Friam

what complexity science says ...

Classic

List

Threaded

29 messages Options

Roger Critchlow-2

what complexity science says ...

Thanks to hackernews:

https://aeon.co/essays/what-complexity-science-says-about-what-makes-a-winning-team

-- rec --

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

thompnickson2

Re: what complexity science says ...

Hi, Roger,

Have I ever sent you THIS before? It makes the argument that group selected individuals will be selected for flexibility, like some classes of immune cells, for instance. Or honey bee workers. I am not sure how this idea works with the idea in the paper you sent out. Flow IS an emergent trait, so that works. But it’s hard to think of LeBron James as a “generalist”. I guess we could argue that if his team is to have “flow”, he has to have enough versatility NOT to do the thing he’s best at when it’s not called for by the demands of “flow.” I certainly agree with the Aeon article that there are “flow-catalysts” among us and that they are great to have on a team.

Here is the relevant text from the article (pp 97-8).

If trait-group selection is to play the role of a "genetic mechanism" in group selection theory, then it must be the case that, for instance, groups with more "group promoting" individuals (an aggregate trait) must be better organized and more harmonious (emergent traits). What sorts of individuals would be group promoting in this way? What sort of elements which, when aggregated, would foster emergence of some group trait? The answer that comes to mind immediately is "flexible elements." A boat would be a poor competitor if it had all the best coxswains in the race or all the best stroke oarsmen; but a boat with all the most educable rowers in the race might be a very good competitor, since educable rowers could learn the skills appropriate to each position in the boat. Thus, the relationship between emergent traits as a selective force and trait-group selection as an inheritance mechanism may account for why complex organizations in nature seem so often to be composed of generalist elements that become specialized during development to serve different functions within the whole. Think of the body's cells, for instance, which all contain the same genetic information but come to serve very different functions during the course of development. Think of the neurons of the human cortex, which become structured and organized by position and by experience. Think of the workers in a beehive (Seeley, 1995). …

The analysis of this paper . suggests another reason why humans might be generalists--powerful group selection. Selection for aggregate properties at any level is impotent to select for functional differentiation. It can, however, select for differentiability. Thus, the undifferentiated brain tissue and generalized behavior potential that characterize human beings and that make human language and culture a possibility may be a direct result of group selection (Boyd & Richerson, 1985; Boehm, 1997). The exact mechanism by which this selection would come about is a combination of group selection, which would assure that functionally integrated groups generate more offspring groups than their nonfunctionally integrated alternatives, and trait-group inheritance, which would assure that aggregations of differentiable individuals are available to form functionally integrated groups.

Roger, I have to admit that this is one of the papers that causes me to display “howling in the wilderness” syndrome. I think it is one of my most interesting, both in the conclusion it reaches and in the formal analysis of metaphor that leads to that conclusion. Yet, nobody seems to see any reason to discuss it. Any thoughts on this quandary would be deeply appreciated.

Nick

Nick Thompson

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Roger Critchlow
Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2021 8:27 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: [FRIAM] what complexity science says ...

Thanks to hackernews:

https://aeon.co/essays/what-complexity-science-says-about-what-makes-a-winning-team

-- rec --

Roger Critchlow-2

Re: what complexity science says ...

Nick --

I don't remember seeing it before, and I'm up to my ears in fourier transforms and do loops, so I'm not going to try to read it now.

Blove on!

-- rec --

On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 3:28 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi, Roger,

Have I ever sent you THIS before? It makes the argument that group selected individuals will be selected for flexibility, like some classes of immune cells, for instance. Or honey bee workers. I am not sure how this idea works with the idea in the paper you sent out. Flow IS an emergent trait, so that works. But it’s hard to think of LeBron James as a “generalist”. I guess we could argue that if his team is to have “flow”, he has to have enough versatility NOT to do the thing he’s best at when it’s not called for by the demands of “flow.” I certainly agree with the Aeon article that there are “flow-catalysts” among us and that they are great to have on a team.

Here is the relevant text from the article (pp 97-8).

