I wish I never used the word "obey." It was a bad choice and I am sorry. But I still think it is an interesting and non-trivial observation if the Gibbs distribution (which is not an obvious distribution in the first place) consistently models wealth distribution in diverse societies. The explanation for the "findings" provided by the authors could be ideological and yet the initial study could also be non-trivial.
There isn't even a correlation;
> there could not be, because an idealized gas is
> neither a dependent nor an independent variable of a
> wealth distribution. There is only, perhaps, the fact
> that a wealth distribution exhibits certain
> statistical properties also exhibited by ideal gases.
> But statistical properties are similar in lots of
> systems that have no relationship. Bell curves.
> Bimodal distributions. Etc. You find them all over the
> place.
Nicely stated. And yes the Gibbs distribution is a statistical model, but not one I would expect to provide a model for wealth distribution.
It is total nonsense to suggest that there is some
> sort of social physics involved such that you are
> explaining social phenomena in physical terms, or that
> physical laws or models are somehow explanatorily
> illuminating merely because you find, if you do,
> common statistical properties in the idealized gas of
> stat mech and in some econometric measure of wealth
> distributions.
Well, it is possible that complex social systems do act in ways similar to physical systems and that similar models can be applied to each. I wouldn't rule it out a priori.
The abstract or quote from the research quote posted a
> bit later makes this quite clear. In fact what these
> guys have to offer is boring and conventional
> bourgeois economic commonplaces about the rich being
> richer because they are thriftier, which is false,
> uninteresting, and has no connection whatsoever to any
> part of physics.
>
> I'm actually open-minded about reductionism as a
> program for psychological and social research. I wrote
> a doctoral dissertation and a number of papers
> defending the possibility before I got bored with the
> subject. This is the sort of claptrap, however, that
> gives reductionism a bad name. If there's nothing more
> useful to be said about physical bases for phenomena
> like the distribution of wealth than this, best to
> give it up for a bad job. As far as reductionist
> programs go, sociobiology is far more promising. (And
> yes, I think there's something to sociobiology.)
> Properly framed it is at least coherent, possible, and
> potentially explanatory. This stuff is just dreck.
--- Jerry Monaco <monacojerry at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 4/24/07, andie nachgeborenen
> > <andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > The idea that income
> > > distributions obey the laws of classical
> > statistical
> > > mechanics is ludicrous. In any event, there are
> > far
> > > more useful and comprehensible explanations in
> > terms
> > > of the behavior of capitalist markets and power
> > > politics.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Yes, well this is exactly my knee jerk reaction.
> >
> > But take the study on its own terms and assume for a
> > moment that you
> > view the evidence in the most favorable light
> > against the party whom
> > you just delivered summary judgment against assuming
> > that all the
> > facts as presented by the researcher are established
> > and drawing all
> > reasonable references from those facts. Starting
> > from here the
> > evidence is that wealth distribution can be found to
> > obey the models
> > of statistical mechanics and specifically the model
> > of the Gibbs
> > distribution at least in Japan, the U.S., the U.K.,
> > India, and 19th
> > century Europe. If this is so even for a few
> > societies and for a
> > limited amount of time, what does this say about the
> > structure of
> > human societies and/or power distribution within
> > human societies?
> > This is the limited question.
> >
> > It is possible that it is a coincidence that the
> > Gibbs distribution
> > and wealth distribution correlate, but even so it is
> > a strange
> > correlation even for a few societies.
> >
> > But a bigger _if_.... If it is so also true for
> > societies that don't
> > have market systems what would this say about the
> > structure of complex
> > societies in general? (Maybe you should leave out
> > my "bigger" ifs....
> > )
> >
> > Jerry
> > ___________________________________
> >
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
-- Jerry Monaco's Philosophy, Politics, Culture Weblog is Shandean Postscripts to Politics, Philosophy, and Culture http://monacojerry.livejournal.com/
His fiction, poetry, weblog is Hopeful Monsters: Fiction, Poetry, Memories http://www.livejournal.com/users/jerrymonaco/
Notes, Quotes, Images - From some of my reading and browsing http://www.livejournal.com/community/jerry_quotes/