the initial assumption “1. We assume that all public officials are venial and self-seeking”, and thence to derive the entire right-wing worldview.</p>
<p>Game theory I think you have a lot more of a point with. Phil Mirowski’s book “Machine Dreams” is very good on the development of game theory. He raises the of-course-very-unserious-who-would-possibly-be-so-uncouth point that a) the key game theory concepts like Nash equilibrium describe the reasoning of a paranoid schizophrenic a lot better than that of a normal person and b) a surprisingly high proportion of the key figures in the development of game theory suffered from mental illnesses, and Nash himself was of course an actual paranoid schizophrenic.</p>
<p>Game theory is actually very good in predicting the outcomes of things like telecom spectrum auctions, which of course really means that it is a good way of predicting the behaviour of game theorists employed to solve game theory problems.<br />
===</p>
<p>That last paragraph is so good.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Evan Sultanik</title>
		<link>http://www.ginandtacos.com/2009/07/29/academic-jokes/comment-page-1/#comment-16758</link>
		<dc:creator>Evan Sultanik</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Jul 2009 17:45:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ginandtacos.com/?p=2260#comment-16758</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ve heard that exact same joke modulo the economist was a mathematician.  “Without loss of generality, assume we have a can opener…”</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#039;ve heard that exact same joke modulo the economist was a mathematician.  “Without loss of generality, assume we have a can opener…”</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jason Harx</title>
		<link>http://www.ginandtacos.com/2009/07/29/academic-jokes/comment-page-1/#comment-16757</link>
		<dc:creator>Jason Harx</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Jul 2009 16:43:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ginandtacos.com/?p=2260#comment-16757</guid>
		<description>Economist jokes are like the academic version of drummer jokes.

You heard the one about getting rid of the economist on your porch?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Economist jokes are like the academic version of drummer jokes.</p>
<p>You heard the one about getting rid of the economist on your porch?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

