Thinking, Fast and Slow

Jaynes. I actually remember a sentence from the first chapter (probably not an exact quote, but I can't be bothered to go find my copy), "When asked, 'What is consciousness?' people become conscious of consciousness, and believe that consciousness of consciousness to be what consciousness is. This is not the case."

It's engaging and well-written, but his theory wasn't all that influential in the long run. The brain is so much more complicated than left brain/right brain...We as humans definitely have a friction between our logical minds and our impulsive instinctive minds, but it's deeper than they believed back then.

An interesting modern read would be Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman...He's a Nobel prize winning economist who has done a lot of work about human decision making in an attempt to figure out how it drives economic decision making. He's coming at it from a completely different direction, but if anything, that makes his stuff more interesting.

The Toupee effect is a metaphor for the more descriptive and academic availability heuristic. Heuristics in general are worth looking into, might change the way you think about how robust your decision making processes are. Cheap on the second hand market https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555

> The fact that we have the most cases and the least amount of testing...

Again, idiots on Reddit don't understand how this is self contradicting. It's hilarious.

> because we’re lacking in testing there are people out there who still have not been recorded into official numbers

Then you agree that the mortality rates are skewed?

;)

You should read this book.

>People typically have a pretty good gauge of their risks and what to be afraid of.

From my understanding it's actually quite the opposite. People are overall terrible at assessing risk, with few exceptions. I take this from reading kahneman and related books on the subject. It's been a few years since I read through those though.

https://www.amazon.com/Science-Fear-Culture-Manipulates-Brain/dp/0452295467

https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=thinking+fast+and+slow+by+daniel+kahneman&qid=1607654948&s=books&sprefix=thanking+gast+amd+&sr=1-1

I’ve read something similar to this in a book called Thinking Fast and Slow where the author Daniel Kahneman goes in depth on this topic of initial interpretation of a situation and how it influences how you think about the things involved in the situation.

(Great read for any of those into Psych btw)

You should read this regarding quick decision making.

Thinking, Fast and Slow https://www.amazon.com/dp/0374533555/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_8wQoEbQXTWNXV

I’ve read all the stoic stuff - Marcus Aurelius, Epictetus, Seneca, etc. Its useful in our context currently, I agree. I would also suggest Thinking, Fast and SlowThinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman.

I was always stressed using a 1M. I do use it a bit now, but only when its advantagious to me. I am a "slow thinker" https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555

East Asians have a collectivist culture, and the US has an individualist one. This book Thinking, Fast and Slow talks about a study where they had subjects from each culture watch a movie and monitored their eye movement. East Asians spent more time watching the surrounding characters while Americans spent more time watching the main character. They also tested their ability to estimate distances, and East Asians were better at estimating relative distances and Americans better at absolute distances.

The author speculates that it has to do with the way that rice has been farmed over the past few thousands of years. Apparently it would require the entire village to harvest a single family's rice field, so they would all take turns harvesting each other's crops.

https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555

>That could just be a distinction between fast and slow intuitions. How do you know the slow thinking isn't also guided by intuitions, just "smarter" intuitions?

I guess some definitions are in order. An intuition is by definition something that occurs below awareness and is very fast, on the order of milliseconds. My dictionary says:

>the ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning • a thing that one knows or considers likely from instinctive feeling rather than conscious reasoning

Intentional thinking is, by definition, slow. I highly recommend Kahneman's book, Thinking: Fast and Slow.

>Do you fault him for this lapse of energy?

Yes, of course I do, and I hope you do too. Hannibal Lector is a monster and has no place in civil society.

Thank you so much man, reading your comment filled me with joy.

\> I remember when I found it I almosy instintly knew what it was and how important it was

The book Thinking Fast And Slow goes over how our brains make this instinctive judgement about whether something is right or wrong and in which situations it's best to "trust your gut" and in which situations you should actually slow down and think this through.

> Get a life dude and stop buying into that idea that everyone racist.

