Friam

off topic....., but still

Classic

List

Threaded

22 messages Options

Nick Thompson

off topic....., but still

"I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy.

Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars."

~ Martin Luther King

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

http://www.cusf.org

============================================================
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

Gary Schiltz-4

Re: off topic....., but still

For the record, and the millions who will read the FRIAM archives in the next centuries, of course Doug is referring to the death of bin Laden, and not saying that the world is a better place without MLK. Amazing to see the collective conscious at work in that mini exchange. Of course, one would hope that in another 100 years, whatever takes the place of web browsers would automatically make the connection and annotate the exchange accordingly.

BTW, I agree with MLK's sentiment, but then thankfully I didn't lose anyone on 9/11.

;; Gary

On May 3, 2011, at 11:13 AM, Douglas Roberts wrote:

The world's a better place without him.

~Doug Roberts

On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

"I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy.
Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars."

~ Martin Luther King

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
http://www.cusf.org

============================================================
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

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]
505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

============================================================
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

Alfredo Covaleda Vélez

Re: off topic....., but still

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

Until appears other man as angry as him

Alfredo.

2011/5/3 Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]>

The world's a better place without him.

~Doug Roberts

On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

"I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy.

Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars."

~ Martin Luther King

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
http://www.cusf.org

============================================================
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

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]
505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

============================================================
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

--
Alfredo

============================================================
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

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: off topic....., but still

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

Look at the bright side, Owen: the probability just increased significantly that many, many more bigots will find themselves removed from the equation.

I can just hear it now: choruses of "Onward Christian Soldiers, Marching as to War!"

Offset, of course, by equally stirring refrains of الله أكبر !

--Doug

On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

On May 3, 2011, at 10:13 AM, Douglas Roberts wrote:

> The world's a better place without him.
>
> ~Doug Roberts

Not yet. Indeed, I don't feel great having stirred the hornets nest in a difficult balance Pakistan keeps between their various factions.

But the truth of the situation is that a mass murder was protected or at least tolerated by a nuclear power.

Boom.

-- Owen

> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:
> "I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy.
>
> Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars."
>
>
> ~ Martin Luther King
>
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
> http://www.cusf.org
>
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> 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
>
>
>
> --
> Doug Roberts
> [hidden email]
> [hidden email]
> <a href="tel:505-455-7333" value="+15054557333">505-455-7333 - Office
> <a href="tel:505-670-8195" value="+15056708195">505-670-8195 - Cell
> ============================================================
> 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

============================================================
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

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]
505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

Pamela McCorduck

Re: off topic....., but still

Reality check. In Manhattan security has been ramped up seriously in anticipation of a possible retaliatory move by whatever fragment of al Qaeda thinks the guy deserves to be avenged. Police and dogs were thick in the Times Square subway station at midday.

Pamela

On May 3, 2011, at 2:04 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote:

Look at the bright side, Owen: the probability just increased significantly that many, many more bigots will find themselves removed from the equation.

I can just hear it now: choruses of "Onward Christian Soldiers, Marching as to War!"

Offset, of course, by equally stirring refrains of الله أكبر !

--Doug

On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

On May 3, 2011, at 10:13 AM, Douglas Roberts wrote:

> The world's a better place without him.
>
> ~Doug Roberts

Not yet. Indeed, I don't feel great having stirred the hornets nest in a difficult balance Pakistan keeps between their various factions.

But the truth of the situation is that a mass murder was protected or at least tolerated by a nuclear power.

Boom.

-- Owen

> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:
> "I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy.
>
> Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars."
>
>
> ~ Martin Luther King
>
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
> http://www.cusf.org
>
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> 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
>
>
>
> --
> Doug Roberts
> [hidden email]
> [hidden email]
> <a href="tel:505-455-7333" value="+15054557333">505-455-7333 - Office
> <a href="tel:505-670-8195" value="+15056708195">505-670-8195 - Cell
> ============================================================
> 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

============================================================
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

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]
505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

============================================================
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

"Hope is not a prognostication. It is an orientation of the spirit, an orientation of the heart; it transcends the world that is immediately experienced, and is anchored somewhere beyond its horizons."

					Vaclav Havel

Steve Smith

Re: off topic....., but still

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

The world's a better place without him.

~Doug Roberts

By most measures, that could be said of many.

In fact there were many who said that of MLK, and yet I think today few would admit to that today even if they felt it.

I am hopeful and relieved with this turn of events... but not necessarily because of the specific fact of Osama Bin Laden's death, but rather for his removal from the playing field as a charismatic mythical iconic figure. I'm also happy it happened on Obama's watch rather than on that of someone more easily mistaken (recognized?) for a racist warmonger.

