I’m currently a certified business economist and have been in the field for two decades. I’m currently doing my graduate work at the University of Colorado and have spent the entire past year studying business economics and the relationship between economics and psychology.
I actually feel like I’m making a pretty good point. The fact is that economists are actually quite common in business school. I’ve actually met a few times with the business professors who are now my professors. Even more so than psychologists, economists are definitely the most familiar and used by business schools. Unfortunately, this means that they are extremely biased toward one side of the debate. The other side of the debate is quite well known.
Economists are supposed to be unbiased. But since they are more used to dealing with situations involving humans they tend to bias their findings toward the dominant side of the debate.
Economists are almost always biased toward the left. They are supposed to be unbiased, but since they have an even more vested interest in the left than they do the right they tend to come up with biased conclusions based on their beliefs. The problem with this is that there are very few economists who are truly unbiased, and even fewer who are truly unbiased in their research. I remember reading a paper by a business professor about the effect that the “Great Recession” had on the stock markets.
The study was done by a business professor who claimed that the Great Recession was a natural law that had nothing to do with it. He said that the effect of the recession on the stock market could have been easily explained if the recession was a statistical fluke that was not an outlier. I found the study to be at best a statistical fluke and at worst a blatant falsification of his own study. He was also found to be biased in his conclusions.
I think the study was actually a meta-analysis of numerous studies that came out before it. The study was also a meta-analysis of the study results that was published in the popular press. The study results were published in a major journal, and their authors were paid to do the research. He was also found to have made a very poor use of the data that he got from this study by changing the wording of words and numbers that were not statistically significant.
The study was a meta-analysis of studies that had already been conducted by the same group of people. This gives them an advantage in their research because they know the methods and data better than someone else who hasn’t done the research.
So what the hell is the point of a meta-analysis? To find out how many times a specific finding is true in the studies that it is supposed to be useful for. If you want to get a better idea of how well the study is doing, you’d do better to look at the studies that don’t have any relevant results listed. In this case, they got a bunch of studies that they found to be statistically significant and that had no relevance to the study at hand.
The problem is that the studies that didn’t show any results were often poorly designed and/or not at all informative, so they don’t actually tell you how well the study worked. They just tell you how many times the results were significant.
Many studies have been done that look at the same thing and give different results, but none have ever been properly designed to test anything. There is no gold standard that is valid for all studies, so you are always comparing studies that are poorly designed. A good study would be randomized controlled trials. This study looked at several different studies on the same issue and found that the studies all showed the same results.