i'm going to provide a blow-by-blow for larz' impending thesis defense for his and posterity's benefit; eta 12 minutes
thesis that was defended:
http://jlr.s3.amazonaws.com/thesis/attic/defense.pdf
thesis that was defended:
http://jlr.s3.amazonaws.com/thesis/attic/defense.pdf
haha yes :D
GO!
Let the thesis fly!
the first query: "have you got slides, or?"
brave lucas responds with a gentle shake of his head
brave lucas responds with a gentle shake of his head
the broad question: is ego-depletion intimately related to self control? the link between the two is embodied by credible commitment and what mechanisms can be used to achieve this. classic.
one committee member holds his hand heavily over his eyes; is he sleeping, or simply taken aback by the elegance of the theory being presented?
the classic critique question in economics: do you need to read this paper in order to behave optimally, or does the model in the paper describe optimal behavior that's already been (consistently) observed? ouch
larz' defense: the model is descriptive, but knowledge of the results may be beneficial to relevant agents systematically acting sub-optimally*
*my interpretation
*my interpretation
So, not a THIS IS WHAT YOU SHOULD BE DOING... more of a hey.. YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG.
positive vs. normative question: how can i use your theoretical model (built based upon previous experimental results) to devise an experiment that generates a positive description about the nature of ego depletion which differentiates between cited psychological underpinnings
nny: it's like a "hey, this model tells people what they should be doing" versus "this is a model that describes what people are actually doing".. so slightly different, but still descriptive vs. prescriptive
larz's defense: the goal of the model isn't to differentiate between the types of psychological underpinnings cited in the literature, but to explain current and future economic (consumptive) behavior based on depletion of a scarce ego by an agent
larz's defense: the goal of the model isn't to differentiate between the types of psychological underpinnings cited in the literature, but to explain current and future economic (consumptive) behavior based on depletion of a scarce ego by an agent
let's talk about "gamma"; the committee is concerned (not in a bad way, but in a "let's make larz" justify this) that the results of the paper are fundamentally driven by some specific assumptions about how economic agents value current versus future consumption (consumption now is better than consumption later)
concern: past consumption enters into the utility function for current consumption; the way in which it enters is unclear and could be a cause for concern. time doesn't enter, but past consumption does.
concern: past consumption enters into the utility function for current consumption; the way in which it enters is unclear and could be a cause for concern. time doesn't enter, but past consumption does.
committee concern: what the hell is this "ego transition equation"? (member: "explain this to my 13-year old son); larz wrote this piecewise function the way a computer programmer would write it (huge surprise ;)), while the committee would prefer it to be written someway else, although the room remains unclear how
Hrmm has anyone staked their positions in the world economists club against larz in a grand proposition to prove his theory in a theatrical manner?
committee has become flustered at the short length of some seemingly important parts of the paper (specifically the passing references to complicated topics that were introduced in the literature review but never mentioned thereafter); this frustration was brief but intense
"more pictures, more discussion, and more discussion about the pictures"
the committee is stagnating on the "gamma" issue since it, in their view, is the primary motive force in the paper's results; explain gamma in simpler terms, discuss why it's important, and under what condition are experimental conditions sufficient to predict and/or isolate gamma
larz' defense: i'll explain that a lot better (<3)
"more pictures, more discussion, and more discussion about the pictures"
the committee is stagnating on the "gamma" issue since it, in their view, is the primary motive force in the paper's results; explain gamma in simpler terms, discuss why it's important, and under what condition are experimental conditions sufficient to predict and/or isolate gamma
larz' defense: i'll explain that a lot better (<3)
Skype this shit. :)
Be prepared for an exfil under heavy fire if this operation goes omega. Proceed to secondary extraction point. And god have mercy on your souls.
nny: i'm going to take a long net position on that particular proposition :)
gatz: skype would own; i feel intrusive enough slamming away on this laptop, though!
committee brings up a concern that by not making a stronger assumption in the concavity of the utility function, larz' model will not be guaranteed the existence and uniqueness of a solution and therefore no guaranteed result/testable prediction
defense: the model has assumed this for specific functional forms, generating the results/testable predictions
committee: make the assumption, or else your model is barely useful
the issue: making the assumption diminishes the explanatory power and generality of the model, but guarantees some testable results; larz is less happy, scientific community is more happy with this
another point: in his discussion of the simple case, larz assumes the solution is interior (and that a budget constraint would be non-binding), so he may as well have assumed it more gracefully (a la above issue)
gatz: skype would own; i feel intrusive enough slamming away on this laptop, though!
