Hahrie Han

And actually, one more thing that I'll just say, which might be another way to think about it, is one of the things I've been thinking about a lot since working on this book is also related to a set of questions about, you know, what are the ways in which the kind of –

And actually, one more thing that I'll just say, which might be another way to think about it, is one of the things I've been thinking about a lot since working on this book is also related to a set of questions about, you know, what are the ways in which the kind of –

models that we have in our head for how we think about politics might be different than the models that we have when we think about things like markets, which is not an original question. Lots of people have that question, obviously. But one of the things I think is

models that we have in our head for how we think about politics might be different than the models that we have when we think about things like markets, which is not an original question. Lots of people have that question, obviously. But one of the things I think is

that working on this book really, I think, helped me understand in a different way is the idea that markets, we build our models from a set of assumptions about like humans, how humans form, generate interest, and then we sort of like reason up to the kind of systems and how they come to interact with each other and create the system.

that working on this book really, I think, helped me understand in a different way is the idea that markets, we build our models from a set of assumptions about like humans, how humans form, generate interest, and then we sort of like reason up to the kind of systems and how they come to interact with each other and create the system.

And I think in a way with politics, we have to start with the assumption that what we're asking people to do in these public actions in politics, right, is countercultural because of the uncertainty, because of all the things that we've talked about. And so the models should start not with an individual, but with a dyad.

And I think in a way with politics, we have to start with the assumption that what we're asking people to do in these public actions in politics, right, is countercultural because of the uncertainty, because of all the things that we've talked about. And so the models should start not with an individual, but with a dyad.

right and sort of think about it from this question of let's say we were to because politics only comes into play when you have people interacting with each other so let's start with a an assumption about a dyad and what goes on in that dyad right and then you can reason from there about the kind of system that we need and the reason why i think that's relevant is because when you think about a dia then questions about things like the construction of interests the ways in which we come to understand negotiation you know all that kind of stuff becomes endogenous

right and sort of think about it from this question of let's say we were to because politics only comes into play when you have people interacting with each other so let's start with a an assumption about a dyad and what goes on in that dyad right and then you can reason from there about the kind of system that we need and the reason why i think that's relevant is because when you think about a dia then questions about things like the construction of interests the ways in which we come to understand negotiation you know all that kind of stuff becomes endogenous

to the model in a way that i think it just raises a different set of questions when you start with an individual so it's not to say that you can't end at the same place but it's more that the kinds of questions you're led to ask if you start with a diet are different than the kinds of questions that you start to ask if you start with an individual and so it's a different way of thinking about this question of what is the system that we need for the humans that we have you know for the kind of democracy that we're trying to construct

to the model in a way that i think it just raises a different set of questions when you start with an individual so it's not to say that you can't end at the same place but it's more that the kinds of questions you're led to ask if you start with a diet are different than the kinds of questions that you start to ask if you start with an individual and so it's a different way of thinking about this question of what is the system that we need for the humans that we have you know for the kind of democracy that we're trying to construct

Yeah. So I'm thinking more about the kind of interactive, the question of interaction, right? And so, yeah, so it could be an individual in a larger structure. It could be an individual in a network or something like that. Yeah. But the idea is that, you know, you don't have politics when you have individuals acting as individuals, right?

Yeah. So I'm thinking more about the kind of interactive, the question of interaction, right? And so, yeah, so it could be an individual in a larger structure. It could be an individual in a network or something like that. Yeah. But the idea is that, you know, you don't have politics when you have individuals acting as individuals, right?

Like if we just were to reduce politics down to a model of individual choice, which is essentially what... you know, how markets operate, then it takes out the politics that are in politics in a way.

Like if we just were to reduce politics down to a model of individual choice, which is essentially what... you know, how markets operate, then it takes out the politics that are in politics in a way.

Yeah. So, you know, voting theory, you know, kind of I think to me what I object to in some of the theories in a lot of way in which the models get applied in voting theory is that it assumes that the whole is nothing more than the added of some of its parts. Right.

Yeah. So, you know, voting theory, you know, kind of I think to me what I object to in some of the theories in a lot of way in which the models get applied in voting theory is that it assumes that the whole is nothing more than the added of some of its parts. Right.

And so the whole idea behind voting is that like lots of people make their choices and then we add them up and we see who's got a majority and then we're done. Right. And. And that I think actually is a really reduced form of politics in the technical sense. That is how the system works.

And so the whole idea behind voting is that like lots of people make their choices and then we add them up and we see who's got a majority and then we're done. Right. And. And that I think actually is a really reduced form of politics in the technical sense. That is how the system works.