[hn_throwaway_99]

> You care so little you spent time to claim you don't care twice in a row.

I've seen this style of argument before and I think it's a non sequitur and total BS. The fact that he may care about feeling his opinion is being misrepresented is totally different from what his original "we don't care" statement referred to.

[baxtr]

Are you sure though? I don’t have an opinion on this specific case, but I have been in situations where someone claims to have no interest at all in a topic and then doesn’t stop talking about it.

[331c8c71]

Imo the economics profession very much suffers from inferiority complex known as "physics envy".

[JumpCrisscross]

> economics profession very much suffers from inferiority complex known as "physics envy"

You’re mixing up quantitative finance and economics.

[331c8c71]

Excuse me? Quant finance doesn't claim to be devising grand theories about how the world operates (is more akin to engineering). And when it does, any delineation from economics is moot.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Quant finance doesn't claim to be devising grand theories about how the world operates

What do you base this on?

[331c8c71]

What's quintessential quant finance? Black-Scholes and no-arbitrage pricing. Don't you agree it's much more of a tool than a theory of how the world works.

[JumpCrisscross]

> What's quintessential quant finance? Black-Scholes and no-arbitrage pricing

This is a bad model to pick to exemplify physics envy given it’s based on thermodynamic dispersion.

The term “physics envy” broadly applies to all social sciences lacking a mathematical basis. It’s a criticism of using math where it doesn’t belong. That hasn’t really fit (until very recently) with economics. It’s been a classic complaint about quantitative finance’s loftier visions of universality.