Everyone IS racist (you just aren't aware of your own racism, maybe, though it is heavily on display in this thread). You seem genuine, so I'll try not to be harsh. There's a book you should read about why everyone is racist. And how people's brains work. Thinking Fast and Slow. Basically, our brains are wired to make quick judgements because back when we used to be forest and jungle roamers hunting for food with spears it kept us alive. But there's a direct correlation between education-level achieved and the ability to make decisions outside of that part of the brain (the book calls it System 1).

Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman sounds like it would be a good read for you. It goes into length about decision making and the different ways people think.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0374533555/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_glc_fabc_NcL4FbW2K6908

Thinking Fast and Slow -- Daniel Kahneman tl;dr: memory is calorically cheaper than reasoning.

>I think the argument is that logic cannot be the sole determinant in the validity of a belief.

That's a completely different discussion than bringing into the discussion this misogynistic premise that it is something that only appeals to males. But this point on logic is a great SE discussion to have, and there have been many examples on Youtube of this. I would also recommend the book, "Thinking, Fast and Slow", by Daniel Kahneman.

https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555/

It explores how and when humans use logic/rationality and intuition.

>On the other hand, there is a woman at my local mall who walks up to me and tries to get me to sign up for a credit card every time I walk in the door.

Do you think getting paid to do a job has influence on a person's choice of activity? If that woman at the local mall was paid to conduct SE and post it on Youtube, do you think she would?

>You could also equally argue that a fifty year old man hanging around a college campus is open to the same misinterpretation.

I would expect the most common interpretation is that he is a college professor/researcher conducting or recruiting for human trials of a psychology study. But I agree with your edit that this is not the same dynamic.

Thinking, Fast and Slow

Read up on and understand human cognitive biases, a good book outside of the free stuff is Thinking, Fast and Slow. Once you learn the specific ways our human brains are shitty it gets much easier to understand why so many of the dumb actions and opinions we see happen. The biggest issue with cognitive bias is that, we are generally unaware when they are happening. Learning about them is then especially useful for evaluating when we ourselves are making flawed decisions or assessments.

It's called priming.

Recommended book: https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555

Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind

A Short History of Nearly Everything

Thinking, Fast and Slow

It's about what you're exposed to first; also known as the Anchoring Effect.

YOU CAN STILL DEBATE LIKE MINDED PEOPLE! YOU CAN STILL BE SMART! THIS IS AN OFFENSIVE TACTIC THAT CAN BE USED ONCE YOU ALREADY KNOW WHAT WE KNOW.

​

Im going to be ironic here as a show of good faith to the subreddit but starting your argument with an ad hominem is defacto bad faith so I will use your own logic against you.

People that aren't midwits know that much more of the brains computation is done behind the scenes and humans aren't actually very rational at all. Read this book and get back to me on the first part, ( https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/03745335550), learning how our monkey brain works is an essential skill needed for developing a successful society so you thinking that being rational will manipulate those parts of the brain is stupid. Liberals and Conservative brains function in two distinctly different ways. All using logic on a liberal will do is make them anxious as there world views start to feel shaky making them get insecure and defensive thus getting more emotional and standoffish. This is what happened with me and my ex countless times but Ill get back to this part later.

The best way to convince people to follow you is by being successful, from an alt right perspective you are drawn to certain talking heads because of their success in battling the ideas. However the average neoliberal is going to be basing their ideas on the good bad paradigm that liberalism is fundamentally established on and if you are arguing from an a point that is objectively bad to them you won't accomplish anything. Thus by objectively sitting on the side of the good guy and basing all of your arguements from there you will have more success with liberals and women in general. Having social validation and suave abilities goes a long way when dealing with women and if you always find yourself arguing with people youre not going to be known as the fun guy. Respecting yourself, creating success, and helping those around you find success is how you get people to want to follow you. If you have ever read "The Last Lecture" the chapter on the head fake covers this and spoiler alert: the whole lecture is a giant headfake to help the lessons sink in more naturally.

https://www.amazon.com/The-Last-Lecture/dp/B0017L9VCE/ref=sr_1_1?crid=OHX686R1XY1M&dchild=1&keywords=the+last+lecture&qid=1586374047&s=books&sprefix=the+last+lecture%2Cstripbooks%2C144&sr=1-1

