Friam

Reed's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Classic

List

Threaded

19 messages Options

Owen Densmore

Reed's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Administrator

Interesting to see that David Reed's Law is now in Wikipedia:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed's_law>
Its all about beyond Metcalf's value of the network being n^2,
bringing in the power set of subgroups networks can form, thus
valuing the network as 2^n.

Stephen has the insight that Reed's Law is quite important and
explains the web 2.0 explosion and a will be a/the major component of
a web 3.0 future.

Nice to see its now pretty fully on the radar.

-- Owen

Marcus G. Daniels

Reed's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Owen Densmore wrote:
> Its all about beyond Metcalf's value of the network being n^2,
> bringing in the power set of subgroups networks can form, thus
> valuing the network as 2^n.
>
A person is really supposed to participate in 2^(N-1) groups? Where N
is some number bigger than 4? With human short term memory only being 7
+/- 2 items?

> Stephen has the insight that Reed's Law is quite important and
> explains the web 2.0 explosion and a will be a/the major component of
> a web 3.0 future.
>
Could someone please tell me any body of source code that is
representative of Web 2.0, and comparable in engineering depth to a web
browser? We still have no web standard with ubiquitous cross-platform
support for mobile code and no public standard and popular
cross-platform infrastructure for multimedia. What exists is third
party stuff like Flash and platform specific interfaces from dominant
vendors like Microsoft. Could we maybe have a Web 1.1 or Web 1.5
first? Pretty please?

Marcus

Phil Henshaw-2

Reed's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In reply to this post by Owen Densmore

Note, of course, that he directly defines the possible number of sub-groups in a network as its 'utility' or as in the first line of the link defining that, the 'hapiness' of the net!
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: Owen Densmore <[hidden email]>

Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 09:00:12
To:The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: [FRIAM] Reed's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interesting to see that David Reed's Law is now in Wikipedia:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed's_law>
Its all about beyond Metcalf's value of the network being n^2,
bringing in the power set of subgroups networks can form, thus
valuing the network as 2^n.

Stephen has the insight that Reed's Law is quite important and
explains the web 2.0 explosion and a will be a/the major component of
a web 3.0 future.

Nice to see its now pretty fully on the radar.

-- Owen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Marcus G. Daniels

Reed's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

sy at synapse9.com wrote:
> Note, of course, that he directly defines the possible number of sub-groups in a network as its 'utility' or as in the first line of the link defining that, the 'hapiness' of the net!
>
If you assume that the same participants behave in different interesting
ways in the different contexts.
e.g. kids behave differently when their parents are not around, all
things being equal.

Steve Smith

Reed's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In reply to this post by Owen Densmore

Owen wrote:
> Its all about beyond Metcalf's value of the network being n^2,
> bringing in the power set of subgroups networks can form, thus
> valuing the network as 2^n.
>
For years I have been (falsely) asserting that groups of N have N!
subgroups...
I even started to assert that here but decided to "do the math" and sure
enough
got Reed's Law instead..

I had always imagined that the upper bound of complexity of "small groups"
was even more extreme than it turns out to be. I also attributed this
complexity
a negative effect as much as positive ones... the "tower of babel"
effect of too
many entities (each subgroup having a personality/life of it's own)
unable to
align with any other subgroup. This was naturally a pessimists view.

The only thing I have to contribute (other than an exposure of my own
mistaken
impressions) is that this is an *upper bound* on the "utility". It
seems to me
that the utility function is really a weighted sum of the subgroups.
For example
the trivial N groups of 1 and the 1 group of N might be weighted at 0
as Reed's
Law specifically acknowledges.

I contend that depending on the purpose, the utility of the N groups of
size
N-1 is pretty small for most large values of N. The semantics of these
groups
are essentially "the utility of a group when a single individual is
missing". As
a simple thought experiment... what is the "utility" of FRIAM with any one
of many missing?

Similarly the utility of many pairwise groups is close to zero. While I
might
establish a meaningful conversation with anyone on FRIAM, there are only
perhaps a dozen with whom I do enjoy such conversations... triads are
similarly
scarce... perhaps 3-5 groups of 3 and 2-3 groups of 4 or 5.

My intuition is that Reed's Law is informed by the CogSci 7+-2 number. That
only groups of 9 (or perhaps 7 or even 5) or less should be considered
to have
any significant utility. N choose 9 or 7 or 5 might be the better
estimate of
the utility of a fully networked group (everyone in the same physical space
able to factionate at will, or on an e-mail list, using a wiki, etc.)

N!/(R! * (N-R)!)
For N=100 and R=9 we get numbers like 100!(9! * 91!) or
~100^9/50,000 or about 2,000,000
N=100 and R=5 we get 100^5/125 or about 100,000.

These are much smaller than 2^100 or ~10^30 but still
pretty darn huge numbers. Applying 7+-2 again,
we might imagine that nobody can really participate in
more than this many subgroups effectively... even 5 might
be a bit much. So now, we no longer have N choose 5 or 9,
we have N*5 or N*9. When N=100, we have 500 or 900...

Strogatz, et. al. might have some opinions about these numbers
and in fact would probably bring up the term "power law". If
it weren't already a bit late for me, I might try to wing this one
too. Perhaps there are a few folks (Guerin comes to mind) who
might "know" the entire FRIAM list and thereby enjoy some
measureable utility with the full N-group, or participate in order
N-1 groups of 2. And many (the lurkers) on the list might tend
toward 0 subgroup participation. The rest of us fall somewhere
in between... governed probably by the N*5 rule of thumb.