If trait-group selection is to play the role of a "genetic mechanism" in group selection theory, then it must be the case that, for instance, groups with more "group promoting" individuals (an aggregate trait) must be better organized and more harmonious (emergent traits). What sorts of individuals would be group promoting in this way? What sort of elements which, when aggregated, would foster emergence of some group trait? The answer that comes to mind immediately is "flexible elements." A boat would be a poor competitor if it had all the best coxswains in the race or all the best stroke oarsmen; but a boat with all the most educable rowers in the race might be a very good competitor, since educable rowers could learn the skills appropriate to each position in the boat. Thus, the relationship between emergent traits as a selective force and trait-group selection as an inheritance mechanism may account for why complex organizations in nature seem so often to be composed of generalist elements that become specialized during development to serve different functions within the whole. Think of the body's cells, for instance, which all contain the same genetic information but come to serve very different functions during the course of development. Think of the neurons of the human cortex, which become structured and organized by position and by experience. Think of the workers in a beehive (Seeley, 1995). …

The analysis of this paper . suggests another reason why humans might be generalists--powerful group selection. Selection for aggregate properties at any level is impotent to select for functional differentiation. It can, however, select for differentiability. Thus, the undifferentiated brain tissue and generalized behavior potential that characterize human beings and that make human language and culture a possibility may be a direct result of group selection (Boyd & Richerson, 1985; Boehm, 1997). The exact mechanism by which this selection would come about is a combination of group selection, which would assure that functionally integrated groups generate more offspring groups than their nonfunctionally integrated alternatives, and trait-group inheritance, which would assure that aggregations of differentiable individuals are available to form functionally integrated groups.

Roger, I have to admit that this is one of the papers that causes me to display “howling in the wilderness” syndrome. I think it is one of my most interesting, both in the conclusion it reaches and in the formal analysis of metaphor that leads to that conclusion. Yet, nobody seems to see any reason to discuss it. Any thoughts on this quandary would be deeply appreciated.

Nick

Nick Thompson
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Roger Critchlow
Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2021 8:27 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: [FRIAM] what complexity science says ...

Thanks to hackernews:

https://aeon.co/essays/what-complexity-science-says-about-what-makes-a-winning-team

-- rec --

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

thompnickson2

Re: what complexity science says ...

Roger,

Aw Darn! Ok. God Speed in your work! Do your looping ears do Fourier transforms? Inquiring deaf people want to know.

Nick Thompson

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Roger Critchlow
Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2021 8:55 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] what complexity science says ...

Nick --

I don't remember seeing it before, and I'm up to my ears in fourier transforms and do loops, so I'm not going to try to read it now.

Blove on!

-- rec --

On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 3:28 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi, Roger,

Have I ever sent you THIS before? It makes the argument that group selected individuals will be selected for flexibility, like some classes of immune cells, for instance. Or honey bee workers. I am not sure how this idea works with the idea in the paper you sent out. Flow IS an emergent trait, so that works. But it’s hard to think of LeBron James as a “generalist”. I guess we could argue that if his team is to have “flow”, he has to have enough versatility NOT to do the thing he’s best at when it’s not called for by the demands of “flow.” I certainly agree with the Aeon article that there are “flow-catalysts” among us and that they are great to have on a team.

Here is the relevant text from the article (pp 97-8).

If trait-group selection is to play the role of a "genetic mechanism" in group selection theory, then it must be the case that, for instance, groups with more "group promoting" individuals (an aggregate trait) must be better organized and more harmonious (emergent traits). What sorts of individuals would be group promoting in this way? What sort of elements which, when aggregated, would foster emergence of some group trait? The answer that comes to mind immediately is "flexible elements." A boat would be a poor competitor if it had all the best coxswains in the race or all the best stroke oarsmen; but a boat with all the most educable rowers in the race might be a very good competitor, since educable rowers could learn the skills appropriate to each position in the boat. Thus, the relationship between emergent traits as a selective force and trait-group selection as an inheritance mechanism may account for why complex organizations in nature seem so often to be composed of generalist elements that become specialized during development to serve different functions within the whole. Think of the body's cells, for instance, which all contain the same genetic information but come to serve very different functions during the course of development. Think of the neurons of the human cortex, which become structured and organized by position and by experience. Think of the workers in a beehive (Seeley, 1995). …

