Text item: Text_1
To Bill P. & Hans:
Sorry guys. I fired off my note on models before I had read yours.
You were both far more eloquent.
I still would be interested in your anwer to the last question I
posed. What, in psychology and/or sociology is the equivalent of the
economic paradigm of perfect competitive equilibrium?
From Tom Bourbon [940509.1245]
Text item: Text_1
To Bill P. & Hans:
Sorry guys. I fired off my note on models before I had read yours.
You were both far more eloquent.
I still would be interested in your anwer to the last question I
posed. What, in psychology and/or sociology is the equivalent of the
economic paradigm of perfect competitive equilibrium?
Thomas, I'd say lineal models and theories would qualify (lineal models and
throeies of all sorts -- acknowledged and unacknowledged -- explicit [in a
few cases] and implicit [in nearly all cases] -- analyzed [rarely] and
unanalyzed [nearly always]). On that reading, I would include most of the
theoretical work in behavioral, neural, cognitive and social science, and
nearly all of the research inspired by those theories.
Later,
Tom
···
In Message Mon, 9 May 1994 10:08:09 CST, Thomas Baines <bainest@SMTPLINK.DIS.ANL.GOV> writes:
[Dan Miller (940510)]
Thomas Baines (940509):
In sociology the theoretical perspective called structural
functionalism was developed in the 30s - with a striking parallel
to Keynesian economics. The underlying assumption (model?) was that
societies exist in equilibrium. Any long term deviation from this
equilibrium is pathological, and the society will grow increasingly
unstable. Short term deviations that are controlled through social
control mechanisms (the military, police, mental health professionals,
etc.) can be functional for the system by enforcing rules and
conformity to those rules. For this type of stable society to
exist there must be agreement on values, rules, and procedures.
This consensus and the equilibrium model it supposedly reinforces
formed a mostly unquestioned approach to sociology for several
decades. This model did not work. It did not pass muster, but it
did survive because of political maneuverings in academia.
More recently, rational choice models have taken over. Here the
unquestioned assumption is that individuals operate using a
rational calculus that translates (roughly) into a cost/benefit
analytic procedure. People behave as they do because of self-interest.
Even altruistic behavior is reduced to this form of rational calculation.
Again, this approach is compatible with your economic equilibrium
model. Do these people trade notes, manuscripts, library cards?
The underlying assumptions of each go unquestioned, or more
critically, untested. The opposition in sociology can be found
among symbolic interactionists (several read the posts on this
NET), post-modern critics, and the various branches of neoMarxism.
The opponents to these stifling paradigms lack, I fear, the
necessary organizational and political savvy. Like Tom, the
central character in Michael Crichton's DISCLOSURE, we are
intelligent, but naive. Given Crichton's description of the
vicious social acts in that world, I am not sure I would want
to play the "necessary games."
Always,
Dan Miller
MILLERD@UDAVXB.OCA.UDAYTON.EDU
[Avery.Andrews 940511.1024]
(Dan Miller 940510)
If we really want to get the better of the sociologists and economists,
the most satisfying way to do it would be to develop better ways of
predicting financial market behavior. Like, why waste your time fighting
with idiots if you can just take their money away?
Avery.Andrews@anu.edu.au