tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1240730580083032584.post1190009056432351045..comments2024-02-26T22:53:09.562-08:00Comments on Money, Markets, and Misperceptions: Methodological Individualism – A ReformulationUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1240730580083032584.post-47765589400278362072014-05-05T10:21:08.833-07:002014-05-05T10:21:08.833-07:00Yes agents are born into networks, and their they ...Yes agents are born into networks, and their they are dependent upon those networks.Some networks allows for individuals to move in and out of them, others do not. This is not a rule, just a description. I don't believe we are at disagreement there. Adherence to a naive MI is not a viable strategy.<br /><br />But how did that family come to exist? It came to exist by the engagement of two individuals. Although interesting, the chicken/egg argument does not get us very far. Individuals effect institutions and institutions constrain and shape individuals.<br /><br />I'll have something more substantive to contribute to this argument after I spend the next year learning ABM and learning network theory.<br />James Catonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14807595180565488334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1240730580083032584.post-47839455089183644442014-05-05T10:06:37.253-07:002014-05-05T10:06:37.253-07:00"Agents exist within a network."
This i..."Agents exist within a network."<br /><br />This implies an pre-existing agent that could be unplugged from one network and dropped into another unchanged. But that is not reality: in reality, the agents would not exist at all without the network. The network and the agents are mutually dependent. Either without the other is a mere abstraction.<br /><br />"The existent of emergent phenomena like the family is not incompatible with methodological individualism."<br /><br />Yes, but this is still backwards: in the actual world, families don't emerge from individuals: individuals emerge from families!gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1240730580083032584.post-57836729136547869552014-05-05T09:42:45.146-07:002014-05-05T09:42:45.146-07:00Your line about Hayek would make a great article t...Your line about Hayek would make a great article title.<br /><br />Agents exist within a network. This is inevitable for anyone not named Robinson Crusoe. The existent of emergent phenomena like the family is not incompatible with methodological individualism. We may have to formulate a new title for a broader, inclusive methodology, as it is not the same blunt that Mises refers to in the above passages.<br /><br />This is not the same as incorporating "all I want" into my analysis. It's adding a place for emergent phenomena. (You won't catch me saying that the state doesn't exist...)James Catonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14807595180565488334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1240730580083032584.post-53830551615343417322014-05-05T09:19:11.270-07:002014-05-05T09:19:11.270-07:00OK, so you've not quite given up the ghost? OK...OK, so you've not quite given up the ghost? OK, then contemplate this: while viewed in one way, the starting place of institutions is individuals, in another sense, the starting place of every concrete individual is in institutions: without a family none of us would have made it out of infancy, without the institution of language, which pre-existed both of us, we could not have this conversation.<br /><br />Hayek abandoned methodological individualism: you can too.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1240730580083032584.post-25310318486409497472014-05-05T09:14:49.522-07:002014-05-05T09:14:49.522-07:00Not quite. I propose that we connect institutions ...Not quite. I propose that we connect institutions with individuals. That is their starting place. Over time, these institutions may not be dependent on any single individual. This still doesn't change that in its early stages, an institution represents a network of particular individuals. James Catonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14807595180565488334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1240730580083032584.post-37730961215010528772014-05-05T08:56:11.050-07:002014-05-05T08:56:11.050-07:00"But this need not be so if we accept an inte..."But this need not be so if we accept an interaction between institutions and individuals"<br /><br />In other words, if we abandon methodological individualism! Or, looked at in a different way, if we incorporate all you want into our analysis (which is certainly a good idea!), why in the world would we still call this "methodological individualism"? It seems like China stubbornly insisting on calling a society with stock markets and billionaires "communist."gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.com