WEBVTT
00:00:00.030 --> 00:00:01.830
♪ (music) ♪
00:00:03.800 --> 00:00:05.800
(narrator) Welcome to Nobel conversations.
00:00:07.270 --> 00:00:10.300
In this episode,
Josh Angrist and Guido Imbens,
00:00:10.300 --> 00:00:13.800
sit down with Isaiah Andrews
to discuss the key ingredients
00:00:13.800 --> 00:00:15.700
in their nobel-winning collaboration.
00:00:16.700 --> 00:00:19.800
Josh and Guido, first congratulations
on the Nobel Prize!
00:00:19.800 --> 00:00:20.790
Thank you.
00:00:20.790 --> 00:00:23.190
(Isaiah) The work you did together,
particularly the work
00:00:23.190 --> 00:00:27.300
on the local average treatment effect,
or late framework
00:00:27.300 --> 00:00:28.900
was cited as one of the big reasons
you won the prize.
00:00:29.200 --> 00:00:32.600
At the same time, you only
overlapped at Harvard for a year--
00:00:32.900 --> 00:00:34.300
if I'm remembering correctly--
00:00:34.700 --> 00:00:36.700
it would be great to hear a bit more
about how you started this collaboration
00:00:38.500 --> 00:00:41.500
and sort of what made your working
relationship productive.
00:00:41.500 --> 00:00:43.600
Are there ways in which you felt like
you complimented each other,
00:00:43.600 --> 00:00:46.790
sort of what got things started
on such a productive, trajectory.
00:00:46.790 --> 00:00:48.800
Your job talk, as I recall Guido,
it wasn't very interesting
00:00:49.600 --> 00:00:52.660
but I think it was
a choice-based sampling--
00:00:52.660 --> 00:00:53.330
It was. It was.
00:00:53.330 --> 00:00:54.000
(laughter)
00:00:54.600 --> 00:00:57.700
I was a very marginal hire there
because they didn't actually interview me
00:00:58.400 --> 00:01:02.400
on the regular job market,
but I think they were very desperate to get
00:01:02.500 --> 00:01:04.900
someone else to actually teach that
course.
00:01:04.900 --> 00:01:08.470
It was after they had
a couple of seminars already
00:01:08.470 --> 00:01:12.950
and it was still looking in econometrics,
so Gary called me and kind of--
00:01:12.950 --> 00:01:14.100
Gary Chamberlain?
00:01:14.100 --> 00:01:16.700
Gary Chamberlain called me and
interviewed me over the telephone.
00:01:17.400 --> 00:01:21.292
He said, "Okay, well, my don't you come
out and give a talk?"
00:01:21.292 --> 00:01:27.100
I remember this talk a little bit.
00:01:27.100 --> 00:01:29.000
I remember the dinner that
you and Gary and I had.
00:01:29.000 --> 00:01:32.900
I remember not being very excited
about your job market paper,
00:01:33.600 --> 00:01:38.220
but I saw that Gary was and luckily,
Gary's view prevailed...
00:01:38.580 --> 00:01:39.600
Yes.
00:01:39.600 --> 00:01:41.900
...and Harvard made you an offer
00:01:42.400 --> 00:01:46.300
and I think we started talking
to each other pretty pretty soon after
00:01:46.300 --> 00:01:49.810
you arrived in the fall of 1990, right?
00:01:49.810 --> 00:01:51.600
Now as I said, I came and
I didn't have a very clear agenda.
00:01:51.600 --> 00:01:55.700
I was a little intimidated getting there.
00:01:56.000 --> 00:01:58.700
But Gary kind of said, "No, you should talk to Josh."
00:01:58.800 --> 00:02:01.500
You should go to the labor seminar,
kind of see what these people do.
00:02:01.500 --> 00:02:06.600
They're doing very interesting things there."
00:02:06.800 --> 00:02:08.700
I listened to Gary.
00:02:10.000 --> 00:02:12.900
As we did.
00:02:13.800 --> 00:02:15.700
As we did in the those days and ever since.
00:02:15.700 --> 00:02:16.700
I think it helped it, we were neighbors.
