Wednesday, June 07, 2006
NETWORKS ARE SURPRISINGLY RESILIENT BECAUSE THEY ARE NETWORKS, NOT HIERARCHIES
According to ScienceDaily, researchers Mark Newman and Valdis Krebs have mapped networked political communities in the blogosphere and from Amazon and discovered that political networks can become so "tight" in terms of internal links that they resist becoming fragmented:
"When analyzed using Newman's method, the network of books separated into four communities, with dense connections within communities and looser connections between them. One community was composed almost entirely left-wing books, and the other almost entirely of right-wing ones. Centrist books comprised the other two categories. The computer algorithm doesn't know anything about the books' content---it draws its conclusions only from the purchasing patterns of the buyers---but Newman's analysis seems to show that those purchasing patterns correspond closely with the political slant of the books.
"It is particularly interesting to note that the centrist books belong to their own communities and are not, in most cases, merely lumped in with the liberals or conservatives," the paper stated. "This may indicate that political moderates form their own purchasing community.
In another example, Newman used the algorithm to sort a set of 1225 conservative and liberal political blogs based on the network of web links between them. When the network was fed through the algorithm, it divided cleanly into conservative and liberal camps. One community had 97 percent conservative blogs, and the other had 93 percent liberal blogs, indicating that conservative and liberal blogs rarely link to one another. In a further twist, the computer analysis was unable to find any subdivision at all within the liberal and conservative blog communities.
"This behavior is unique in our experience among networks of this size and is perhaps a testament not only to the widely noted polarization of the current political landscape in the United States, but also to the strong cohesion of the two factions," the paper stated. The network of blogs was compiled by another U-M professor, Prof. Lada Adamic of the U-M School of Information."
The implications here are very interesting, both good and bad. First the bad:
Of immediate concern, it would seem that in terms of its political partisans, America is on a trajectory for the kind of mutually hostile, mutually self-isolating, societal dynamic that is so often seen preceeding civil wars. Or for that matter, our own Civil War, where intense sectional feelings destroyed the Whig and Democratic Parties and nearly the United States along with them. It would also seem that the alienation of moderates and independents from the two major political parties is " condensing". Meaning that no matter who wins elections, it is a conceivable that a majority of the population, if not the voters, would regard the winner as illegitimate.
This utter resistance to communication, engagement or dialogue with the " other" is actually a form of resilience taken to an unhealthy extreme. Sort of an ideological immune response to prevent " invaders" - links - from connecting to " the network". Socially, one example of this behavior can be seen in the comments sections of many blogs where some "regulars" act as enforcers of the party line, parroting pet phrases (whether or not they actually make sense in terms of relevance) and using ad hominem abuse to attempt to smother dissenting views.
Now for the good:
4GW thinkers and Global Guerilla theorist John Robb have been acutely attentive to fragmentation and reversion to primary loyalties - or going toward an even greater breakdown that John has described as " granular". I agree with Robb that this phenomenon is happening and it is a powerful, entropic force, but how might it be prevented or reversed ?
In light of the research by Newman and Krebs, the answer would seem to be to create networks that horizontally cross the primary loyalties existing within a society, the more links the better. Historically, Americans had a particular genius for doing this kind of social linking across class, ethnic, regional and sectarian lines, foundering only upon race, an aspect noted way back by Alexis De Tocqueville in Democracy in America. While totalitarian societies were specifically designed to atomize demographic groups into isolated, disconnected, individuals vis-avis an all-powerful state, America's individualistic ethos allowed its people to freely aggregate themselves into a powerful and dynamic civil society.
"Disconnectedness defines the danger".