One other point... Ropella seems to want to dismiss the value of
technologically
mediated social networks completely (merely as a devil's advocate?).
My experience
is that "simple" e-mail is "proof by example" of the utility of
technological mediation.

This comes from several features.

1) Space
I can communicate with people distributed over virtually any
geographic region
without waiting for them to come to the same location as I.
2) Time
I needn't wait for anyone else to be in the mood to talk to me to
talk to them.
I an yack at them at my own convenience and they can read my yack at
theirs
and respond at their own convenience.
3) Persistent record
Most of us have kept our own e-mail archives and certainly lists
like this one
provide an archive of a discussion for later reference.
4) Multiplicity.
It is as easy to write to a dozen or a gross as it is to an
individual. Mail lists
help to organize that multiplicity.
5) Efficient subgrouping
This is the most on-topic. At any time I can send an e-mail to any
chosen
subgroup of FRIAM (up to my knowledge of the full list and my patience
with addressing the To: or CC: line . Spinoff discussions can focus
down
to smaller groups, or perhaps exclude disruptive or otherwise negative
elements.

I don't believe the Utility of FRIAM is order 2^N (Reed's) and I'm not
sure it even
exceeds N^2 (Metcalfe's) but I'm fairly sure it's utility exceeds N ...
and might
approach 5N or something like that.

Hmmm... time for some shut-eye.

> Stephen has the insight that Reed's Law is quite important and
> explains the web 2.0 explosion and a will be a/the major component of
> a web 3.0 future.
>
> Nice to see its now pretty fully on the radar.
>
> -- Owen
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>

glen ep ropella

Reed's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

steve smith wrote:
> N!/(R! * (N-R)!) For N=100 and R=9 we get numbers like 100!(9! * 91!)
> or ~100^9/50,000 or about 2,000,000 N=100 and R=5 we get 100^5/125 or
> about 100,000.
>
> These are much smaller than 2^100 or ~10^30 but still pretty darn
> huge numbers. Applying 7+-2 again, we might imagine that nobody can
> really participate in more than this many subgroups effectively...
> even 5 might be a bit much. So now, we no longer have N choose 5 or
> 9, we have N*5 or N*9. When N=100, we have 500 or 900...

I like the number play and appreciate the concrete application of 7?2.
However, don't forget to factor in the fact that humans operate by
time-slicing their attention amongst multiple objectives. So, at any
given interval of time, one may be involved with several subgroups,
seemingly in parallel. I think that would change your N choose 9 to
something like:

K * (N choose 9)

Where K is the number of concurrent tasks one is working on. If the
duration is on the order of years, then that number might approach 2^N -
N - 1. (If the 9 chosen often overlap, then the relationship might
contain an exponential in there somewhere.)

> One other point... Ropella seems to want to dismiss the value of
> technologically mediated social networks completely (merely as a
> devil's advocate?). My experience is that "simple" e-mail is "proof
> by example" of the utility of technological mediation.

Sorry for any mis-implications; but, I don't dismiss the value (or more
properly "usefulness") of technologically mediated social networks. And
I certainly don't dismiss such usefulness _completely_.

What I dismiss is the hyperbolic assertion of _novelty_ in the effect of
given technology. And I used e-mail to make my point. Humans are
social animals and _all_ technology mediates social networks. Further
_all_ social networks are "technologically mediated social networks".

We've heard it time and time again "Widget X will _change_ the way we
interact!" And that's just bull.

On the contrary, the only thing being changed is the abstraction layers
between any two humans. One human being reared by another (child to
parent) is just about the most intimate, most concrete relationship
possible. Humans who regularly have sex is about the next most
concrete. Then come roommates, co-workers, face-to-face meetings, etc.
all the way up to the most abstract. (To me the most abstract
human-human relationship is using mathematics, especially something like
addition and subtraction which was created so long ago by people I'll
never meet or understand.)

Tools like e-mail, myspace, facebook, etc. simply toss in another layer
of abstraction. Yes, it allows us to _imagine_ things about the icons
and avatars in our "friends" list. But, does it really change the
nature of human interaction? No.

At best, the extra layers of abstraction simply provide yet another way
for predators to prey on the delusional. It allows those of us who are
lonely to delude ourselves into thinking we have friends. "Sure, they
won't go get a beer with me. Sure, they don't like the same kind of
music I like. Sure their eyes glaze over when I start talking about my
collection of garden gnomes. But!!! They're in my friends list on
myspace!!!" On the flip-side, there are those who amass huge lists of
"friends" in some weird attempt to get the biggest list and try to
memetically _move_ people around in thought-space. They seem (to me) to
be the type of person that is never actually relaxed with anyone... the
kind of person who prefers to always be on stage. They call _everyone_
their friend.

These forms of technology certainly make some people happy (especially
the stockholders of the companies that foist this crap on us ;-). And
if happiness is the goal, then they are of high value. The
_usefulness_, however, can only be recognized by the predators. (Side
note: I'm using a broad definition of "predator"... to include
scavengers and parasites... and note that I don't exempt myself... I
often scavenge for ideas when my own mind is a wasteland, which is
happening more often nowadays. ;-)

> This comes from several features.
>
> 1) Space I can communicate with people distributed over virtually any
> geographic region without waiting for them to come to the same
> location as I.

