[PEN-L:11370] Re: on CEO Pay

[MScoleman@xxxxxxx]

In a message dated 97-07-21 10:04:11 EDT, Anders writes:

>At 07:35 PM 7/20/97 -0700, Maggie wrote:
>>Nope. This is why ( as I pointed out) other types of debate are more
>>It may not have been phrased exactly this way, but what I say in the rest
of
>>my initial message is that one of the primary feminist critiques is that
>>econometrics (models) are almost by definition inaccurate.  In other words,
>>they are parsimonious to the point where they can not possibly reflect
>social
>>issues (power, gender, race, sexual preference, etc.).  So even when power
>is
>>added to a model, the model inaccurately portrays the exercise of power
>>because the one dimensional nature of mathematics does not allow for the
>>variable degrees of the exercise of power.
>
>Is that really the result of mathematics, or is it the result of a model
>that starts with the assumption that we don't have to worry about power (or
>attempts to change the rules of the game)?  If you had a model that did
>start by putting power at the center, why couldn't you use math to talk
>about variable degrees of power?
Weeeelllll, part of it is the assumptions on which the model is based--so,
frinstance, Posner's recent work which "proves" that white men should receive
a larger part of the medical research dollar because the loss of white men to
ill health or death costs more is an excellent example of assumptions
determining outcome.  As long as we measure the value of life in terms of
documented income from the market place, and do not place a monetary value on
household labor, mainstream economists will always reach this conclusion.
 ***However**** even if one incorporates truly progressive values into
econometric work--and I think that there is some really good work out there
(frinstance, Australlian economist Gillian Hewitson did an excellent rational
choice model for surrogate mothers) I question the ability of mathematics to
portray the complexities of social interactions.  Does racism or sexism or
power vary with mathematical certitude even in exactly the same situations
over time?  I really don't think so.

>
>>Further, econometrics is only one
>>form of logic, generally associated with men, and its use as a legitimizing
>>force to the exclusion of all other types of logic (artistic, intuitive) is
>>in and of itself a form of bigotry.
>
>Two questions:
>
>-- Suppose econometrics gave us the answers we wanted.  Would it be bigotry
>to say, that's what we're going to use to the exclusion of, say, artistic
>logic?
I'm not sure I understand the question--but--I wrote in answer to Jim Devine
that I am not completely convinced by this portion of the feminist argument.
 I don't think there has been enough of a separation between econometrics as
a tool and the USE of that tool by the mainstream as a way of promoting all
forms of bigotry.

>
>-- Are you arguing that econometrics doesn't involve intuitive and other
>forms of logic, or are you saying that when it's used as a legitimating
>force, it pretends that it doesn't involve intuition, etc.?  The reason I
>ask is that I remember reading articles about the history of econometrics
>many moons ago that analyzed the shift in rhetoric, and they all argued
>that econometrics was an attempt to appopriate the images of "hardness" and
>"rigor" from physics while denying the role of intuition, etc. that physics
>takes for granted.
All science begins with intuition.  However, econometrics simplifies this
intuition to a parsimonious skeleton and--at best--is useful as a compliment
to intuitive explanations.  Further, I question the definition of intuition.
 Depending on who you talk to, women intuitively put themselves into
subservient positions and blacks want to work part time and ... .  How many
times have you (or I or anyone) heard that gender or racial roles are
natural--women are natural mothers?  (To which I generally reply: if
motherhood is so natural then why are there so many battered children?)  The
infamous "Bell Curve" argued that racial inferiority of intelligence was
'natural'.

intuitively yours, maggie coleman mscoleman@xxxxxxx