4 ms·
Bad models and the end of the world
- gus_massa 13y agoI think the analysis is interesting, but I don't like the tone. A few remarks: > [...] All of the following assumptions are made by this model. [...] > 8. Elites all have times a subsistence income, rather than a smooth distribution of incomes > 9. Peasants all have , a subsistence income, rather than a smooth distribution of incomes This kind of hypothesis are standard in a rough model. They simplify the model and with some luck they don't affect the result too much. > 5. The elite class of humans preys on the peasants and produces nothing This is not standard and has more ideological than empirical base. You can use this as a definition of "elite class" and then proclaim that wealthy=elite, ... > There are more assumptions than this, but you get the idea: this model is ridiculous, over parameterized, and designed to get the answers that they did. This is important. Overparameterization is a very strong red flag, unless you have a lot of empirical evidence to support each (most of) parameter. > [Nafeez Ahmed in the Guardian's story] asserts that the paper actually compares historical civilizations using this model. It does nothing of the sort. The paper mention historical civilizations, but they don’t even make legalistic arguments that, say, the ancient Egyptians, whose civilization lasted for thousands of years, somehow follow these equations.