UPDATE:
Steve DeAngelis, the noted expert on resilience at ERMB, was also intrigued by the research of Newman and Krebs (Valdis Krebs is frequently cited for his social network analysis of the 9/11 highjackers) and expanded on another point in the article:
"Safranski ends by referencing Tom Barnett's mantra, "Disconnectedness Defines Danger." I wish I could be as sanguine as Safranski. I agree with his prescription - dialogue and honest debate are good things. But in a world where people are deliberately avoiding such dialogue and prefer retrenchment to rapprochement, making connections is difficult. Does that make me a pessimist? Not exactly. I'm by nature an optimist and by training a problem solver. So what is to be done? The ScienceDaily article points to an answer from nature:
Newman's methods have also been adapted by researchers working in molecular biology to study metabolic networks, the chemical networks that power cells in human and animal bodies. In a recent paper in the journal Nature, researchers Roger Guimer and Luis Amaral from Northwestern University in Evanston, Ill., found that metabolites that straddle boundaries between groups in metabolic networks show persistence across species. Commenting on the work of Guimerà and Amaral, Newman says that this could be a sign that the division of the network into modules corresponds to different roles that metabolites play within the cell, and could suggest new directions for interpreting data on biochemical networks.
What jumped out for me in that paragraph were the "metabolites that straddle boundaries between groups." I was also interested in the fact that these metabolites were shown to be persistent across species. In any given situation, we must ask, "Who or what are the metabolites that straddle groups?" Those individuals or groups are the keys to success because they represent the connectedness about which Safranski writes.
In many post-conflict situations, the "metabolites" are business people or women's groups. NGOs are often such metabolites because they seek to relieve suffering not take sides. Finding existing "metabolites" and supporting their efforts are key factors in stopping (even reversing) the fracturing process. Strategies that try to fracture tightly grouped networks are doomed to failure. It is the connections between them (not within them) that is the key to a better future."
An excellent point by Steve, one that I unfortunately had missed. The role of women, household or community " economies" (those involving an array of exchanges, usually non-monetary but significant to the actors) and market actions are playing a critical role here but have been insufficiently examined ( Another vital point of investigation is the develpment of modules within networks in the research of Luis Amaral and Roger Guiner). ¶ 7:50 PM
According to ScienceDaily, researchers Mark Newman and Valdis Krebs have mapped networked political communities in the blogosphere and from Amazon and discovered that political networks can become so "tight" in terms of internal links that they resist becoming fragmented:
"When analyzed using Newman's method, the network of books separated into four communities, with dense connections within communities and looser connections between them. One community was composed almost entirely left-wing books, and the other almost entirely of right-wing ones. Centrist books comprised the other two categories. The computer algorithm doesn't know anything about the books' content---it draws its conclusions only from the purchasing patterns of the buyers---but Newman's analysis seems to show that those purchasing patterns correspond closely with the political slant of the books.
"It is particularly interesting to note that the centrist books belong to their own communities and are not, in most cases, merely lumped in with the liberals or conservatives," the paper stated. "This may indicate that political moderates form their own purchasing community.
In another example, Newman used the algorithm to sort a set of 1225 conservative and liberal political blogs based on the network of web links between them. When the network was fed through the algorithm, it divided cleanly into conservative and liberal camps. One community had 97 percent conservative blogs, and the other had 93 percent liberal blogs, indicating that conservative and liberal blogs rarely link to one another. In a further twist, the computer analysis was unable to find any subdivision at all within the liberal and conservative blog communities.
"This behavior is unique in our experience among networks of this size and is perhaps a testament not only to the widely noted polarization of the current political landscape in the United States, but also to the strong cohesion of the two factions," the paper stated. The network of blogs was compiled by another U-M professor, Prof. Lada Adamic of the U-M School of Information."
The implications here are very interesting, both good and bad. First the bad:
Of immediate concern, it would seem that in terms of its political partisans, America is on a trajectory for the kind of mutually hostile, mutually self-isolating, societal dynamic that is so often seen preceeding civil wars. Or for that matter, our own Civil War, where intense sectional feelings destroyed the Whig and Democratic Parties and nearly the United States along with them. It would also seem that the alienation of moderates and independents from the two major political parties is " condensing". Meaning that no matter who wins elections, it is a conceivable that a majority of the population, if not the voters, would regard the winner as illegitimate.
This utter resistance to communication, engagement or dialogue with the " other" is actually a form of resilience taken to an unhealthy extreme. Sort of an ideological immune response to prevent " invaders" - links - from connecting to " the network". Socially, one example of this behavior can be seen in the comments sections of many blogs where some "regulars" act as enforcers of the party line, parroting pet phrases (whether or not they actually make sense in terms of relevance) and using ad hominem abuse to attempt to smother dissenting views.