Bin Laden may be less of a threat to us as a Martyr than he was as a living leader of mythical proportions. His charismatic image and mythical elusiveness will not be easily replaced by another. But the underlying problems still remain and in some ways may be aggravated without him in place to focus them, causing them to go even more underground and return to festering waiting to erupt again elsewhere.

In the light of the general populist dissension (unto overthrow) in the middle east, this may be a much more pivotal moment in some way than it would have been otherwise. I am hoping that we (US and the rest of the western world) can turn from an antagonistic and threatening stance to one of solidarity and hope with the peoples of that region.

If we can withdraw ourselves as colonizers, exploiters, invaders, occupiers, then perhaps we can find another relationship with this large portion of the human family. We have mostly/almost made peace with the internal diversity of our country, I wonder if we are on the cusp of making another small step toward world peace.

Just my $.02 thoughts for the day.
-Steve

"I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy.

Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars."

~ Martin Luther King

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

http://www.cusf.org

============================================================
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

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]
505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell
============================================================
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

Re: off topic....., but still

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

Does anyone know of any substantial/credible groups working explicitly
on methods for the peaceful evolution of governing systems? With a
naive brush, one would think modern democratic nations would have plenty
of shareable expertise in that domain.

I used to have a client who worked on models like that. But they were
more interested in predicting and manipulating 3rd world governments
than they were in providing insight to the "change agents" within those
governments. Surely there's a market for such work.

Steve Smith wrote circa 11-05-03 12:49 PM:
> If we can withdraw ourselves as colonizers, exploiters, invaders,
> occupiers, then perhaps we can find another relationship with this large
> portion of the human family. We have mostly/almost made peace with the
> internal diversity of our country, I wonder if we are on the cusp of
> making another small step toward world peace.

- --
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iD8DBQFNwJH/pVJZMHoGoM8RAmqCAJ9mG7Bnm1Yv5T8ZyREY185hq2IEvACdH19X
iCf+h6+VzJqdyFdCNuIc1qU=
=ZN3x
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

============================================================
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

Steve Smith

Re: off topic....., but still

Glen -

very (VERY) good question.

I fear that there is not an obvious market. That is not to say there
is no value, it is (perhaps) hard to translate that into the market in
terms of political or economic capital. I think there is huge
(potential) social capital available, but how to translate that into a
gradient agents will follow?

- Steve

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> Does anyone know of any substantial/credible groups working explicitly
> on methods for the peaceful evolution of governing systems? With a
> naive brush, one would think modern democratic nations would have plenty
> of shareable expertise in that domain.
>
> I used to have a client who worked on models like that. But they were
> more interested in predicting and manipulating 3rd world governments
> than they were in providing insight to the "change agents" within those
> governments. Surely there's a market for such work.
>
>
> Steve Smith wrote circa 11-05-03 12:49 PM:
>> If we can withdraw ourselves as colonizers, exploiters, invaders,
>> occupiers, then perhaps we can find another relationship with this large
>> portion of the human family. We have mostly/almost made peace with the
>> internal diversity of our country, I wonder if we are on the cusp of
>> making another small step toward world peace.
> - --
> glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iD8DBQFNwJH/pVJZMHoGoM8RAmqCAJ9mG7Bnm1Yv5T8ZyREY185hq2IEvACdH19X
> iCf+h6+VzJqdyFdCNuIc1qU=
> =ZN3x
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> ============================================================
> 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

Siddharth-3

Re: off topic....., but still

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

apparently this isn't even by MLK in the first place.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/05/out-of-osamas-death-a-fake-quotation-is-born/238220/

!!!

On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 9:36 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

"I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy.

Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars."

~ Martin Luther King

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
http://www.cusf.org

============================================================
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

Sarbajit Roy (testing)

Re: off topic....., but still

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

Hi Doug ,

Would you say the same for Gadaffi's grandchildren too ?

Sarbajit Roy

अयं निज: परो वेति गणना लघुचेतसाम् ।
उदारचरितानां तु वसुधैव कुटुम्बकम् ॥

He is mine and he is other, is the thought that narrow minded people have. For noble people, the entire world is family.

On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 9:43 PM, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> wrote:

The world's a better place without him.

~Doug Roberts

On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

"I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy.

Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars."

