Nick writes: > I moved to Santa Fe 20 years ago to confront The Enemy – Complexity, which made nonsense of the idea making a best guess for the future and planning for it collectively , calmly, and rationally.
Nick — you came to Santa Fe to “confront The Enemy – Complexity,” but I’ve always admired how that move was also a reach to extend the individual into the group. Your framing of evolution beyond the lone actor fits naturally into complexity’s home territory: the study of collective dynamics. Complexity challenged the civic ideal you grew up with — that we could make our best guess about the future, then plan together calmly and rationally around stable facts — by showing: - The world is nonlinear — small perturbations can cascade. - Prediction decays fast — best guesses expire before guiding long-horizon plans. - Feedback loops are short — conditions shift before consensus can form. >From the Victorian lens of the forward-propagating individual — the gene, the photon, the solitary actor — the unit of selection is the forward-propagator itself, competing with only a once-in-a-lifetime reproduction as feedback, with everything else treated as downstream consequence. But complexity might instead be the handshake of duals — like the mutual adjustment of fireflies flashing in unison or pendulums entraining to a common rhythm — where coherence emerges from continuous exchange, not solitary advance. This shift is much like physics’ move from solid state (crystal order, replication) to condensed matter (emergent phenomena, reproduction) — the very distinction Eric Smith draws between systems that merely repeat and systems that generate novel, coherent forms. This spirit runs through the science: - Stuart Kauffman’s autocatalytic sets — molecules persist as part of collectively closed webs of reactions. - Harold Morowitz & Eric Smith — life’s core metabolic cycles may emerge as planetary-scale solutions to channel geochemical energy flows; selection might happen at the network level, not molecule-by-molecule. - Afred's Hübler’s ball bearings — conductive spheres collectively grow to dissipate massive charge gradients more effectively. - Per Bak’s self-organized criticality — critical states are properties of the network, not any single grain or fault. - Ilya Prigogine’s dissipative structures — ordered patterns like Bénard cells exist only through system-wide throughput of energy/matter. Physics offers a parallel in Feynman–Wheeler absorber theory, where interactions are bidirectional handshakes between advanced and retarded waves, settling into a self-consistent exchange. Carver Mead’s Collective Electrodynamics carries this into the macroscopic: electrons act as part of a global configuration, not as isolated particles. It’s the same dynamic in my favorite ant foraging model: food-seekers diffuse “nest” pheromone outward, nest-seekers carrying food diffuse “food” pheromone outward; each biases its walk along the other’s field. The shortest-time path emerges from the handshake between complementary propagations, not from any one ant “deciding” the route. Seen this way, complexity might not be the death of rational planning — it could be pointing us toward a different design target: the coherent configuration. We're still on the lookout for our “Carnot” to formalize these principles. And for me, that search has been shaped by the voices in this group — especially yours. Your probes have been part of the collective dynamic here, and I’ve been heavily informed by them. For that, I’m grateful. -Stephen On Sat, Aug 9, 2025 at 4:55 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > Ok, but I am not done with my infernal questions. The way you pose your > question, I cant help thinking that you know the answer. You and I could > recite fo one another the thousand ways in which we know that humans are > groupish. We know that people can make sacrifices for the good of groups > of all sorts, some of which are incorrigibly abstract. We know that humans > identify with the fate of other humans to the extent that they will put > aside their own good fortune for that of an iconic figure. We know the > people are capable of appalling group nastiness. There is no savagery like > the modern army, sitting around in an anonymous office bloc in New Jersey > lobbing missiles at wedding parties in Iraq. > > > > So what is the question concerning human groupishness . What is it > beyond these facts that you need to know and what will change when you come > to know it. One question you might be asking yourself is “Am I justified > in keeping any money I earn beyond the median income of my fellow citizens. > The answer is almost certainly, “No”. Knowing that and knowing that I am > damned well not going to give it away, what next?” > > > > One of the hardest projects to take on is the discovery of one’s own > hankerings. Glen, Jon, and DaveW have been very good at exposing mine. > Make American Rational Again. Return to the genteel rationalism of the > Deweyan 1950’s where every town had a town meeting and every discussion was > “informed” by the “facts.” (And we were all cheerful racists instead of > the guilty racists that we are now.) That I have grown up and helped to > create a world in which nobody knows anymore what a fact has been like > living my worst childhood nightmare. I was head of our planning board for > three years in the early 70’s where I learned that small towns are the > scariest, least rational places on the face of the earth. When we moved in > from California, marginal hippies, the town could not rest before it was > decided whether we were Catholics or Protestants. What???!