From: "Tim Rhodes" <proftim@speakeasy.org>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Class defections etc
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 05:11:42 -0700
Damn me, I should just turn this computer off...
Derek wrote:
>Tim:
>> $P_new_money = ($proportion * $total) - $P_old_money; # the
>>vacancies in the upper class
>
>Now what exactly is this term?
>
>Derek:
>The (proportion * total) is the 'carrying capacity' for professionals in
the
>society. Take away those spaces that are already occupied by old money and
>what you have left are the vacancies. This figure is then subtracted from
>the workers.
>
>Tim:
> You've taken the class split in the previous
>generation ($proportion) and multiplied it by the new generation's total
>(according to you) population. Why? All you're doing is applying the old
>split to the next generation. Why would you do that and what does that
gain
>you?
>
>Derek:
>I think it's a realistic assumption. Class size proportions are relatively
>constant (except under changing economic conditions).
No. As I tried to show you withthe orignal equations, you can get a
population that stablizes into what _looks like_ constant proportions siply
as a result of the defection rates between the classes. Your assumption
fails because it is not the only reason the proportions might _seem_
constant.
>
>Tim:
>I think where we part ways is that you implicitly assume that the size of
>the niche in the professional class is somehow magically set by the last
>generation. Why do you make such an assumption? It's that assumption
>that's leading you astray.
>
>Derek:
>
>I agree it's an assumption, but I don't think it's so serious as you seem
to
>think.
see above.
>
>Tim:
>You're interpretation feeds the previous ratio back into the current
>generation rather than creating a new ratio based on the new population and
>the rate at which people are moving up and/or down through the class
>structure. If you think these equations are correct, I suspect you've
>entirely missed my point.
>
>Derek:
>
>I think I grasp your point. I just don't understand your use of D and 1-D
>in _both_ professional and _worker_ equations.
I'll check back in the morning (OOPS! it *is* morning!!! (groan) ) and see
what you thought of the revised equations.
-Tim
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit