Saturday, September 11, 2010

Fish Takes Residence in Shotgun Owner's Barrel

Not that fish.

Via Susan of Texas, pure Megan McArdle self-humiliation delight. Read the whole thread.


ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said...


It was most impressive of Meegan to show up in DeLong's comment section to continue making a fool of herself.

Congratulations, Teh Atlantic and The University of Chicago!

J— said...

Fish are jumping (into the barrel)
And the hubris is high

For some reason this line:

Thats why government bonds are called securities, after all: they are the securitized future tax cash flows.

really cracked me up.

fish said...

It is the complete inability of McMegan to recognize that she repeatedly sticks her foot in her mouth that amazes me so much. Every time she opens her mouth, someone who actually knows something about the topic completely stuffs her. Yet she will show up in the comments and be completely indignant and acting like they are the ones without the facts. It was probably a technique that worked in college with classmates to stoned to pay attention to her.

Susan of Texas said...

What kills me is that even people like me who know almost nothing about economics can find massive holes in her arguments. Her degrees made people reluctant to question her, and of course she argues from authority and tries to make people feel stupid for questioning her, so people are reluctant to take that risk.

Aimai's take-down of that practice is one of the highlights of the internet.

Substance McGravitas said...

I wonder if people who meet her for the first time go "Oh! The stupid one!"

Smut Clyde said...

This -- from another of Susan-of-Texas's posts -- seems to be a recurring pattern:

They're not DDT resistant. They're resistant to DDT's successors.

Are you sure about that, Megan?
To quote a Texas A&M entymologist from 2008: [...]

Apparently I stand corrected; the articles I read implied non-DDT resistance.

It would be nice if she were to develop the sense that part of her job involved seeking out correct sources, but I see no evidence of that. Every time she is wrong -- about bedbugs, about medical research, about invading countries or the impossibility of an economic downturn -- it is always the fault of someone else for providing her with flawed data (while the people who were right get no credit for greater insight because their rightness was not really evidence-based).

Expecting her to feel responsible for wrongness is like expecting an advertising agency to take responsibility for an advertisement's false claims about a product, when they are merely passing on the claims provided by the manufacturer.