​

Understanding a subject to the point you can present it to a captive audience and using logic to convince people that emotionally oppose you are two entirely different things. Once again even in this situation holding frame and talking over the other person will allow you to deliver an exact arguement instead of being side tracked by their bad faith questions. You throwing around insults is very grug like but I think the fact that we are a community of smart well read people means that we need to know how to stand up for ourselves even more thus making an additional strategy for dealing with outsiders like mine presented even more valuable. Those people aren't going to be like us so using the same style won't work. Just on this very subreddit yesterday there was a post about Alt Hype and Wignats that goes into a lot of detail how we sperg out on minutia of details way too much and that a general simpleton approach is vastly under represented on this subreddit and community in general. If we are ever to have a nation,``` a large portion of the population will have average iqs, objectively higher but still average, and thus we need a system that can function on multiple levels of cognition. If you know anything about the merchant- warrior - priest triad you will be able to recognize that we are priests, but those other aspects must be present to facilitate a proper western society.

​

The best way to hold frame is by respecting yourself and doing what you want. Why are you wasting your time on people that don't want to listen, that are just sitting there waiting for you to make a mistake that they can capitalize on. Just go be successful and talk about ideas with the people that want to listen. Your need to be understood will always lie at the bottom of your need to debate people and that is something i only recently became aware of. I ruined a relationship, it was probably failed anyways but this didn't help, by constantly trying to present a more and more fact based argument and pull her over to my side. Instead as I have learned since the break up, working on myself and devoloping myself worth has made her much more willing to accept my ideas because i don't need her to understand them anymore. I have first hand experience of how futile that can be. If someone wants to come at you, you owe them nothing. You can say I disapprove of what you said and walk away, if they want to keep coming then you have gained frame and thus can go from there. If you've ever read 7 habits of highly effective people you will know the 4 quadrant strategy of winwin/winlose/losewin/loselose but there is also walk away. By respecting yourself you will always think win for yourself but if they don't want to cede win win you have no self respecting choice but to walk away. If someone is willing to enter into your debate arena after you have established good faith parameters and is willing to look for win win you can then school them on facts but till then they don't matter.

​

My post was meant to be brief because it wasn't supposed to be based in logic. Instead of having dumb ass noobs go on twitter to show all their new knowledge off,making a mockery of the movement, we can just have them spam I disapprove. Instead of going on a tirade about the down sides of interracial society making you look like a racist ass, you can just say i disapprove and watch as they all get flustered and attack you but since you didn't say too much they have nothing to go on but their emotions. I disapprove gives our allies that have gut reactions the ability to voice their opinions without feeling the need to explain themselves, more than likely getting themselves btfo'd as they don't have any formal training. But ultimately when the other side catches on I disapprove will accelerate the divide and give us the power because like you said we are the rational ones. They will use it emotionally making fools out of themselves while we use it from a calculated stance, just like every good meme the right has ever made. This is just another meme like anything else so just chill out but I promise you the logics there.

With regards to the draft, I did get off the hook in the end after being officially diagnosed. Gender dysphoria is already enough and surprisingly, so is autism/ aspergers.

Well it was a long story. I was already consciously aware of myself and the difference, even as early as high school. At that age, I was already floating the idea of how to get out of the draft. It was a huge motivating factor for me to make as much money as I can before college ends. In my mind, I just want to get out of the country as soon as possible. That's it. A plan thought out years ahead.
Adding to the fact that my thinking patterns are just so logical being on the autistic spectrum, national propaganda rarely ever worked on me from a very young age without me questioning it deeply. I was already an atheist by middle school despite not knowing the actual word at all, and my parents have almost 0 influence on me in terms of religion too. It was just so easy for me to see through the lies in the rather collective society that I live in, a good lie on history that keeps most people together and united.
Majority of people stick together and look to others for social cues because biologically it is always the safest way to navigate life, and it makes sense in the hunter-gatherer life during the early stage of human evolution. Those that went on themselves are probably eaten and thereby eliminated through natural selection.

With that in mind, it actually turns out to have a huge impact later in my life, as I invested most of my teens in my career & my special interest more. Probably just occasional partying & socialising once a month.
I didn't go through the regular education route, surfing through high school & tertiary education just barely passing. School was never about learning anything to me, it was always a legal way for me to delay the draft while I am still building my financials. So I'm mostly just a borderline pass-er in exams, or sometimes seen as a 'drop-out' because I had to purposely fail exams to be retained for a year.

At about 17 I was already operating an online business as a software programmer with profits of up to 30k USD a month. Also found out about cryptocurrencies at the same time (7 years ago), and bought + traded bitcoin, and invested a lot of my time in learning to invest/ trade my proceeds too.
(software programming & trading the markets is all logical work and 0 emotions and its one of the most natural way I can express my thoughts most effectively being autistic.)
By now I'm kinda already set for life, more than what I can ever ask for this lifetime to the point where retirement isnt even a thing that I have to worry already. Programming, and contributing to open source codes online for free + trading the financial markets right now is just a past-time.

After going through all these emotional trauma over the years, I honestly no longer feel anything to my country of birth anymore. Even hearing the name of the country disgust me so much. Despite already being off the hooks, I am still making it a life goal right now for me to live aboard and settle elsewhere.

Its quite odd how life turns out, despite the difficulties early on in my life. Being autistic, and the environment (a collective/ an authoritarian country) was actually the determining factor to my success. If I am able to go through life once again, I'll still take the rough path over and over again.
-----------------
Yes I did freeze my sperm aboard 2 years ago 'just in case' before I started HRT. Fertility will still come back when I stop HRT though, but it will take over 3\~6 months for viable sperm to be produced again. (This is something that some trans are unwilling to accept, as going off estrogen can be quite traumatizing emotionally, add on top of the slight masculinization during the few months.)
My hopes for parenthood are quite high, although I admit I still have a lot to work on emotionally before being able to commit to any relationship 😀 Human to human relationship just don't come naturally to me, I have to work my way out and learn it.

-----------------
Think of the times when you spend learning new things, it is frustrating isnt it? It seems to be the default mode of thinking for me regardless most of the time, I feel that it is why it seems to be quite logical from the surface. However, it is only because I'm going through so much more to come to any conclusion rationally. I'm still emotional like anyone else, but it is suppressed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow
https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555

That surely also comes at a cost, when I get so drained at the end of the day when heading to events like parties. I just need a few days or a week to recharge at home. It was sort of a mask, despite the fact that I seems to appear normal just as everyone else in the room.
Most aspies females tend go diagnosed throughout their life for the very reason.

>This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.

Just want to point out that this has not been peer-reviewed. If we are going to dismiss other reports because they have not been peer-reviewed yet, then we should apply the same standards here. In addition...has anyone actually read the article? Much of it is based on cremation assumptions, estimations and hearsay. It's not really new information regarding cremation claims. Additionally, the paper cites Epoch Time as a source.

If researchers want to remain reputable, they should have higher standards than to cite sources like Epoch Times...

>He C. Amid virus outbreak, funeral home officials in Wuhan reveal sharp increase in cremations. https://www.theepochtimes.com/exclusive-funeral-homes-in-coronavirus-ground-zero-cremating-dozens-of-bodies-a-day_3228938.html

Lastly, I recall there being an antibody test done in China that revealed 3.2%\~3.8% of 17,368 individuals tested had antibodies (this study was peer-reviewed and here is the SCMP article). Wouldn't it make more sense to use this number to then calculate the number of deaths from COVID-19?

Wuhan has a population of 10-11M and according to mayor Zhou Xianwang, 5M people left Wuhan prior to the lockdown (source: CGTN; Business Insider), so the remaining people in Wuhan is 5-6M people. We can use this number combined with the antibody test number to figure out how many people in Wuhan had the virus and then apply an average CFR based data from other countries to infer number of deaths (source: Mortality data from JHU).

However, this is a preliminary approach. I think there is also another piece of data that's missing, which is out of people with antibodies, how many were asymptomatic and how many were symptomatic. Without knowing this, it's likely the number of deaths would be inflated because many asymptomatic people (discovered via antibody testing) would not have been considered a 'case' and therefore, CFR would over count it as a death if that makes sense. I think in reality, the CFR in countries should be much lower.