The analysis of this paper . suggests another reason why humans might be generalists--powerful group selection. Selection for aggregate properties at any level is impotent to select for functional differentiation. It can, however, select for differentiability. Thus, the undifferentiated brain tissue and generalized behavior potential that characterize human beings and that make human language and culture a possibility may be a direct result of group selection (Boyd & Richerson, 1985; Boehm, 1997). The exact mechanism by which this selection would come about is a combination of group selection, which would assure that functionally integrated groups generate more offspring groups than their nonfunctionally integrated alternatives, and trait-group inheritance, which would assure that aggregations of differentiable individuals are available to form functionally integrated groups.

Roger, I have to admit that this is one of the papers that causes me to display “howling in the wilderness” syndrome. I think it is one of my most interesting, both in the conclusion it reaches and in the formal analysis of metaphor that leads to that conclusion. Yet, nobody seems to see any reason to discuss it. Any thoughts on this quandary would be deeply appreciated.

Nick

Nick Thompson
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Roger Critchlow
Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2021 8:27 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: [FRIAM] what complexity science says ...

Thanks to hackernews:

https://aeon.co/essays/what-complexity-science-says-about-what-makes-a-winning-team

-- rec --

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

Roger Critchlow-2

Re: what complexity science says ...

I don't think my ears do transforms like the ones I'm doing in code, they're entirely too special purpose.

-- rec --

On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 11:21 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:

Roger,

Aw Darn! Ok. God Speed in your work! Do your looping ears do Fourier transforms? Inquiring deaf people want to know.

N

Nick Thompson
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Roger Critchlow
Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2021 8:55 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] what complexity science says ...

Nick --

I don't remember seeing it before, and I'm up to my ears in fourier transforms and do loops, so I'm not going to try to read it now.

Blove on!

-- rec --

On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 3:28 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi, Roger,

Have I ever sent you THIS before? It makes the argument that group selected individuals will be selected for flexibility, like some classes of immune cells, for instance. Or honey bee workers. I am not sure how this idea works with the idea in the paper you sent out. Flow IS an emergent trait, so that works. But it’s hard to think of LeBron James as a “generalist”. I guess we could argue that if his team is to have “flow”, he has to have enough versatility NOT to do the thing he’s best at when it’s not called for by the demands of “flow.” I certainly agree with the Aeon article that there are “flow-catalysts” among us and that they are great to have on a team.

Here is the relevant text from the article (pp 97-8).

If trait-group selection is to play the role of a "genetic mechanism" in group selection theory, then it must be the case that, for instance, groups with more "group promoting" individuals (an aggregate trait) must be better organized and more harmonious (emergent traits). What sorts of individuals would be group promoting in this way? What sort of elements which, when aggregated, would foster emergence of some group trait? The answer that comes to mind immediately is "flexible elements." A boat would be a poor competitor if it had all the best coxswains in the race or all the best stroke oarsmen; but a boat with all the most educable rowers in the race might be a very good competitor, since educable rowers could learn the skills appropriate to each position in the boat. Thus, the relationship between emergent traits as a selective force and trait-group selection as an inheritance mechanism may account for why complex organizations in nature seem so often to be composed of generalist elements that become specialized during development to serve different functions within the whole. Think of the body's cells, for instance, which all contain the same genetic information but come to serve very different functions during the course of development. Think of the neurons of the human cortex, which become structured and organized by position and by experience. Think of the workers in a beehive (Seeley, 1995). …

The analysis of this paper . suggests another reason why humans might be generalists--powerful group selection. Selection for aggregate properties at any level is impotent to select for functional differentiation. It can, however, select for differentiability. Thus, the undifferentiated brain tissue and generalized behavior potential that characterize human beings and that make human language and culture a possibility may be a direct result of group selection (Boyd & Richerson, 1985; Boehm, 1997). The exact mechanism by which this selection would come about is a combination of group selection, which would assure that functionally integrated groups generate more offspring groups than their nonfunctionally integrated alternatives, and trait-group inheritance, which would assure that aggregations of differentiable individuals are available to form functionally integrated groups.

