This gem applies to so many fields. It's bonkers that this has to be spelled out to people who are ostensibly experts. This is why you never, ever take anyone seriously who thinks of society like a model.
This gem applies to so many fields. It's bonkers that this has to be spelled out to people who are ostensibly experts. This is why you never, ever take anyone seriously who thinks of society like a model.
I’ve never understood these critiques. If you want to study society, what’s the alternative? No matter what, you have to make a model of some kind. Yeah, some models are simplistic, but maybe they can capture the high order bits of the phenomenon they are modeling, and at least you are committing to an idea you can codify, find fault with, and improve. The alternative (never making models) seems to be a type of intellectual nihilism.
Every model is simplistic, otherwise it's not a model, but reality. Societal models (I've never heard of a remotely reasonable one, aside from psychohistory) have the unique problem where they influence the people they are supposed to model. If your business is societal models, planned obsolescence is part of the deal.
A lot of so-called experts don't quite grasp the former and don't care about the latter. They cannot be relied upon for actual decision making, since the low level details are what's hard!
> This is why you never, ever take anyone seriously who thinks of society like a model.
The description above is just a different model
Yet that is precisely what classical economic theory has done, for decades! It boggles my mind how long it's taking for that kind of reductionist, simplistic, reality-ignoring "thinking" to mature.
If you are sane, then your model must not be subject to your will; therefore it is outside "you" even if within your skull, and performs as a trusted intermediary.