00:02:16.700 --> 00:02:18.400
So we both lived in Harvard's
junior faculty housing,
00:02:21.500 --> 00:02:25.600
partly because housing costs
were very high in Cambridge
00:02:25.600 --> 00:02:27.400
relative to our salary,
which was very low.
00:02:27.800 --> 00:02:31.100
I think it also kind of made a
difference, neither of us came from Cambridge,
00:02:31.200 --> 00:02:36.300
so there were a lot of MIT people
who kind of already had their whole networks,
00:02:36.800 --> 00:02:38.000
kind of our collaborators.
00:02:38.300 --> 00:02:39.300
♪ (music) ♪
00:02:39.600 --> 00:02:43.700
(Josh) Well, I think we had figured out
a mode of working together also.
00:02:43.800 --> 00:02:46.600
We had kind of a regular date,
so we were neighbors
00:02:47.000 --> 00:02:48.900
and we often did our laundry together.
00:02:49.300 --> 00:02:52.000
We didn't have laundry
machines at our apartments.
00:02:52.500 --> 00:02:56.800
But we used to do our laundry
and we were talking
00:02:56.800 --> 00:02:59.300
and you had a way of very systematically,
00:03:00.100 --> 00:03:03.300
addressing questions that
would come up in our discussions
00:03:03.300 --> 00:03:05.800
and the one thing that I
was very impressed by,
00:03:06.400 --> 00:03:09.000
our early interaction,
is you would follow up.
00:03:10.000 --> 00:03:10.500
Yeah,
00:03:10.500 --> 00:03:11.770
You would write some things down.
00:03:11.770 --> 00:03:13.400
Looking back at those days,
sort of clearly,
00:03:13.400 --> 00:03:16.460
just had a lot more time to actually think
00:03:16.460 --> 00:03:19.100
-- I mean, I look at my junior college now--
-- You don't have time to think now.
00:03:19.600 --> 00:03:23.800
(Guido) No, but for me that is kind of one thing,
00:03:24.100 --> 00:03:26.200
but I feel now a lot of my junior colleagues
00:03:26.200 --> 00:03:27.200
don't actually have a lot of time to think.
00:03:27.200 --> 00:03:31.500
People are just doing so many projects,
and it's actually so hard
00:03:31.800 --> 00:03:34.560
and there's so much pressure on people
to publish that.
00:03:34.560 --> 00:03:39.200
I remember spending a lot of time sitting
in my office and thinking,
00:03:39.700 --> 00:03:41.600
"Wow, what shall I do now?"
00:03:42.050 --> 00:03:43.050
(laughter)
00:03:43.500 --> 00:03:45.300
But it would give me a lot of time
to actually think about these problems
00:03:45.300 --> 00:03:49.100
and trying to figure it them out
00:03:49.100 --> 00:03:50.900
and I could actually go to seminars
00:03:52.000 --> 00:03:57.100
and then the next day have coffee
or lunch with Josh or Gary
00:03:57.300 --> 00:03:58.500
and actually talk about those things.
00:03:58.700 --> 00:04:01.300
(Isaiah) You guys weren't actually at
Harvard together all that long,
00:04:01.300 --> 00:04:03.300
so you started working
together pretty quickly.
00:04:03.300 --> 00:04:06.600
Were you both in the mindset that
you were looking for co-authors,
00:04:06.600 --> 00:04:09.200
or looking for a particular type
of types of co-authors at the time
00:04:09.400 --> 00:04:11.600
or was it more sort of fortuitous than that?
00:04:11.700 --> 00:04:12.700
(Josh) I think we were lucky.
00:04:13.500 --> 00:04:17.700
I don't remember I was that I was looking
00:04:17.700 --> 00:04:18.700
Now that I think, it was more fortuitous.
00:04:18.700 --> 00:04:19.900
I said I came in,
I'd done my job market paper,
00:04:21.600 --> 00:04:24.500
and another paper for my thesis
00:04:24.500 --> 00:04:25.500
and I was just very happy to come to Harvard
00:04:25.500 --> 00:04:29.000
and suddenly there were all these
seminars to go to,
00:04:29.200 --> 00:04:30.700
and lots of interesting people to talk to,
00:04:31.200 --> 00:04:36.000
but it wasn't a very
conscious thing on my part.