Now for the good:
4GW thinkers and Global Guerilla theorist John Robb have been acutely attentive to fragmentation and reversion to primary loyalties - or going toward an even greater breakdown that John has described as " granular". I agree with Robb that this phenomenon is happening and it is a powerful, entropic force, but how might it be prevented or reversed ?
In light of the research by Newman and Krebs, the answer would seem to be to create networks that horizontally cross the primary loyalties existing within a society, the more links the better. Historically, Americans had a particular genius for doing this kind of social linking across class, ethnic, regional and sectarian lines, foundering only upon race, an aspect noted way back by Alexis De Tocqueville in Democracy in America. While totalitarian societies were specifically designed to atomize demographic groups into isolated, disconnected, individuals vis-avis an all-powerful state, America's individualistic ethos allowed its people to freely aggregate themselves into a powerful and dynamic civil society.
"Disconnectedness defines the danger".
UPDATE:
Steve DeAngelis, the noted expert on resilience at ERMB, was also intrigued by the research of Newman and Krebs (Valdis Krebs is frequently cited for his social network analysis of the 9/11 highjackers) and expanded on another point in the article:
"Safranski ends by referencing Tom Barnett's mantra, "Disconnectedness Defines Danger." I wish I could be as sanguine as Safranski. I agree with his prescription - dialogue and honest debate are good things. But in a world where people are deliberately avoiding such dialogue and prefer retrenchment to rapprochement, making connections is difficult. Does that make me a pessimist? Not exactly. I'm by nature an optimist and by training a problem solver. So what is to be done? The ScienceDaily article points to an answer from nature:
Newman's methods have also been adapted by researchers working in molecular biology to study metabolic networks, the chemical networks that power cells in human and animal bodies. In a recent paper in the journal Nature, researchers Roger Guimer and Luis Amaral from Northwestern University in Evanston, Ill., found that metabolites that straddle boundaries between groups in metabolic networks show persistence across species. Commenting on the work of Guimerà and Amaral, Newman says that this could be a sign that the division of the network into modules corresponds to different roles that metabolites play within the cell, and could suggest new directions for interpreting data on biochemical networks.
What jumped out for me in that paragraph were the "metabolites that straddle boundaries between groups." I was also interested in the fact that these metabolites were shown to be persistent across species. In any given situation, we must ask, "Who or what are the metabolites that straddle groups?" Those individuals or groups are the keys to success because they represent the connectedness about which Safranski writes.
In many post-conflict situations, the "metabolites" are business people or women's groups. NGOs are often such metabolites because they seek to relieve suffering not take sides. Finding existing "metabolites" and supporting their efforts are key factors in stopping (even reversing) the fracturing process. Strategies that try to fracture tightly grouped networks are doomed to failure. It is the connections between them (not within them) that is the key to a better future."
An excellent point by Steve, one that I unfortunately had missed. The role of women, household or community " economies" (those involving an array of exchanges, usually non-monetary but significant to the actors) and market actions are playing a critical role here but have been insufficiently examined ( Another vital point of investigation is the develpment of modules within networks in the research of Luis Amaral and Roger Guiner). ¶ 7:50 PM
Comments:
<< Home
Ah, Mark, this is an important post. One of the things that has bothered me about Global Guerrilla theory is the fact that Rob sometimes mentions localized examples of an emergence of stability and resilience, but always without suggesting that such emergence might severely limit and perhaps utterly foil the mass emergence of forces of disruption. The forthcoming GG book might make the case, or at least present the possibility; but the blogs and various blogospheric comments never do (that I have read.) So "the good" you mention might a result of factional conglomerates in which the resilient and stable communities join together (for a time, at least) to combat the GG forces of disrupton. Two possible signs: "environmentalist conservatives" and "hawkish democrats." The first group finds evangelicals and leftist environmentalists (among others) joining to combat threats to the environment; so its cross-domain domain (heh) is a really basic faith or belief in the importance of the environment. In the second case, a basic belief in border security is crossing between some democrats and republicans as well, although I fear that Dems like Hillary only choose a tough stance on security for political reasons rather than any fundamental understanding of what is necessary...Lieberman might be a different case than Hillary; and, similar to what you have mentioned about political blogs, you can see how the hard-core leftists are excoriating him (just like, incidentally, some conservatives have launched diatribes against the "crunchy conservative" movement.)