Yes, but consider the _quality_ (a.k.a. character) of your
communications. Can you really _know_ someone who grew up and still
lives in Holland or Taiwan? Are you really communicating with them? Or
is your communication limited to some common denominator?

> 2) Time I needn't wait for anyone else to be in the mood to talk to
> me to talk to them. I an yack at them at my own convenience and they
> can read my yack at theirs and respond at their own convenience.

Again, is this a _dialog_? Or are you (as so many men are often
accused) not listening to the other guy at all and just thinking about
what you'll say next? Can dialog occur asynchronously? Real, dirty,
concrete, human dialog where it's clear when you've offended someone or
it's clear that they're body chemistry is off that day?

> 3) Persistent record Most of us have kept our own e-mail archives and
> certainly lists like this one provide an archive of a discussion for
> later reference.

Ahh, but is this an historically accurate record of thoughts? Or is
this just the equivalent of the Dead Sea scrolls where the only time one
makes the effort to _write_ something (which will be permanently
archived) is when they really, really want it archived? Or, worse yet,
how "off the cuff" are those e-mails? Do you talk mostly to people who
wring their hands over each and every e-mail? Or are they just the
(mostly random) nonsense that most of us think on most occasions? That
nonsense is part and parcel of concrete human social interaction. Any
medium that doesn't capture it is historically biased.

Even worse, we've all become a bunch of bean counters (or at least
lawyers), reading what people _write_ rather than listening to what they
_mean_. These forms of technology have _literally_ done more to
propagate Hilbert's program than any other human activity... to remove
the semantics from human language.

> 4) Multiplicity. It is as easy to write to a dozen or a gross as it
> is to an individual. Mail lists help to organize that multiplicity.

Again, like the printing press, this _reduces_ (inversely proportional
to the number of people in your To: list) the value of the words you write.

> 5) Efficient subgrouping This is the most on-topic. At any time I
> can send an e-mail to any chosen subgroup of FRIAM (up to my
> knowledge of the full list and my patience with addressing the To: or
> CC: line . Spinoff discussions can focus down to smaller groups, or
> perhaps exclude disruptive or otherwise negative elements.

Ahhh, but this gets to the heart of it. Those concrete details (e.g.
disruptive and "negative" elements like gadflies or body odor) are
_necessary_ to high quality, concrete, communication. Remove them
(abstract away) and you get idealized Utopian concepts that are useless
for practical situations.

Sure, it's fun to engage in heavily abstracted dialog with your heavily
abstracted friends; but, of what _use_ is such behavior other than to
make you happy or to allow you to exploit?

As for whether or not I'm playing Devil's Advocate, yes, to a certain
extent. I do find _use_ in these forms of technology as I said in my
original response to Owen's query. But it is _far_ from the hyperbolic
assertions made by the advocates of the technology.

- --
glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com
The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to
rule. -- H. L. Mencken

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGyxBcZeB+vOTnLkoRAnCVAJ9dn607g6cQEYZj+VwF4/0L7ifWagCfaLAD
Z5Y0F4eefHfof68OxM8DXUE=
=5GkF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

glen ep ropella

Reed's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Glen E. P. Ropella wrote:
> what you'll say next? Can dialog occur asynchronously? Real, dirty,
> concrete, human dialog where it's clear when you've offended someone or
> it's clear that they're body chemistry is off that day?

The above is a _perfect_ demonstration of why e-mail is a better medium
than, e.g. a wiki. When writing this sentence, I even paused at
"they're"... but in spite of that habit, I still said "they're" when I
meant "their". I even re-read the damn thing before I sent it and
failed to read it correctly a second time!

You gotta admit that's cool. If it weren't for errors, we wouldn't exist!

- --
glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com
The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to
rule. -- H. L. Mencken

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGyxPMZeB+vOTnLkoRAqwmAKCMXrrTdpWqO9NLISHg2izL/vwiNgCfSk1V
BV39O2Lq86ZF12CHAiFU4C0=
=uwPW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Owen Densmore

Reed's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Administrator

In reply to this post by Owen Densmore

During this conversation and a few others I've been involved with
recently, I *am* becoming more aware of just how many groups I'm
involved in and how they impact the web. And yes, the full power set
is a long way from happening, Reed merely is pointing out a term in
the equation, one with a *very* small multiplier!

So recent groups I've been involved in have included:

- LinkedIn going through some sort of tipping point .. my getting
lots more notifications. And indeed like others have mentioned, I
find myself rejecting lots of folks I don't remember or don't
particularly consider close. But the reverse is true also .. within
just the last month I've gotten something like 6 echos from the past
that really were nice to re-connect with. And I don't mind at all
its work related .. I formed a lot of great relationships in the last
35 years!

- iPhone: Several friends (Apple and Sun connections) are
discussing the iPhone, and naturally drinking the KoolAid together.
But the fact the conversation has holding power was interesting to me
and I suspect it will continue for a couple of years.

- TNT Geeks: One project I worked on was The NeWS Toolkit.
Fascinating PostScript based windowing system. Well we've held
together over 15 years with very low interactions. But recently one
of us had a moment of fame when his entire Stanford computer account
was discovered. He (Don Woods) was famous for taking one of the
original text based games and refining it considerably. When the
discussion bloomed, lots of interesting things got discussed about
the game and its evolution.