00:04:36.300 --> 00:04:39.200
Looking back, I think there
was a moment for me,
00:04:39.300 --> 00:04:41.800
where I was discussing
instrumental variables,
00:04:42.200 --> 00:04:45.900
potential outcomes,
treatment effects with Guido
00:04:47.000 --> 00:04:50.600
and we had a pretty good discussion,
00:04:51.300 --> 00:04:54.600
but then he also sent me some notes
00:04:56.000 --> 00:05:01.400
and the notes were very methodical
write-up of our discussion
00:05:01.800 --> 00:05:03.300
and what you thought,
00:05:03.600 --> 00:05:07.900
we had been concluding in a fairly formal way
00:05:08.200 --> 00:05:10.630
and I thought, "Well, that's great."
00:05:10.630 --> 00:05:13.100
Talk is cheap, right, but with somebody..
00:05:13.100 --> 00:05:15.544
- (Guido) Yeah, but--
- ...really writes out their story.
00:05:15.900 --> 00:05:18.500
(Guido) For me, it really helps
writing things down
00:05:18.500 --> 00:05:22.960
and I do remember working with Josh
00:05:23.330 --> 00:05:25.200
and sitting in my office and writing things out
00:05:25.400 --> 00:05:28.130
and you guys have all
had the discussions with Gary
00:05:29.500 --> 00:05:32.551
where afterwards we need to then sit down
00:05:32.551 --> 00:05:34.850
and actually write things up
00:05:34.850 --> 00:05:36.700
to figure out exactly what was going on.
00:05:37.400 --> 00:05:39.600
I think the other thing we had, Guido,
00:05:39.600 --> 00:05:41.815
is we had some very concrete questions
00:05:41.815 --> 00:05:43.750
that came from applications.
00:05:43.750 --> 00:05:45.000
(Guido) Yeah.
00:05:45.600 --> 00:05:50.400
A lot of econometrics, in my view,
00:05:50.400 --> 00:05:51.400
that we were schooled in
was about models,
00:05:51.400 --> 00:05:55.000
Here's a model and what can you say about this model?
00:05:55.300 --> 00:06:00.200
I think we were thinking
about, here's a particular scenario,
00:06:00.500 --> 00:06:03.800
draft eligibility is an instrument
for whether you serve in the Army.
00:06:04.400 --> 00:06:06.300
What do we learn from that?
00:06:06.300 --> 00:06:07.300
(Guido) That's right.
00:06:07.300 --> 00:06:09.200
That's right, and that's sort of where your influence
00:06:10.800 --> 00:06:15.200
on the way I do research now is still very clear--
00:06:15.700 --> 00:06:16.700
♪ (music) ♪
00:06:17.200 --> 00:06:19.400
(Isaiah) I guess zooming out a little bit,
just thinking about
00:06:19.400 --> 00:06:22.200
when you guys started working on this,
00:06:22.200 --> 00:06:23.000
when you started working together,
00:06:23.100 --> 00:06:24.500
any thoughts for folks
00:06:24.500 --> 00:06:27.200
who are just interested in
finding productive
00:06:27.200 --> 00:06:28.400
co-authors being productive?
00:06:28.400 --> 00:06:30.900
I mean, Guido already mentioned
the importance of having time,
00:06:31.200 --> 00:06:34.000
right, which it is.
00:06:34.000 --> 00:06:35.000
It is very easily not to have a lot of time to think--
00:06:35.000 --> 00:06:38.000
You definitely have to make time.
00:06:38.000 --> 00:06:40.400
That's a great question, though, Isaiah,
00:06:40.400 --> 00:06:45.700
and I tell my students that
you should pick your co-authors
00:06:45.800 --> 00:06:46.800
as carefully maybe more carefully than you pick your
spouse.
00:06:52.200 --> 00:06:52.900
You want to find co-authors who,
00:06:53.800 --> 00:07:01.200
you have some complementarity
00:07:01.700 --> 00:07:02.700
and that's what makes a strong relationship.
