Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This paper formalizes the tradeoff between darwinian and statistical learning in economic theory, suggesting post hoc theorizing is often optimal.
For many economic questions, the empirical results are not interesting unless they are strong. For these questions, theorizing before the results are known is not always optimal. Instead, the optimal sequencing of theory and empirics trades off a ``Darwinian Learning'' effect from theorizing first with a ``Statistical Learning'' effect from examining the data first. This short paper formalizes the tradeoff in a Bayesian model. In the modern era of mature economic theory and enormous datasets, I argue that post hoc theorizing is typically optimal.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Andrew Chen (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: