This thread demonstrates that a lot of academic writing that *looks* like utter nonsense is merely scholars dressing up a useful but mundane point with a ton of unnecessary jargon.https://twitter.com/JeffreyASachs/status/1051097280030396417 …
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
Jargon usually doesn't force you to change the substance of your central point. Mathiness often does. By forcing you to write your model in a way that's mathematically tractable (easy to work with), mathiness often impoverishes your understanding of how the world really works.
@Undercoverhist has written about this problem:https://beatricecherrier.wordpress.com/2018/04/20/what-price-did-economists-pay-for-tractability/ …
Jargon sounds sillier than mathiness. It looks worse to the public, because most of the public thinks they should be able to understand English but doesn't assume they can understand math. But mathiness, ultimately, is probably more pernicious. (end)
I’m glad someone with more clout in the field is talking about “mathiness.” For decades, I’ve criticized the field I escaped from for its math-focus. It seemed to be a symptom of insecurity, that is, an attempt to look like a “hard” science.
In all honesty, mathiness makes sense when you can predict things to very fine-grained levels which, alas, isn't the case for much of economics...
We economists have "physics envy" 
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.