00:07:03.200 --> 00:07:06.900
You don't want to work with somebody
who sees the world exactly like you
00:07:09.300 --> 00:07:13.800
and as much as Guido and I agree about things,
00:07:14.200 --> 00:07:16.800
we often disagree about things to this day
00:07:16.900 --> 00:07:19.250
and it's fruitful to have those discussions
00:07:19.250 --> 00:07:21.400
and we had complimentary skills.
00:07:21.400 --> 00:07:24.700
I was very empirical.
I'm not really an abstract thinker.
00:07:25.500 --> 00:07:29.800
Guido was great at figuring out what the principles were.
00:07:30.100 --> 00:07:34.500
Yeah, that's right and I totally
agree, kind of [a different spot.]
00:07:34.700 --> 00:07:37.829
These are incredibly
important relationships
00:07:37.847 --> 00:07:42.400
and you see a lot of
people working together
00:07:42.600 --> 00:07:46.600
and not necessarily working very well
00:07:47.000 --> 00:07:49.300
and then it's very hard often to get out of this relationship.
00:07:52.900 --> 00:07:56.000
A good partnering is a
beautiful thing, like a marriage.
00:07:56.500 --> 00:07:58.500
It produces wonderful children,
00:07:59.500 --> 00:08:04.000
the fruits of the scholarship are
potentially wonderful
00:08:04.200 --> 00:08:07.700
and they exceed the capacity of the
partners to do it on their own
00:08:07.900 --> 00:08:13.200
but a bad co-authorship can be very
destructive and time consuming and painful,
00:08:13.200 --> 00:08:16.800
just like a bad marriage.
00:08:16.900 --> 00:08:20.800
Arguments may start about who did what when
00:08:21.100 --> 00:08:23.700
and intellectual property type issues,
00:08:23.700 --> 00:08:24.700
especially when it when it goes a little sour
00:08:24.700 --> 00:08:28.250
and somebody thinks the other party
is not pulling their weight.
00:08:30.100 --> 00:08:32.300
There's more co-authorship
now in economics,
00:08:32.300 --> 00:08:33.700
I think that's been documented, much more.
00:08:33.700 --> 00:08:34.700
(Guido) Yes.
00:08:34.700 --> 00:08:37.700
There's more teams
and there's larger teams
00:08:38.100 --> 00:08:41.400
and I think that's great,
I love working on teams.
00:08:41.400 --> 00:08:46.800
We do work on schools with big teams.
00:08:47.000 --> 00:08:50.100
I work often with PI teammates
like Parag Pathak and David Autor
00:08:50.100 --> 00:08:51.100
and then a team of graduate students,
00:08:51.100 --> 00:08:55.400
but I see that the students are not always,
00:08:55.400 --> 00:08:57.700
in some ways they're a little too promiscuous,
00:08:57.700 --> 00:08:58.700
in my view, in their partnering.
00:08:58.700 --> 00:09:02.600
They don't think it through.
00:09:02.600 --> 00:09:03.600
It's difficult to think it's through.
00:09:03.600 --> 00:09:08.500
I think, for me, working
with people always has involved
00:09:08.800 --> 00:09:11.400
spending a lot of one-on-one
time with people,
00:09:11.600 --> 00:09:16.400
you need to figure out how they think
00:09:16.900 --> 00:09:18.500
and what kind of problems are interested
00:09:18.600 --> 00:09:23.400
and how they think about these problems,
how they like to write, to make that--
00:09:23.600 --> 00:09:26.600
And it takes some maturity on
everybody's part.
00:09:26.600 --> 00:09:27.600
Yes. Yes.
00:09:27.600 --> 00:09:29.600
In what sense?
00:09:29.600 --> 00:09:30.600
Just in the sense of knowing what's going to work for them,
00:09:30.600 --> 00:09:32.900
knowing when things are
versus aren't working?
00:09:33.000 --> 00:09:36.500
(Josh) Maturity in the
sense of having some judgment
00:09:36.600 --> 00:09:40.100
to be able to face it honestly,
if it's not going well,
00:09:40.300 --> 00:09:45.100
sometimes you have to have some difficult
discussions.