Roger, I have to admit that this is one of the papers that causes me to display “howling in the wilderness” syndrome. I think it is one of my most interesting, both in the conclusion it reaches and in the formal analysis of metaphor that leads to that conclusion. Yet, nobody seems to see any reason to discuss it. Any thoughts on this quandary would be deeply appreciated.

Nick

Nick Thompson
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Roger Critchlow
Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2021 8:27 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: [FRIAM] what complexity science says ...

Thanks to hackernews:

https://aeon.co/essays/what-complexity-science-says-about-what-makes-a-winning-team

-- rec --

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

thompnickson2

Re: what complexity science says ...

One of our number, Mike Daly (if I understand him right) holds that hearing aid technology, which is based on the Fourier Transform, entirely falsifies how the cochlea works, and so will never get us to anything like natural hearing.

Nick Thompson

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Roger Critchlow
Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2021 10:26 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] what complexity science says ...

I don't think my ears do transforms like the ones I'm doing in code, they're entirely too special purpose.

-- rec --

On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 11:21 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:

Roger,

Aw Darn! Ok. God Speed in your work! Do your looping ears do Fourier transforms? Inquiring deaf people want to know.

N

Nick Thompson
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Roger Critchlow
Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2021 8:55 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] what complexity science says ...

Nick --

I don't remember seeing it before, and I'm up to my ears in fourier transforms and do loops, so I'm not going to try to read it now.

Blove on!

-- rec --

On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 3:28 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi, Roger,

Have I ever sent you THIS before? It makes the argument that group selected individuals will be selected for flexibility, like some classes of immune cells, for instance. Or honey bee workers. I am not sure how this idea works with the idea in the paper you sent out. Flow IS an emergent trait, so that works. But it’s hard to think of LeBron James as a “generalist”. I guess we could argue that if his team is to have “flow”, he has to have enough versatility NOT to do the thing he’s best at when it’s not called for by the demands of “flow.” I certainly agree with the Aeon article that there are “flow-catalysts” among us and that they are great to have on a team.

Here is the relevant text from the article (pp 97-8).

If trait-group selection is to play the role of a "genetic mechanism" in group selection theory, then it must be the case that, for instance, groups with more "group promoting" individuals (an aggregate trait) must be better organized and more harmonious (emergent traits). What sorts of individuals would be group promoting in this way? What sort of elements which, when aggregated, would foster emergence of some group trait? The answer that comes to mind immediately is "flexible elements." A boat would be a poor competitor if it had all the best coxswains in the race or all the best stroke oarsmen; but a boat with all the most educable rowers in the race might be a very good competitor, since educable rowers could learn the skills appropriate to each position in the boat. Thus, the relationship between emergent traits as a selective force and trait-group selection as an inheritance mechanism may account for why complex organizations in nature seem so often to be composed of generalist elements that become specialized during development to serve different functions within the whole. Think of the body's cells, for instance, which all contain the same genetic information but come to serve very different functions during the course of development. Think of the neurons of the human cortex, which become structured and organized by position and by experience. Think of the workers in a beehive (Seeley, 1995). …

The analysis of this paper . suggests another reason why humans might be generalists--powerful group selection. Selection for aggregate properties at any level is impotent to select for functional differentiation. It can, however, select for differentiability. Thus, the undifferentiated brain tissue and generalized behavior potential that characterize human beings and that make human language and culture a possibility may be a direct result of group selection (Boyd & Richerson, 1985; Boehm, 1997). The exact mechanism by which this selection would come about is a combination of group selection, which would assure that functionally integrated groups generate more offspring groups than their nonfunctionally integrated alternatives, and trait-group inheritance, which would assure that aggregations of differentiable individuals are available to form functionally integrated groups.

Roger, I have to admit that this is one of the papers that causes me to display “howling in the wilderness” syndrome. I think it is one of my most interesting, both in the conclusion it reaches and in the formal analysis of metaphor that leads to that conclusion. Yet, nobody seems to see any reason to discuss it. Any thoughts on this quandary would be deeply appreciated.

Nick

Nick Thompson
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Roger Critchlow
Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2021 8:27 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: [FRIAM] what complexity science says ...

