[FRIAM] what complexity science says ...

[Steve Smith]

Some of us, we are
just a few syllables short
of a haiku


On 2/5/21 9:09 AM, thompnickson2 at gmail.com wrote:
>
> Gosh.  We’re all pretty good at this.  N
>
>  
>
>  
>
> Nick Thompson
>
> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com <mailto:ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com>
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
> <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/>
>
>  
>
> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Stephen Guerin
> *Sent:* Friday, February 5, 2021 8:52 AM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <friam at redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] what complexity science says ...
>
>  
>
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 1:29 PM <thompnickson2 at gmail.com
> <mailto:thompnickson2 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>  >  Roger, I have to admit that this is one of the papers that causes
> me to display “howling in the wilderness” syndrome.
>
> Howling in the wildnerness
>
> Murder of complexity crows accompany me
> Their beaks move, but I can't hear what they say
>
>  
>
>  
>
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 1:29 PM <thompnickson2 at gmail.com
> <mailto:thompnickson2 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi, Roger,
>
>      
>
>     Have I ever sent you THIS
>     <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/288818273_Shifting_the_natural_selection_metaphor_to_the_group_level>
>     before?  It makes the argument that group selected individuals
>     will be selected for flexibility, like some classes of  immune
>     cells, for instance.  Or honey bee workers.  I am not sure how
>     this idea works with the idea in the paper you sent out.  Flow IS
>     an emergent trait, so that works.  But it’s hard to think of
>     LeBron James as a “generalist”.  I guess we could argue that if
>     his team is to have “flow”, he has to have enough versatility NOT
>     to do the thing he’s best at when it’s not called for by the
>     demands of “flow.”   I certainly agree with the Aeon article that
>     there are “flow-catalysts” among us and that they are great to
>     have on a team.
>
>      
>
>     Here is the relevant text from the article  (pp 97-8). 
>
>      
>
>     If trait-group selection is to play the role of a "genetic
>     mechanism" in group selection theory, then it must be the case
>     that, for instance, groups with more "group promoting" individuals
>     (an aggregate trait) must be better organized and more harmonious
>     (emergent traits). What sorts of individuals would
>     begrouppromoting in this way? What sort of elements which, when
>     aggregated, would foster emergence of some group trait? The answer
>     that comes to mind immediately is "flexible elements." A boat
>     would be a poor competitor if it had all the best coxswains in the
>     race or all the best stroke oarsmen; but a boat with all the most
>     educable rowers in the race might be a very good competitor,
>     since  educable rowers could learn the skills appropriate to each
>     position in the boat. Thus, the relationship between emergent
>     traits as a selective force and  trait-group  selection as an
>     inheritance mechanism may account for why complex organizations in
>     nature seem so often to be composed of generalist elements that
>     become  specialized during development to serve different
>     functions within the whole. Think of the body's cells, for
>     instance, which all contain the same genetic information but come
>     to serve very different functions during the course of
>     development. Think of the neurons of the human cortex, which
>     become structured and organized by position and by experience.
>     Think of the workers in a beehive (Seeley,1995). …
>
>      
>
>     The analysis of this paper . suggests another reason why humans
>     might be generalists--powerful group selection. Selection for
>     aggregate properties at  any level is impotent to select for
>     functional differentiation. It can, however, select for
>     differentiability. Thus, the undifferentiated brain tissue and
>     generalized behavior potential that characterize human beings and
>     that make human language  and culture a possibility may be a
>     direct result of group selection (Boyd & Richerson, 1985; Boehm,
>     1997). The exact mechanism by which this selection would come
>     about is a combination of group selection, which would assure that
>     functionally integrated groups generate more offspring groups than
>     their nonfunctionally integrated alternatives, and trait-group
>     inheritance, which would assure that aggregations of
>     differentiable individuals are available to form functionally
>     integratedgroups.
>
>      
>
>      
>
>     Roger, I have to admit that this is one of the papers that causes
>     me to display “howling in the wilderness” syndrome.  I think it is
>     one of my most interesting, both in the conclusion it reaches and
>     in the formal analysis of metaphor that leads to that conclusion. 
>     Yet, nobody seems to see any reason to discuss it.  Any thoughts
>     on this quandary would be deeply appreciated. 
>
>      
>
>     Nick
>
>      
>
>     Nick Thompson
>
>     ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com <mailto:ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com>
>
>     https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>     <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/>
>
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20210205/0df00fe0/attachment.html>