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

Vladimyr vburach at shaw.ca
Mon Apr 17 19:41:05 EDT 2017


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.

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at 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 clichés, that appears as if they were honest but mistaken due to ambiguity of language. This prevents honest agents from figuring out what happened.
> Such an agent should cause untold chaos when slipped into any honest collective.
> Over time the collective should disintegrate or be perverted...
> If you can create chaos with only the one kind of pervert imagine if half the population were perverted away from honesty.
> No real need to immerse yourself in a transparent cloak, just sit back and watch.
> vib
> Good luck.
> Then add violent reprisals and you are back to classic game theory... tit for tat.
> These perverts might actually be attempting to evolve into true social parasites. Like Staphylinid beetles in an ant colony.

☣ glen

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

More information about the Friam mailing list