@!! Sorry, I > am ranting. I moved to Santa Fe 20 years ago to confront The Enemy – > Complexity, which made nonsense of the idea making a best guess for the > future and planning for it collectively , calmly, and rationally. The idea > that people should build businesses models on destabilizing the present and > then swooping in and pillaging until one has established an irrevocable > monopoly on the future just seems WRONG to me. I loved the idea of > American exceptionalism. But lo and behold, we were exceptional in only > one respect. WE had discovered destabilization as a business model. Drop > by, plant a lethal virus, wait a few years and then return (with your > slaves) to a “virgin” land populated only by a few desperate savages. Let > the rape of the virgin begin. Calm down, Nick. > > > > These are my commitments, and I cannot escape them. What are yours? > > > > Nick > > *From:* Friam <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Pieter Steenekamp > *Sent:* Friday, August 8, 2025 4:21 PM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > [email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Group Selection IS a metaphor. > > > > Nick, > > Too good to miss — I’m in. Lead me into the jungle of group selection, > especially the human variety. > > What I’m after: a clear, simple (but not dumbed-down) take on what group > selection in humans is, and why it might explain our behaviour better than > individual selection alone. > > Happy to start at the very beginning — dawn of the argument, cave > paintings, whatever you think works. > > And yes, send me that Famous Great Amateur reading list. I promise to read > it with respect… and just enough suspicion to keep it fun. > > > > On Fri, 8 Aug 2025 at 17:05, Nicholas Thompson <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi, Pieter, > > > > Let me be a George to you as you explore this topic. I will try to > respond off hand, quickly, and unself-consciously as you think along. I > think this whole topic is fascinating both substantively, and > historically. The literature seems to track (or lead?) the Zeitgeist so > precisely from post war peace-nikery (Wynne-Edwards), to the > revanchist academic Reaganism (Williams-Dawkins), to chaos (evodevo). It's > really hard to take the whole argument seriously once one begins to > understand how complex and multi layered are the mechanisms by which > parents do and dont resemble their children. One of the tools to thinking > straight is to own up to one's hankerings before one dives into the > literature. What are you hoping to find? Post war peace-nikery was > covertly deistic, hoping to find that there was some sort of over > arching regulatory agency that would keep the species and the planet safe. > Academic Reaganism said good luck with that! Success is virtue. And then > evodevo, the bull in the china shop of that whole argument. I recommend > reading the biologist, Sean B. Carroll, (not the physicist), Endless forms > most beautiful, and The making of the fittest. It's really hard to take > the whole argument seriously once one begins to understand how complex and > multi layered are the mechanisms by which parents do and dont resemble > their children. That there is any resemblance at all begins to seem like > some sort of miracle. Or perhaps just momentum. One hankering that > misleads us is naturalism, the idea that we can find some sort of MORAL > guidance in the way things are. Is the opposite hankering, > existentialism? The belief that what makes humans special is their power > to CHOOSE. You should remember that I am not a philosopher and am, in > fact, an amateur in all things. > > > > "Any time you want to explore this issue, I am here ready to help. Would > you like suggestions of articles to read by that Famous Amateur, Nick > Thompson? " > > > > signed, > > > > ChatNST > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 8, 2025 at 5:19 AM Pieter Steenekamp < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks, Nick. Just like you struggled to get your head around entropy, I’m > battling to wrap my mind around how the basic but very powerful mechanism > of evolution works in human groups. I can easily understand individual > human selection, or even group selection in swarming insects where only the > queen has babies. > > I think I’ll take a page from your book and work with George to