Shengwu Li

@ShengwuLi

Economist. Assistant prof . (mechanism design, behavioral theory)

Vrijeme pridruživanja: studeni 2016.

Tweetovi

Blokirali ste korisnika/cu @ShengwuLi

Jeste li sigurni da želite vidjeti te tweetove? Time nećete deblokirati korisnika/cu @ShengwuLi

  1. 31. sij

    Our computer scientist coauthor, Shayan, joined the team after a fortuitous conversation on a beach.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  2. 30. sij

    Mohammad and I started working on dynamic matching in the second year of grad school. Seven years (and many revisions) later, it’s coming out in the March issue.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  3. 27. sij

    When the buyer has private information, the optimal mechanism can involve a menu of dynamic contracts. So why don’t we see this more often?

    Poništi
  4. 24. sij

    This is the paper with Mohammad , so "extensive game form" appears many times.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  5. 24. sij

    My copy-editor has laboriously highlighted every instance of "extensive game form" in the manuscript, and asks if I mean "extensive-form game". These are not the same. Copy-editors at econ journals have a hard job!

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  6. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    15. sij

    I always loved growth theory as an economic kind of science fiction, in the best sense. Here are a few random bits of an exciting Chad Jones paper. 1/

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  7. 9. sij

    I was about to write an email to the search committee, then realized that Harvard econ has already updated the relevant information.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  8. 9. sij

    Economists seeking jobs have a legitimate interest in knowing how searches are going. They should be able to get this information from a reputable website.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  9. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    8. sij

    One of the reasons I would like to see a carbon tax is so that I could use the simplicity of prices to help guide my behavior rather than having to personally try to understand the complex environmental impacts of supply-chain logistics.

    Poništi
  10. 6. sij
    Poništi
  11. 5. sij

    On assassination decisions and the compromise effect. Beware careless nudges!

    Poništi
  12. 3. sij

    No, autocorrect. “evince” should not correct to “EconCS”.

    Poništi
  13. 2. sij

    Apparently Twitter thinks it’s ok to threaten to kill people, but only if you threaten enough of them.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  14. 2. sij

    Bizarrely, Twitter’s content policies for world leaders permit them to threaten war, but prohibit threats of violence against any particular individual.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  15. 1. sij

    **also the second-day of Christmas. "a great descriptive study" substitutes well for "a partridge in a pear tree".

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  16. 1. sij

    Happy new year ! For Christmas*, the QJE gave us a great descriptive study. New facts, interesting even supposing that the correlations aren't causal. *technically for boxing day.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  17. 30. pro 2019.

    This year I adopted a new rule: Decline referee requests when I've done at least 20 reports in the last 12 months. Exceptions for revisions, and for papers that build directly on mine. It seems to work! Editors have been understanding. Has anyone else tried similar rules?

    Poništi
  18. proslijedio/la je Tweet

    UPDATE: Per several requests, I've redone both charts to keep the colors consistent for each category, and have also embedded the counts/percentages onto the charts. Here's the difference in the Republican & Democratic Parties in a nutshell.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  19. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    25. pro 2019.

    There are two facts which make correlations controlling for confounds uninformative about many (but not all) causal effects: 1) the R^2 of the mechanisms we understand is low, 2) our uncertainty about not well-understood mechanisms should be high. (1 / about 13-15)

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  20. 23. pro 2019.

    Badly-designed studies can have correct conclusions. Suppose that in 2018, no one understood the biology behind the smoking-> lung cancer connection. What would be causality twitter’s identification strategy?

    Poništi

Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.

Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.

    Možda bi vam se svidjelo i ovo:

    ·