Incidentally, also, this post strongly reminds me of my post on "Flu(n)x" which you once linked. Remember the technology- and media-inspired personal isolationism of "ego-casting?" That's when people form isolated groups around certain ideologies because so many possible sources of media cater to those particular sensibilities (movies, books, cable channels, news sources), leading perhaps to "gated communities" or little islands of media consumerism, with people never trying to enjoy media from alternate ideological sources. This, then, would be "the bad" you have mentioned in this post.
Incidentally, also, this post strongly reminds me of my post on "Flu(n)x" which you once linked. Remember the technology- and media-inspired personal isolationism of "ego-casting?" That's when people form isolated groups around certain ideologies because so many possible sources of media cater to those particular sensibilities (movies, books, cable channels, news sources), leading perhaps to "gated communities" or little islands of media consumerism, with people never trying to enjoy media from alternate ideological sources. This, then, would be "the bad" you have mentioned in this post.
# posted by 
: Thursday, 08 June, 2006
: Thursday, 08 June, 2006
Iraq provides a good test case. While Iraq's initial plunge into civil war appeared to center around a clash of civilizations (Sunni vs. Shiite) it is rapidly devolving past that to smaller groups with more cohesive primary loyalties (gang, mosque, tribe, family, etc.).
This is nearly absurd.
In polisci, a "primary loyalty" comes from whoever provides physical security. The realist view of the State is that the State is successful because of its impressive police power.
As most murders are committed by those the victim knows (family, clan, etc), the reemergence of these as primary protectors is dubious. One isn't primarily loyal to the primary threat to one's life.
This is nearly absurd.
In polisci, a "primary loyalty" comes from whoever provides physical security. The realist view of the State is that the State is successful because of its impressive police power.
As most murders are committed by those the victim knows (family, clan, etc), the reemergence of these as primary protectors is dubious. One isn't primarily loyal to the primary threat to one's life.
Dan! You've inspired some thoughts!
As most murders are committed by those the victim knows (family, clan, etc), the reemergence of these as primary protectors is dubious. One isn't primarily loyal to the primary threat to one's life.
Sorry, but I find this argument a little absurd. While it's true that "most murders are committed by those the victim knows," I think that those are also often the least expected! So loyalties can be built as Robb suggests, and, as in most cases where a family member or tribe member kills another in the family or tribe, it's usually the result of a betrayal of that loyalty or a fear of such betrayal in the future. (Wife cheats on husband, husband kills wife -- Broken loyalty. Pedophile kills young nephew because nephew might talk -- threat of a future betrayal of a perceived or blackmail-induced loyalty.)
However...
In polisci, a "primary loyalty" comes from whoever provides physical security.
This is interesting, because if these tribes and families and gangs and mosques were proven ineffectual protectors, those primary loyalties would be broken. Not to advocate anything, but...perhaps a broader-scale and more destructive chaos might actually get people talking across these group borders. I know, I know, that's a hideous proposal. But one thought leads to this other...if, that is, such primary loyalties have actually formed in Iraq in such a granular way as implied by Robb.
Initially, at the onset of the insurgency in Iraq, I wondered if a "common foe" would do the trick...say, the U.S. as a common foe. But, get this: I suspect that most common Iraqis don't view the U.S. as a threat to their security, but as a keystone cop, hardly worth worrying over. I've wondered if al-Qaeda in Iraq might become that common foe (as others also wondered for a time, when dissension in the insurgency began to form), but...doesn't seem to be happening. And then I've wondered about Iran, and still wonder about Iran...except many in the Shia majority might welcome Iran with open arms.
What to do, what to do...
