How similar to the sperm peloton and the cyclist peloton, now we have flocks with leaders and cliques?.
If each model has a different organizing principle then why does my simple mind think there are similarities?
I liked Hugh Trenchard’s ideas the best, there was no need for more than a simple available power assessment on the part of the individual agent. Sticking the term leadership into the discussion really puts a strange twist to everything.
Trenchard’s ideas would have probably worked for the flocks equally well, and that is truly interesting. Craig Reynolds 1982? wrote his early “Boids “ paper with only very simple principles none of which included power or aerodynamics.
Same organized behavior but completely different principles. Do we force complex interpretations where simple ones suffice.
A “leader” in a cycling peloton is such a temporary phenomenon that one has to be very careful how the term it is used. But in the bird flock the leader seems to be part of a social dynamic which might not actual exist but in the minds of the writers?
Inventing complex explanations for simple situations seems similar to what conspiracy theorists practice.
Dr.Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky
Ph.D.(Civil Eng.), M.Sc.(Mech.Eng.), M.Sc.(Biology)
120-1053 Beaverhill Blvd.
Winnipeg, Manitoba
CANADA R2J 3R2
(204) 2548321 Phone/Fax
-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
Of Ted Carmichael
Sent: April 10, 2010 5:39 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied
Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] leadership in
flocks
I haven't read the papers all the way through, but on first blush, I don't see them as contradictory. Either could be correct.
A "leader" - whether bird or person - could act first due to internal traits (inclination, ability, imagination) or external influence. The first implies that the leader is different from the others in some way, while the second implies only a situational difference: circumstance rather than inherent traits.
Once the leader acts, this creates space for the other birds/people to act similarly, and follow the leader. The followers must have had the same inclination towards this action, because they end up doing it, too ... they just weren't over the tipping point yet. There was something missing that kept them from acting first. The leader's action clearly provides the missing element, and so all the followers perform the same action.
The remarkable thing about the flocking models, such as the one in JASS, is that they show that leadership doesn't have to be due to an internal trait. It may simply be a situational difference among very similar agents. Before these models were put forth, the prevailing view was that leadership is always endogenous to the leader. Now, at least, we can consider other possibilities, whether or not they end up being correct.
-t
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 8:57 PM, glen e. p. ropella <[hidden email]> wrote:
sarbajit roy wrote circa 10-04-09 06:34 AM:
>
The religious grouping I belong to had cause to study/discuss this about 150
> years back (concerning flocks of men not birds). The leader of the
faction
> in opposition to mine (which means my faction vehemently disagrees with
his
> view) had this to say
That quote from your
opposition seems to fall in line with the nature
article, the idea that particular birds/humans (presumably with
particular traits, inbred or learned) turn out to be leaders. I take it
from your statement that you agree more with the jasss article, that
leaders with no particularly exceptional traits emerge? Right?
Of course, to even have this discussion, we have to allow ourselves the
metaphor between human cliques and bird flocks...
--
glen e. p. ropella,
971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.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
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |