People particles

John Hawks responds to the new issue of Science with its focus on complex systems, networks, and social science. It seems that, overall, Hawks sees the value in agent-based modeling and complexity. Individual differences are not the only determining factor of behavior and network effects have to be considered.

I do share his criticism though. That often models assume homogeneity among all the agents. There are models that embrace heterogeneity and investigations of the effects of heterogeneous populations on collective outcomes is actually a specific topic for many complexity researchers now. The other criticism, that any modeling approach that treats the units as particles be called 'physics', is incredibly valid. I despise the term 'socio-physics' or 'econo-physics' - I think they're ridiculous names. They are the result of the group of physicists who crossed disciplines and decided to come up with a new name to distinguish themselves from social science. Well, Hawks also makes a remark about that as well (regarding disciplinary boundaries).

Anywho, I would highly advise against calling agent-based models as "particle models". Agent implies something very different than particle does. The term particle, to me, makes the agents in the system seem very passive, while in many models its key that the agents show, well, agency and have intentions, opinions, and tastes.

I'm glad to see complex systems making their way into the mainstream, although I had hoped I would be embedded more fully in them before that happened. Like catching a wave at the right time.