Slightly brusque if you don't mind me saying so Scott. I thought Leigh's example was a useful one in this thread as it offers a concrete example of the way simulation has offered insight in a research process. I will not enter a discussion of the merits or otherwise of the insights it offers as these are well outside my domain. I have found this thread interesting since it seems to bring home one aspect of 'simulation' that has not been talked about much to my knowledge - that is that it clearly offers a meeting ground for a very diverse community of researchers with different approaches to theorising about society. We may all disagree on methodology, epistemology and paradigm positions, but at least simulation seems to offer a common ground for a substantive conversation about what we do and how we work. Alan > -----Original Message----- > From: News and discussion about computer simulation in the social sciences > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Scott Moss > Sent: 25 November 2003 09:43 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Simulation and Explanation > > Leigh Tesfatsion wrote: > > > The labor market experiment I reported in an earlier email is a case > > in point. As discussed in more detail in that earlier email, a key > > **observation** in empirical labor studies is "excess heterogeneity" > > -- substantial unexplained variation in wage earnings that persists > > even after attempts are made to control for all relevant structural > > factors (gender, industry type, schooling, etc.). Recently > > (Econometrica 1999), using very long panel data (observations!), John > > Abowd et al. uncovered a surprising effect: Simply adding workers' > > names to the list of regression variables led to substantial reduction > > in the unexplained variation in wage earnings across workers who > > appeared to be in structurally similar circumstances. These > > *empirical observations* then led me to wonder whether personal > > non-price interaction effects on the work-site could -- even in > > principle -- sustain persistent variance in wage earnings among > > workers whose observed structural characteristics were absolutely > > identical. I set up a simple experiment to test this conjecture, and > > received a strongly affirmative answer. More to the point, I was > > able to see two distinct sources for the persistent wage variation > > (behavioral effects and network effects). I was also able to see > > that outcome distributions for any given treatment did not take a > > "normal" central tendency form (a common social science a priori > > assumption) but instead were spectral (multiple peaked) in nature. > > These findings, while understandable after the fact, were certainly > > not anticipated by me in anywhere near this specificity. > > > > As I now continue on with my agent-based computational modeling work > > focusing on unemployment benefit programs (e.g., in Iowa), and on a > > reliability study of New England's restructured electricity market as > > a consultant for the Los Alamos National Lab, I take with me from > > these simple labor market experiments the cautionary warning that > > non-price behavioral and network interaction effects can be very > > strong indeed, leading to spectral rather than central tendency > > distributions of outcomes even for similarly structured entities, so I > > should be extremely careful not to engage in inappropriate pooling > > purely on the basis of a priori structural categorizations (e.g., a > > priori lumping together data for all generators of a certain size and > > fuel type). > > > > In short, observation led to theorizing which in turn is changing the > > way I am organizing observed data in subsequent empirical studies, and > > so it goes in an endless feedback process. > > Leigh uses a prisoners' dilemma game theoretic formulation. Either this > was an arbitrary design choice based only on its use in other similarly > arbitrary model designs or she validated the design against some > evidence about the behaviour of workers. She does not say that she has > validated the spectral distribution of outcomes. In the worst case, > therefore, Leigh has a wholly unvalidated model inspired by an empirical > observation. However inspirational she finds the results, I do not > understand how she could use such a model with confidence to formulate > social policy. > > > By the way, I believe your original question asked for "excellent > > examples of simulation providing explanation in any field." Somehow, > > in all the email that has ensued from your original email, I have seen > > general dismissive remarks and abstract discussion but not a response > > to your request per se -- which I interpret as a request for *specific > > constructive examples*. > > > > How about it, other readers? How about engendering more constructive > > discussion on the basis of *specific* examples? > > > Off the top of my head, there is the VDT model produced by Ray Levitt > and colleagues at Stanford, the models of the Anisazi by George Gumerman > and colleagues, models of domestic water demand produced for the UK and > Catalonia as part of the European FIRMA project, I'll chuck in one of my > papers on critical incident management in JASSS a few years ago, a model > of electricity usage by Jan Treur's team in Amsterdam (reported I think > in ICMAS-98), Kathleen Carley's recent work on biological weapons use. > What these all have in common is that they are descriptive first. It is > also the case that some generalisable techniques have been developed in > the course of mplementing these models. > > regards, > Scott