As most murders are committed by those the victim knows (family, clan, etc), the reemergence of these as primary protectors is dubious. One isn't primarily loyal to the primary threat to one's life.
Sorry, but I find this argument a little absurd. While it's true that "most murders are committed by those the victim knows," I think that those are also often the least expected! So loyalties can be built as Robb suggests, and, as in most cases where a family member or tribe member kills another in the family or tribe, it's usually the result of a betrayal of that loyalty or a fear of such betrayal in the future. (Wife cheats on husband, husband kills wife -- Broken loyalty. Pedophile kills young nephew because nephew might talk -- threat of a future betrayal of a perceived or blackmail-induced loyalty.)
However...
In polisci, a "primary loyalty" comes from whoever provides physical security.
This is interesting, because if these tribes and families and gangs and mosques were proven ineffectual protectors, those primary loyalties would be broken. Not to advocate anything, but...perhaps a broader-scale and more destructive chaos might actually get people talking across these group borders. I know, I know, that's a hideous proposal. But one thought leads to this other...if, that is, such primary loyalties have actually formed in Iraq in such a granular way as implied by Robb.
Initially, at the onset of the insurgency in Iraq, I wondered if a "common foe" would do the trick...say, the U.S. as a common foe. But, get this: I suspect that most common Iraqis don't view the U.S. as a threat to their security, but as a keystone cop, hardly worth worrying over. I've wondered if al-Qaeda in Iraq might become that common foe (as others also wondered for a time, when dissension in the insurgency began to form), but...doesn't seem to be happening. And then I've wondered about Iran, and still wonder about Iran...except many in the Shia majority might welcome Iran with open arms.
What to do, what to do...
# posted by : Thursday, 08 June, 2006
: Thursday, 08 June, 2006
OH wait! Was that "hideous proposal" somewhat related to Vonny's concept of the role of noise in networks and consilience? I really need to study up on that concept a bit more...
# posted by : Thursday, 08 June, 2006
: Thursday, 08 June, 2006
Incidentally...(and last comment for now!)...if I tie this thought:
This is interesting, because if these tribes and families and gangs and mosques were proven ineffectual protectors, those primary loyalties would be broken. Not to advocate anything, but...perhaps a broader-scale and more destructive chaos might actually get people talking across these group borders.
to Thomas Barnett's theories, while reconsidering the various things I've written in response to conversations about the role of capitalism, liberal education, and democracy within a society as conduits of power superseding the family ties as conduits of power, then that "noise" that "breaks" the primary loyalties wouldn't necessarily destroy loyalties altogether. Democracy and capitalism are much noisier than more rigid vertical, hierarchical systems.
This comment comes after Mark's recent update adding thoughts from DeAngelis. I'm afraid, however, that "metabolites" are not automatically good for stabilizing fracturing networks, but could actually lead to horrible outcomes, depending on the nature of those metabolites. (Demagogues can also be metabolites, to some degree, in the right circumstances.) As democratic ideals and capitalist structures form to "bridge" disparate groups, they (the rules of law respecting these, in this case; hell, call them rule sets, if you like...) are the metabolites, facilitating inter-group activities. Unfortunately, finding the practical implementation of these two things is the problematic sticking point in Iraq. I suppose that rather than merely looking for a politician or legislature to fulfill the manifestation of these two principles, as GWB has largely sought, we ought to focus on the intimate relationship of these two, democracy and capitalism. And that, unfortunately, means a more liberal education, so the populace will be able to grok the relationship and keep the metabolites operational on their own.
The form the education takes may depend on the student. Unfortunately, the teacher in this case does not seem to have a very firm grasp of the intimate relationship of these principles, either. So other metabolites have more sway.
This is interesting, because if these tribes and families and gangs and mosques were proven ineffectual protectors, those primary loyalties would be broken. Not to advocate anything, but...perhaps a broader-scale and more destructive chaos might actually get people talking across these group borders.
to Thomas Barnett's theories, while reconsidering the various things I've written in response to conversations about the role of capitalism, liberal education, and democracy within a society as conduits of power superseding the family ties as conduits of power, then that "noise" that "breaks" the primary loyalties wouldn't necessarily destroy loyalties altogether. Democracy and capitalism are much noisier than more rigid vertical, hierarchical systems.