Thanks to hackernews:

https://aeon.co/essays/what-complexity-science-says-about-what-makes-a-winning-team

-- rec --

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

Stephen Guerin-5

Re: what complexity science says ...

In reply to this post by thompnickson2

On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 1:29 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Roger, I have to admit that this is one of the papers that causes me to display “howling in the wilderness” syndrome.

Howling in the wildnerness

Murder of complexity crows accompany me
Their beaks move, but I can't hear what they say

On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 1:29 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi, Roger,

Have I ever sent you THIS before? It makes the argument that group selected individuals will be selected for flexibility, like some classes of immune cells, for instance. Or honey bee workers. I am not sure how this idea works with the idea in the paper you sent out. Flow IS an emergent trait, so that works. But it’s hard to think of LeBron James as a “generalist”. I guess we could argue that if his team is to have “flow”, he has to have enough versatility NOT to do the thing he’s best at when it’s not called for by the demands of “flow.” I certainly agree with the Aeon article that there are “flow-catalysts” among us and that they are great to have on a team.

Here is the relevant text from the article (pp 97-8).

If trait-group selection is to play the role of a "genetic mechanism" in group selection theory, then it must be the case that, for instance, groups with more "group promoting" individuals (an aggregate trait) must be better organized and more harmonious (emergent traits). What sorts of individuals would be group promoting in this way? What sort of elements which, when aggregated, would foster emergence of some group trait? The answer that comes to mind immediately is "flexible elements." A boat would be a poor competitor if it had all the best coxswains in the race or all the best stroke oarsmen; but a boat with all the most educable rowers in the race might be a very good competitor, since educable rowers could learn the skills appropriate to each position in the boat. Thus, the relationship between emergent traits as a selective force and trait-group selection as an inheritance mechanism may account for why complex organizations in nature seem so often to be composed of generalist elements that become specialized during development to serve different functions within the whole. Think of the body's cells, for instance, which all contain the same genetic information but come to serve very different functions during the course of development. Think of the neurons of the human cortex, which become structured and organized by position and by experience. Think of the workers in a beehive (Seeley, 1995). …

The analysis of this paper . suggests another reason why humans might be generalists--powerful group selection. Selection for aggregate properties at any level is impotent to select for functional differentiation. It can, however, select for differentiability. Thus, the undifferentiated brain tissue and generalized behavior potential that characterize human beings and that make human language and culture a possibility may be a direct result of group selection (Boyd & Richerson, 1985; Boehm, 1997). The exact mechanism by which this selection would come about is a combination of group selection, which would assure that functionally integrated groups generate more offspring groups than their nonfunctionally integrated alternatives, and trait-group inheritance, which would assure that aggregations of differentiable individuals are available to form functionally integrated groups.

Roger, I have to admit that this is one of the papers that causes me to display “howling in the wilderness” syndrome. I think it is one of my most interesting, both in the conclusion it reaches and in the formal analysis of metaphor that leads to that conclusion. Yet, nobody seems to see any reason to discuss it. Any thoughts on this quandary would be deeply appreciated.

Nick

Nick Thompson
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

thompnickson2

Re: what complexity science says ...

Gosh. We’re all pretty good at this. N

Nick Thompson

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Stephen Guerin
Sent: Friday, February 5, 2021 8:52 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] what complexity science says ...

Murder of complexity crows accompany me
Their beaks move, but I can't hear what they say

On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 1:29 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi, Roger,

Have I ever sent you THIS before? It makes the argument that group selected individuals will be selected for flexibility, like some classes of immune cells, for instance. Or honey bee workers. I am not sure how this idea works with the idea in the paper you sent out. Flow IS an emergent trait, so that works. But it’s hard to think of LeBron James as a “generalist”. I guess we could argue that if his team is to have “flow”, he has to have enough versatility NOT to do the thing he’s best at when it’s not called for by the demands of “flow.” I certainly agree with the Aeon article that there are “flow-catalysts” among us and that they are great to have on a team.

Here is the relevant text from the article (pp 97-8).