Finally, I just want to say that the word usage of this title/post makes it sound politically charged as if this is evidence to prove that the government suppressed data. This is not really proof that data was suppressed, only that the data provided is inaccurate. This will likely be the case in all/most countries where the healthcare system became overwhelmed. I think the fact that the scientists in China conducted an antibody test to determine true infection numbers run counter to the narrative that they are purposely obfuscating data.

There is a really good book that talks about being aware of cognitive biases when it comes to statistics Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman if anyone is interested.

I wish you the best. The world needs more people like you. Just view it as a longer term project that takes preparation and see making yourself mentally stronger as part of that.

It also helps if you know how to think critically (so you're better at judging situations and you're better at deciding where you can step in or not).

Some books to get you started:

• 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos 4.6 star, 11000+ ratings
• The Art of Thinking Clearly 4.2 star, 1100+ ratings
• Thinking, Fast and Slow 4.5 star 7000+ ratings
• Principles: Life and Work 4.5 star, 2500+ ratings
• The Willpower Instinct: How Self-Control Works, Why It Matters, and What You Can Do to Get More of It 4.6 star, 900+ ratings

I have a ton. I also second u/duncsauce's recommendation. Great book. Probably the most related to the field and goes into generally how society has thought about risk, uncertainty and insurance through time.

While not completely actuary related these are some of my favorite books. Some are economics or data related. I'll keep adding as I think of them.

• Thinking Fast and Slow - Daniel Kakheman
• The Peter Principle- Laurence Peter
• How to Measure Anything - Douglas Hubbard
• Getting Things Done - David Allen
• Short History of Nearly Everything - Bill Bryson
• Guns, Germs, and Steel - Jared Diamond (Pandemic Chapter is super relevant today)

How to Win Friends and Influence People

The Most Important Thing

Thinking in Bets

The Outsiders

Guns, Germs, and Steel

Grit

Nudge

Thinking, Fast and Slow

Factfulness

The Better Angels of Our Nature

Catch-22

• Focused vs Diffuse Thinking: Some problems you solve by focusing on, others you solve by sleeping on. Figure out which types of problems are which. Also relevant are the topics of interleaving and structured break-taking.
• Smart Howard vs Dumb Howard: See 5:30 - 6:30 -- we're both of these people at different times, so it's essential to master the art of delegating work. Learn what work is suitable for smart you and dumb you and when these two people tend to show up; ensure that both of them always have something to do.
• The 90/90/1 Rule: Find out what's important to you, let "smart howard" prioritize it.
• Fish Love: Do you love fish, or do you love eating fish? If you love the fish, why the hell would you eat it? I think it's essential to figure out why you're actually interested in learning Japanese. (Also relevant: learning to recognize and deal with our biases)
• Letter to a Young Composer: Too long and important to summarize, but: composers write because it is part of them, because they love the music they write themselves. In other words, they love doing it... making music should be an activity which enhances your quality of life. This applies to learning and and developing mastery in anything (a poem).
• Natural Methods and Linguistic Methods: Linguists have been talking about immersion, memory, grammar, vocab, etc... for centuries. u/TottoriJPN took the time to prepare a nice writeup the TL;DR's the main points/takeaways of major theories since \~1800.

Thanks :)

Hmm general neuroscience. THE classic is Principles of Neural Science (https://www.amazon.com/Principles-Science-Schwartz-published-McGraw-Hill-dp-B00E28K9UC/dp/B00E28K9UC) though it is a textbook so not sure how you feel about that. You can grab a used, older edition (I've linked the 4th, which is one edition back from current) for cheap.