committee brings up a concern that by not making a stronger assumption in the concavity of the utility function, larz' model will not be guaranteed the existence and uniqueness of a solution and therefore no guaranteed result/testable prediction
defense: the model has assumed this for specific functional forms, generating the results/testable predictions
committee: make the assumption, or else your model is barely useful
the issue: making the assumption diminishes the explanatory power and generality of the model, but guarantees some testable results; larz is less happy, scientific community is more happy with this
another point: in his discussion of the simple case, larz assumes the solution is interior (and that a budget constraint would be non-binding), so he may as well have assumed it more gracefully (a la above issue)
by assuming that the solution occurs at a point that is both non-binding and interior (non-corner), we're rendering useless the whole point of using the mathematics of classical economics (well, constrained optimization techniques, at least); this needs to be fixed, and could render the results presented later in the paper moot
concerns arise again due to the lack of the concavity assumption (at least quasi-concavity is important in the utility function to guarantee convexity in the level curves, which is a necessary condition for the existence of a unique and interior solution)
concerns arise again due to the lack of the concavity assumption (at least quasi-concavity is important in the utility function to guarantee convexity in the level curves, which is a necessary condition for the existence of a unique and interior solution)
now would be a good time to use a flash bang.
as we get into the meat and potatoes of the paper, more concerns arise over exactly what the fundamental nature of the comparative statics larz is concerned with are; his mathematical derivations include a generalized "parameter," but the issue is whether and where such a parameter enters the optimization problem. if the parameters characterize the utility function, the results may not be useful because such are unobservable. if they only enter the relevant constraints, the changes derive exogenously and can thus in principle be observed.
upshot: if the changes in behavior are generated by changes in the utility function, what have we really got here? this issue is fundamental to the "interesting ways to think about the world" versus "scientific theories" dichotomy
the room has been waffling around this issue for several minutes now
upshot: if the changes in behavior are generated by changes in the utility function, what have we really got here? this issue is fundamental to the "interesting ways to think about the world" versus "scientific theories" dichotomy
the room has been waffling around this issue for several minutes now
nny: lucas spent all of his money this round buying the upgrade body and head armor.. he couldn't afford the flash bangs! (a fact that derives from the binding of his budget constraint ;))
... more interrogation about gamma; there's a line that asserts a positive first derivative on gamma (t fixed) with respect to z, a good which is unrelated to the assumption earlier about the change of gamma with respect to t
i'm a bit lost on the issues here, but the gist is that the results change when larz' generalizes from a single good to multiple goods and the committee is quite concerned about the driving force of this switch
... more interrogation about gamma; there's a line that asserts a positive first derivative on gamma (t fixed) with respect to z, a good which is unrelated to the assumption earlier about the change of gamma with respect to t
i'm a bit lost on the issues here, but the gist is that the results change when larz' generalizes from a single good to multiple goods and the committee is quite concerned about the driving force of this switch
a recurring issue is the muddling of psychological and economic issues: condition and priming versus ego depletion in consumptive behavior. the committee is capitalizing on this difference
"if i'm not on my budget constraint, why wouldn't i jump more?" (jumping is a good in the example currently circulating the room)
"why haven't you taken the comparative statics with respect to the disutility parameters?" (versus the preference parameters, an issue explored earlier)
a brief concern was raised about the manner of psychological experimentation in the cited literature was raised, but was resolved (since it's unimportant relative to other concerns)
"if i'm not on my budget constraint, why wouldn't i jump more?" (jumping is a good in the example currently circulating the room)
"why haven't you taken the comparative statics with respect to the disutility parameters?" (versus the preference parameters, an issue explored earlier)
a brief concern was raised about the manner of psychological experimentation in the cited literature was raised, but was resolved (since it's unimportant relative to other concerns)
oh man I need to read this later
Psychology is a psuedo science. I'd laugh at that person for believing in that tom foolery.