If trait-group selection is to play the role of a "genetic mechanism" in group selection theory, then it must be the case that, for instance, groups with more "group promoting" individuals (an aggregate trait) must be better organized and more harmonious (emergent traits). What sorts of individuals would be group promoting in this way? What sort of elements which, when aggregated, would foster emergence of some group trait? The answer that comes to mind immediately is "flexible elements." A boat would be a poor competitor if it had all the best coxswains in the race or all the best stroke oarsmen; but a boat with all the most educable rowers in the race might be a very good competitor, since educable rowers could learn the skills appropriate to each position in the boat. Thus, the relationship between emergent traits as a selective force and trait-group selection as an inheritance mechanism may account for why complex organizations in nature seem so often to be composed of generalist elements that become specialized during development to serve different functions within the whole. Think of the body's cells, for instance, which all contain the same genetic information but come to serve very different functions during the course of development. Think of the neurons of the human cortex, which become structured and organized by position and by experience. Think of the workers in a beehive (Seeley, 1995). …

The analysis of this paper . suggests another reason why humans might be generalists--powerful group selection. Selection for aggregate properties at any level is impotent to select for functional differentiation. It can, however, select for differentiability. Thus, the undifferentiated brain tissue and generalized behavior potential that characterize human beings and that make human language and culture a possibility may be a direct result of group selection (Boyd & Richerson, 1985; Boehm, 1997). The exact mechanism by which this selection would come about is a combination of group selection, which would assure that functionally integrated groups generate more offspring groups than their nonfunctionally integrated alternatives, and trait-group inheritance, which would assure that aggregations of differentiable individuals are available to form functionally integrated groups.

Roger, I have to admit that this is one of the papers that causes me to display “howling in the wilderness” syndrome. I think it is one of my most interesting, both in the conclusion it reaches and in the formal analysis of metaphor that leads to that conclusion. Yet, nobody seems to see any reason to discuss it. Any thoughts on this quandary would be deeply appreciated.

Nick

Nick Thompson
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

Steve Smith

Re: what complexity science says ...

Some of us, we are
just a few syllables short
of a haiku

On 2/5/21 9:09 AM, [hidden email] wrote:

Gosh. We’re all pretty good at this. N

Nick Thompson

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam [hidden email] On Behalf Of Stephen Guerin
Sent: Friday, February 5, 2021 8:52 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] what complexity science says ...

On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 1:29 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Roger, I have to admit that this is one of the papers that causes me to display “howling in the wilderness” syndrome.

Howling in the wildnerness

Murder of complexity crows accompany me
Their beaks move, but I can't hear what they say

On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 1:29 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi, Roger,

Have I ever sent you THIS before? It makes the argument that group selected individuals will be selected for flexibility, like some classes of immune cells, for instance. Or honey bee workers. I am not sure how this idea works with the idea in the paper you sent out. Flow IS an emergent trait, so that works. But it’s hard to think of LeBron James as a “generalist”. I guess we could argue that if his team is to have “flow”, he has to have enough versatility NOT to do the thing he’s best at when it’s not called for by the demands of “flow.” I certainly agree with the Aeon article that there are “flow-catalysts” among us and that they are great to have on a team.

Here is the relevant text from the article (pp 97-8).

If trait-group selection is to play the role of a "genetic mechanism" in group selection theory, then it must be the case that, for instance, groups with more "group promoting" individuals (an aggregate trait) must be better organized and more harmonious (emergent traits). What sorts of individuals would be group promoting in this way? What sort of elements which, when aggregated, would foster emergence of some group trait? The answer that comes to mind immediately is "flexible elements." A boat would be a poor competitor if it had all the best coxswains in the race or all the best stroke oarsmen; but a boat with all the most educable rowers in the race might be a very good competitor, since educable rowers could learn the skills appropriate to each position in the boat. Thus, the relationship between emergent traits as a selective force and trait-group selection as an inheritance mechanism may account for why complex organizations in nature seem so often to be composed of generalist elements that become specialized during development to serve different functions within the whole. Think of the body's cells, for instance, which all contain the same genetic information but come to serve very different functions during the course of development. Think of the neurons of the human cortex, which become structured and organized by position and by experience. Think of the workers in a beehive (Seeley, 1995). …

The analysis of this paper . suggests another reason why humans might be generalists--powerful group selection. Selection for aggregate properties at any level is impotent to select for functional differentiation. It can, however, select for differentiability. Thus, the undifferentiated brain tissue and generalized behavior potential that characterize human beings and that make human language and culture a possibility may be a direct result of group selection (Boyd & Richerson, 1985; Boehm, 1997). The exact mechanism by which this selection would come about is a combination of group selection, which would assure that functionally integrated groups generate more offspring groups than their nonfunctionally integrated alternatives, and trait-group inheritance, which would assure that aggregations of differentiable individuals are available to form functionally integrated groups.

