tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post8789685777249636483..comments2024-03-27T03:00:27.024-04:00Comments on Facts & other stubborn things: Abandonment of methodological individualism in aggregate analysis is not the same as the attribution of agency to non-individualsEvanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12259004160963531720noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-62974052920475086552012-01-03T15:49:22.394-05:002012-01-03T15:49:22.394-05:00Gene's response is the best one. I really hav...Gene's response is the best one. I really have clue zero why this is such a big deal amongst economists.Lord Vaderhttp://lordvader.empire.sith.jedisuck.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-32848300213196224562012-01-03T14:53:13.466-05:002012-01-03T14:53:13.466-05:00Yes, increasingmu: work at whatever level of analy...Yes, increasingmu: work at whatever level of analysis helps solve the problem you are studying.<br /><br />Jeez, pick up any book of, say linguistics, and you'll get a "none of the above": No linguist thinks the English language or universal grammar are agents! But they analyze at that level.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-24571821509579602912012-01-03T13:55:51.977-05:002012-01-03T13:55:51.977-05:00If it is NOT the attribution to non-individuals, y...If it is NOT the attribution to non-individuals, you are bordering on methodological instrumentalism, which is very dangerous.<br /><br />Or is there a "none-of-the-above" response to,<br /><br />a) methodological individualism<br />b) attributing of agency to non-individuals<br />c) arguing that it doesn't matter what is really true because our theories are just toolsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-43044524115335442772012-01-03T10:40:12.668-05:002012-01-03T10:40:12.668-05:00"Methodological individualism is wrong becaus..."Methodological individualism is wrong because it confuses the nature of human action with the imperatives of social science."<br /><br />It seems like it is "right" or "wrong" depending on the circumstance. <br /><br />Anywho, in the bit of research I did on the concept this is what I found to be the most interesting short read as far as criticisms go: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/methodological-individualism/#6Lord Vaderhttp://lordvader.empire.sith.jedisuck.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-61695749459951635382012-01-03T09:59:50.864-05:002012-01-03T09:59:50.864-05:00Synergy requires that the whole is more than just ...Synergy requires that the whole is more than just the sum of its parts. Of course, Don Boudreaux here is incorrect to assume that a community is an economic actor, as you point out.<br /><br />Keynes knew it best to have a restricted holistic approach, in fact...<br /><br />http://www.springerlink.com/content/l0006710g1438j15/Blue Auroranoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-18489002233232631912012-01-03T09:59:16.123-05:002012-01-03T09:59:16.123-05:00But Krugman does talk about 'us' as having...But Krugman does talk about 'us' as having not just agency, but moral culpability for that agency, and this 'us' doesn't just extend to, well, us, but instead represents an intemporal and eternal 'us' in which 'we' maybe be responsible for things 'we' did before 'we' were ever born. All Bourdreaux's doing is having a little fun by teasing out some of the implications of Krugman's chosen language and I read it as more a critique of rhetoric than economics. Phrases like 'we owe it to ourselves' are not meant to communicate economic ideas but to sell them by appeal to vague patriotic feelings.teqzillahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10644136551384385125noreply@blogger.com