~ Martin Luther King

glen ep ropella

Re: off topic....., but still

In reply to this post by Steve Smith

I started thinking about writing a toy model after this article was
referenced in another forum:

http://www.economist.com/node/18563638

I've always viewed the initiative process a bit suspiciously. It's not
that I don't trust myself or the other yahoos on the street... but I do
believe in delegation. We delegate legislating to the professional
legislators for a reason, I think. (which is also why I'm not a fan of
electing non-legislators - laypeople, doctors, programmers, hollywood
actors, etc. - to legislative positions.) But, I'm torn because, having
worked in lots of multi-disciplinary teams, especially involving
students, the value of a fresh perspective is ... well, priceless.

It just seems we could "apply complexity" to this sort of thing and come
out the other end a little more facile. I'd love to meet, say, Raul
Castro's consultants and give them a modeling and simulation elevator pitch!

Steve Smith wrote at 05/03/2011 08:41 PM:
> I fear that there is not an obvious market. That is not to say there
> is no value, it is (perhaps) hard to translate that into the market in
> terms of political or economic capital. I think there is huge
> (potential) social capital available, but how to translate that into a
> gradient agents will follow?

--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com

============================================================
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

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: off topic....., but still

In reply to this post by Sarbajit Roy (testing)

No, of course not Sarbajit. The death of children is just one of the many horrors that result from religious and cultural confrontation.

And we are all to blame for having allowed to let it continue since the beginning of recorded history.

--Doug

On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 2:23 AM, Sarbajit Roy <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Doug ,

Would you say the same for Gadaffi's grandchildren too ?

Sarbajit Roy

अयं निज: परो वेति गणना लघुचेतसाम् ।
उदारचरितानां तु वसुधैव कुटुम्बकम् ॥

He is mine and he is other, is the thought that narrow minded people have. For noble people, the entire world is family.

On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 9:43 PM, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> wrote:

The world's a better place without him.

~Doug Roberts

On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

"I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy.

Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars."

~ Martin Luther King

============================================================
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

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]
505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

Steve Smith

Re: off topic....., but still

In reply to this post by Siddharth-3

Nick -

Still, me being supposedly a scholar, and all, makes it a bit rough.

So, I guess I am embarrassed. Sorry!

It was all I could do to not smart-assedly claim you had sucker-punched us with that quote.   But on followup of the (mis)quote, the mangling was minimal...   the spirit was preserved... it was an "honest" mistake.

If anyone got sucker punched it was Penn Jillette himself who is implicated as the biggest disseminator of the misquote. The hub with the most spokes in the transmission network as it were.

It brings up some interesting issues.   In particular how the ease of communication (personal and mass) has lead to much faster dissemination of (dis)information.   It seems there must be a parallel between this and the revolutions in finance and economy where money was made more liquid/fluid/lubricated to speed things up and ultimately change things qualitatively. I'm sure we are already way past that point with information now as well.   Language itself started the game, writing helped it transcend space and time, then various steps in publishing technology (from scriptoria to printing presses to newspapers to electronic printing to blogging).

Loosely Coupled Distributed Computing Paradigms include the possibility/necessity of working with possibly flawed or dated information, accepting the overhead of possibly having to roll back a local calculation when revised information comes in. It seems like strategies of late binding and rollback are necessary today. But is it possible?

I feel that this is how I read news, possibly always have, but even moreso with the Internet.   While there are a number of hoaxes running around at any time (doesn't just have to be April 1), there is always a plethora of early misinformation coming out of any event.

Was it Mark Twain who claimed to always read the news a week (or two) late because by then you knew whether what was reported was true or not?

I'm working on a DoD funded project which includes trying to formally deal with this problem... of multiple qualities of uncertainty in information and the ability to not only propogate information and uncertainty through a knowledge network but to encode and propogate contradictory or revised information.

I'm curious how many of the educated, intelligent people on this list handle this problem personally?

How do you know what you know? There were standards around Scholarship (as Nick points out) and there are standards about journalism and sourcing, but... obviously those standards are just reference standards, they get ignored, bent, abused, fumbled all the time.

If we have ethnographers in the house, it also seems that there are methods for teasing apart the facts from the stories we tell to string the facts together... multiple observers can report the same events but still draw radically different conclusions about the implications.

- Steve

============================================================
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

Steve Smith

Re: off topic....., but still

In reply to this post by glen ep ropella

Glen, et alii -

I have listened to the chatter on this mail list for years now and with
only a few exceptions, we don't seem to put our models where our mouth
is. We are all "here" ostensibly because we know something about
Complexity and Modeling, or at least that we are Complexity Groupies of
some sort... and yet... but still...

