CAMREC: Mealy Mouthed Conciliation

From: the Campaign for Real Economics (
Date: Fri Jul 09 1999 - 19:41:08 BST

Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 18:41:08 +0000
Message-Id: <>
To: bogus
From: (the Campaign for Real Economics)
Subject: CAMREC: Mealy Mouthed Conciliation
In-Reply-To: <CAMREC: Re: Turing tests?>

Message-Id: <>
To: CAMREC list members <>
From: the Campaign for Real Economics <>
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 18:41:08 +0000
Subject: CAMREC: Mealy Mouthed Conciliation

Dear Scott and Bruce,

Might there be problems where these two approaches coincide? After all,
explaining some features of stock prices (volatility, persistence ...)
seems to be problematic to economic theory and, in practice, many of the
solutions propose "types" of agents with different behavioural models
(noise traders, chartists ...) who also communicate in different ways.
(Without some form of communication, it is hard to explain certain sorts of
clustering behaviour.) You could at least attempt an ETT in an artificial
stock market that might cast interesting light on:

a) what humans communicate in such markets when they can talk.

b) how humans attribute motivations in trying to separate "robot" traders
from others.

The nice feature of this is that you can actually tell the participants
that some traders are robots, since this is a fairly unthreatening state of
affairs in a stock market. (A reasonable number of typical university
student experimental subjects might have heard of automated trading.)

There is still the problem of regulating communication so the ETT doesn't
simply become the TT though.



Edmund Chattoe: Research Fellow, Department of Sociology, University of
Surrey, Guildford, GU2 5XH, tel: 01483-876988 fax: 01483-259551, Associate
Director, Centre for Research on Simulation in the Social Sciences (CRESS,, Review Editor, J. Artificial
Societies & Social Simulation

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 06 2000 - 17:00:31 GMT