- Family: Our wider family circle is becoming much closer now that
the web/internet is available. Recently we've had one of us with
cancer treatments and the news generally gets spread via email, along
with digital photographs being useful for sharing memories.
Hmm..maybe we need to include the Family Set as a "relation" to the
Power Set!

- Friendship: I've got several groups of friends that for some
undefinable reason have formed clusters, mainly based on interest.
One is an ex-Sun friend who's joined (shutter) Microsoft, but is
doing Mac related work there. Another is a bunch of Phonies .. folks
interested in phones in general, and even includes the Linux Motorola
guru.

And I could go on, but its certainly a part of reeds law, I now
observe. And I'm amazed how strong the bonds are, however informal.
Many are not formal email lists or forums, but a CC list that one
remembers to always use.

I bet several of the rest of us also have been seeing more of this
clustering in their world too.

-- Owen

Marcus G. Daniels

Reed's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In reply to this post by glen ep ropella

Glen E. P. Ropella wrote:
> Even worse, we've all become a bunch of bean counters (or at least
> lawyers), reading what people _write_ rather than listening to what they
> _mean_.
I reckon that what many `real-life' individuals or groups often _mean_
is a subconscious impulse: to impose their personal set of issues on
others and get people to go their way, so as to make their life
better. They _mean_ to stick others in their mud, their group think,
their business goals, etc. Joe's a good guy! (Where `good' is
defined by `amenable to our needs'.)

>> > This comes from several features.
>> >
>> > 1) Space I can communicate with people distributed over virtually any
>> > geographic region without waiting for them to come to the same
>> > location as I.
>>
>
> Yes, but consider the _quality_ (a.k.a. character) of your
> communications. Can you really _know_ someone who grew up and still
> lives in Holland or Taiwan? Are you really communicating with them? Or
> is your communication limited to some common denominator?
>
>
> Sure, it's fun to engage in heavily abstracted dialog with your heavily
> abstracted friends; but, of what _use_ is such behavior other than to
> make you happy or to allow you to exploit?

I'd say social networks mediated by technology can be interesting
_because_ participants don't have to be intimate. Discussants who might
not even be able to tolerate one another in person can find common
ground. Take all of those mere common denominator discussions and
contrast them against the alternative which is that they might not occur
at all given personal idiosyncrasies, or geographic or cultural
boundaries. I suggest redefining `common denominator' to as `dimensions
of intersection' and remember there are billions of people all with
different dimensions.

Perhaps it would be better if we could and did try infinitely hard to
understand all of the details of all kinds of people, but the fact is
almost no one does that, at least without having some professional
responsibility to do it or appear to do it.

As for "heavily abstracted dialog" it sounds a lot like scientific
analysis and peer review to me.
And as for exploitation, I can see your point, but the reverse can also
be true. Manipulative people with professions like preachers and
teachers rely on the fact that they have a captive audience that will
confirm to a certain set of polite behaviors to make verbal
communication work at all. In e-mail, such `presenters' can get
shredded in short order.

Marcus

Marcus G. Daniels

Reed's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In reply to this post by Owen Densmore

Owen Densmore wrote:
> During this conversation and a few others I've been involved with
> recently, I *am* becoming more aware of just how many groups I'm
> involved in and how they impact the web. And yes, the full power set
> is a long way from happening, Reed merely is pointing out a term in
> the equation, one with a *very* small multiplier!
>
Perhaps the count (2^N) is not so important, but rather that there is a
fitness associated with each combination of people and their shared
interests. (The presence and absence of certain people being as crucial
as the interests.)
The more available combinations, the more likely it is somewhere in that
huge set that a few subsets will perform well per their own
implicitly-defined fitness.

glen ep ropella

Reed's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
> I reckon that what many `real-life' individuals or groups often _mean_
> is a subconscious impulse: to impose their personal set of issues on
> others and get people to go their way, so as to make their life
> better. They _mean_ to stick others in their mud, their group think,
> their business goals, etc. Joe's a good guy! (Where `good' is
> defined by `amenable to our needs'.)

I'm not so sure. When you hang out with think-tank types (or, in
general, people who are smarter than they _need_ to be), then this may
be true. But, I don't think it's not true for the general population.

For the most part, what I see around me are a bunch of Pavlovian
reactive systems behaving mindlessly. That sea of behavior is
sporadically broken by people wafting at the fog and doing something
purposeful. But, by and large, people are just doing what they do
because ... well, that's what they do.

Those of us for whom the basic necessities only consume a percentage of
our resources might run around imposing their issues on others (and some
might just spend their free cycles watching American Idol); but, those
of us who use all their resources just to survive and spawn don't.

> I'd say social networks mediated by technology can be interesting
> _because_ participants don't have to be intimate.

Well, at the risk of being redundant, _all_ social networks are mediated
by technology because humans always create and use artifacts. One of
the most basic forms of technology is clothing and personal hygiene
products, which have mediated almost all of my social networks over my
entire lifetime. But, then again, I've only been to a nude beach once
and I have no intentions of attending Burning Man. [grin]

Hence, social networks mediated by technology are interesting because
humans find humans interesting. These social networks are interesting
to humans because they consist of humans. And they're interesting
regardless of the technology and regardless of the intimacy. (Of
course, interest doesn't always coincide with usefulness.)

