At the risk of creating a diversion from the purpose of this list ...
It is not the youth of the men that matters, it is their sexuality. There is a very well known inverse relationship between sex and violence. Young men (and women in those cultures where they are allowed to) have the strongest sexual desires and control of access is easier with the young than the old. The problem with older men (and women with previous caveat) is not that they "think" more but that they "lust" less. (An aside to an aside - control of access is why gays in the military are such a big deal in the U.S. but not in other cultures.) You must have a lot of "lust" available so that you can subvert most of it to violence and sublimate the rest in Agape (fraternal and symbolic "love"). The young have the largest available stock of "lust" and that is why they are ideal candidates for the military. The military is concerned far less with the formation of teams and structures (There is some unintended honesty in the Army's latest slogan, "An Army of One!") than they are with "ferocity" and "fanaticism" and the individual psychology that allows individuals to exhibit that kind of behavior in appropriate contexts. Teams and structures seldom survive the battlefield (any more than plans do) but creating "warriors" with the right "local rules of behavior" allows for the emergence of "winning strategy" in chaotic situations. I am wearing my cultural anthropologist and anthropology of war hats to write this. I am not a military historian or an expert on the military per se, by my tangential contact with same suggests that lots of military theorists have talked about this subject. davew On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 21:31:35 -0400, "phil henshaw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Good observation, about using young mend when they are most maleable for > making platoons and follow commands. It's the opportunity for > emergent structure, as well as in this case, people who wish to exploite > it, that makes the difference. I don't generally buy the evolutionary > value laden self interest of genes idea for what makes systems powerful, > but how the confluence of diverse factors and a catalyst actually engage > a developmental process. And it's often contradictions like the fact > that these are not the men most fit for the job, but the ones dumb > enough for the job, that raises the questions that reveal what's > actually going on. Older men would think more. Bad for armies! > > Does that mean that military 'intelligence' is aware of complex systems > and how to use them. Not as I see it. I think it shows military > intelligence behaveing more like ants forming a trail, drawn itself by > the attraction of the pheramones of the young men. If military people > (or politicians) had anything like actual complex systems knowledge the > very first thing they'd notice about Iraq is that our military > organization is not fighting another military organization, but fighting > a local culture with all the properties and emergent behaviors that a > local culture would be expected to have, and none of the behaviors or > organizations that a military organization is designed to have or those > it is designed to fight. > > Where we went wrong in systems terms, allowing gthat the invasion could > have been as some sort of panic response to 9/11, was when we began a > 'cleaning up' after the defeated army that involved seeking out and > assaulting renegade defenders of a radical faigh and indigenous culture > we had no understanding of at all, and took pains to deny and dismiss > it's evident swelling power in direct response. That was all clearly > evident in how the reaction to our attempt to supress those dissenting > to our presence, and it whipped up a firestorm. The rigorous evidence > is in the form of the growth process, and the form of the networks that > developed. The fact that probably most of the 'insurgents' in Iraq are > living in the bossom of their families and eat at the family table, and > the incidental fact that after 4 years we have not only not found the > weapons of mass destruction, we have also yet to find the enemy barracks > are abslutely damning of our paper thing intent. We've made a mistake. > We're at war with a people. The scientific evidence is concrete and > real and really matters. We're committing crimes as a nation worse > than murder on a daily basis and occupying ourselves with excuses. We > should reverse course entirely and find some reason to honor the > sacrifice that others have been imposed on to endure in our name. > > > > Phil Henshaw ¸¸¸¸.·´ ¯ `·.¸¸¸¸ > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > 680 Ft. Washington Ave > NY NY 10040 > tel: 212-795-4844 > e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/> > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Pamela McCorduck > Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2007 1:11 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity > Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Ants and Bees, Oh My. > > > Thanks, Nick. In one of his books about warcraft (I forget which) Paul > Fussell begins by saying we train young men to be warriors not because > that's when they're at their physical peak, but that's when they're most > easily molded into groups. It won't work later. (When he was writing > we were only training young men to be warriors.) > > > > > On Jul 7, 2007, at 10:24 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: > > > Dear Robert, > > Pulling my self up to my full height as an evolutionary psychologist, I > assert that: > > 1. Things arent so clear about the bees and ants. In the first place > female bees can mate with more than one male; if they mate with more > that > two, then the workers in a hive are LESS closely related than mammalian > siblings. > > 2. Things arent so clear about the principles underlying group action > and > self sacrifice. Relatedness is one of THREE accepted principles, one > other > being reciprocal altruism, the other being group selection. Much of > human > behavior seems group seleected and the historical circumstances of human > evolution -- extreme unpredictibility in the environment -- would pull > for > group selection. > > 3. What appears to be true is that human beings are constantly balanced > on > the tipping point from individual directed to group directed action. > For > this reason, it is imperative that we think carefully about the > conditions > we put people under. Environmental conditions can trigger adolescents > into > group directed behavior (gang formation, etc.) and indiviidual directed > behavior (preparing for medical school). What cues we give our kids > about > the nature of the world they are entering and its contingencies may be > crucial. > > Now I will deflate myself. > > thank you for your patience. > > Nick > > > > > 1. Re: Swarm Intelligence in National Geographic (Robert Howard) > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 10:16:42 -0700 > From: "Robert Howard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Swarm Intelligence in National Geographic > To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" > <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > I'm suspicious of the ant and bee analogy for humans. It should (and > does) > work for routing trucks and autonomous supply chain; but humans? > > Here's my hypothesis. With ants and bees, we expect a random individual > to > be a female. In fact, only the queen and a few male drones reproduce. > The > rest exists to propagate the genes of these few elite siblings. > > I see no evolutionary benefit for any ordinary female to "defect" from > the > collective. > > An ordinary ant has everything to gain from laying down its life for the > queen. > > This is not the case with humans, which is why we observe > non-ant-and-bee > things like revolts, revolutions, and certain extreme command-structured > governments respond by punishing the children of their subjects for > > actions > > of dissent. > > With humans (and caribou), we expect a random individual to participate > in > natural selection for the genes that each carry individually. > > When individuals propagate their own genes, predator/prey dynamics > evolve > within the species; unlike ants and bees. > > > > Robert Howard > Phoenix, Arizona > > > > _____ > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > Behalf > > Of Joshua Thorp > Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 8:53 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: [FRIAM] Swarm Intelligence in National Geographic > > > > Interesting article in National Geographic: > > http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0707/feature5/ > > > > > >From slashdot with interesting commentary: > > > http://hardware.slashdot.org/hardware/07/07/05/1244224.shtml > > > > --joshua > > > > --- > > Joshua Thorp > > Redfish Group > > 624 Agua Fria, Santa Fe, NM > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > > http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070706/08bf > 91f7 > /attachment-0001.html > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 11:30:38 -0600 > From: "Bruce Abell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [FRIAM] Anyone want an older OK computer? Free > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > FRIAMers-- > > I've kept my older desktop computer for a spare and thought I might use > it > to experiment with a different operating system. But now it has become > a > back-up spare with the acquisition of yet another one, so I've got to > find > it a new home or bury it. > > Free. Just pick it up and pretend it will have a good home. It works > fine. I wrote a nice book on it. > > HP Pavilion 6630 > Celeron 500 MHz > Win 98 SE > 192 Meg Ram > 10 Gig HD > Ethernet card > Modem > CD R/W drive > Floppy drive > 17-inch CRT monitor--a monster, but it still displays pretty well. No > one > can take the computer without taking the monitor! > Manuals, OS, etc. > > Send me an e-mail if you're interested. > > --Bruce Abell > > -- > Bruce Abell > 7 Morning Glory > Santa Fe, NM 87506 > Tel: 505 986 9039 > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > > http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070706/6c9a > 7a2e > /attachment-0001.html > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2007 14:59:31 -0400 > From: "Stephen Guerin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [FRIAM] Whitfield's PLOS article mentioning Eric Smith and > Dewar > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > Whitfield's PLOS article mentioning Eric Smith and Roderick Dewar's > work. > > http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get- > document&doi=10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0050142 > > I'm now reading Whitfield's book, "In the Beat of a Heart: Life, > Energy, and the Unity of Nature" (www.inthebeatofaheart.com), but it > appears so far to be much more focused on quarter-power scaling than > maximum entropy production... > > -S > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 16:30:13 -0600 > From: "Tom Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Anyone want an older OK computer? Free > To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" > <[email protected]> > Message-ID: > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Bruce: > > If you don't get any takers, you might try Craig's List. It has a > "free" > section. > http://santafe.craigslist.org/zip/ > > -tj > > On 7/6/07, Bruce Abell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > FRIAMers-- > > I've kept my older desktop computer for a spare and thought I might use > > it > > to experiment with a different operating system. But now it has become > > a > > back-up spare with the acquisition of yet another one, so I've got to > > find > > it a new home or bury it. > > Free. Just pick it up and pretend it will have a good home. It works > fine. I wrote a nice book on it. > > HP Pavilion 6630 > Celeron 500 MHz > Win 98 SE > 192 Meg Ram > 10 Gig HD > Ethernet card > Modem > CD R/W drive > Floppy drive > 17-inch CRT monitor--a monster, but it still displays pretty well. No > > one > > can take the computer without taking the monitor! > Manuals, OS, etc. > > Send me an e-mail if you're interested. > > --Bruce Abell > > -- > Bruce Abell > 7 Morning Glory > Santa Fe, NM 87506 > Tel: 505 986 9039 > > ============================================================ > 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 > > > > > > -- > ========================================== > J. T. Johnson > Institute for Analytic Journalism -- Santa Fe, NM USA > www.analyticjournalism.com > 505.577.6482(c) 505.473.9646(h) > http://www.jtjohnson.