Models can often be stretched to apply to regions where they only somewhat fit. I suspect that’s what’s going on here. The boundaries where we switch between models are often the most difficult to get right.
If I’m reading your comment correctly, you’re saying that the areas where the rational astrology model does better than the signaling model, are also areas where there are other, better models available. I had initially thought the rational astrology model did better in some areas. I now believe it does better than a pure signaling model in some areas, but that those areas might be ones where a different model does better still. I’ll see if I can think up an example where the RA model looks like the best option, but I currently suspect that area is small.
I still think the RA model has some explanatory points. In particular, I think it’s a useful explanation of why the social inertia exists, when the signals in question have no correlation to the desired quality. I think it’s a similar model to Schelling points in those cases, but I find it more intuitive and with much less prerequisite knowledge. (I think the Schelling point model is probably more accurate, but pays for it with added complexity and knowledge requirements.)
Models can often be stretched to apply to regions where they only somewhat fit. I suspect that’s what’s going on here. The boundaries where we switch between models are often the most difficult to get right.
If I’m reading your comment correctly, you’re saying that the areas where the rational astrology model does better than the signaling model, are also areas where there are other, better models available. I had initially thought the rational astrology model did better in some areas. I now believe it does better than a pure signaling model in some areas, but that those areas might be ones where a different model does better still. I’ll see if I can think up an example where the RA model looks like the best option, but I currently suspect that area is small.
I still think the RA model has some explanatory points. In particular, I think it’s a useful explanation of why the social inertia exists, when the signals in question have no correlation to the desired quality. I think it’s a similar model to Schelling points in those cases, but I find it more intuitive and with much less prerequisite knowledge. (I think the Schelling point model is probably more accurate, but pays for it with added complexity and knowledge requirements.)