Re: Interesting Take on Modeling

[Doyle Saylor <doylesaylor@xxxxxxx>]

Greetings Economists,
On Feb 22, 2007, at 9:09 AM, Sandwichman wrote:

> I think it is a mistake to attribute the obsession to persons.

Doyle;
I agree it's not helpful to focus upon individuals.  However, if it is
not an individual then it is a group, and groups don't have obsessions
because groups do not have the sort of cognitive ties that implies.  I
emphasize social ties.

Sandwichman writes;
Possibly Keynes was referring to the discourse itself as obsessive in
which case the evidence is right there in the discourse and is not
speculation. And even if Keynes himself had in mind obsessional
individuals when he made his observation, his statement can still be
taken as referring to the discourse and thus requiring no speculation
as to the mental state of the individuals constructing the discourse.

Doyle;
Your point here sounds like my point above.  However, you don't say of
discourse it is a communication channel, you refer to as evidence of
obsession.  The communication channel can't register or well perform
emotional content communication.  This lack makes an observation about
the obsessiveness of a 'discourse' moot.

Capitalism by the way it is organized impedes activities and forces
people to say live in poverty.  All drug addicts are obsessed with
their drug of choice, and their solitariness over the drug seems to me
indicate that obsession is not a group process of cohesion.

I think this is an old debate about psychological insights into
economics.  I think they are vague and unsubstantiated, but others
swear by them.  I suppose at this point I'll leave off because I think
computing offers avenues to be more concrete but not in relation to
adjudicating Keynes who otherwise was a towering person.
Doyle