00:09:45.250 --> 00:09:46.250
Is it worth continuing?
00:09:46.400 --> 00:09:49.100
"I was hoping you would do this, and you didn't,"
00:09:49.200 --> 00:09:51.400
maybe it turns out there's some
00:09:51.400 --> 00:09:54.155
feeling in the other direction, the same way.
00:09:54.155 --> 00:09:56.800
And Josh is very good
(chuckles)
00:09:56.800 --> 00:09:59.600
in the being honest,
part from the beginning,
00:10:00.000 --> 00:10:03.600
(Josh) For better or worse.
00:10:03.600 --> 00:10:04.600
(Guido) I would write this stuff and then I remember the
00:10:04.600 --> 00:10:09.343
first version of the paper with Reuben,
00:10:09.343 --> 00:10:11.710
Josh was in Israel at the time,
00:10:12.900 --> 00:10:15.500
Don and I were in Cambridge
and so I would talk with Don regularly,
00:10:16.300 --> 00:10:18.600
but Don wasn't really doing
much writing in those days,
00:10:18.600 --> 00:10:20.400
I would write things and then I would fax them to Josh
00:10:20.500 --> 00:10:25.200
and they would come back,
first page just one big cross, No,
00:10:25.300 --> 00:10:29.400
second page, one big line, No
00:10:30.800 --> 00:10:31.700
and that would go for awhile
00:10:31.700 --> 00:10:32.600
but he still does that.
00:10:32.600 --> 00:10:36.800
I sent him the first draft of my Nobel lecture,
00:10:36.900 --> 00:10:38.100
and Josh goes, No, no!
00:10:38.800 --> 00:10:43.300
I've gotten some PDF comments like that from Josh, very helpful.
00:10:45.700 --> 00:10:46.600
Omit needless words.
00:10:47.800 --> 00:10:52.000
I have few co-authors
who are willing to do that.
00:10:53.200 --> 00:10:58.400
Especially as you get older,
it's harder to put up with that.
00:10:59.300 --> 00:11:03.100
I would find it harder now to start working with people who did that
00:11:03.800 --> 00:11:05.600
early on in a co-author relationship.
00:11:05.600 --> 00:11:08.900
It's also very hard because you need to have enough trust.
00:11:09.300 --> 00:11:15.400
Josh, for being willing to be very critical,
00:11:15.700 --> 00:11:20.800
he was also willing to admit being wrong.
00:11:21.150 --> 00:11:22.150
♪ (music) ♪
00:11:22.500 --> 00:11:25.600
(Josh) But you have to be on
the lookout for good partners,
00:11:25.800 --> 00:11:29.800
somebody who can help you answer
questions that you can't answer yourself.
00:11:30.200 --> 00:11:33.000
I think there's a natural
tendency for people to gravitate
00:11:33.000 --> 00:11:34.400
to people who are similar in outlook and skills
00:11:35.400 --> 00:11:41.000
and that's not as useful
00:11:41.000 --> 00:11:42.000
Josh is right, nowadays it's very tempting
00:11:42.000 --> 00:11:46.500
to find people who think about the same problems
00:11:46.500 --> 00:11:50.500
you're already thinking about,
who think along the same lines
00:11:53.000 --> 00:11:56.400
and that may not lead to very novel stuff.
00:11:58.500 --> 00:12:02.700
But at the same time finding people
who actually have very different ideas,
00:12:02.800 --> 00:12:05.000
it's going to take a lot of time.
00:12:05.200 --> 00:12:08.390
Guido, you mentioned in passing how working with Josh has influenced
00:12:08.390 --> 00:12:10.290
how you do research,
00:12:10.290 --> 00:12:11.600
could you say a little more about that?
00:12:11.600 --> 00:12:15.100
I'd also be interested to hear from Josh,
did working with Guido
00:12:15.100 --> 00:12:17.200
influence the way that
you do research?
