Is #polycrisis scary? Paralyzing? . Only for those who are attached to the old order . But for others, disruption opens the way to an alternative paradigm. I call this moment #polytunity. 🔗

RT @jaysugheson: Every now and then, you stumble across a piece of academic writing that truly rewires your brain. Not only was it introd….

RT @readswithravi: Steve Jobs on courage:

RT @BevansAdvocate: Here are some recommendations on productivity and innovation. I think Econ history with growth accounting is v import….

RT @QuoteJung:

RT @charlesmiller_7: Consistency first, excellence later

Have a beautiful weekend

RT @Oscar_ilp: Filosofía de vida.

RT @habimanaabdoul1: Interesting Insight, Recommended essay!!!

🔍 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐱 ≠ 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝. Trees are complex. Toasters are complicated. In both nature and society, complexity isn’t a nuisance or a problem to be fixed. It’s the 𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘭 condition of adaptive systems—from forests to economies. 🎋🌴🌲. Let’s stop trying

RT @Crazymoments01: Some of the greatest moments of Usain Bolt in this thread 🧵 . 1. Usain Bolt, what a legend. You can tell a lot about a….

RT @AMAZlNGNATURE: This is so important to me.

RT @SNFAgora: What if complexity isn’t a problem to eliminate—but a reality to understand?.In Carnegie India’s review, Suyash Rai reflects….

Abbreviation due to character limits, more context here - . “whether it's better to give the poor cash or chickens and the role of experiments in helping us figure out the answer” .

Economists and social scientists should always build models - but of a different kind . Models to illuminate, not erase, complexity. This is what I call "Adaptive Political Economy". 🖇️

With thanks to @haugejostein for sparking a thoughtful conversation - citing the brilliant Ha-Joon Chang ✨- on how economists (and political scientists) should study the social world, and what they should teach.

As I write in "Adaptive Political Economy" in World Politics. We do need models, but of a different kind. To illuminate, not erase, complexity . 🖇️

Alternative to artificial, machine-like models of complex social processes isn't NO model. It's a DIFFERENT kind of model: simple but not any simpler . For example, instead of modeling development as linear, I model it as non-linear, coevolutionary

My contention with conventional social science isn't that it uses math 🔢models . Its problem is this: it models tree-like, complex 🌴processes - such as development - as machines 📠. Modern analysts think that's "rigorous" . No, that's industrial fetish

Should we "build models" as social scientists?.Of course, all the time. Models ≠ math equations.Models = stylization of reality to help us see patterns. Picasso's "Girl Before a Mirror" is a MODEL of a girl. Painted this way, Picasso helps us see how self-perception is

Universities are training economists who can build models. ONLY for mechanical, toaster-like problems. Like "Does giving 🐔increase income?". Press a button (intervention) ➡️ linear outcome. In fact, economists have FAILED to build models for complex, non-linear realities.