On Mon, 2014-04-14 at 10:05 -0700, glen wrote: > On 04/14/2014 09:38 AM, Nick Thompson wrote: > > If we were dedicated to "filling that basin", what would > > that look like? > > It would "look like" an understanding of merit and reward that addressed > as many dimensions of a human and its environment as possible. > Something like the ontologies I posted would be a good start.
I've seen this sort of thing used before for threat evaluation. In that context they identified the resources that a bad guy could use to accomplish a set of bad things, with the related workflow for each one, and the (alternative) dependencies for those workflows. Then one tries to work through the combinatorics brute force to see what links are most crucial for maximizing the probability of success for various bad goals. (And then take some action to ensure that the links can be cut in the real world.) Here it is the opposite -- replacing bad things with desired things. It means being very clear on the relationships between dependencies (or to represent uncertain mappings somehow), which has yet to occur in this discussion. And perhaps harder, to admit that the things you cherish are nothing more than a node on a graph. :-) Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
