At 07:35 PM 7/20/97 -0700, Maggie wrote: >Nope. This is why ( as I pointed out) other types of debate are more >It may not have been phrased exactly this way, but what I say in the rest of >my initial message is that one of the primary feminist critiques is that >econometrics (models) are almost by definition inaccurate. In other words, >they are parsimonious to the point where they can not possibly reflect social >issues (power, gender, race, sexual preference, etc.). So even when power is >added to a model, the model inaccurately portrays the exercise of power >because the one dimensional nature of mathematics does not allow for the >variable degrees of the exercise of power. Is that really the result of mathematics, or is it the result of a model that starts with the assumption that we don't have to worry about power (or attempts to change the rules of the game)? If you had a model that did start by putting power at the center, why couldn't you use math to talk about variable degrees of power? >Further, econometrics is only one >form of logic, generally associated with men, and its use as a legitimizing >force to the exclusion of all other types of logic (artistic, intuitive) is >in and of itself a form of bigotry. Two questions: -- Suppose econometrics gave us the answers we wanted. Would it be bigotry to say, that's what we're going to use to the exclusion of, say, artistic logic? -- Are you arguing that econometrics doesn't involve intuitive and other forms of logic, or are you saying that when it's used as a legitimating force, it pretends that it doesn't involve intuition, etc.? The reason I ask is that I remember reading articles about the history of econometrics many moons ago that analyzed the shift in rhetoric, and they all argued that econometrics was an attempt to appopriate the images of "hardness" and "rigor" from physics while denying the role of intuition, etc. that physics takes for granted. Mind you, I'm not arguing in favor of econometrics. If it weren't for the destruction that econometrics has legitimized, it'd be hard not to giggle at the absurdly macho rhetoric that surrounds its use in academic circles (Revenge of the Nerd Boys?). I don't like econometrics because it doesn't seem worth the effort (although I'm glad that there are very smart folks on our side who've taken the time to master it). Spend years and years learning to build all these models, and what does it get you? Not a lot more, as far as I can tell, than years spent as a business reporter. The difference, of course, is that at the end of all those years of study, a good business reporter can write with grace and can communicate with ordinary folks. Anders Schneiderman Progressive Communications
