'The usefulness of biology in the social sciences is contained in a set limited by a particular kind of redundancy and fiction'

SCIENTIFIC PROFILE 

My scientific undertaking encompasses a broad spectrum of topics which I regard as fundamental in the study of society. These include theoretical and empirical examination of the political economy of media; fact resistance; the theory and definition of bullshit jobs; homogeneity and non-cooperative perspectives on the theory of the firm; theory of education and contracts; statistical perspectives on accounting; universal solvers for games; algorithms for text analysis to discuss how social and political incentives govern journalism; theory of conspiracy theories; the theory of power; and popular science on the nature of money.

A recurrent theme is how individuals become bearers of social relations guiding their actions. My way of discussing fundamental topics aims to give clear-cut theoretical or empirical results. Without disregarding data I think such stance is plausible in view of broader epistemological considerations. For instance, the need for simplification is not only a quirk of theorists, but also decisionmakers; economic theory is part of the mindset of decision makers at the top who shape institutions by design; and multiplicity of equilibria can be regarded as a source of confusion but also the building blocks of institutions, especially in view of the aforementioned.

Because of the centrality of the topics, my perspectives have more often than not challenged status-quo conceptions. For example, my thesis paper on education challenges neoclassical notions of a direct relationship between effort, talent/productivity and output. I propose from a small set, arguably natural assumptions, that this relationship is but a special case in a much richer set of possibilities spanned from decisions embedded in a social fabric. Even minimal and idealised requirements on what education is renders optimistic expectations on privatisation unrealistic. It also presents challenges to public-private partnerships, to deal with externalities, as conceived in the tradition of Nobel laureate Oliver Hart.  

I also argued against major academic trends concerning fact resistance, by insisting that it is a phenomenon which (a) is found in elite institutions not only outsiders (b) is not primarily explained by individual biological or even psychological disposition, e.g. specific cognitive biases, as such propositions would imply incredible statistical anomalies. However, such approaches remain relevant in special cases.

My work is completely independent to the extent I think it is unfortunate, especially in instances where I sought to include others, but I look forward to cooperation in the future. My productivity has accelerated tremendously since I began as an independent researcher. I rebooted conventional writing in 2017 by writing a book, on spare time while working, in about a year. Most of my papers are written after 2018 under rather disadvantageous conditions. I coded a database and search engine more accurate than the leading, somewhat flawed, research database for news items in a couple of weeks. Likewise, a solver for finite static games was written at the outset of my current project starting April 2022.

My current work departs from universal solvers for Game Theory. The main result in the first draft Footnote 1 on the Foundations of Game Theory, at the end of the paper, is a take which diverges considerably from previous literature on the matter.

For an assessment of the scientific and pedagogical merits of my code, in view of alternatives, please navigate to Pedagogical Outlook and read the appendix