I do know (of) Nick's, Eric's, Owen's, Stephen's, and Shawn Barr's
collaboration on the MOTH (Myway Or The Highway) model of the prisoners
dilemma:
http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/models/community/LogoMoth

but not much otherwise (I'm sure there are more, I just don't know of
them!).

I too share the feeling that complex systems studies/modeling might help
in the problems of governing. Doug, I know, has had a good taste of
building models and running studies for Government Agencies and
Policy/Decision Makers who are known to directly disregard highly
refined results and make decisions on (apparently) an entirely political
basis.

I still do work on decision support systems (mostly for Gov't customers)
and still hold the opinion that our job is not to help decision makers
make more informed decisions, but rather help prevent them from making
uninformed decisions. This may sound like splitting hairs, but my
experience is that decision makers often have already made their
decisions and decision support systems (including simple human analysis)
are often used to justify the decisions already chosen. By building
well motivated models with a clean stream of source data, I believe that
at best, our systems occasionally prevent an overzealous decision (or
policy) maker from making a rash, uninformed decision based on personal,
political, or in some cases whimsical opinions. Sometimes they might
pull back because they are enlightened by our enhanced
information/analysis, but more likely because they know that others will
be enlightened by it enough to question their decisions.

While I think I understand Glen's point about delegation... there are
reasons for a representative government... I think that making *more
explicit* a shared hierarchical model of the things we are making
decisions about, "we the people" can make better decisions about our
popular (or electoral) support for issues and candidates. While I think
the professional decision maker deserves better tools, better support,
such may only be adopted if the unwashed masses have access to the same
information/tools...

The news stream and more aptly, the opinion/analysis cloud that trails
it, is an attempt to do this. One might think that we could make this
more formal? Perhaps Tom Johnson and the School of Analytical
Journalism might be able to steer us to something in that regard?

In an ideal world, I would like to think that with enough transparency,
enough broadly disseminated information, enough understanding at many
levels, the answers (or decisions) would flow easily from the
questions. I believe this to be the main way things happen science...
the question is refined until the answer becomes obvious.

Unfortunately, I think there is something more going on, and it is "the
stories we tell" which I believe formally is "the models we choose".
My friend and colleague, David Thompson who some of you might know from
his time at Bios Group, has a blog around his new work in "Story
Resolution". In particular, this entry on "Affording to Know" seems
fairly apt for the current discussion:
http://storyresolution.org/2011/03/the-value-of-affording-to-know/

What leaps out at me from David's postings and our private discussions
is that we can fit many models to the same data, or we can tell many
different stories based on the same observed events. Multiple observers
can report the very same events but tell radically different stories
about them.

This sobers my thoughts that if we could just "write a better model" we
could understand the world more clearly, make better decisions, etc.
But then, it is not uncommon for us to challenge eachother with "tell a
better story" when we are using the facts to make ourselves miserable or
abusive.... The important question (as always) might be "what do we
mean by better?".

At the risk of sounding newage (rhymes with "sewage"?), I do think the
models we have of the world, the stories we tell, are critical in
defining the world we are generating. "Visualize Whirled Peas" comes to
mind. The pragmatists (or pessimists, or warmongers or hawks or ...)
might say that we have ample evidence that humans are always in violent
conflict and that any semblance of peace is an illusion or at best
fleeting, etc. The Optimists (or Polyannas, or Candides or
LaLaLanders) might be accused of ignoring important facts when choosing
to view the world through rose colored glasses. But we do know that to
some extent we find what we look for, we optimize what we measure, our
big hammers make everything look like nails, etc. What about that, really?

This seems to be a meta-modeling question, and one I suspect many of us
have answered (partially) in relatively limited but more technical
domains. Is there broader application? Is it actionable?

Sorry for the ramble... I suspect only a dedicated few could stick with
me on this one, but if I make the effort to go back and tighten it up, I
will probably just delete it.

- STeve

> I started thinking about writing a toy model after this article was
> referenced in another forum:
>
> http://www.economist.com/node/18563638
>
> I've always viewed the initiative process a bit suspiciously. It's not
> that I don't trust myself or the other yahoos on the street... but I do
> believe in delegation. We delegate legislating to the professional
> legislators for a reason, I think. (which is also why I'm not a fan of
> electing non-legislators - laypeople, doctors, programmers, hollywood
> actors, etc. - to legislative positions.) But, I'm torn because, having
> worked in lots of multi-disciplinary teams, especially involving
> students, the value of a fresh perspective is ... well, priceless.
>
> It just seems we could "apply complexity" to this sort of thing and come
> out the other end a little more facile. I'd love to meet, say, Raul
> Castro's consultants and give them a modeling and simulation elevator pitch!
>
> Steve Smith wrote at 05/03/2011 08:41 PM:
>> I fear that there is not an obvious market. That is not to say there
>> is no value, it is (perhaps) hard to translate that into the market in
>> terms of political or economic capital. I think there is huge
>> (potential) social capital available, but how to translate that into a
>> gradient agents will follow?
>

glen ep ropella

Re: off topic....., but still

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

It's a good ramble. But to be clear, modeling and simulation (M&S) is
not about, nor has it ever been about, finding a "better model".
Perhaps that's arrogant on my part. How about M&S has never been about
finding a better _anything_ for me.