This comment comes after Mark's recent update adding thoughts from DeAngelis. I'm afraid, however, that "metabolites" are not automatically good for stabilizing fracturing networks, but could actually lead to horrible outcomes, depending on the nature of those metabolites. (Demagogues can also be metabolites, to some degree, in the right circumstances.) As democratic ideals and capitalist structures form to "bridge" disparate groups, they (the rules of law respecting these, in this case; hell, call them rule sets, if you like...) are the metabolites, facilitating inter-group activities. Unfortunately, finding the practical implementation of these two things is the problematic sticking point in Iraq. I suppose that rather than merely looking for a politician or legislature to fulfill the manifestation of these two principles, as GWB has largely sought, we ought to focus on the intimate relationship of these two, democracy and capitalism. And that, unfortunately, means a more liberal education, so the populace will be able to grok the relationship and keep the metabolites operational on their own.
The form the education takes may depend on the student. Unfortunately, the teacher in this case does not seem to have a very firm grasp of the intimate relationship of these principles, either. So other metabolites have more sway.
# posted by : Thursday, 08 June, 2006
: Thursday, 08 June, 2006
Very little time right now, but a quick comment regarding noise...
The research I commented on earlier about noise in a network was based on a relatively simple model and rulesets along the lines of a majority rule. If one just looks at a network with two possible decisions, wiht no noise and a straight majority rule, it will ultimately fail to reach total uniformity and forms barriers. With noise, the barriers are broken and the majority 'wins.'
What is more interesting and a more realistic model is currently being worked on by Amaral, et.al., at Northwestern. What happens when there are third parties in the network? What is the influence of partisans in the network? I cannot comment in detail as the work is not yet published, but the gist of it is small numbers of partisans can have a large impact on decision-making. This fits in with Iraq in many ways, as Saddam loyalists and jihad extremists, though small in number reltive to the total population, are creating havoc and influencing the Shiia and Sunnis, to the point of almost hardening the barriers between them with 'noise.'
One thing I am not aware of in the literature is how to handle something like religion in a model. By attacking mosques, for example, in reality this is crystallizing barriers and leading to more sectarian violence, to the point of civil war in some minds. It is so complicated...
The research I commented on earlier about noise in a network was based on a relatively simple model and rulesets along the lines of a majority rule. If one just looks at a network with two possible decisions, wiht no noise and a straight majority rule, it will ultimately fail to reach total uniformity and forms barriers. With noise, the barriers are broken and the majority 'wins.'
What is more interesting and a more realistic model is currently being worked on by Amaral, et.al., at Northwestern. What happens when there are third parties in the network? What is the influence of partisans in the network? I cannot comment in detail as the work is not yet published, but the gist of it is small numbers of partisans can have a large impact on decision-making. This fits in with Iraq in many ways, as Saddam loyalists and jihad extremists, though small in number reltive to the total population, are creating havoc and influencing the Shiia and Sunnis, to the point of almost hardening the barriers between them with 'noise.'
One thing I am not aware of in the literature is how to handle something like religion in a model. By attacking mosques, for example, in reality this is crystallizing barriers and leading to more sectarian violence, to the point of civil war in some minds. It is so complicated...
“This utter resistance to communication, engagement or dialogue with the " other" is actually a form of resilience taken to an unhealthy extreme.”
No it isn’t. It represents resistance not resilience. Resilience represents movement. If the group was moving back to what it was, or going forward to try and become something it wasn’t, that would be resilience. They are simply creating friction with the hope that they will eventually “win”.
Con grats, another bit of Zen masterly on the order of the 10th level.
No it isn’t. It represents resistance not resilience. Resilience represents movement. If the group was moving back to what it was, or going forward to try and become something it wasn’t, that would be resilience. They are simply creating friction with the hope that they will eventually “win”.
Con grats, another bit of Zen masterly on the order of the 10th level.