00:12:17.500 --> 00:12:20.900
(Guido) Nowadays, I'm much more conscious
of the fact that, for me,
00:12:20.900 --> 00:12:25.300
good economic research comes out of
talking to people doing empirical work,
00:12:25.600 --> 00:12:29.300
and it's really not reading econometrica
00:12:29.800 --> 00:12:31.500
or the reading the stats journals,
00:12:31.500 --> 00:12:35.000
but it's actually talking to people
doing empirical work,
00:12:35.100 --> 00:12:37.200
going to the empirical seminars.
00:12:38.100 --> 00:12:40.300
When I was at Berkeley,
00:12:40.400 --> 00:12:45.500
David Carr and [inaudible] as colleagues there
00:12:45.500 --> 00:12:46.700
and I would talk to them and listen to them,
00:12:46.900 --> 00:12:48.200
trying to figure out
00:12:49.900 --> 00:12:54.500
how are they solving their problems
and other things there
00:12:54.700 --> 00:12:57.424
where I'm not really quite happy with the way they're doing
things
00:12:57.424 --> 00:13:04.200
and trying to look for methodological problems,
00:13:04.200 --> 00:13:07.900
where there's some more general solutions possible.
00:13:07.900 --> 00:13:11.700
I tried to tell it to my students
that I encourage them to work
00:13:11.800 --> 00:13:14.500
as research assistants also,
00:13:14.500 --> 00:13:18.724
for the people doing empirical work at Stanford.
00:13:19.700 --> 00:13:22.100
There was no [subbing] but that I
learned while I was in graduate school,
00:13:22.100 --> 00:13:25.000
but it really came out of working with Josh.
00:13:25.000 --> 00:13:26.000
as well as talking to Gary,
00:13:26.000 --> 00:13:31.000
Gary us was always encouraging of doing that
00:13:31.000 --> 00:13:33.600
and because he done that himself,
00:13:33.600 --> 00:13:36.900
he'd worked with on empirical problems with
Zvi Griliches
00:13:36.900 --> 00:13:39.500
early in his career.
00:13:39.500 --> 00:13:40.500
Yeah.
00:13:40.500 --> 00:13:44.600
Well, I became more more interested
in the econometric theory
00:13:45.400 --> 00:13:47.000
through our interaction,
00:13:47.100 --> 00:13:52.400
and I think empiricists are often impatient
with econometric theory,
00:13:52.400 --> 00:13:55.500
partly because empirical work is
very time-consuming,
00:13:56.000 --> 00:13:59.100
and you may have a sense that something is
00:13:59.300 --> 00:14:02.400
convincing and sensible
00:14:03.000 --> 00:14:04.100
and you haven't really fully made the case for that,
00:14:04.100 --> 00:14:05.100
but you're convinced
00:14:05.100 --> 00:14:09.700
and that motivates you to pursue it,
like the draft lottery story.
00:14:10.700 --> 00:14:17.300
I was pretty sure that was
worth doing
00:14:17.300 --> 00:14:21.100
and I came away from working with Guido
00:14:21.100 --> 00:14:24.800
seeing that there was the potential to say something
00:14:24.800 --> 00:14:25.800
more than just about that particular problem,
00:14:25.800 --> 00:14:29.500
and I think over the those early
years in the 90s,
00:14:29.500 --> 00:14:35.000
our thinking evolved together
that there's actually a framework,
00:14:35.100 --> 00:14:37.800
a way to solve a lot of problems
00:14:38.200 --> 00:14:41.700
and I think that that is the power of
the late framework,
00:14:41.700 --> 00:14:42.800
is it answers a lot of questions in some sense.
00:14:43.150 --> 00:14:44.150
♪ (music) ♪
00:14:44.500 --> 00:14:46.300
In some sense, did you find that,
00:14:46.300 --> 00:14:50.700
email versus facts versus in -person,
the medium mattered
00:14:50.700 --> 00:14:52.000
to how collaboration went
00:14:52.100 --> 00:14:55.200
or they're ways that you felt like it
was the most useful to collaborate?
00:14:55.300 --> 00:14:59.700
To me, I think what matters most is,
initially you have a period--
00:15:00.000 --> 00:15:04.900
We needed that initial period,
that was very intense with almost
00:15:05.100 --> 00:15:08.800
daily interaction and we also became friends.