Now you might say that _you_ (Marcus) find social networks (the
"mediated by technology" is redundant and annoying ;-) interesting
because of the spectrum of intimacy. But, all that means is that your
interests focus on intimacy. It doesn't directly say anything about
social networks in general. In order to say something about social
networks in general, we'd have to talk specifically about which
technology mediates the particular social network of interest.

> Discussants who might
> not even be able to tolerate one another in person can find common
> ground. Take all of those mere common denominator discussions and
> contrast them against the alternative which is that they might not occur
> at all given personal idiosyncrasies, or geographic or cultural
> boundaries. I suggest redefining `common denominator' to as `dimensions
> of intersection' and remember there are billions of people all with
> different dimensions.

I like the reformulation from common denominator to dimensions of
intersection. But, what is it you're really saying, here? You're
saying: "Discussants who are normally so pathological that they can't
interact with their peers find solace in the abstraction provided by
certain devices."

So, again, the only thing we achieve is the ability to "relate" and
empathize with the perverts.

> Perhaps it would be better if we could and did try infinitely hard to
> understand all of the details of all kinds of people, but the fact is
> almost no one does that, at least without having some professional
> responsibility to do it or appear to do it.

True. However, the vast majority of us can and do try infinitely hard
to understand _some_ of the details of some kinds of people,
particularly the individuals (and the classes to which they belong)
we've chosen to consort with. For me, I try quite hard to understand my
mom, Renee', and my friends. And I try quite hard to understand their
histories, which are largely encapsulated by (stereo-)types.

It's also true that the vast majority of us have small, tight networks
and large, loose networks. We don't try near as hard to understand the
individuals in those large loose networks. And anyone who thinks this
can be overcome by arbitrary changes in the _technique_ that supports
the network is delusional. In the end, it's all about attention and
where you choose to place yours, regardless of the technique.

> As for "heavily abstracted dialog" it sounds a lot like scientific
> analysis and peer review to me.
> And as for exploitation, I can see your point, but the reverse can also
> be true. Manipulative people with professions like preachers and
> teachers rely on the fact that they have a captive audience that will
> confirm to a certain set of polite behaviors to make verbal
> communication work at all. In e-mail, such `presenters' can get
> shredded in short order.

That's true. But, if we took those who shred the preacher/teacher on an
e-mail list and placed them inside the preacher's church or the
teacher's classroom, then the shredders will be shredded.

What does that mean? Only that preachers and teachers are facile with
one technique and e-mail participants are facile with another technique.
The techniques of classrooms and mega-churches is exactly analogous
with the technique of e-mail distribution lists. And they are both
forms of abstraction.

- --
glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com
Whenever we depart from voluntary cooperation and try to do good by
using force, the bad moral value of force triumphs over good intentions.
- -- Milton Friedman

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGyzCUZeB+vOTnLkoRAn6uAJ4uv+1QKxOtaPrnZV2+sU8Lj8JWKwCfdrXq
nIKBVGVUveiznqYQzEHufcc=
=Cjc+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Marcus G. Daniels

Reed's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Glen E. P. Ropella wrote:
> I'm not so sure. When you hang out with think-tank types (or, in
> general, people who are smarter than they _need_ to be), then this may
> be true. But, I don't think it's not true for the general population.
>
Examples I was thinking of: churches, community watch groups, school
boards, that sort of thing. People that want those in their peer group
to present themselves in a low risk, low dimensionality, low variability
fashion. Think-tank type people may or may not be among them depending
on what think-tank you have in mind.

>> Discussants who might
>> not even be able to tolerate one another in person can find common
>> ground. Take all of those mere common denominator discussions and
>> contrast them against the alternative which is that they might not occur
>> at all given personal idiosyncrasies, or geographic or cultural
>> boundaries. I suggest redefining `common denominator' to as `dimensions
>> of intersection' and remember there are billions of people all with
>> different dimensions.
>>
>
> I like the reformulation from common denominator to dimensions of
> intersection. But, what is it you're really saying, here? You're
> saying: "Discussants who are normally so pathological that they can't
> interact with their peers find solace in the abstraction provided by
> certain devices."
>

The American Heritage dictionary defines pathological this way:

ADJECTIVE:*1.* Of or relating to pathology. *2.* Relating to or caused
by disease. *3.* Of, relating to, or manifesting behavior that is
habitual, maladaptive, and compulsive: /a pathological liar./

You don't have a maladaptive behavior until you define the peer group,
because you need that before you have norms and expectations. Social
networks open up the set of peer groups. The square peg can find a
square hole instead of being limited to a round one. Thus, less
maladaptive behavior.

In the longer term, it seems plausible that social networks modulated by
technology, networks that provide large sets of easy-to-find subspaces
for interaction, could lead to less adaptive behavior in individuals
overall. Reason being that a person finds a compatible crowd and then
the crowd may slowly becomes more and more homogeneous. But it also
seems plausible that any random sample of people in the same geographic
vicinity would have similar attributes. They too have specialized to
their environment. [ Note Roger Crichlow's recent mention of that
article in PNAS on changing environments leading to faster learning.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0611630104v1 ]

> It's also true that the vast majority of us have small, tight networks
> and large, loose networks.
Heh, it makes me think of that bumper sticker "It takes village to elect
an idiot."
Maybe you are on to something, but I don't think you are. ;-)

> We don't try near as hard to understand the
> individuals in those large loose networks. And anyone who thinks this
> can be overcome by arbitrary changes in the _technique_ that supports
> the network is delusional. In the end, it's all about attention and
> where you choose to place yours, regardless of the technique.
>
I agree there is no `right' technique. I do think it is possible to not
be limited by the slogan "think globally, act locally". Thanks to the
internet (and even social networking services -- gack) it can be just as
feasible to act globally. For example, by working on open source
software projects, developing independent internet-based news outlets, etc.