M&S is about thinking. Models[*] are instances of extended physiology,
much like a spittle bug's foam. Models are extensions of our brains. I
can go further and assert that general purpose computers[+] are _not_
about improving things or finding better things, either. The basic idea
is "the bigger and more complex your brain is, the more you think".
And, to an extent, it's true.

What you've identified, the premature fixation on a particular model,
was inherited from the already-present structure of our brains. I've
heard people assert that it was advantageous for a hunter-gatherer to be
able to react quickly without/before engaging the higher structures of
the brain. I don't really buy that; but I do buy the concept that we
have evolved (for whatever reason/explanation) to prefer our own
perspective over others'. Fixation on _a_ model or a _better_ model is
just an artifact of that.

M&S, as a discipline, is about _avoiding_ such a fixation, fleshing out
the mechanisms and explanations that satisfy some set of conditions and
helping you break out of the limitations of your own perspective ...
discovering alternative "truths" you haven't yet thought of.

This is the M&S elevator pitch.

[*] I'm not including "mental models", here, because they are different
beasts. I'm talking about externally identifiable artifacts we
typically call "models".

[+] It's more difficult to make that assertion about embedded systems
devices because at least 1 particular model must be inscribed into the
device. So, one can successfully argue that they are more like, closer
to, sensors or motors.

Steve Smith wrote circa 11-05-04 10:40 AM:

> Glen, et alii -
>
> I have listened to the chatter on this mail list for years now and with
> only a few exceptions, we don't seem to put our models where our mouth
> is. We are all "here" ostensibly because we know something about
> Complexity and Modeling, or at least that we are Complexity Groupies of
> some sort... and yet... but still...
>
> I do know (of) Nick's, Eric's, Owen's, Stephen's, and Shawn Barr's
> collaboration on the MOTH (Myway Or The Highway) model of the prisoners
> dilemma:
> http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/models/community/LogoMoth
>
> but not much otherwise (I'm sure there are more, I just don't know of
> them!).
>
> I too share the feeling that complex systems studies/modeling might help
> in the problems of governing. Doug, I know, has had a good taste of
> building models and running studies for Government Agencies and
> Policy/Decision Makers who are known to directly disregard highly
> refined results and make decisions on (apparently) an entirely political
> basis.
>
> I still do work on decision support systems (mostly for Gov't customers)
> and still hold the opinion that our job is not to help decision makers
> make more informed decisions, but rather help prevent them from making
> uninformed decisions. This may sound like splitting hairs, but my
> experience is that decision makers often have already made their
> decisions and decision support systems (including simple human analysis)
> are often used to justify the decisions already chosen. By building
> well motivated models with a clean stream of source data, I believe that
> at best, our systems occasionally prevent an overzealous decision (or
> policy) maker from making a rash, uninformed decision based on personal,
> political, or in some cases whimsical opinions. Sometimes they might
> pull back because they are enlightened by our enhanced
> information/analysis, but more likely because they know that others will
> be enlightened by it enough to question their decisions.
>
> While I think I understand Glen's point about delegation... there are
> reasons for a representative government... I think that making *more
> explicit* a shared hierarchical model of the things we are making
> decisions about, "we the people" can make better decisions about our
> popular (or electoral) support for issues and candidates. While I think
> the professional decision maker deserves better tools, better support,
> such may only be adopted if the unwashed masses have access to the same
> information/tools...
>
> The news stream and more aptly, the opinion/analysis cloud that trails
> it, is an attempt to do this. One might think that we could make this
> more formal? Perhaps Tom Johnson and the School of Analytical
> Journalism might be able to steer us to something in that regard?
>
> In an ideal world, I would like to think that with enough transparency,
> enough broadly disseminated information, enough understanding at many
> levels, the answers (or decisions) would flow easily from the
> questions. I believe this to be the main way things happen science...
> the question is refined until the answer becomes obvious.
>
> Unfortunately, I think there is something more going on, and it is "the
> stories we tell" which I believe formally is "the models we choose".
> My friend and colleague, David Thompson who some of you might know from
> his time at Bios Group, has a blog around his new work in "Story
> Resolution". In particular, this entry on "Affording to Know" seems
> fairly apt for the current discussion:
> http://storyresolution.org/2011/03/the-value-of-affording-to-know/
>
> What leaps out at me from David's postings and our private discussions
> is that we can fit many models to the same data, or we can tell many
> different stories based on the same observed events. Multiple observers
> can report the very same events but tell radically different stories
> about them.
>
> This sobers my thoughts that if we could just "write a better model" we
> could understand the world more clearly, make better decisions, etc.
> But then, it is not uncommon for us to challenge eachother with "tell a
> better story" when we are using the facts to make ourselves miserable or
> abusive.... The important question (as always) might be "what do we
> mean by better?".
>
> At the risk of sounding newage (rhymes with "sewage"?), I do think the
> models we have of the world, the stories we tell, are critical in
> defining the world we are generating. "Visualize Whirled Peas" comes to
> mind. The pragmatists (or pessimists, or warmongers or hawks or ...)
> might say that we have ample evidence that humans are always in violent
> conflict and that any semblance of peace is an illusion or at best
> fleeting, etc. The Optimists (or Polyannas, or Candides or
> LaLaLanders) might be accused of ignoring important facts when choosing
> to view the world through rose colored glasses. But we do know that to
> some extent we find what we look for, we optimize what we measure, our
> big hammers make everything look like nails, etc. What about that, really?
>
> This seems to be a meta-modeling question, and one I suspect many of us
> have answered (partially) in relatively limited but more technical
> domains. Is there broader application? Is it actionable?
>
> Sorry for the ramble... I suspect only a dedicated few could stick with
> me on this one, but if I make the effort to go back and tighten it up, I
> will probably just delete it.