a committee member expressed concern that the comparative statics written in the discussion section were maybe cut and pasted wrong; results are cited which were opposite of those presented earlier for the same model. was the wrong model used? it appears that this issue is unresolved of yet
larz: have removed the section good in the same time period; this is the result of generalizing the model to additional time periods (this being the flipping of the signs on several meaningful comparative statics)
"lab results unrelated to comparative statics" another critique of the connection between the economics and the psychology behind the observed (or prescribed) behavior
there was a suggestion that the results derived in the paper be presented in a manner more appealing to "experimentalists," whoever the hell those people are
larz: have removed the section good in the same time period; this is the result of generalizing the model to additional time periods (this being the flipping of the signs on several meaningful comparative statics)
"lab results unrelated to comparative statics" another critique of the connection between the economics and the psychology behind the observed (or prescribed) behavior
there was a suggestion that the results derived in the paper be presented in a manner more appealing to "experimentalists," whoever the hell those people are
several suggestions were voiced concerning some of the examples in the paper; larz mentions that the model relates to the gathering of new information, but the committee doesn't agree that information acquisition is explained or can be predicted based on the economic model
suggestions from chair: you probably have too many comparative statics in the paper; you likely only need predictions that are sufficient to generate some kind of experiment. proof for proof and math for math's sake is unecessary; there's no need to posit a more general or complicated model than is required to explain the behavior with which you're concerned. "there's no need to have counter-intuitive or strange implications in your paper just to get it published"
"even if you water down the theory to make it more tractable and experimentally useful, you're still providing something useful and interesting to the economics community with this paper"
more discussion of results, stronger link between the results and the experimental implications
ok, we're now being kicked out while the committee deliberates! SICK
suggestions from chair: you probably have too many comparative statics in the paper; you likely only need predictions that are sufficient to generate some kind of experiment. proof for proof and math for math's sake is unecessary; there's no need to posit a more general or complicated model than is required to explain the behavior with which you're concerned. "there's no need to have counter-intuitive or strange implications in your paper just to get it published"
"even if you water down the theory to make it more tractable and experimentally useful, you're still providing something useful and interesting to the economics community with this paper"
more discussion of results, stronger link between the results and the experimental implications
ok, we're now being kicked out while the committee deliberates! SICK
I hope you remembered to bug the joint.
well i passed. i'll post more later.
woohoo!
congrats!
Good job! :D
!!
haha nice!
shit sucked. two hours of agony. making the deadline for fall graduation is now virtually impossible. looks like i just landed a three years master's degree.
http://jlr.s3.amazonaws.com/thesis/attic/defense.pdf
http://jlr.s3.amazonaws.com/thesis/attic/defense.pdf
:(
$355.30 buys me a 44-day extension. .. i don't know if that's a good deal
$8 per day. if you can finish it by the end of the week do so, otherwise...shrug, not many choices
i can't. chris is requiring a week to review each draft. i'd have to have a perfect draft in her hands today.
but yeah, i'm fine with the extension. it'll be of higher quality, so it's probably worth it.
but yeah, i'm fine with the extension. it'll be of higher quality, so it's probably worth it.
Neat!
would anyone here value a lulu-printed paperback version? i'll auction one off, starting at $0.25 USD. i'll include international shipping at no additional charge.
please only bid in $0.25 increments. post bids to this thread. i'll contact the winner about payment.
the auction ends on 2010 aug 27 at:
6:00 p.m. utc
3:00 p.m. adt
2:00 p.m. edt
1:00 p.m. cdt
12:00 p.m. mdt
11:00 a.m. pdt
10:00 a.m. akdt
please only bid in $0.25 increments. post bids to this thread. i'll contact the winner about payment.
the auction ends on 2010 aug 27 at:
6:00 p.m. utc
3:00 p.m. adt
2:00 p.m. edt
1:00 p.m. cdt
12:00 p.m. mdt
11:00 a.m. pdt
10:00 a.m. akdt
I'll bid a quarter.
let's battle, quarter here too.
I too bid one quarter.
unless you're both incrementing upon asemi's bid, i think you guys might have missed the memo about how auctions work
who says we're not?
wait are you volunteering to code a ttf bidding system? :)
wait are you volunteering to code a ttf bidding system? :)
> wait are you volunteering to code a ttf bidding system? :)
we both know that it would be a cold day in hell before larz would even hear of such a thing!
we both know that it would be a cold day in hell before larz would even hear of such a thing!
*throws another quarter in*
so what are we at now? is this where I bid 1.25?
yeah. current bid is dannyp at $1.
ok, then I bid 1.25.
1.50
snipe!
1.75!
k asemi wins the free thesis. i just took bids for efficient allocation.
> k asemi wins the free thesis. i just took bids for efficient allocation.
no one will ever believe you (again)
no one will ever believe you (again)
this is the best auction ever.
> no one will ever believe you (again)
i'll occasionally charge to keep people on their feet :)
i'll occasionally charge to keep people on their feet :)
> i'll occasionally charge to keep people on their feet :)
amen
amen
shit.
damn I didn't notice it ended today... I would have brought my blackberry to the golf course :)
well I missed this entirely
Are you still going to sign mine?
i thought i was gonna give you a signed copy of my journal, not my thesis.
what happened to that idea, anyway
it's still around
i gots lots of shits on my plates
i gots lots of shits on my plates