Sociology is sort of like dumpster-diving in that black box: that’s where all the interesting stuff can be found.
That’s Brooke Harrington trying to explain why German drug companies only have directions in German despite the large foreign population in the country. It reminds me of Stinchcombe’s argument of what social scientists should really be doing:
The central trouble with discussions of rationality is that we are taught by economists and decision theorists to treat rationality as an assumption. Only if rationality is an assumption can one derive the mathematical results from which economists and decision theorists make their living. But in the real world rationality is a variable to be explained.
Remember folks, fewer assumptions mean more fun!
- Josh McCabe
2 responses so far ↓
John S Cook // October 13, 2009 at 6:39 pm |
Important issues are where do people get their information and how does information influence whatever they are prepared to believe. Since belief systems are endogenously determined, it might be a good place for economists to start in trying to understand economic systems. If maximising behaviour is an assumption and already decided, what is left to decide? How can they deal further with rationality and consumer choice.
Brian Pitt // October 14, 2009 at 7:18 pm |
Fewer (explicit) assumptions, Yes!
No assumptions, No!
And Josh, contrary to what those in the humanities and the social sciences think, their research projects, even if they believe they are producing “grounded theory,” are replete with (inexplicit) assumptions. If they were not, they would not be able to sift between what data are significant, and what are not significant.