No, it's a good question, Tory. I said I wasn't sure about the label "emergent" being applied to suppression, and I'm not. Thinking about it more, it's a good idea to clarify the terminology.
Let's see ... a single act of suppression is feedback that helps to preserve the emergent feature of a leadership hierarchy. A single action is not emergent (at least, in this scope). But I'll have to agree that the term "suppression" could easily represent *correlated feedback* among many agents, and is thus also an emergent feature. I guess I was just thinking of suppression as part of the leadership "basin of attraction." I mean, it's the same thing from a different perspective, isn't it? Kind of like: do you call mud "dirty water," or "wet dirt?" The water is part of it, the dirt is part of it, but it's easier to just call the whole thing "mud." In this case, the leadership hierarchy persists, the correlated feedback is part of it, and it's all emergent. So, I reckon we're talking about the same thing. In regards to the observer's value system, I would say that traditionally, we tended to view things like slime mold and ant colonies through the prism of human hierarchical systems. Keller, and Segal showed that - in the case of slime mold - a distinct "pacemaker" cell (i.e., a leader) was not necessary to produce the emergent property. This helped a lot, since the pacemaker cells had never been found. But certainly I would agree that our observations and value judgement may be flawed. I think that is the benefit of this whole field of study: we no longer have to rely on a single model of hierarchical structures. We now have distributed models that can also work, and we simply select whichever model fits best. I, too, am enjoying this conversation. -T On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Victoria Hughes <[email protected]>wrote: > But by your own definition, an emergent property requires correlated > feedback in the system > supression is as likely to emerge as leadership, and thus we revert to the > question in earlier conversations about the value systems of the observer > fabricating the label of emergent or not. Right? > Or, seconding Dr B, am I just not used to your terminology? > > Certainly am enjoying this. > > Tory > > > > On Apr 10, 2010, at 2:41 PM, Ted Carmichael wrote: > > Comments below... > > On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Wow, wait a second, >> >> If the object in motion has a group of followers I don't see emergence, >> Remoras follow sharks or any other moving object, there is no dynamic >> social >> system. My Wolfhounds follow rabbits, horses, snowmobiles, bicycles etc at >> very high speeds. If they were displayed on a radar screen you might >> mistake >> five wolfhounds as worshipful devotees of a single leader, running in >> absolute terror. If they all came to a stop on the radar screen you might >> surmise the group fell into disarray as the result of a leadership >> dispute. >> Perhaps one might think there was a socially repressive regime at work >> when >> the blips resolved as five instead of six, and the pace slowed down. >> >> > Emergence is a tough concept. My understanding is, an emergent property > requires correlated feedback in the system. A pack of dogs following a > single rabbit, say - with the rabbit's actions influencing the dogs, and the > dogs' actions influencing each other - may display emergent properties. For > example, in an open, flat field, the rabbit may be more likely to run in a > straight line, with individual dogs occasionally keeping the rabbit from > diverging to the left or the right. The straight line would be the emergent > property. The dogs are both trying to catch the rabbit and avoid crashing > into other dogs, producing a "flock" of dogs. > > > >> >> "Merle Lefkoff wrote: >> >> * Regardless of whether leaders act because of endogenous traits or a >> circumstantial opening, they are indeed emergent throughout the system. >> In human systems, however, unlike flocks, over-determined structures >> suppress this emergent property of the system. Rather than stepping >> aside to allow emerging leaders to bring requisite variety to the >> "flock", elite hierarchies/patriarchies suppress distributed leadership >> and generally prevail for long periods of time."* >> >> It looks like the first sign of legitimate "emergence" is the Hierarchy >> that >> perceives the front man as a leader and attempts later to suppress it, >> whether it is a leader or not makes no difference. The act of suppression >> emerges complete based on its own belief system. >> >> The belief system must have been in place prior to the flock being >> created, >> the leader was accidental (Circumstantial) but suppression is truly >> emergent, or is it? >> > > I'm not sure I would label 'suppression' as emergent. Depends on exactly > what you are referring to. Perhaps a better label is "feedback?" > > What's interesting about the leadership hierarchies, in human systems, is > that the structures themselves are an emergent property. Persistent > patterns, changing components. The leadership hierarchy becomes a "basin of > attraction," with it's own support structures and correlated feedbacks, even > as the people within the hierarchy change over time. > > -t > ============================================================ > 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