- --
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iD8DBQFNwZqMpVJZMHoGoM8RAgTWAKCItxldVUhaKkQhgMs1aCCLrMKYcwCfcq2i
VjS/VFuvGX5tj7InRALXPJk=
=Ogfc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

============================================================
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

Steve Smith

Memetic Drift in Threads, was: off topic....., but still

On reflection of Owen's thread hygiene around hijacking, etc., I have to
wonder about the implications of what I want to call "memetic drift".
We start with a topic, and at some point it has wandered enough to
qualify for a new subject... but it is not always obvious when it
deserved a new Subject: line.

I believe I am as guilty as most for this form of slow hijacking... the
vehicle (thread) is not abruptly taken by force and driven off in some
totally different direction than it's original route plan suggested,
instead it is seduced iteratively into taking us to Havana.

To stretch the metaphor from hijacking to kidnapping, are we all the
Patty Hearsts of our own discussions?

- Steve

============================================================
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

Vladimyr Burachynsky

Re: Memetic Drift in Threads, was: off topic....., but still

Very sly you are Steve Smith,

The topic with no Name has been an ever present part of the group
discussions. It drifts because we have never nailed it to the wall. There is
a propensity to organize and control discussions. The nameless issues are
like flies in our face.
We try so hard to shoo them away but they leave us all a little silly
looking . The fly keeps showing up right in the middle of our brows.

The nameless issue seems to be Human Nature and it is uncomfortably not what
we generally assumed from idealistic perspectives. Often we drift directly
into this area as a result of some calamitous world wide affair.
All of us are showing surprise at the unpredictable recklessness of our
global society. Perhaps clutching to the grail of Complexity is a feeble
notion. I admit I am awestruck with the bizarre events of recent months,
seemingly errant events recurring in greater and greater frequency. These
events seem every few days to imply we really have very little understanding
of what is going on around us. In retrospect each event was predictable yet
we are clearly unable to see the real world beyond the reflection of our own
internal fictions.

Our brains like most people are handicapped in some way by short cuts in
design. We know there is a world or reality beyond ours but rarely take it
into consideration. WE get trapped into deviously designed narratives and
have to wait for the penultimate chapter to find the hidden passage way
behind the fireplace. The last chapter simply reconstructs all the missing
bits which we never noticed. We all end up happier with a clean story line
that appears self consistent. Unfortunately the desire for a clean story
line is the problem with us. Every story demands one topic, one problem, one
hero, one villain. The real world is obviously not structured around our
prejudices yet we persist in making it so. ( I read Herodotus and laugh at
his explanations of the world. He was a charmer I love his style. No one
would dare today write ceaselessly with no plot. But maybe that is what is
what I relish. He did not really care himself for the nonsense explanations
and showed his dismissal ) Perhaps the writer is our God and he will show us
the Truth if we listen closely. The Logos, the Word the hand of God may be
nothing more than explanations externalized for intrinsic defects in human
brains. The Dogma professed to allay our questions and let us live in peace
but it never worked as well as hoped. Reality kept showing up as a nameless
annoying fly.

