by Summary:
Tyler Cowen comments on a paper, and Barkley Rosser, who is not an author of the paper but is interested in the issues, responds in the comments. (Ignore the trolls in the comments.) I agree with Barkley Rosser. Social phenomena are difficult to measure and subjectivity greatly complicates this. However, it doesn't invalidate all models any more than similar issues invalidate modeling in economics. Where problems arise lies not so much in modeling and modeling decisions as in misinterpreting the implications of a model owing to unstated presumptions and hidden assumptions, or exceeding scope and confusing scale. Of course, choice of parameters, operational definition, etc., although there are many issues involved that can invalidate a model. Inadequate measurement protocol also can
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important: happiness, modeling, utilitarianism
This could be interesting, too:
Tyler Cowen comments on a paper, and Barkley Rosser, who is not an author of the paper but is interested in the issues, responds in the comments. (Ignore the trolls in the comments.) I agree with Barkley Rosser. Social phenomena are difficult to measure and subjectivity greatly complicates this. However, it doesn't invalidate all models any more than similar issues invalidate modeling in economics. Where problems arise lies not so much in modeling and modeling decisions as in misinterpreting the implications of a model owing to unstated presumptions and hidden assumptions, or exceeding scope and confusing scale. Of course, choice of parameters, operational definition, etc., although there are many issues involved that can invalidate a model. Inadequate measurement protocol also can
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important: happiness, modeling, utilitarianism
This could be interesting, too:
Sandwichman writes What is Happiness?
Mike Norman writes “Causal Processes in Psychology Are Heterogeneous” — Andrew Gelman
Mike Norman writes My Journey from Theory to Reality — Asad Zaman
Mike Norman writes Andrew Gelman — Our hypotheses are not just falsifiable; they’re actually false.
Tyler Cowen comments on a paper, and Barkley Rosser, who is not an author of the paper but is interested in the issues, responds in the comments. (Ignore the trolls in the comments.)
I agree with Barkley Rosser. Social phenomena are difficult to measure and subjectivity greatly complicates this. However, it doesn't invalidate all models any more than similar issues invalidate modeling in economics.
Where problems arise lies not so much in modeling and modeling decisions as in misinterpreting the implications of a model owing to unstated presumptions and hidden assumptions, or exceeding scope and confusing scale. Of course, choice of parameters, operational definition, etc., although there are many issues involved that can invalidate a model. Inadequate measurement protocol also can do so.
Formal modeling complements conceptual modeling, which tend to be fuzzier. But conceptual modeling is also needed to encompass the full scope and deal with issues of scale, for example, by avoiding fallacies of composition. Moreover, formal modeling focuses on quantity, while conceptual modeling is also able to handle quality. Quality is often difficult to quantity.
Cognitive-affective bias and ideology also have to be considered, as some point out in the comments.
This discussion is particularly important from the economic point of view in that economics has traditionally been about "utility," which is a code word for satisfaction, with satisfaction related to happiness. Bentham's Utilitarianism is about not only individual good (micro scale), but also "the greater good of the greatest number" (macro scale).
Marginal Revolution
Which happiness results are robust?
Tyler Cowen | Holbert C. Harris Chair of Economics at George Mason University and serves as chairman and general director of the Mercatus Center