There is no junk social science . There are only better and worse tools. They just need to be reconfigured for clarity and better cumulative learning. The biggest problem is the tower of babel problem. Lots of specialized models for specialized purposes. People in the public crave simplicity and deep realism in social science. That's THEIR misunderstanding of social forces and structures. There is no deep realism in social science. It's all estimates of complex patterns not a true accurate model... Social science is not concerned with a life-sized model of everything. It's concerned with tools for solving specific problems. Even world systems theory is a gross simplification of a complex system but it WORKS to provide us with tools for predicting patterns of institutions Only a madman would use it as some sort of ultimately true model of the world. That's simply not how the social sciences work.... On Wed, Oct 6, 2021, 4:11 PM ryanrc111 <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Brandon, > > Never ever assume economists are idiots or that they don't understand > their own simplification of human behavior. > > No offense but I can tell by what you write that you're not trained in > economics. > > It's 100 times more sophisticated than you're making it out to be. > > For example, the strawman of rational self interest is a wonderfully > complex topic. wet assume any economist doesn't understand thwre are > tradeoffs in simplifying human behavior along utilitarian lines. > > Moreover, the economics on which economics Nobel prizes are based is very > diverse...very diverse indeed. > > One of my Schools of training was the Cafnegie Mellon tradition which > includes eight Nobel prizes ... including Oliver Williamson's transaction > costs economics which is a rare verbal theory but extremely powerful update > of Coase... also James March the organization theory guru who helped invent > a complexity view of organizational dynamics .... and Klepper, the great > economists who popularized the study of industry clusters ... all of whom I > have used in my own work as an economist. > > Herbert Simon developed the theory of bounded rationality back in the > 1940s-1960s... in other words Brandon, what you are referring to is > "rational choice theory" which was already obsolete by 1960 as a > microeconomic theory. The mainstream of economics has preferred bounded > rational models since thr 1970s. (Nobody told you apparently.... it's okay, > the political left is constantly gaslighting mainstream economics to > exploit the public and sow public doubt and confusion in economics ). Even > still, you misunderand rational choice theory. đ > > economists model social altruism and group preferences within the paradigm > of rational choice. It's not hard. You simply add group utility to > individual utility functions. Richard Dawkins made the same argument back > in the 1970s about evolution: you can easily model altruism as a rational > self interested activity...you merely include an individual emotional > preference for group outcomes. Boom, it's that simple. When I was doing > behavioral economics in the lab at U Pittsburgh, we went through all the > studies on "warm glow", "halo", and other behavioral models where the self > benefits from doing good things for others. It's standard in behavioral > economics...trust me, these economists know what they are modeling and > why. Never assume they don't understand their own work well and why they > make simplification assumptions. They do it because it's mathematically > sound. > > However rational choice theory still is a wonderful tool for > macroeconomics. You just need to understand when and why it works and when > it's a bad assumption. > > If you want me to do a video on popular misunderstanding of economics, I > can do so. Honestly Brandon, the number of people who understand mainstream > economics *but didn't have at least a masters degree in economics* is > extremely tiny. > > Economics does not try to model reality exactly as it takes place. That's > not efficient!!!!! Let me repeat, economics is the science of social > efficiency and it would be extremely inefficient to model human behavior as > realistically as possible. The purpose of economic simplification is to do > amazing tricks with math to make extremely difficult complexity problems > somehow solvable. It's pretty amazing stuff. Any great economist will tell > you they are simplifying the world for predictive reasons and if it were a > bad prediction they would change it. But if the predictions are strong they > will use simplification. > > But to understand economics, you need to start with an understanding of : > Set theory and proof techniques > Matrix algebra > Linear algebra > Differential equations and systems of second and third order equations > Recursive equations and infinite series > Network mathematics > Applied statistics on a grad level > Logic and logical axiomatic systems > > And of course, game theory > > If you don't have this math, you'll constantly misinterpret what the > claims of economists really are and why they claim what they claim .... > > Thanks > > Robert > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 6, 2021, 12:45 PM Brandon Norgaard < > [log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links >> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is >> safe. >> ------------------------------ >> >> Well, a some of the economic theories that have mathematical >> formalization and that have earned Nobel Prizes for certain people are >> really not very scientific. They often start with a very simplistic >> conception of human nature as being fully rational and self-interested and >> then derive some sort of large-scale formulas or trends from that premise. >> I can deconstruct this genre of economics theory as driven by wishful >> thinking on the part of those already wealthy and privileged. This is the >> sort of thing that has often in the past won Nobel Prizes and it is not >> very scientific because it does not have conscilience with the adjacent >> branches of science (psychology, sociology). Also, some psychological >> theories do have mathematical formalization, such as Commonsâ MHC. He >> hasnât won a Nobel because there isnât one for psychology. MHC does seem >> to have conscilience with neuro-biology and with sociology. The Nobel >> Prizes are quite notable and the way they differentiate the different >> fields and their criteria for awarding prizes has an impact on how people >> in general see science and how they evaluate scientific legitimacy. >> Perhaps the Nobel committee could re-evaluate their system and create a new >> prize for psychology. >> >> >> >> Brandon >> >> >> >> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion < >> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Henriques, Gregg - >> henriqgx >> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 6, 2021 4:20 AM >> *To:* [log in to unmask] >> *Subject:* Re: TOK Nobels in Medicine/Physiology >> >> >> >> Thanks, Robert. >> >> >> >> In slight contrast to World Systems 3.0, the UTOK is situated to help >> people see the twin conceptual problems of (a) the Enlightenment Gap and >> its inevitable downstream consequence (b) the problem of psychology. This >> is a discussion of âis,â but not at the level of empirical findings or >> predictions, but at the level of metaphysics, and our onto-epistemological >> mapping of ontic and epistemic processes. Of course, UTOK is a naturalistic >> âMetaphysical-Empiricalâ System, so we are very much concerned with data we >> can see. But I have found that the clearest line of attack is in our >> propositional organization (I lean slightly more toward rationalism than >> empiricism by nature). >> >> >> >> Academic/scientific psychology is defined as the science of behavior and >> mental processes, such that âbehaviorâ is the thing that is scientifically >> accessible, and mental processes are the inferred mental causes of >> observable activity. This epistemological-methodological framing of >> psychology makes it conceptually âsoftâ. Although I have not studied the >> justification systems that gave rise to the Nobel Prizes in science, I >> strongly suspect that the reason there is no Nobel in psychology is >> directly linked to this issue. Interestingly, Economics did achieve some >> success in mathematical formalization, which is likely why a prize was >> developed in that category. >> >> >> >> Best, >> Gregg >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion < >> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *ryanrc111 >> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 5, 2021 3:07 PM >> *To:* [log in to unmask] >> *Subject:* Re: TOK Nobels in Medicine/Physiology >> >> >> >> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links >> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is >> safe. >> ------------------------------ >> >> Brandon, >> >> >> >> One of the big gaps in perspective is whether a theorist describes the >> social as the concrete organization of the real world or as the abstract >> mechanisms underneath what is institutional. >> >> >> >> This is a classic example: >> >> >> >> The Nobel prize is a real institution that was not organized according to >> theory but according to the biases of Nobel and the Swedes who administrate >> the prize. >> >> >> >> The real world is like that: it never matches the pure abstractions that >> some people hope it will. >> >> >> >> Similarly speaking : our entire system of academic knowledge is messy. We >> have arguments routinely over what constitutes an academic field or >> subfield... or which research questions or models belong to what group of >> scholars. >> >> >> >> However sometimes the abstractions match the concrete institutional >> structure well. When that happens, the world takes special notice of the >> harmony. >> >> >> >> For example our economic institutions closely match economic theory ( Of >> course you're gonna always hear some whiny heterodox person claim that this >> is not the case, usually because the whiny person has a cultish commitment >> to a radical economy that doesn't exist )... >> >> >> >> You will notice that my world systems analysis is not a discussion of >> oughts but of "is"es...and thus I don't try to predict my own pet ideas as >> being *the future*. I make predictions that are grounded in the messy >> concrete truths of real world institutions... >> >> >> >> For example some people want to abstract the world system into only 2 >> variables: information and energy... Certainly those 2 variables are >> dominant but this is an abstraction that doesn't represent the world as it >> actually operates. In other words we do not have major institutions on the >> world level that