Marcus

Michael Orshan

Reed's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi:

Some of this is over my head, but I do see something missing that I'd like
to add. What I have been doing, and it is recognized as different, is using
journalism to guide people to a social network where they will find people
of like mind. Now this is my assumption...that people of like mind will
trade together. This can be for money or mind, but trade.

Now just because some content is out there doesn't mean people will flock to
it. That requires advertising and traffic. Is there something in the model
you are discussing that regards moving traffic to a network?

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
Of Marcus G. Daniels
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 1:59 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Reed's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Glen E. P. Ropella wrote:
> I'm not so sure. When you hang out with think-tank types (or, in
> general, people who are smarter than they _need_ to be), then this may
> be true. But, I don't think it's not true for the general population.
>
Examples I was thinking of: churches, community watch groups, school
boards, that sort of thing. People that want those in their peer group
to present themselves in a low risk, low dimensionality, low variability
fashion. Think-tank type people may or may not be among them depending
on what think-tank you have in mind.

Marcus G. Daniels

Reed's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Michael Orshan wrote:
> Now just because some content is out there doesn't mean people will flock to
> it. That requires advertising and traffic.
One thing that makes me a little cranky is that, from the perspective of
the web, social networking sites seem to be hosted by commercial
entities. They provide some virtual cocktails and sofas to coax people
in, but from the point of view of search engines like Google, they are
opaque and unsearchable. The social networks they build are their
intellectual property.

In contrast, if they were robot indexable using, say, semantic web
technologies there will be little need for advertising as almost any
peer group would be a click away to anyone have a few milligrams of
curiosity.

Marcus

glen ep ropella

Reed's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
> Examples I was thinking of: churches, community watch groups, school
> boards, that sort of thing. People that want those in their peer group
> to present themselves in a low risk, low dimensionality, low variability
> fashion. Think-tank type people may or may not be among them depending
> on what think-tank you have in mind.

I believe I understand what you're getting at; so I'll paraphrase and
check to see if I do. You're saying that the members of churches,
neighborhood watch groups, schools, etc. purposefully engage in the
attempt to encourage (impose, coax, coerce, etc.) others around them to
act and think like them. This social engineering is perfectly akin to
an individual engineering her physical environment to make her use of
resources more efficient.

If that's what you're saying, then I disagree. I don't disagree that
this is the _effect_ of these groups. I disagree that they do it
_purposefully_... i.e. they don't intend to do it.

They do it because we are all creatures of habit. Our faculties are
mostly built upon generations of genetic memory and a lifetime of
ontogenic memory. These histories usually swamp any novelty that might
pop out.

In environments dominated by people more intelligent than they _need_ to
be (e.g. cities, universities, think-tanks, large government funded
laboratories, upper white middle class suburbs, etc.), this sort of
behavior may actually be purposeful because these people have plenty of
thought cycles to burn on such things.

But, in an environment where you have to use all your resources, you
don't waste good conscious attention on things like that. You spend it
on finding food, sheltering your family and friends, etc. Your
_attention_ is not on social engineering. It's on physical engineering.

Social engineering, rhetorical circle jerks, convincing others that God
has 3 mysterious aspects, etc. are for rich people. Poor people just
hang on and fight for their small pleasures.

>> saying: "Discussants who are normally so pathological that they can't
>> interact with their peers find solace in the abstraction provided by
>> certain devices."
>>
> The American Heritage dictionary defines pathological this way:
>
> ADJECTIVE:*1.* Of or relating to pathology. *2.* Relating to or caused
> by disease. *3.* Of, relating to, or manifesting behavior that is
> habitual, maladaptive, and compulsive: /a pathological liar./
>
> You don't have a maladaptive behavior until you define the peer group,
> because you need that before you have norms and expectations. Social
> networks open up the set of peer groups. The square peg can find a
> square hole instead of being limited to a round one. Thus, less
> maladaptive behavior.

Thanks for using a good dictionary.

The set-up you presented was sub-group neutral. You said: "Discussants
who might not even be able to tolerate one another in person can find
common ground." And normal people can and usually _do_ look for and
discover common ground within 5 minutes of conversation.

Only a pathological person cannot find common ground within the span of
a normal conversation. And this is regardless of what peer group is
under consideration.

Granted, there are extremes like a black person at a KKK meeting. (Of
course, most of us would consider KKK members as pathological -- caused
by one or more diseases of the mind.) But, by and large, normal
non-pathological people can easily find common ground quickly,
regardless of the peer group.

Hence, the discussants you're talking about (those who can't tolerate
one another in person) are pathological. And the extra layers of
abstraction _merely_ serve to help us relate and empathize with these
pathological people.

>> It's also true that the vast majority of us have small, tight networks
>> and large, loose networks.
>
> Heh, it makes me think of that bumper sticker "It takes village to elect
> an idiot."
> Maybe you are on to something, but I don't think you are. ;-)

[grin] It doesn't really matter whether I'm on to something. I'm
simply criticizing the hyperbolic advocacy of social networking
technology. Hopefully, my criticism helps someone (perhaps just me)
arrive at the truth. Luckily, we don't live in a village controlled by
an idiot, otherwise, that idiot might dictate that criticism is
treasonous... Hmmm.

