Glen,
Your models are so sophisticated that I barely grasp their intricacies.
I only offered a suggestion that could possibly reduce your work load.
In my opinion you ascribe overly complex behavior to very dumb characters.
At the most primitive level living organisms are predominantly selfish and have
little time for
the needs of others. Such brutally simplistic organism should be easier to
model than the tax-collector on the road to Damascus.
The Bull_frog is a simple enough creature that never considers consequences. As
a child I ate fried frog legs exploring the local forests as well as nuts and
berries. The compulsion to attack was easily manipulated to my benefit.
Many other creatures also exhibit this type of simple forcing function. I
suppose sex is also a simple drive as well. Some creatures are more advanced
and will look about before accepting apparently unguarded sustenance. Trap wary
animals. Some creatures become trap happy over time.
The majority of man kind seems appears little more advanced than beasts. Even
someone as notorious as Bernie Madoff can be characterized as a simple creature
taking advantage of an opportunity. The type of crime is determined by
environment of the occupant. So transfer Madoff to a gulag and the crime might
change but not the offender's basic motives (which were ever self interest)
Now take the Bull Frog and increase the population density and what happens...
They eat eachother. They will never develop a society. The experiment will
always fail.
However if the experiment used a Madoff you will get a different result Madoffs
care what observers see and will not dine in the open. In a manner like tiger
beetle larvae that lurk in loose
sand and wait for footsteps overhead before striking and dining. Considering
how predatory they are they live in high densities but never form societies.
Evolution must find a method to mitigate the savagery of predators before
experimenting with socialization. My hunch is neonatany and gullibility. The
longer infant dependency , the longer the effects of gullibility. The greater
the opportunity for the Madaff's to harvest the herds. So Madoff's start like
everyone else but then they revert to something older . They apparently can
catalyze the same transformation in their living victims.
So my impression is that all human beings can revert to lower states throughout
life. They just need the correct motivation.
I used to play a few video games a while back and detected code flaws that
emulated the behavior of Bull-Frogs and they already exist to ease your
efforts. A gullible human being has little chance of survival without parents.
But if the parents are themselves gullible then the kid will have a tough time.
So perhaps parenthood triggers extreme caution specifically to protect their
gullible infants.
I prefer to think in small steps before building large structures.
Parenthood may be the first step toward building a simple commons or society,
the nest area.
vib
-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen ?
Sent: April-17-17 1:11 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the arc of socioeconomics, personal and public: was VPN
server
Interesting. So, just to repeat back, to see if I understand. Steve wondered
if there were (a good) model of the evolution of individuals in political state
space. I responded that there are lots of (bad) models. But the more
important point is _why_ model that evolution (including models of the
individuals)? Steve responded that such models might help first comprehend,
then manipulate. Then I responded that to make such comprehension and
manpulation ethical, the models and manipulations must be transparent.
With this post, you're suggesting a specific mechanism of one such model, I
presume because you think this mechanism will make the model better ... more
comprehensive. And that mechanism is:
• 2 behavior modes, the choice of which depends on whether an agent senses its
being watched • part of the "while they're watching" mode is to construct and
express a complicated mapping between the two modes • that mapping must hide
the modality of the behaviors, perhaps only to a 1st order analysis • that
mapping relies on a set of symbols that are ambiguous (multiple meanings)
Then you go a couple of steps further and suggest that, given some objective
towards which the collective works, such mappings make reaching the objective
more difficult, inefficient, or completely impossible. Without the mappings,
the objective is more easily reached.
Is my repitition adequate? Or did I miss an important part of your suggestion?
On 04/14/2017 04:36 PM, Vladimyr wrote:
> Create Agents that only behave honestly when they think they are under
> observation.
> When they think they have been detected they will weave a
> rationalization out of standard
