why would it depress me?
> Actually
>what is considered by many to be one of the most
>important papers in economic complexity theory
>first appeared there in its first volume. That is
>Thomas C. Schelling, "Dynamic Models of Segregation,"
>Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 1971, vol. 1, pp. 143-186.
> Basically it is how a little bit of prejudice, locally applied,
>can lead to a whole lot of segregation, globally experienced.
>The little bit of segregation is the shoe that got lost....
> Standard econ math (and econometrics) is quite a bit
>more these days than just multiple regression, which will not
>get one published in a leading journal generally these days.
>Barkley Rosser
yeah, that's not the case in soc, tho. we still use variable analyses, regression analysis, and variations on the theme, for the most part. that's why i've argued for mathematical sociology as the way to go when looking at social structure. you see, that's supposed to be what makes "us" unique -- that we deal with social structure and see it as having generative properties distinct from the aggregate of individuals -- and what we love to bash economists for! but when it gets too mathematical and complex you aren't saying that much, not to mention that people completely recede from the picture. and we want to deal with people--motivations, beliefs, etc as well. it's a stumper, but what the methodology part of my diss is trying to deal with -- moving between the micro, meso, and metalevels of analysis. but perhaps after your latest globetrotting you can give me an overview -- just for fun. i can do my own homework, of course, but i was curious what lefty types have to say about it.
thanks, kelley