[FRIAM] the arc of socioeconomics, personal and public: was VPN server

[glen ☣]

OK.  Sorry.  I mistook your message as suggesting an additional mechanism, rather than a plea for simpler models.  In general, I agree that simpler models should be falsified before adding mechanisms like the modal one you suggested.  But, as is obvious with the special sciences like biology, parsimony can be as much a bane as a boon.  To unjustifiably impute simplicity can defeat the search for solutions.


On 04/17/2017 04:41 PM, Vladimyr wrote:
> 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.

-- 
☣ glen