For more enjoyable books, some are include:

• Pretty much all of Oliver Sacks, his books are fascinating and easy to read https://www.oliversacks.com/books-by-oliver-sacks/
• The Brain Inside Out, a recent book by a leading neurophysiologist, has been received well. Can get a bit technical though
  https://www.amazon.com/Brain-Inside-Out-Gy%C3%B6rgy-Buzs%C3%A1ki/dp/0190905387
• Behave https://www.amazon.com/dp/0143110918/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1 alternatively, you can watch Sapolsky's lectures on the neurobiology of behavior here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNnIGh9g6fA
• How Emotions Are Made https://www.amazon.com/How-Emotions-Are-Made-Secret-ebook/dp/B00QPHURT6
• Thinking Fast and Slow. Great book but it is very much more psychology than neuro https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555

Sorry for the late reply. Let me just spew some stuff, so you can pick what you want. Some of this is also in the FAQ of econ, I think. I just added what would have convinced me if I was starting out.

Fun introductory stuff

Just some stuff you may want to read to enthuse you before you go into actual depth.

Freakonomics

Undercover Economist

Both simple but interesting books which explore some questions which may not immidiately be associated to economics (which is usually just business and national accounts).

Some interesting Microfoundations

Micro can both be boring and interesting. These are some doable papers which illustrate that even at the core, micro is often pretty technical. Yet it also illustrates how it is widely applicable.

Principle-agent

Market for Lemons

Hawk-Dove games.

These three papers show, for three widely different topics, how mciro and modelling can lead you to formalize a conclusion which is intuitively logical but you cannot immidiately explain. The market for lemons is a good example - because why should we go through a third party to buy a used car if that person is just going to take a share? Well, this paper illustrates that if there is limited information, only bad cars would remain on the second-hand market. Hawk-dove is interesting because it shows the wide application. Its a game theory core idea which you could apply to many different things from politics to evolutionary biology.

Fun behavioral reads Kahneman & thinking

Nudge

Both books which again are simple but readable, and can provide some insights on behavioral economics. Sure, we can model all sorts of stuff, but our theoretical explanations do often not fit reality (see for example the ultimatum game). These books provide some insights into why and why you personally make decisions which are irrational (e.g. taking a 10 min detour for a $10 discount on a $20 product, but not for a $10 discount on a $1000 product, though the gain is the same). The first more shows the what, the second more how it can be used. Both Kahneman and Taler also have many papers which go into the same topics, but those are a bit more technical and often focus on how their findings clash with traditional micro. Another interesting example covered would be the endowment effect (e.g. you would maximum be willing to pay 2$ for a mug, but if you start by owning the mug you would probably not sell it for less than 3$).

Save more tomorrow

Interesting paper which, without going too technical illustrates ''weird'' behavior can be put to use.

Interesting Methods and development

Household-bargaining

Public goods games and social capital

Investigating corruption.

These papers are a little more my thing, so I would have to plug them. I think they combat the perception that economics is just mentioning a theory, downloading a dataset, and running some regressions. For example, the first paper shows a game you can perform by (randomly) giving one spouse within a marriage a cash transfer and see how this is divided and used. This can be an indicator of power relations within a marriage. The second shows how public goods games can be used to identify group attitudes and how this can lead to very interesting conclusions. This paper for example shows that formal healthcare will mostly be used by the rich, which may make the poor angry as they feel as if their informal insurance (people in poor regions often help eachother out if someone becomes ill) is under pressure. The third relates contributions to such a game with corruption. In these villages they were going to play a PGG with rice, but due to logistics, the rice had to be stored at the local leaders' house for a couple of days. Then, by weighing the rice before the game, they could measure how much was taken from it and take this as a proxy for corruption. Again, these papers are a little more on the fontier but I love them because they show a lot of creativity.

''Also economics''

Money Neutrality

Network economics example

I also always like to include these things. Both during highschool and the bachelor, I was far more into macro then micro. But modern macro often is hampered by the perception that it is just a solow/ISLM model, and then making some inferences. Much macro is quite technical, as the first paper shows. The second is an example of the relatively complex (to me at least) network economics. To all the fans - its not the case that these works are boring or uninteresting. But the previous papers would have helped convince me, yet it is important to understand that there are technical aspects to economics and you have to be pepared to try your best understanding the math and econometrics. I think the hawk-dove and lemon papers both show why the math matters - it allows you to formally explain something which you may already have a ''feeling'' for.

Enjoy reading, not sure if it really suits your interests, but it would have convinced me.