00:15:08.900 --> 00:15:13.900
You don't develop the kind of friendship,
electronically usually
00:15:15.000 --> 00:15:19.000
but once you have that foundation you can be pen pals
00:15:19.300 --> 00:15:25.300
and we did use e-mail,
though it wasn't as useful then
00:15:25.500 --> 00:15:28.400
but it worked,
but we definitely had a lot of faxes.
00:15:28.400 --> 00:15:34.000
I still have these faxes, long faxes
00:15:34.000 --> 00:15:35.000
and then in the summer, I would come to Cambridge,
00:15:35.000 --> 00:15:40.300
usually to the NBR meetings
and hang around for a few weeks
00:15:40.300 --> 00:15:43.000
and you visited me in Israel.
00:15:43.000 --> 00:15:44.000
I visited in Israel.
00:15:44.000 --> 00:15:48.400
But yeah, there was good foundation from that that year
00:15:48.500 --> 00:15:51.000
and in some sense that was enough.
00:15:51.500 --> 00:15:53.000
and nowadays,
00:15:53.300 --> 00:15:56.600
I have the co-authors
in lots of different places,
00:15:56.600 --> 00:15:59.100
but it's always been important
00:15:59.200 --> 00:16:01.400
to spend some time with
people in the same place each year.
00:16:01.500 --> 00:16:04.900
You understand how they work, how they think,
00:16:05.000 --> 00:16:07.600
even to the point that,
00:16:07.600 --> 00:16:10.400
you know when they actually respond,
whether they respond quickly or whether that means,
00:16:10.400 --> 00:16:14.100
they're not actually doing anything
00:16:14.100 --> 00:16:15.100
or that mean they're thinking hard about a problem
00:16:15.100 --> 00:16:17.300
and they just take take longer.
00:16:17.300 --> 00:16:20.200
but you do need to
develop some understanding there.
00:16:20.200 --> 00:16:24.304
♪ (music) ♪
00:16:24.304 --> 00:16:25.900
We've talked about
how your collaboration started,
00:16:26.900 --> 00:16:31.000
maybe just to step back slightly
were they're sort of features about
00:16:31.000 --> 00:16:34.900
the environment at Harvard or in Cambridge,
at the time, which you felt like contributed to it?
00:16:35.000 --> 00:16:37.400
Coming from Brown,
00:16:38.000 --> 00:16:42.100
I felt it was very intimidating place
because it clearly was a very, very
00:16:43.500 --> 00:16:45.100
impressive set of people.
00:16:45.200 --> 00:16:48.200
Zvi Griliches was there, Dale Jorgensen--
00:16:48.200 --> 00:16:49.200
Gary, Jerry Hausman, Whitney Newey, sometimes Jamie Robins.
00:16:52.600 --> 00:16:55.900
I mean, my view of that in retrospect,
00:16:55.900 --> 00:16:58.300
I can't say I loved every
minute of every talk
00:16:58.300 --> 00:16:59.500
I ever gave in that Workshop,
00:16:59.500 --> 00:17:02.400
but that was the highest powered,
that was the group you wanted to reach...
00:17:02.400 --> 00:17:03.400
(Guido) Yeah.
00:17:03.400 --> 00:17:04.900
and you would get
00:17:05.100 --> 00:17:10.600
extraordinarily insightful feedback,
even if it wasn't always easy to swallow.
00:17:11.300 --> 00:17:12.940
Yeah, and I have for a while,
00:17:12.940 --> 00:17:16.200
I would basically give a talk every semester
00:17:16.200 --> 00:17:19.000
because we didn't have any money
to be inviting people.
00:17:19.500 --> 00:17:22.000
Gary would say, "Well, why don't you give a talk?"
00:17:22.350 --> 00:17:23.350
(laughter)
00:17:26.800 --> 00:17:31.600
That was the arena for young people
with our interest.
00:17:31.700 --> 00:17:34.700
(Guido) Yeah, it was really very impressive,
00:17:35.000 --> 00:17:36.600
but it was quite tough--
00:17:36.700 --> 00:17:37.700
It was intimidating.
