In discussing models of human societies, it is important (if the goal is to have useful models) to understand the characteristics of models. We may present a 'nice sounding' model and become quite attached to it. When using an "engineering" or "software" approach it is important to recognize that we are using models of analogy. We can say that "software engineering" has certain analogous qualities to human societies, but it is not the same!

I sometimes hear people on some "Pyschohistory" sites discussing things like "gas models" or "Economic Physics" and am bewildered by the amount of hocus-pocus these people are guilty of. I will make this statement, a model is only as good as a model does. In performance qualities such as understanding and prediction, most of these 'fairy-tale' models just don't do well. This is in spite of how nice they may sound.

When I describe a software engineering approach, I use it because the native model deals with various hardware platforms, protocols, and interfaces. The software is a creative process and can easily take the path of imagination and design. In this, I find that software is quite similar to human beliefs. These beliefs often deal with real 'organic' needs as well as imagination and creativety.

In my previous excercise of "System Engineering”, I found that that was no adequate set of tools for understanding human thinking and beliefs, a quite important part of human life. Software, on the other hand, deals with ideas by analogy. I am preparing a book for publication called "The Mythology of Reality-Foundations of Psychohistory" in which my approach to modeling is spelled out.