help guide > me through this learning journey. Every now and then, I might check in with > you and others here for a chat or to ask a question. > > The only catch is that I’ve just started a really exciting AI project, so > I might not have much time for my group-level evolution journey — but I’ll > try to keep it going. > > > > On Fri, 8 Aug 2025 at 03:40, <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks Pieter, > > > > Sorry I have taken so long to get back to you. If FRIAM ever started a > journal, it should be called “the emperors new clothes”. We are not > committed to anything if not to the validity of an “amateur’s” > perspective. As people will be quick to tell you, mine has always been of > that sort. > > > > If I read you carefully, the position you take is that laid out in Dawkins > The Extended Phenotype – that the genes are the basic unit of selection. > But as Dave Wilson has been pointing out for years, Who made that > decision? For one thing, as epigenic studies have made clear, when one > looks in detail, it is really hard to find a thing that is exactly the > gene. For another, that decision runs the risk of confusing the the thing > that is selected with the forces that are selecting it. Whatever level you > care to calculate the impact of selection, it is differential group success > that is driving selection or it is not group selection. And if it is > differential group success that is driving selection, then it is group > selection. I think you might quite enjoy The Extended Phenotype. For a > whild ride, have a look at Elliott Sober and D. S. Wilson’s Reintroducing > Group Selection to the human behavioral sciences. There is a wonderful > metaphor in there about two riders riding three horses. It was the article > that broke the tide for me. I had been totally up Dawkins ass for the > preceding 20 years. > > > > Here is the citation, courtesy og George Patrick Tremblay IV > > > > Wilson, D. S., & Sober, E. (1994). *Reintroducing group selection to the > human behavioral sciences*. *Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 17*(4), > 585–608. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00036104 > en.wikipedia.org+15philpapers.org+15 > <https://philpapers.org/rec/WILRGS?utm_source=chatgpt.com>…. > > > > Nick > > > > *From:* Friam <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Pieter Steenekamp > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 6, 2025 12:55 AM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > [email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Group Selection IS a metaphor. > > > > Nick, I'm genuinely impressed. Honestly, I feel a bit out of my depth > trying to respond meaningfully on this topic. > > So please take my reply in the same spirit I’d expect a response from my > 10-year-old grandchild when debating computer programming with me. The gap > between your understanding of evolution and mine feels about that wide. > > That said, I’d still like to offer a response to your group selection > argument—fully aware that it may come across as amateurish, and I'm okay > with that. > > Here's the question I’m grappling with: > > Is the following valid? > Genes as the Unit of Selection: > Modern evolutionary theory generally views genes as the primary unit of > selection. Natural selection acts on individuals, and the success of an > individual is ultimately determined by the genes they carry. > Group Selection as a Modifier: > Group selection can be seen as a process that influences the expression of > genes. For example, if a group-level trait (like cooperative behavior) is > advantageous, then genes that promote that behavior will be favored, even > if those genes also have individual-level costs. > > > > On Wed, 6 Aug 2025 at 00:12, Prof David West <[email protected]> wrote: > > Nick, > > > > I wish to embody the fear of being dragged away from what you think you > are supposed to be doing, to be engaged in the topic you raise in your > paper. > > > > I have read the paper before and, as then, I find it meritorious, well > written, and reasonable in argument. I am, basically, convinced. > > > > However; two points: > > > > First, your use of the concept, "metaphor," is the way that I use the > term, in a manner that glen pointed out is inconsistent with the literal > definition of the term. I speak of metaphor when there is some thing of > which I think I know something and I have a suspicion that some other thing > might be of the same ilk. I use what I think I know to craft a 'model', one > that suggests particular points and particular relations that, if my > suspicion is correct, will have direct analogs in the unknown thing. I > check them out individually and in combinations and, if substantiated, > confirm my suspicion. If unconfirmed, the metaphor is refuted. > > > > This seems to me to be what you are doing in the paper, albeit it more > abstractly and academically. Please correct me if wrong. > > > > Second, and here is the real time sink, would it be