Hacker News Reader

Comment by hartator | Hacker News Reader

> The fact that they would reach these conclusions that I personally know to be false really discredits them in my eyes

That's a weird thing to say when you should beleive at least in the scientific process.

> Rupert Scofield, who runs FINCA, one of the largest and most prominent microlenders, said randomized controlled trials work well in medicine but don’t make sense in evaluating development aid. He said that for years, his response to claims like Duflo’s was to say he didn’t need data when he could see the effect firsthand.

It sounds like he is suffering cognitive dissonance. He believes in RCTs and he believes in microlending. To resolve the conflict, he rationalizes first that RCTs "don't make sense" in the microlending world. Next he decides that researchers themselves aren't credible as good researchers would not reach a "false" conclusion.

I agree with this perspective but why doesn't he ask for additional research to be done. If he's belief is valid based on what he sees, then maybe six is too small a sample size.

Now I'm confused because FINCA themselves launch studies to understand their impact. Shouldn't they be countering data-based arguments with data-based arguments?

From the article they link to FINCA's own internally developed study [1] which at first glance seems to have reasonable metrics [2]. Why not use those to assess whether you believe independent research methods and data were properly developed and analyzed?

As a side note, I like how AQR handles similar criticisms and releases Cliff's Perspectives [3] which use data and logic to evaluate arguments for or against their own or competitive portfolio strategies.

[1] http://www.finca.org/files/2015/06/FINCA-MasterCard-From-Int...

[2] http://imgur.com/eaUGNCH

[3] https://www.aqr.com/cliffs-perspective

There's nothing wrong with this one line from a "scientific process" perspective.

I saw a reference once to a "theorem" of economics which states that it isn't possible for coins and bills of the same denomination to coexist; one will drive the other out of circulation. I was highly disturbed by this, because in China 1元 coins and 1元 bills are both very common, and in fact it's not at all unusual, when receiving change, to get some of each. What conclusions do you think I was warranted in drawing?

I think you're referring to Gresham's law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham%27s_law ); but it doesn't talk of coins and bills.

It does, if you consider that bills are always fiat money, and coins could be precious metals. (But nowadays never are ... Because of Gresham's law)

And specifically not in the case of China. So the answer of OP's "What conclusions do you think I was warranted in drawing?" is exactly the expected one: "That you haven't understood well what they're saying."

Tell you what. I'm prepared to believe that the person who I was reading (not me) was referring in a confused way to Gresham's Law, if you can point me to someone describing it as a "theorem" rather than as "Gresham's Law".

If you're open to accepting that writer was confused about the meaning, why not about the name too?

"He said that for years, his response to claims like Duflo’s was to say he didn’t need data when he could see the effect firsthand."

Why would people give their charity money to someone who is so clearly blinkered?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com