>> We don't try near as hard to understand the
>> individuals in those large loose networks. And anyone who thinks this
>> can be overcome by arbitrary changes in the _technique_ that supports
>> the network is delusional. In the end, it's all about attention and
>> where you choose to place yours, regardless of the technique.
>>
> I agree there is no `right' technique. I do think it is possible to not
> be limited by the slogan "think globally, act locally". Thanks to the
> internet (and even social networking services -- gack) it can be just as
> feasible to act globally. For example, by working on open source
> software projects, developing independent internet-based news outlets, etc.

Well, you've smudged the definition of "action"... but I suppose you're
not smudging it any more than "activists" have smudged it. [grin] You
literally cannot act globally. It's either impossible or infeasible.
(Since quantum entanglement seems to be true perhaps it's merely
infeasible.) You cannot act at a distance. You can only act locally.

Anything else is "advocacy". You can _argue_ globally (at least to the
extent that the language in which you're arguing stays roughly the same
across time and space) because argument is not actual. It sits on top
of a logical abstraction layer. The true separation between action and
advocacy lies in the two-fold interpretive processes involved. The
actor must act upon some local medium (e.g. the air or the state of a
digital computer) and those acts are semantically grounded in the
thoughts of the actor. The effects of those actions propagate outward
until they come upon another actor, who is physically impacted by the
effects and interprets (semantically re-grounds to her personal, private
reality) the effects. Arguing globally requires the two interpretive
processes to be approximate inversions:

ToPosit : Sender -> Reality
ToInterpret : Reality -> Receiver

Let s be in Sender and r be in Receiver. If ToInterpret^-1(r) ~=
ToPosit(s), then one can argue globally.

- --
glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com
Of the tyrant, spies and informers are the principal instruments. War is
his favorite occupation, for the sake of engrossing the attention of the
people, and making himself necessary to them as their leader. -- Aristotle

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGy1KWZeB+vOTnLkoRAsurAJ0VVfOB/+m1P01uXeSimI/5SBFc4gCfdujw
0e2/kiUbCMQThg9GSfBz0HA=
=bPbA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Marcus G. Daniels

Reed's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Glen E. P. Ropella wrote:

> You're saying that the members of churches,
> neighborhood watch groups, schools, etc. purposefully engage in the
> attempt to encourage (impose, coax, coerce, etc.) others around them to
> act and think like them. This social engineering is perfectly akin to
> an individual engineering her physical environment to make her use of
> resources more efficient.
>
> If that's what you're saying, then I disagree. I don't disagree that
> this is the _effect_ of these groups. I disagree that they do it
> _purposefully_... i.e. they don't intend to do it.
>

Option 1 is that a recipient can't understand a concern or is unable to
act on a request for change from a signaler
Option 2 is that a recipient understands the concern but has a different
value system from the signaler that renders it moot

If the effect of their behavior is damaging in some important way to the
signaler, then it doesn't really matter what the intent is. The
signaler's options are to displace the recipient from the environment or
move themselves.
> The set-up you presented was sub-group neutral. You said: "Discussants
> who might not even be able to tolerate one another in person can find
> common ground." And normal people can and usually _do_ look for and
> discover common ground within 5 minutes of conversation.
>
> Only a pathological person cannot find common ground within the span of
> a normal conversation. And this is regardless of what peer group is
> under consideration.
>
Fair enough. One point is that people vary on many dimensions, and in
my view, the more the better. There's no shortage of people. My
example is indeed sub-group neutral and was to illustrate that two
people having many dimensions of incompatibility could still communicate
through abstractions, which in my view, this is a good thing to
facilitate and encourage. Another separate view is that groups can be
oppressive to the individual, and that the individual may well not be at
fault when so oppressed. My view is that the world does not fall apart
when people do their own thing. The forces that create groups are
much stronger than the forces that ensure individuality.

Marcus

glen ep ropella

Reed's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
> Option 1 is that a recipient can't understand a concern or is unable to
> act on a request for change from a signaler
> Option 2 is that a recipient understands the concern but has a different
> value system from the signaler that renders it moot
>
> If the effect of their behavior is damaging in some important way to the
> signaler, then it doesn't really matter what the intent is. The
> signaler's options are to displace the recipient from the environment or
> move themselves.

Well, that's an awfully _binary_ way to think. [grin] I'd suggest there
are a countable infinity of other options as well. One such option
(let's say option 3) is to keep the recalcitrant recipient in the large
group and form a still smaller group within the larger group that does
not include the recalcitrant recipient.

That way the group can preserve the good parts of the recipient's
presence and minimize the bad parts. This could imply something like a
hierarchical church where the sub-groups get smaller and smaller until
you get to the _top_ person... e.g. the Pope.

_Or_ the large group could consist of many overlapping small groups,
some with hierarchy and some without.

> Fair enough. One point is that people vary on many dimensions, and in
> my view, the more the better. There's no shortage of people. My
> example is indeed sub-group neutral and was to illustrate that two
> people having many dimensions of incompatibility could still communicate
> through abstractions, which in my view, this is a good thing to
> facilitate and encourage. Another separate view is that groups can be
> oppressive to the individual, and that the individual may well not be at
> fault when so oppressed.

