Re: Santa Fe-Krugman-Arthur

[Rosser Jr, John Barkley]

Doug,
     I think that you are overreacting here to phraseology. 
Yes, I realize that "interacting particles" can sound 
pretty awful, miniscule even.  But as noted these agents 
react to each other and learn from and about each other.  
There is nothing in the approach that says the agents have 
to be identical or that they may not be in conflict.  
Indeed, in most of these models what is interesting is that 
the agents are different and evolve differently.  One can 
even set it up to have them conflict in an organized 
fashion.  This is not the agenda of the SFI itself, but 
even within its agenda there is often an effective conflict 
between different agents.  This goes on in their stock 
market model, not a class conflict model, but one in which 
heterogeneous agents are behaving differently from each 
other and in response to each other and the market.
Barkley Rosser
On Sun, 8 Feb 1998 17:03:10 -0500 Doug Henwood 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Rosser Jr, John Barkley wrote:
> 
> >Doug,
> >     You are interested in analyzing capitalism aren't you?
> >It's a system isn't it?
> >     Also, you are one of the most intrepid and capable
> >data wonks in cyberspace.  Why the sudden horror of data?
> 
> Look, I have nothing against analyzing society systematically, or I
> wouldn't admire Marx so much. I have nothing against using numbers to
> analyze social reality either, or I wouldn't make so many charts. Nor do I
> have any objection to using chaos theory to talk to math-heads to argue
> that simple systems can go wild or that models are exquisitely sensitive to
> assumptions. What I object to in the Santa Fe research program, which has a
> lot in common with a whole lot of neoclassicals and even some radicals, is
> the impulse to view society as something that can or should be thought of
> as something that can be represented using the same kinds of models used to
> represent the physical world. As the Santa Fe statement puts it:
> 
> "Much of the work envisions the economy as composed of large numbers of
> interacting agents, mutually adjusting to each other as time passes. The
> agents in this economy - the 'interacting particles' of economics - decide
> their actions consciously, with a view to the possible future actions and
> reactions of other agents. That is, they formulate strategy and
> expectations, they learn and adapt. As this learning and mutual adaptation
> take place, new economic structures or patterns may emerge, and there is a
> continual formation and reformation of the institutions, behaviors, and
> technologies that comprise the economy."
> 
> Maybe I'm exhibiting the unsteeled romanticism of a former English major in
> finding "interacting particles" a repulsive way to think about human beings
> and their institutions. No longer even appendages of flesh attached to
> machines, we're machines ourselves, or virtual representations of machines.
> I suppose it's not far from Homo economicus to the rational calculating
> machine, but it is a step. Or should I go all Donna Haraway now and embrace
> the cyborg as our future?
> 
> It's not just alienation that's missing from Santa Fe picture - it's any
> notion of conflict, struggle, or politics. Joan Robinson said that the
> neoclassicals wanted to replace history with equilibrium; now we're
> replacing it with "adaptation," which may or may not lead to equilibrium,
> but which ain't no improvement.
> 
> Doug
> 
> 

-- 
Rosser Jr, John Barkley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]