Roger, I have to admit that this is one of the papers that causes me to display “howling in the wilderness” syndrome. I think it is one of my most interesting, both in the conclusion it reaches and in the formal analysis of metaphor that leads to that conclusion. Yet, nobody seems to see any reason to discuss it. Any thoughts on this quandary would be deeply appreciated.

Nick

Nick Thompson

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

jon zingale

Re: what complexity science says ...

This post was updated on .

In reply to this post by thompnickson2

I am not sure it's fair to say *entirely falsifies how the cochlea works*. In
some sense, we perform *at least* a Fourier transform, even if it isn't
computed completely at the cochlea. We, and especially musicians, find it
more natural to speak about sound in terms of spectra (timbre and pitch,
say) than changes in pressure. While I can understand how replacing the
cochlea (an embodied architectural organ) with a device that performs
transforms can fail, by the time we experience pressure as sound, we have
spectra.

--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

thompnickson2

Re: what complexity science says ...

Forgive me. As usual I overstated the case. But the cochlea IS a piece of
meat, not a gang of oscillators. In graduate school (back in the 19
century) I was taught that one end of cochlea was following the wave while
the other was using many neurons to follow the wave, Nobody reminded us
that the two ends were attached to one another and bathed in the same fluid
encapsulated in a spiral shaped vessel.

Mike where are you when I need you?

Nick

Nick Thompson
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of jon zingale
Sent: Sunday, February 7, 2021 12:28 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] what complexity science says ...

I am not sure it fair to say *entirely falsifies how the cochlea works*. In
some sense, we perform *at least* a Fourier transform, even if it isn't
computed completely at the cochlea. We, and especially musicians, find it
more natural to speak about sound in terms of spectra (timbre and pitch,
say) than changes in pressure. While I can understand how replacing the
cochlea (an embodied architectural organ) with a device that performs
transforms can fail, by the time we experience pressure as sound, we have
spectra.

--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

Stephen Guerin-5

Re: what complexity science says ...

On Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 11:46 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:

Forgive me. As usual I overstated the case. But the cochlea IS a piece of
meat, not a gang of oscillators. In graduate school (back in the 19

century) I was taught that one end of cochlea was following the wave while

the other was using many neurons to follow the wave,

eyebrowed monster which doth mock the meat,
resonant earbrows tune to your speech

Frequency Tuning
Each point along the basilar membrane oscillates a different amount, depending on the frequency of the sound. Points near the oval window, at the start, oscillate the largest amount in response to high-frequency tones. Points near the helicotrema oscillate by the largest amount in response to low-frequency tones.
from http://www.cns.nyu.edu/~david/courses/perception/lecturenotes/pitch/pitch.html

thompnickson2

Re: what complexity science says ...

Yep. That’s what I was taught.

Nick Thompson

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Stephen Guerin
Sent: Sunday, February 7, 2021 2:12 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Cc: Boozer Daly <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] what complexity science says ...

On Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 11:46 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:

Forgive me. As usual I overstated the case. But the cochlea IS a piece of
meat, not a gang of oscillators. In graduate school (back in the 19

century) I was taught that one end of cochlea was following the wave while

the other was using many neurons to follow the wave,

eyebrowed monster which doth mock the meat,
resonant earbrows tune to your speech

jon zingale

Re: what complexity science says ...

In reply to this post by Stephen Guerin-5

There is something about that image that reminds me of wavelets, localized in
both time as well as frequency. Perhaps there is something to be gained in
hearing aid technology by considering this shift?

--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: what complexity science says ...

I think expensive hearing aids use very advanced signal processing based on the patients' frequency responses. I join Nick in calling for "Mike!"

