3 ms·

Sure, but what's the use in a simplified model that spits out a result that's wrong? Take the assumption that the "underemployed" pay little in taxes while taki

Sure, but what's the use in a simplified model that spits out a result that's wrong? Take the assumption that the "underemployed" pay little in taxes while taking money from the welfare system. Sure, on the surface. But that doesn't account for increased spending power as a result of money in their pocket (which isn't saved or put into a hedge fund, but actually spent immediately out of necessity) that goes back into the economy, nor does it account for upward generational mobility as a result of good health and affordable education, or a host of other factors that potentially turn the conclusion on its head. The problem isn't with simplicity for simplicty's sake. My concern is that we're making public policy decisions based on models that are plain wrong

Iv 8y ago
It is not wrong. It gives an approximation of reality. With 2 or 3 differential equation, you can model the growth of a city and the densification of its center in a kinda realistic way. It gives you a baseline. In such a model, population is a number. One way to look at it is to say that it has the assumption that everybody is equal, but another way to look at it is to say that we are averaging the population differences. Such a model would fail at modelling some behaviors like the densification of some suburban island, would be totally oblivious to the creation of ghettos. If the goal is to make a game, that can be enough. In some type of scientific or economic simulations they could be enough as well. > The problem isn't with simplicity for simplicty's sake. My concern is that we're making public policy decisions based on models that are plain wrong Models are, fortunately, not the only way to establish a fact-based policy. And far more complex models do exist taking more parameters into account.
honestoHeminway 8y ago
Eh, you know your model is wrong? Knowing you are wrong, is a huge leap of science. It lets all others with the same assumption know something is wrong.

Iv 8y ago

It is not wrong. It gives an approximation of reality. With 2 or 3 differential equation, you can model the growth of a city and the densification of its center in a kinda realistic way. It gives you a baseline. In such a model, population is a number. One way to look at it is to say that it has the assumption that everybody is equal, but another way to look at it is to say that we are averaging the population differences. Such a model would fail at modelling some behaviors like the densification of some suburban island, would be totally oblivious to the creation of ghettos. If the goal is to make a game, that can be enough. In some type of scientific or economic simulations they could be enough as well. > The problem isn't with simplicity for simplicty's sake. My concern is that we're making public policy decisions based on models that are plain wrong Models are, fortunately, not the only way to establish a fact-based policy. And far more complex models do exist taking more parameters into account.

honestoHeminway 8y ago

Eh, you know your model is wrong? Knowing you are wrong, is a huge leap of science. It lets all others with the same assumption know something is wrong.