organize our world based on categories of energy and >> information. In the real structure: energy and information production >> (education and higher learning) are both considered to be sectors and they >> are put alongside other sectors actors such as services, real estate, and >> transportation.... >> >> >> >> So sometimes the abstractions that nerds love so much are not >> corresponding to the real world institutions. >> >> >> >> A great theorist explains these gaps rather than assumes this is an error >> of humanity !!!!! >> >> >> >> Thanks Brandon!!! >> >> >> >> Robert >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 5, 2021, 2:29 PM Brandon Norgaard < >> [log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links >> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is >> safe. >> ------------------------------ >> >> You know, I was recently thinking about how the Nobel prizes can be seen >> to align with the main branches of sciences outlined within TOK, but there >> is no prize for psychology. That is a shame. I can list the Nobel prizes >> and assess how they might align with the branches of science and planes of >> existence within TOK: >> >> >> >> *Nobel Prize Analog within TOK* >> >> Physics Physical science / matter >> plane >> >> Chemistry Physical science / matter plane >> >> Economics Social science / culture plane >> >> Physiology or Medicine Biological science / life plane >> >> Peace Not really science-based, but >> sort of in the realm of Social science / culture plane >> >> Literature Artistic, not scientific, but >> sometimes covers psychological reflections in character development >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion < >> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Henriques, Gregg - >> henriqgx >> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 5, 2021 3:41 AM >> *To:* [log in to unmask] >> *Subject:* TOK Nobels in Medicine/Physiology >> >> >> >> Hi All, >> >> I encourage folks interested in the nature of the âmind-brain-behavior >> systemâ (AKA Mind1, Mind, and the set of mental behaviors as the third >> plane of existence) to check out this press release describing the Nobel >> Prizes handed out in Medicine/Physiology described here >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.nobelprize.org_prizes_medicine_2021_press-2Drelease_&d=DwICAg&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=wjF8cZoiFchamTuxBdDEmw&m=rH1HFRkiPJDFZsn09FTalwmj_b_pwlKlBGMA_GUyCm4&s=eGiofxI2CTH3HERv54tzwBNOfRRHZ2dvVAH7qh4q0J0&e=>. >> Very cool stuff. The fact that this falls under the Nobel category of >> âPhysiology and Medicineâ is a good reminder of how the categories and >> concepts of science that emerged in the Enlightenment resulted in a >> massively confusing linkage between science and âphysicalismâ. The âhardâ >> sciences, by which we mean the sciences that have a clear, coherent >> ontology, âtap outâ at psychology because we could effectively frame the >> ontology of psychology. Thus, we bracket out âthe mentalâ from âthe >> physicalâ and have the impression that the sciences are revealing the >> underlying physical reality of our mental worlds. A much better >> understanding emerges when we realize that we are metaphysically confused. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> Gregg >> >> ___________________________________________ >> >> Gregg Henriques, Ph.D. >> Professor >> Department of Graduate Psychology >> 216 Johnston Hall >> MSC 7401 >> James Madison University >> Harrisonburg, VA 22807 >> (540) 568-7857 (phone) >> (540) 568-4747 (fax) >> >> >> *Be that which enhances dignity and well-being with integrity.* >> >> Check out the Unified Theory Of Knowledge homepage at: >> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.unifiedtheoryofknowledge.org_&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=m5BijXjoyG8MfkpeDjWUpSN7gN4fS29maLCJi1QUrgE&s=HU9Ap46TmBNY20E1wFgrHFEgxAdAfq-Ia3oOkqhPBNU&e= >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.unifiedtheoryofknowledge.org_&d=DwMFAg&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=HkOJFEI1VNu2WBENb__bDFuQgkYRXPgAM6-hjn5eyKQ&s=cto6h-pv1HIBke9z47tc87lQ4Hc4A9s7Ju6dA4ODN8k&e=> >> >> >> >> ############################ >> >> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: >> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the >> following link: >> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 >> >> ############################ >> >> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: >> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the >> following link: >> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 >> >> ############################ >> >> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: >> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the >> following link: >> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 >> >> ############################ >> >> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: >> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the >> following link: >> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 >> ############################ >> >> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: >> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the >> following link: >> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 >> > ############################ To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1