Frank

On Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 6:26 PM jon zingale <[hidden email]> wrote:

There is something about that image that reminds me of wavelets, localized in
both time as well as frequency. Perhaps there is something to be gained in
hearing aid technology by considering this shift?

--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

Frank Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918

Research: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

thompnickson2

Re: what complexity science says ...

I hope that Mike is going to say, once you have analysed a sound into frequency and time bins you have lost a lot of info already, info that the meaty cockhlea might have made use of. Mike? Are you going to say that? N

Nick Thompson

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Sunday, February 7, 2021 7:31 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] what complexity science says ...

I think expensive hearing aids use very advanced signal processing based on the patients' frequency responses. I join Nick in calling for "Mike!"

Frank

On Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 6:26 PM jon zingale <[hidden email]> wrote:

There is something about that image that reminds me of wavelets, localized in
both time as well as frequency. Perhaps there is something to be gained in
hearing aid technology by considering this shift?

--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

Frank Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918

Research: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: what complexity science says ...

A Discrete Fourier transform will give you phases as well as amplitudes.

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of [hidden email]
Sent: Sunday, February 7, 2021 6:51 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[hidden email]>
Cc: 'Boozer Daly' <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] what complexity science says ...

Nick Thompson

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

I think expensive hearing aids use very advanced signal processing based on the patients' frequency responses. I join Nick in calling for "Mike!"

Frank

On Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 6:26 PM jon zingale <[hidden email]> wrote:

There is something about that image that reminds me of wavelets, localized in
both time as well as frequency. Perhaps there is something to be gained in
hearing aid technology by considering this shift?

--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

Frank Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918

Research: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

jon zingale

Re: what complexity science says ...

This post was updated on .

In reply to this post by thompnickson2

If I remember correctly, this wasn't Mike's argument. It was *not* a question
of sampling rate nor one of range. Instead, I believe, it had to do with
architecture, the Spatio-temporal relationship that the neurons at the
cochlea have to one another, and the training a young nervous system
undergoes to make sense of this data.

--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

thompnickson2

Re: what complexity science says ...

Right exactly. But the hearing aid is BEFORE the cochlea. So if hearing
aids are crap, it must be because they do something to the sound that the
cochea cannot adjust to. So, in Mike's absence, land with the help of
Frank's diagram, let's take this step by step. The sound enters the
external ear and knocks on the tympanic membrane. The membrane, in turn
operates the tiny bones of the stapes, which in turn compress the inner
membrane. So in what way is a digitized, analysed sound ill suited to what
happens next.

N

Nick Thompson
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of jon zingale
Sent: Monday, February 8, 2021 8:39 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] what complexity science says ...

If I remember correctly, this wasn't Mike's argument. It was *not* a
question of sampling rate nor one of range. Instead, I believe, it had to do
with architecture, the Spatio-temporal relationship that the neurons at the
cochlea have to one another, and the training our nervous system undergoes
when we are young to make sense of this data.

--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: what complexity science says ...

They do frequency-lowering with dedicated FFT hardware, it sounds like. That sounds more like brain issue than cochlea issue?

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of [hidden email]
Sent: Monday, February 8, 2021 8:51 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[hidden email]>
Cc: 'Boozer Daly' <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] what complexity science says ...

Right exactly. But the hearing aid is BEFORE the cochlea. So if hearing aids are crap, it must be because they do something to the sound that the cochea cannot adjust to. So, in Mike's absence, land with the help of Frank's diagram, let's take this step by step. The sound enters the external ear and knocks on the tympanic membrane. The membrane, in turn operates the tiny bones of the stapes, which in turn compress the inner
membrane. So in what way is a digitized, analysed sound ill suited to what
happens next.

N

Nick Thompson
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of jon zingale
Sent: Monday, February 8, 2021 8:39 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] what complexity science says ...

If I remember correctly, this wasn't Mike's argument. It was *not* a question of sampling rate nor one of range. Instead, I believe, it had to do with architecture, the Spatio-temporal relationship that the neurons at the cochlea have to one another, and the training our nervous system undergoes when we are young to make sense of this data.

--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/