Print

---

Colleagues

Thanks to Alan Dean for that succinct account of
Durkheim! However, I still have a problem with
the idea that you only need supra-individual
concepts in order to explain the 'social' and
not the 'psychological'. I do agree with a lot of
what is being said about having to make assumptions
in order to do simulations. However, even the notion
of a self-conscious individual 'self' is a product 
of thousands of years of social history. In the Egypt
of the Pharaohs for example, only the Pharaohs
were considered to be individuals, a status of
quasi-Godhead (to use a desperately over simplified
account for the sake of illustration).

I am sure people do realise this in the back
of their minds. It might just be that making
it more explicit might help in certain cases
where problems or paradoxes arise for
models.

I am also not sure about the idea that an
emergent effect is top-down. As I understand
it, an emergent effect is a bit like an unintended
consequence (previously ages ago I used the
example of increasting inequality in the
educational experience and outcomes of
comprehensive schools
being produced by many individual parents'
decisions). In this light they arise from many
individual decisions but are not what was
intended by any particular individual. In fact
this is just why I am so interested in simulation!

To end with a question: is anyone interested 
in the relationship of simulation results
to Amartya Sen's work on 'preferences'

Mel



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%