[PEN-L:11355] models

[James Devine <jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Maggie Coleman writes: >one of the primary feminist critiques is that
econometrics (models) are almost by definition inaccurate.<

Models aren't inaccurate _almost_ by definition. Models are inaccurate
_totally_ by definition. They are deliberate efforts to simplify reality in
order to understand it. The tragedy -- no, the sickness -- comes when an
economist or anyone else forgets this.

_All_ abstraction is this way. When we speak of "patriarchy" or
"capitalism,"  we are simplifying the empirical, real, world. We have
images in our heads about what "patriarchy" and "capitalism" are which
cannnot capture the fullness of empirical reality. That makes these images
incomplete and thus false.

Unfortunately, such inaccuracy -- the falseness of models, of abstraction
-- is an essential part of human thinking. Even empiricists who try to
simply describe the world have to leave out details that they think are
"inessential" or unimportant, while they use various statistics compiled by
government agencies. Both the omission of details and the calculation of
statistics involves theory, i.e., abstraction, i.e., inaccuracy. The
"facts" can never speak for themselves; their presentation always involves
our theories, unfortunately often left implicit.

As folks on the left side of academia used to say, "but is it a good
abstraction?" Herein lies the key. The neoclassicals and Beckerites start
with a totally idealized vision of reality (Walrasian general equilibrium
and the 1950s nuclear family with the stay-at-home wife where everything
works so well, as with the Cleavers of "Leave it to Beaver") and then
modify it a bit to sorta kinda fit with empirical reality. They are
philosophical idealists and thus ideologists.

Ideally (;-)), the left's abstractions start from empirical reality, as
with Marx's discussion of abstraction in the introduction to the
GRUNDRISSE. Studying the world should come first. Our abstractions should
capture the shared characteristics of real-world phenomena rather than
trying to fit the world into a "neat" framework that "makes so much sense"
on a purely logical level.

Doug asks >Hey, what's wrong with sex and Freud?<

Nothing's wrong with sex (as long as it's safe and healthy). In addition to
his sexism, Freud lacked a sense of what was meant by psychological health.
(Health seemed to be a matter of going to the shrink three times a week.)
That makes it hard to define what "healthy sex" is.

Wilhelm Reich & Herbert Marcuse had some good things to say here, but they
moved far beyond Freud.


in pen-l solidarity,

Jim Devine   jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
jim_devine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ.
7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA
310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950
"Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way
and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.