I don't disagree with any of this. I would even carry it further and
say that two people who constitute a very tight group in one sub-space
(say husband and wife) may require delusion-inducing layers of
abstraction in order to find common ground in other sub-spaces (like
when an engineer marries an artist).

> My view is that the world does not fall apart
> when people do their own thing. The forces that create groups are
> much stronger than the forces that ensure individuality.

Again I don't disagree. In fact, this is just another way of saying
what I've said: People do what they do _unintentionally_ because ...
well, that's just what they do. The vast majority of them don't create
groups to achieve some intended, personal, cognitive, purpose. However,
resource-rich people may or may not do such purposefully manipulative
acts. Most of us don't have the time or energy.

Now, there is probably a _huge_ tendency to rationalize one's actions
(probably after the fact but also before and during) and, thereby,
ascribe a purpose and intention to group formation. For example, in
high school, I was a member of the "jocks", "brains", and "heads". I
like to think it's because any one group was too shallow and I
purposefully jumped from group to group. But, in reality, it's probably
just because I'm a misfit and happened to be good at sports, school, and
hanging out at the boat docks listening to Black Sabbath. [grin]

But such rationalizing is seductive and addictive. And a good
conservative skeptic will make every attempt to doubt such intention and
consider that it may be ascribed and not inherent.

- --
glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com
A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough
to take it all away. -- Barry Goldwater

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGy3PXZeB+vOTnLkoRAugQAJ9XNhLlJ8Y1V9QnnWQeKhQYWcWjFACfQbKT
yzDrrPi150aFhV+A14gzZUY=
=NjTn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Marcus G. Daniels

Reed's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Glen E. P. Ropella wrote:

>> Option 1 is that a recipient can't understand a concern or is unable to
>> act on a request for change from a signaler
>> Option 2 is that a recipient understands the concern but has a different
>> value system from the signaler that renders it moot
>>
>> If the effect of their behavior is damaging in some important way to the
>> signaler, then it doesn't really matter what the intent is. The
>> signaler's options are to displace the recipient from the environment or
>> move themselves.
>>
>
> Well, that's an awfully _binary_ way to think. [grin] I'd suggest there
> are a countable infinity of other options as well. One such option
> (let's say option 3) is to keep the recalcitrant recipient in the large
> group and form a still smaller group within the larger group that does
> not include the recalcitrant recipient.

The binary in-group, out-group way of thinking is common in many real
organizations and communities.
But it is smarter to diversify, to have hedges and multiple membership
if that's at all doable. Group cohesion is a fine thing to seek, but
not without other irons in the fire -- an escape plan for all
concerned. The internet, and social networking as the latest fad
instance of it, helps to give people these alternatives..

glen ep ropella

like mind => trading (was Reed's law)

In reply to this post by Michael Orshan

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Michael Orshan wrote:
> Some of this is over my head, but I do see something missing that I'd like
> to add. What I have been doing, and it is recognized as different, is using
> journalism to guide people to a social network where they will find people
> of like mind. Now this is my assumption...that people of like mind will
> trade together. This can be for money or mind, but trade.

I suppose this depends on what you mean by "trade". If you define it as
some sort of transaction like: person A delivers X to person B and
person B delivers Y to person A, then I don't think it's true. I.e. if
you define "trade" that way, then people of _like_ mind will not
necessarily trade.

I say that because of the well-defined nature of "trade". If X and Y
must be well-defined, then the majority of like-minded people won't show
any _more_ instances of trading than we see amongst different-minded people.

I think part of the reason for this is that trade (where X and Y are
well-defined) comes about mostly because people value X and Y
differently. E.g. Bob has plenty of cows but no sheep and Joe has
plenty of sheep but no cows; so they trade. If the two people are
really of "like-mind", then trading will be at a minimum because the two
people are most likely to _already_ have equivalent resources and
equivalent values.

What's more likely is that Bob and Joe are of _different_ minds. Bob
really doesn't value sheep very highly and Joe really doesn't value cows
very highly. So, Bob and Joe don't share the same values, which opens
the door for trading.

There's room for gradation, of course. If Bob and Joe are too
different, then they can't trade. E.g. if Bob values sheep at zero and
Joe values cows at zero, then they won't trade. And, as above, if
they're too similar, then there's nothing to trade. So, as always,
there's an interesting region of complexity in between the two boring
extremes.

> Now just because some content is out there doesn't mean people will flock to
> it. That requires advertising and traffic. Is there something in the model
> you are discussing that regards moving traffic to a network?

If you imagine a sub-group-aware advertising spectrum from totally
unaware, where you're exposed to snippets about topics totally unrelated
to whatever you're doing at the time, to captive, where you try to sell
something to someone you already know _wants_ whatever you're selling.

Movie trailers are a good example in between. When you rent an action
flick, the trailers on the DVD are usually for other action flicks.
But, they can also use other dimensions like other films from the same
production company.

Ultimately "advertising" in a sub-group aware way is "cross selling",
targeting current customers with slightly different or complementary
products. And the key lies in maximizing the overlap between the
sub-space (of interesting "dimensions") that characterizes a network and
the sub-space that characterizes the network you want them to come to.

- --
glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com
I have an existential map. It has 'You are here' written all over it. --
Steven Wright

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGzI6zZeB+vOTnLkoRAtLkAKDDmr9mwDgieVoDEwYY5k3aF7BseQCfQPkI
w6QThK6QruUACtUo2cpyeU4=
=iMLJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----