We always assume there must be a category and that there must be a plot and
some obvious truth. Well maybe that is just our addiction to narrative
styles.

Complexity is part of the future , but by itself at best it can display some
shadows of reality. Most of our difficulties seem to me to be the
peculiarities of human intelligence. I personally do not actually have any
more faith in it now than God, the Soul, Good or Evil or economic reform. I
believe that we are so facile creating illusions we can no longer
distinguish truth from fiction. I have a bone to pick with the equivalence
of narratives. It plays well with people who have nothing of substance to
offer but more fears and economic opportunities. Besides I am not the only
one to notice each new revolution seems to be a conflict of fictions, or
whether or not the young people are willing to endure the tyranny of an
older narrative. Perhaps the people have a shelf life for narratives, it
used to keep writers busy and paid.
Did the digital era start to disturb the functioning of traditional Human
delusions? Why is every new TV show a remake or mix up of older stories in
new fashions?

Steve there is no need to beat your chest in aguish that you feel you
violated some form of ethical guide line.

When I used to go fishing I have often had to step over a few old fence
lines. Being stuck on one side of the fence can be frustrating fishing or
with research.

The fish seems to be Human Intelligence or the lack of it. The reason for
the lack seems awkward because most of us are a little embarrassed to admit
we ever were so easily duped. Now why is it that old men look backward and
start to feel ashamed at what they once loved so stridently.

The truth upon reflection was always obvious so why did we choose to ignore
it. The Complexity Theory revelations or truths will also be easily ignored
until a catastrophe strikes. Then we go about the business of burying
bodies at sea for various reasons. Why is the truth so difficult to face.? I
suspect that once our brains are commited to a narrative we do not find it
easy to alter it substantially. Like a filing system we make small
alterations but big changes need a house fire or a computer melt down before
they are implemented. More than filling in gaps we also seem to wilfully
ignore certain information to preserve the established narrative. This is
difficult to spot. Our brains seem to be wired for short cuts but they can
on occasion be overridden and save ourselves from foolish disaster. Why do
we immerse ourselves in other peoples narratives and take such pleasure ?

Our elusive topic with No Name may be different for many of us. However it
appears we all react in some way and then "Move On " to more controlled
disciplined areas. Why is "Moving On "such a current mantra? Where do we
hope to go by abandoning a topic? What are we avoiding? Why do we every few
weeks resurrect this Golem ?

Considering the close association with science and arts why so little faith
in rambling over the heather? What have we got to lose?
Let us start by trying to discover what the participants feel is the hidden
topic, call it the search for the Nameless.

Personally I am currently struggling with a 3D animation of mathematical
functions. The pieces are all basically assembled but for some reason I
struggle with the "Narrative"; it is basically text free. A new deviation
for me. The images must be sequenced correctly to transfer the desired
intent, but my intent seems elusive as I look in detail. A multi body
system is a challenge for me. I have learned that it requires better
understanding of my own thinking and visualization and that has become my
issue with myself. I find that I am rarely sure of whether this is ever
exactly as I envisioned or is it what I have decided is expedient. The
struggle is with the way the brain appears to require guidance or it
erroneously or randomly fills in gaps in seamless manner where there was
insufficient data. It has become apparent that what I seek to do requires
some insight as to how my brain and that of the audience deceives itself it
to believing what is not actually present. Perhaps as with the written
native there is a way to constrain the recipients brain from inventing
monstrous explanations. I also wonder if there is any mechanism for
distinguishing the fabricated understanding from the actual perceived facts.
But this does appear much like the problem with optical illusions. We can
never quite convince ourselves to disregard our own delusions. The search
for the clues by which a brain stiches perceptions together into a narrative
is entirely new to me. And all I was trying to do was design some new
machinery.

I am staggered by the Off Topic area, fortunately it was a wondrous fishing
trip. I have discovered much That I had no idea existed. There is something
about this journey that leads me to study philosophy and psychology which
never interested me previously. Keep some of the fences in place if they
serve a function but clearly something is lurking in many minds and I just
sincerely hope it is not some new mystical foolishness.

Each of us has been confined to some region of human specialization and like
chickens released from our pens , by a wind storm we are now discovering a
new world beyond the knocked down fences.

Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky PhD

[hidden email]

120-1053 Beaverhill Blvd.
Winnipeg,Manitoba, R2J3R2
Canada
(204) 2548321 Land
(204) 8016064 Cell

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
Of Steve Smith
Sent: May-04-11 2:01 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] Memetic Drift in Threads, was: off topic....., but still

On reflection of Owen's thread hygiene around hijacking, etc., I have to
wonder about the implications of what I want to call "memetic drift".
We start with a topic, and at some point it has wandered enough to qualify
for a new subject... but it is not always obvious when it deserved a new
Subject: line.

I believe I am as guilty as most for this form of slow hijacking... the
vehicle (thread) is not abruptly taken by force and driven off in some
totally different direction than it's original route plan suggested, instead
it is seduced iteratively into taking us to Havana.

To stretch the metaphor from hijacking to kidnapping, are we all the Patty
Hearsts of our own discussions?

- Steve

============================================================
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

============================================================
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

Shawn Barr

Re: off topic....., but still

In reply to this post by Siddharth-3

Apparently the quote is an appended version of a passage that appeared in MLK's book _Strength to Love_:

http://books.google.com/books?id=errxX4tzSMcC&pg=PA53#v=onepage&q&f=false

How it joined the first sentence is not clear. A facebook post has been credited:

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/05/anatomy-of-a-fake-quotation/238257/

But I prefer to think that the amalgam originated here:

http://christianhomekeeper.org/blog/i-will-not-rejoice/

Best,
Shawn

On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 3:01 AM, siddharth <[hidden email]> wrote:

apparently this isn't even by MLK in the first place.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/05/out-of-osamas-death-a-fake-quotation-is-born/238220/

!!!

On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 9:36 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

"I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy.

Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars."

~ Martin Luther King

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
http://www.cusf.org

============================================================
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

============================================================
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

Steve Smith

Infidel ity

Shawn -

Interesting find... has anyone done some analysis via Google's caches to see if this was the earliest recorded reference? Seems like there might be some parallel to the OED process for origins of words, terms, phrases? Do we know the frequency (i'm sure it is adaptive) of Google's robots?

Unfortunately, I didn't have to read very far to find:

I understand the only thing different between Osama and me —is that I have received Christ as my Savior.

Which I find a very disturbing statement. This kind of exclusivity seems to me to be the source of huge and continued divisiveness in the world.

- Steve

Apparently the quote is an appended version of a passage that appeared in MLK's book _Strength to Love_:

http://books.google.com/books?id=errxX4tzSMcC&pg=PA53#v=onepage&q&f=false

How it joined the first sentence is not clear. A facebook post has been credited:

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/05/anatomy-of-a-fake-quotation/238257/

But I prefer to think that the amalgam originated here:

http://christianhomekeeper.org/blog/i-will-not-rejoice/

Best,
Shawn

On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 3:01 AM, siddharth <[hidden email]> wrote:

apparently this isn't even by MLK in the first place.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/05/out-of-osamas-death-a-fake-quotation-is-born/238220/

!!!

On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 9:36 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

"I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy.

Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars."

~ Martin Luther King

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

http://www.cusf.org

============================================================
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

============================================================
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
============================================================
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

lrudolph

monkeys, Shakespeare, and Venn

Recent talk of memes and original sources reminds me that, just the
other day, I was reading John Venn's book on logic (published 5 years
before he wrote the paper which gave the name "Venn diagrams" to the
familiar diagrams that had been around much longer), and discovered
that he spends about 3 pages discussing the probability of producing
the plays of Shakespeare (he doesn't mention the sonnets...) by
random-drawing-with-replacement from a bag (not an urn) with the
latin letters in it (he doesn't mention whitespace, either). The
typewriter had only been invented about 5 years before *that*, and no
monkeys are involved (though an idiot shows up shortly thereafter,
when he points out that by a *systematic* "mechanism" (essentially, a
recursive enumeration of all finite strings of letters) that "even an
idiot" (viz., Turing's "idealized human computing agent") could do,
the plays would *surely* be produced eventually. (Venn further
points out that, in either case, to actually separate the wheat from
the chaff you would more or less have to have a Shakespeare on hand
to read the output and give it a thumbs up or thumbs down.)

A cursory search with Google found no indication either of an earlier
instance of this (proto-)meme, or of anyone before me ever having
left a written (and Google-ized) record of noticing it for what it
was. In particular, the Wikipedia article on what they call "the
infinite monkey theorem" doesn't mention Venn (or anyone earlier, for
that matter). Anyone know anything?

Lee Rudolph

P.S. No monkeys were harmed in the preparation of this message.

============================================================
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