00:17:37.800 --> 00:17:41.000
People there had very strong
views on what they thought was
00:17:41.200 --> 00:17:46.100
the way you should do econometrics,
the way the direction things should go,
00:17:48.600 --> 00:17:53.300
now, I would think things were
getting a little stale that in fact,
00:17:53.300 --> 00:17:56.000
we were bringing in a lot
of the new ideas...
00:17:56.000 --> 00:17:57.000
(Josh) Yeah.
00:17:57.000 --> 00:18:01.900
...and that wasn't necessary
immediately appreciated.
00:18:02.800 --> 00:18:04.300
(Josh) But that's okay.
- And that's fine.
00:18:04.300 --> 00:18:10.140
We were pushed and a lot of great discussions
in that workshop about
00:18:11.250 --> 00:18:13.000
what should we make of late?
00:18:13.000 --> 00:18:15.800
But there were other questions
that were just as interesting,
00:18:15.800 --> 00:18:18.000
like the role of the propensity score -
00:18:18.400 --> 00:18:19.600
that was a big deal in the 90s
00:18:19.700 --> 00:18:24.300
and econometrics was moving towards that
00:18:25.000 --> 00:18:27.800
and there were a lot of great questions.
00:18:27.900 --> 00:18:28.500
Yeah,
00:18:28.500 --> 00:18:33.300
I learned a huge amount
there from the time I spent--
00:18:33.300 --> 00:18:34.900
(Josh) I think the other thing that Guido and I
00:18:35.000 --> 00:18:36.900
both benefited from
is we both,
00:18:37.400 --> 00:18:40.500
not at the same time, but in
early in our careers, taught
00:18:40.800 --> 00:18:42.700
econometrics with Gary Chamberlain,
00:18:43.200 --> 00:18:46.500
and that was like an
apprenticeship for us, I think.
00:18:46.800 --> 00:18:51.500
I taught a mixed graduate undergrad 1126,
00:18:51.500 --> 00:18:52.100
I don't know if they still have that number,...
00:18:52.500 --> 00:18:53.500
(Isaiah) Ahuh, they do.
00:18:53.900 --> 00:18:58.100
...very interesting course that it had both
graduate and undergraduate enrollment
00:18:58.800 --> 00:19:04.900
and it was relatively applied for an
econometrics class,
00:19:05.000 --> 00:19:06.600
and I learned a lot by teaching that with Gary.
00:19:07.500 --> 00:19:10.100
But in that sense, Harvard was a great place, very flexible there.
00:19:13.600 --> 00:19:16.332
The other thing I remember about Harvard is,
00:19:16.710 --> 00:19:20.150
well I had very good students,
00:19:20.300 --> 00:19:25.100
I taught a lot of wonderful students
who went on to have wonderful careers.
00:19:26.300 --> 00:19:31.750
Also, Harvard as an institution,
you're probably are aware of this, Isaiah,
00:19:31.750 --> 00:19:34.800
as a junior faculty member, they didn't then ask much of us,
00:19:35.000 --> 00:19:37.300
other than teaching our classes.
00:19:37.800 --> 00:19:41.300
We didn't have administrative concerns, to speak of.
00:19:41.300 --> 00:19:45.300
I think I went to two faculty
meetings in my two years at Harvard
00:19:46.600 --> 00:19:50.920
and so we're left--
00:19:50.920 --> 00:19:53.400
You were given a lot of freedom and flexibility.
00:19:53.400 --> 00:19:58.100
Yeah. Yeah. So I went to the chair said,
you know, can I teach this course Reuben?
00:19:59.000 --> 00:20:04.100
And I think it was Friedman
at the time. It was like fine.
00:20:04.600 --> 00:20:05.000
Yeah,
00:20:05.200 --> 00:20:10.100
it wasn't really any concern about what
what it was about and again that was
00:20:10.700 --> 00:20:13.000
very intimidating, experience,
but it was a great experience.
00:20:14.700 --> 00:20:17.600
If you'd like to watch more
Nobel conversations, click here.