Russell Gonnering wrote circa 10-05-10 02:02 PM: > We seem to be using a different definition of "complexity". Mine is > in line with the Stacey diagram of agreement/certainty or the Cynefin > Framework of Snowden that deals with cause and effect. Perhaps > therein lies the difficulty, and why I see something you do not, and > vice-versa.
My definition of "complex" is the (relatively) simple English one: "Consisting of interconnected or interwoven parts; composite." When I need something more ... fallutin' ;-) ... I tend toward Gell-Mann's "plectics". That's why I cited the _other_ law that interconnects with the new immigration law, because the context is critical. You can't just read the 1 single law and think you understand it's implications. > That seems to describe a Complex Adaptive System-an attempt to adapt > to a novel, and untenable, change in the system. Why do you feel I > do not see logic in describing it as such?? Because you said that. You said: "The straw man argument that police in Arizona (many of whom are Hispanic themselves) will harass people because they don't like the way they look BECAUSE of this bill does not seem logical." You said it didn't seem logical. So, I attempted to point out the logic, which is there. It's not illogical. Those who claim the police in AZ will harass people because they don't like the way they look are being _logical_. Again, of course, whether their logic is valid or sound is up for debate. > You seem to be critical > because I do not condemn the bill in the way you feel I should. Ok, > that's fine. No, actually. I'm not being critical of your position because you don't condemn the bill. I'm being critical of your position because you're not giving enough respect to the opposing viewpoint to make a robust evaluation. The gist of it is that it's _true_ that there are no "show me your papers" provisions in the new law. But _together_ with the other laws, predisposition of LEOs, and the real correlation between immigrants, poverty, and education level, this law amounts to a "show me your papers" law... at least for a particular demographic. > We differ on the weight and validity we place on our > observations. Wrong again. I don't place more or less weight or validity on my observation. In fact, I have no idea how much weight or validity you place on your observation. ;-) > You see the police itching to trample on the rights of > brown people, and I do not. No. I don't see the police itching to trample anyone's rights. I see a _systemic_ effect cascading from the implementation of a complex of laws. The systemic effect I see is that the poor and uneducated will experience a police state, while the wealthy won't. It just so happens that in this region of the country, many of the poor and uneducated are brown people. > But what does that have to do with > looking at the complex system into which the bill was introduced?? > It doesn't change the fact that a suitable attractor needs to be > found to bring the system into stability. That's true enough, though it's incredibly vague... I'd argue too vague to be operational. Before we can talk about attractors, we need to define the measures (metrics, axes) we intend to use, even if it's to give a huge set of measures we'll explore to look for the attractors. My first guess at a candidate would be the GPI (Genuine Progress Indicator) and its constituents: Income Distribution, Housework, Volunteering, and Higher Education, Crime, Resource Depletion, etc. But I have no idea if we could identify any attractors in the spaces defined by those measures, much less figure out how to tweak the laws so that the system stays on or moves between attractors. -- 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