possible to make your > ideas concrete, real groups with actual history and demonstrated > differential "success." If you were amenable to such a conversation, I > would propose the Mormons as a test case. > > > > One of 20 or so "religions"/"societies" to emerge from the "Burnt Over > District" of western New York. The only one still extant. > > > > Disproportionately successful, (in material and social terms), to their > neighbors. Smith was living in a two-story New England style home while > down the road, Abe Lincoln, was living in a log cabin with mud floor. > > > > A schism immediately after Smith's death, with the Reformed LDS barely > evident while the main group flourished. (Last time I checked, Mormonism > and Sokka Gokai, in Japan, were the two fastest growing religions.) > > > > In Utah there was a concerted effort to spawn multiple small groups by > sending out colonies. Because each group was originally "seeded" with four > or five families, you get a strong genetic/heritance component as well as > "traits." (It is still possible to identify what part of Utah someone is > from (especially females) by their physical appearance.) > > > > Some interesting "adaptations" at the trait level, e.g., when Smith was > alive blacks were included in the community and held the > priesthood—something that Missourians, at the time, could not abide. > Brigham Young 'suspended' (restored in 1978 with the admission that the > suspension was not for theological, but merely political reasons) black > priesthood membership and gave up polygamy (de jure only) to appease the > Federal Government and avoid a second martyrdom. > > > > davew > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 5, 2025, at 1:10 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: > > Dear Colleagues in FRIAM, > > Sometimes, if I am going to get anything done, I just have to ignore > Friam, and keep my head down, and work at the thing I am working at. It > always seems, on that occasion, that you-guys dangle in front of me some > enticing topic so I must scream and put my fingers in my ears to keep focus > on my work. So it was that when I decided I must fish or cut bait on > entropy or it would take me to my grave, that almost immediately you-guys > started not one but two conversations close to my heart: on the centrality > of metaphor to science and on the group selection controversy. > > A couple of decades ago I brought those two interests together in a paper > called “Shifting the Natural Selection Metaphor to the Group Level. There > are two things about this paper that make it salient for me. The first is > that I think it is the best paper I ever wrote. The second is that for > each of the two people whom I most hoped to reach when I wrote it, D. S. > Wilson and Elliott Sober, it is a piece of crap. In it, I try to show > that the problem with metaphors is not with their use in scientific > thinking: on the contrary, it is with their ill-disciplined use. Metaphors > need to be worked in a systematic way, not simply flung out in a gust of > poetic exuberance. This lesson I try to teach by working the natural > selection metaphor in a systematic way to show that if it had been treated > seriously in the first place, the whole dispute about group selection might > have been avoided. Thus the paper is not only arrogant, but > meta-arrogant. > > Nothing is more pitiable than the retired academic who would do anything > to have anybody read his moribund essays. But, alas, I simply am such a > person. So, I am attaching a copy of the paper in the hope that it will > have some value to you within the context of your two discussions. > > Mumble, > > Nick > > > > > > -- > > Nicholas S. Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology > > Clark University > > [email protected] > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson > > .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / > ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > > to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > > > > > > *Attachments:* > > - Shifting the natural selection metaphor to the group level.pdf > - Shifting the natural selection metaphor to the group level.pdf > > > > .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / > ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > > .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / > ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > > .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / > ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > > > > -- > > Nicholas S. Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology > > Clark University > > [email protected] > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson > > .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / > ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > > .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / > ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >
.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