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. > To change something, build a new model that makes the > existing model obsolete." > -- Buckminster Fuller > ========================================== > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > > http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070706/8251 > dfc0 > /attachment-0001.html > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 16:02:50 -0700 > From: "Stephen Guerin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [FRIAM] local boy makes good > To: <[email protected]> > Cc: 'Dan Kunkle' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > > Just happened across this news tidbit: > http://tinyurl.com/2b7ywl (Boston Globe) > http://www.physorg.com/news99843195.html > http://plus.maths.org/latestnews/may-aug07/rubik/index.html > > Cool work, Dan!! > > -S > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2007 19:59:30 -0400 > From: "Phil Henshaw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] JASSS (and despair) > To: "'Robert Holmes'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "'The Friday Morning > Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > I somehow didn't send this to the forum before - and it needed an edit > anyway > > --------- > The ambiguity about whether computer models are thought to be exploring > actual social systems or not is definitely all over the place in the > journal, and not discussed. That's what I usually take as a sign of > confusion, so I'd have to tentatively conclude that the journal isn't > concerned with the difference and assumes that their theories are the > structures of human societies. To check exactly what they say, in the > banner of the journal for example, top of the front page, it says > "JASSS....an inter-disciplinary journal for the exploration and > understanding of social processes by means of computer simulation." > That specifically says the exploring of the social system is done by > computer, but maybe the mean that they'd study models of how they think > real systems work to help them study what makes actual systems > different. That's my method, and could be what they mean to say. > > That view is also hinted at in the article on model realism, "How > Realistic Should Knowledge Diffusion Models Be?" with the following > abstract: > > Knowledge diffusion models typically involve two main features: an > underlying social network topology on one side, and a particular design > of interaction rules driving knowledge transmission on the other side. > Acknowledging the need for realistic topologies and adoption behaviors > backed by empirical measurements, it becomes unclear how accurately > existing models render real-world phenomena: if indeed both topology and > transmission mechanisms have a key impact on these phenomena, to which > extent does the use of more or less stylized assumptions affect modeling > results? In order to evaluate various classical topologies and > mechanisms, we push the comparison to more empirical benchmarks: > real-world network structures and empirically measured mechanisms. > Special attention is paid to appraising the discrepancy between > diffusion phenomena (i) on some real network topologies vs. various > kinds of scale-free networks, and (ii) using an empirically-measured > transmission mechanism, compared with canonical appropriate models such > as threshold models. We find very sensible differences between the more > realistic settings and their traditional stylized counterparts. On the > whole, our point is thus also epistemological by insisting that models > should be tested against simulation-based empirical benchmarks. > > Here again I find confusion, though, in terms of clear ambiguities not > discussed. It appears that the 'real world phenomena' are equated > with general statistical measures in terms of 'benchmarks' rather than > behaviors, and these may be "simulation-based empirical benchmarks". > It's like the analysis of that plankton evolution data I studied, where > the complex eruptions of developmental processes in the evolutionary > succession I uncovered were for many years firmly defended as definite > random walks because the statistical benchmark for their range of > fluctuation was within the range reasonably likely for random walks. > Benchmarks, are sometimes very useful for actual diffusion processes, > of course, and much has been learned with them. What they are most > definitely misleading for is as indicators of complex system design > (lacking the 'requisite variety' I guess you'd say), and for any > behavior that is pathway dependent. The whole field of systems and > complexity is really supposed to be about building knowledge of the > pathway dependent properties of nature. These authors clearly are not > asking about that, so I guess I'd have to agree with you that the > journal is unaware of the difference. > > Is knowledge 'diffusion' pathway dependent? You bet. So I guess the > subject it not a 'diffusion' process at all, but a development process, > and nearly any kind of 'benchmarks' will be reliably misleading. > > > > Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > 680 Ft. Washington Ave > NY NY 10040 > tel: 212-795-4844 > e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/> > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Robert Holmes > Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 8:06 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] JASSS (and despair) > > > Read the articles and tell me what you think. But I believe the answer > to your last question is "No". > > Robert > > > On 7/3/07, Phil Henshaw < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The task of associating abstract and real things is rather complicated, > and often made more so by using the same names for them, so it appears > that when you're referring to a physical system you're discussing > entirely some network of abstract rules, for example. Even though you > say the article refers to physical systems, is it possible they just > switch back and forth between ways of referring to things, while being > consistent with an 'information world' model they assume everyone > understands to be the baseline of abstract discussion? > > > > Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > > http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070706/6b46 > 8548 > /attachment-0001.html > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Friam mailing list > [email protected] > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > > End of Friam Digest, Vol 49, Issue 6 > ************************************ > > > > > ============================================================ > 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 > > > > "One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack religion, > because religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed > it." > > > Bertrand Russell > > > ============================================================ 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
