 David Colander and Richard Holt, and I have a series of several books and a whole bunch of papers, and we're still doing these things. Studying kind of where is economics going and what's the nature of economics, and some of this work has created some backlash. I'm Barkley Rosser, or J. Barkley Rosser Jr., and I'm at James Madison University. I edited the Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization for a decade, and I'm currently editing a new journal, The Review of Behavioral Economics. So you have sort of three terms. You have Orthodox, mainstream, and heterodox. And to some degree, we were inspired by seeing, being unhappy with mostly heterodox economists who would talk about mainstream orthodoxy, or mainstream orthodox neoclassical economics, and I'm kind of lumping these things together. So it's like heterodox versus this homogeneous mainstream orthodox. And we sort of decided things a little more complicated. So we decided there's sort of two aspects here. So one is an intellectual aspect and one's a sociological aspect. Orthodoxy is really an intellectual category. So this is when we think about standard neoclassical economics, equilibrium, and individual maximizing and rationality. These are aspects of this sort of Chicago school will be the sort of supreme of this, but it's much of the rest of the profession as well. This is orthodoxy, intellectual orthodoxy. The mainstream though is really a sociological category. It's the people who are in charge. Now some of the people who are in charge are orthodox, but a lot of the people who are in charge really don't support orthodox ideas. They're non-orthodox intellectually, but somehow they're at MIT, and they're at Harvard, and they're at Berkeley, and Stanford, and these places. But you think about somebody like George Hackeloff. So people are doing behavioral economics, or Verne Smith are doing experimental economics. People are very respected, and they're leaders of the discipline, but their ideas are not standard neoclassical. They're not orthodox, but they're very influential. Heterodoxy, however, combines the both. So it is both intellectual and sociological. So people who are sort of self-styled heterodox are both certainly intellectually non-orthodox, but also sort of they're not in charge. They're sociologically cast. And this is led to, of course, a lot of unhappiest. But I will also note over time that some of this whole emergence of, you might say, the sort of non-orthodox mainstream, that that's something that's happened over the last couple of decades. The sort of emergence of these sort of alternative ideas, which we are very much encouraging. That's been more in the last couple of decades, and it's become more important. But I think a lot of heterodox economists sort of are unhappy with thinking about that. They prefer to kind of have this duality between the mainstream orthodox and the heterodox, and the world's more complicated, if not complex. The standard neoclassical model usually assumes homogeneous agents, especially at least at the macro level. Of course, microeconomics has always had individuals have their own preferences, but usually you don't have these sort of interactions. Sort of people's preferences are on what I'm consuming and that's it. You don't really worry about what other people are thinking or what other people relate to. So these interactions allow for nonlinear dynamics and feedbacks that don't happen in standard models. Complexity economics is sort of a major theme of my research that cuts through a lot of different areas. Modern economists actually claim that it's physicists doing economics, but there are also a lot of economists working with some of these physicists and trying to kind of get a middle ground. There's a very long history, of course, of physics influence on economics and economic theory. We go back and Paul Samuelson, many of his ideas at a very standard, were drawn from physics. People like Philip Morowski have written books about this sort of thing. But this is a newer set of ideas. So one of the big themes has to do with probability distributions. So let's say in financial economics and also on income distributions, standard economists think about Gaussian normal distributions. We know that wealth distributions and capital income distributions and also financial market return distributions, these are not unrelated issues, have what are called power law distributions. So they have fat tails. They have greater extremes. So you have great extremes of wealth, you have great extremes of financial market outcomes going up and down with speculative bubbles and bursts. And the account of physicists, they are much more willing to use these kinds of distributions, these kinds of models. And it's really quite amazing. You can pick up graduate textbooks like, say, John Cochran or somebody, very advanced graduate textbooks, hundreds of pages long, and you will find no mention of leptocortotic or fat tail distributions. They're using these Gaussian normal distributions, which simply don't fit reality. So some of the account of physicists are coming in and saying, you need to look at facts. You need to be more scientific. Of course, some of the economists come back and say, well, but you need some economic theory. You have no economic theory. You're just making things up here. But again, the account of physics models also tend to involve nonlinear feedbacks, nonlinear dynamics. There's a close link with sort of the broader complexity literature. Some of the important account of physicists like Doine Farmer was at the Santa Fe Institute, or used to be. They were originally coming out of doing chaos theory and all kinds of nonlinear dynamics and now doing all kinds of account of physics models and so on. Some behavioral economics is, I mean, it's getting more recognized and we've had a couple of Nobel Prizes. And Thaler just got the Nobel Prize and we've had a few others. But people are taking it more and more seriously. I mean, I think one of the things that this is one of those areas where a lot of people realize that the world really is, how do people actually behave in economics? Behavioral economics tells you because behavioral economics is they don't always follow what economic theory says. They don't follow the neoclassical, individual, rationalistic kinds of models. We're back to this stuff that Colander and Holt and I were talking about. So people behave in all sorts of ways. And it may or may not be rational, but if you want to understand how the economy works, what's going on, you have to actually look at how people behave and people do the darndest things as the old television show used to say.