A common class of problems in economics resolve to the following issue: They are either false and/or inconsistent, OR for the sake of consistency & truth, become trivial, inapplicable, question begging and/or tautological.
This is different than saying they have empirical assumptions that don’t match reality. While this is a common critique, it’s basically easy to dismiss because all science simplifies & distinguishes between type & token models.
A critique of an economic model can be formal & a priori—showing it’s contradictory, substantive & a posteriori—showing it’s empirically false, and these are obviously the most common tacks people take to criticize economics. Attacking models or predictions, but these fall short
People always talk about how hierarchy and the chain of command works because it’s more efficient etc, but studies on this find this distinctly untrue and for many reasons
For example, while it is impossible to maximize efficiency due to certain kinds of costs, dynamics & errors, under either or a mix of command & exchange, cooperation lacks that ‘impossibility theorem’
Wherever information & control need to flow along the same lines, you get an incentive compatibility problem—such a situation encourages evasion, dishonesty, hubris, confirmation bias, surveillance, waste etc—but SEPARATING them raises its own costs due to communication etc
Obviously not just conservatives, but people form affective attachments to their cultures, the violations of which produce rage. Meanwhile, taboos & the profane are considered fundamentally unclean, provoking disgust of those who are non-normative in some way.
While Adornos study on the authoritarian personality was famously bad, nonetheless a kind of authoritarian personality does exist, where people are less empathetic & more prone to rage & disgust at taboo violations.
Realists in international affairs predict that the structure of the international state system generates its own logic & rationality which will be determinative of what happens in global politics. On many issues of substance they’re actually correct.
This is opposed to those who view international politics as determined by factors internal to states—their structure, their factions, their ideology, their economy & so on, which has many sub schools—such as liberals, Marxists, organization theorists, social movements
Marxists predict that it is the structure of the int’l economy, specifically the dictates of capital accumulation & private property, which drive political action, and thus see war as driven by imperialist needs to shore up profit rates & open up new markets. Also often correct.
I wonder if having taught people in High School that Fascism is a definite social system & not just like people being mean would have made a difference for modern discourse.
Mostly I think not—there’s a way that certain subjects (Fascism, the Holocaust, MLK, Racism, Civil Right’s, Activism, Supply & Demand) can only enter the discourse partially & in a motivated substance-less manner
A social, political (& economic) system
Often anti-Semitic, racist &/or colonial
Sometimes @ first superficially anti-liberal, anti-conservative & anti-clerical, but this is always dropped once in power
Orwell pulls the same kind of parlor trick as Ayn Rand where he makes the totalitarians insist that “2+2=5” as if to suggest:
a. tautologies captain substantive truth content &
b. the primary & distinguishing feature of injustice is a disregard for the truth
The problem is that every regime or political actor, just or unjust, lies—its intrinsic to politics.
Second tautologies are trivial & useless for politics.
Third, any successful political group must use some science, technology, social science etc—it can’t just grope endlessly.
How amazing would it be if we lived in a world where, not only did tautologies contain some immense illocutionary force, but their assertion acted as any kind of bulwark against the depredations of power whatsoever.
Jordan Peterson’s functionalist account of hierarchy is so risible that not only do anthros & socs not believe it, but economists, political scientists & evolutionary biologists consider it basically conclusively disproved.
Let’s look at the evolutionary evidence first. Hierarchy depends at least minimally on a social structure, so only social animals can display it. But how common is it among animals? It varies but it’s less common than is normally realized.
First, hierarchies rarely develop where there is:
a. an abundance of resources—among hierarchies that do exist, conflict occurs rarely under abundance or
b. free movement—absent some sort of enclosure, animals just leave hierarchies. This is incredibly common.
The Appalachian accent most resembles British Colonial English, because like the Texan accent which formed in RESPONSE to later in-migration, British elites purposefully changed their accent to distinguish themselves from Americans, only later to be aped in 'Mid Atlantic' English
There are no languages, only dialects with a government--intra-linguistic variation across geography, density, race, age, class, gender & culture is constant, while some inter-linguistic variation is *less* than the intra-linguistic variation of each of the distinct languages
For example, French & Italian, and Spanish & Portuguese, display inter-linguistic lexical similarity rates similar to that of the intra-linguistic variation rate of American English, spread across millions of ethnicities, groups & geographic area (esp if you consider esl)
I can't begin to tell you how much I despise this meme. Of all the reasons to make a million, hers is among the least offensive. What's more the joke relies on misogyny, classism, ageism & Boomer moralism to work whatsoever. It's also just incredibly humorless.
It's the left wing equivalent of 'girls be shopping' and I'm so over it.
The visibility of celebrities, whether from Hollywood, music, sports, or viral stars, makes them easy target for reprobation but the irony is they're among the least offensive, in principle, of the elite class. They're rich & visible place holders for a broader system.
Gabriel Tarde proposed a sort of micro-theory whereby individuals interact, and every time they do so they leave a sort of behavioral residue on each other, however small. In other words, there's really 2 actions--innovation & imitation, to use anachronistic terms
The parallel to innovation-imitation models isn't exact, but it's close enough--and I bring them up because it's been shown that I/I based Agent Based Models are capable, as a micro theory, of explaining pretty much any other micro theory in practice, w enough prompting
While any Macro outcome can be explained by any micro outcome, this is different--this is a micro outcome that can explain other micro outcomes. Give it the right starting prompts, or create 'attractors'--institutions, technologies, focal points--and it will perform as you desire