t; Phil Henshaw??
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2009 10:44:20 -0700
> From: Steve Smith
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] great paper on revolutionary change in systems
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Grou
Doug -
Methinks that that cartilaginous shrapnel has been traveling from knee
to brain. A distillation of said yeasty brew might be better at
dissolving the blockages.
-Steve
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 3, 2009, at 9:04 PM, "Douglas Roberts"
wrote:
my poor, befuddled brain.
I' seri
Douglas Roberts wrote:
I seriously doubt that there is a one-size-fits-all taxonomy
classifier for ABMs that will produce anything other than "No shit!"
rudimentary descriptive information about any given ABM.
It might be informative to see map of invented conceptual attributes and
applications
Ok, Marcus. But what does that buy the developer of a C^3I (Command,
Control, Communications, and Intelligence) war gaming ABM? Or and ABM of
the pork bellies market? Or an ABM of celestial mechanics? Or an ABM of
the braking system of a Boeing 787 Dreamliner? Or an ABM of a specific
social ne
Russ Abbott wrote:
But if you are interested in the best current thinking about a
subject, why should you care how people thought about it 4 centuries ago?
What if there are common processes behind learning and insight and they
are general and timeless?
===
Nicholas Thompson wrote:
But what then about cladistics. Cladistics is a dark art of
classification that uses a variety of obscure incantations to lable
relations amongst species without, so far as I understand, any
reference to evolution. Yet, as I understand it, cladistics is not
arbitra
On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 8:41 PM, Phil Henshaw wrote:
> The basis of taxonomy is the developmental sequences of the forms
> themselves, so in the case of ABM's it would be finding who built on whose
> ideas and model parts.It's basically a time network map of parentage
> and offspring, which
The basis of taxonomy is the developmental sequences of the forms
themselves, so in the case of ABM's it would be finding who built on whose
ideas and model parts.It's basically a time network map of parentage
and offspring, which naturally branches and cross fertilizes.
I asked what f
Thanks, yes that way of asking it does expose the fact that I often deal
with the issues of poorly explained complex systems like those one finds all
over the place in societies and ecologies.Science is a policy to
understand things better, though, with the knowns ultimately nested in
unknowns,
Steve,
Phil -
This is a very timely reference. I often find that "Survey" papers,
especially from outside of the field I am working in, but on a subject
overlapping said field can be very illuminating. They help to provide a
common-sense perspective on the problem... help to remove me from
I don't know anything about cladistics, so I don't know whether this
fits with it.
ABMs can have many different parents, often not directly known. I'm
not sure parentage in any strict sense would be a particularly good
approach. Better would be to identify separate patterns in how the
A
Since my prejudice as a programmer is that almost any abstraction is likely
to be useful, then since taxonomies tend to reveal interesting abstractions,
they will very likely be useful. How could they not? At worst a taxonomy
will be found to be uninteresting and unrevealing of underlying design
pr
Hi, Russ,
Thanks for your interesting response.
Well, the same argument could be made, could it not, against trying to gather
information about human evolution. After all, it matters not how we got here,
but who we are, now that we are here. However, in evolutionary psychology, I
have alw
Hi Nick,
What's wrong with this argument?
My wife teaches what's known as Early Modern English, which means English
literature, culture, etc. in the late 16th and early 17th centuries. She is
interested in how people thought about things in her period as well as how
those ways of thinking develop
All,
For those of you who werent there, last friday, we got into an intersting
discussion about the possibility of taxonomies of agent based models. Are
there only a few basic types? Are many apparently different agent based
models, deployed for widely different purposes, fundamentally only
When I first read this question, I thought that it was somewhat off topic.
It is asking about policy rather than science. But the implication of that
perspective is that there is no science of policy, i.e., that political
science or sociology isn't a science. But of course it should be. In fact it
Phil -
This is a very timely reference. I often find that "Survey" papers,
especially from outside of the field I am working in, but on a subject
overlapping said field can be very illuminating. They help to provide
a common-sense perspective on the problem... help to remove me from the
"tr
www.synapse9.com/ref/GersickCJG1991RevolutionaryChangeTheories.pdf (500k)
Have any of you heard of the "Academy of Management Review" or Connie JG
Gersick?
She might have called it 'emergence' I think, but seems to have done a great
job of threading together six different theories of change bet
Doesn't the most dangerous knowledge often come from having a blind spot to
the danger? That's often the problem when people dont recognize the
meaning of changes in scale or kind, like looking for 'bigger' solutions
(the bigger bomb or bigger shovel approach) when the nature of the problem
chan
19 matches
Mail list logo