# posted by : Thursday, 08 June, 2006
: Thursday, 08 June, 2006
Although my last comment was kind of irrelevant, sorry Zen, the part about the parties on the Right, Left and Center not being resilient may be accurate. I looked resilient up in my dictionary and it gave words like: springing back into shape, position, elastic, recovering strength, and jump; all words of movement. So if the Right, Left and Center are not able to move, then they are what are called Centers Of Gravities or COGs. They represent potential energy that move things towards or away from one another, but don’t represent movement itself. This would give them different attributes than resilient objects such as perhaps religious organizations that may become more Liberal when not under attack and more Conservative when they feel threatened. I don’t know if there is anything to be gained by identifying something as a COG or a resilient object, but your whole article really made me think. Thanks.
# posted by : Thursday, 08 June, 2006
: Thursday, 08 June, 2006
Although my last comment was kind of irrelevant, sorry Zen, the part about the parties on the Right, Left and Center not being resilient may be accurate. I looked resilient up in my dictionary and it gave words like: springing back into shape, position, elastic, recovering strength, and jump; all words of movement. So if the Right, Left and Center are not able to move, then they are what are called Centers Of Gravities or COGs. They represent potential energy that move things towards or away from one another, but don’t represent movement itself. This would give them different attributes than resilient objects such as perhaps religious organizations that may become more Liberal when not under attack and more Conservative when they feel threatened. I don’t know if there is anything to be gained by identifying something as a COG or a resilient object, but your whole article really made me think. Thanks.
# posted by : Thursday, 08 June, 2006
: Thursday, 08 June, 2006
NGOs are often such metabolites because they seek to relieve suffering not take sides
Of course relieving suffering is taking sides. Enemies of connectedness will oppose relief which involves more, enemies of disconnectedness will oppose relef that involves less.
That said, I've been wonderinf on if John Robb actually meant something closer to petty sympathies than primary loyalties...
Of course relieving suffering is taking sides. Enemies of connectedness will oppose relief which involves more, enemies of disconnectedness will oppose relef that involves less.
That said, I've been wonderinf on if John Robb actually meant something closer to petty sympathies than primary loyalties...
I saw Barnetts PNM DVD on CSPAN. Int eh concluding remarks, (note am recalling from memory), a Pakistani Officer asked what one thing would cause change or increase connetivity in the Middle East the most.
He stated, the emancipation of women.
The Offier sat down in what I though at the time, in a huff over his culture being challenged.
After buying the DVD and re-reviewing it I no longer think so. He sat down in total shock as the depth and meaning of the statement hit him. He believed it.
He stated, the emancipation of women.
The Offier sat down in what I though at the time, in a huff over his culture being challenged.
After buying the DVD and re-reviewing it I no longer think so. He sat down in total shock as the depth and meaning of the statement hit him. He believed it.
# posted by : Friday, 09 June, 2006
: Friday, 09 June, 2006
The comedian D. L. Hughley once said (to paraphrase) that humans are actually three different people. One part of us is represented by how someone sees us. Another part of us is represented by how we want to be seen. The third part of our being is represented by how we actually are. He actually said this in a much clearer way, but what I am getting at is that observation, like orientation, has other elements inside it which are running parallel to the OODA loop (the loop that represents an individual) and in series to each other.
So when Dan says, “Enemies of connectedness will oppose relief which involves more [relief of suffering], enemies of disconnectedness will oppose rel[i]ef that involves less [relief of suffering].”, he is only looking at one face inside the OODA loop of the enemies of connectedness (and possibly those who want to connect the world). I believe that there is a part of all humans that want less suffering, and that is the face the metabolites will find and use to the good of us all. At least that is what I think Steve meant when he said that the NGOs didn’t take sides. It might not be that they don’t takes sides, but represent common ground.
So when Dan says, “Enemies of connectedness will oppose relief which involves more [relief of suffering], enemies of disconnectedness will oppose rel[i]ef that involves less [relief of suffering].”, he is only looking at one face inside the OODA loop of the enemies of connectedness (and possibly those who want to connect the world). I believe that there is a part of all humans that want less suffering, and that is the face the metabolites will find and use to the good of us all. At least that is what I think Steve meant when he said that the NGOs didn’t take sides. It might not be that they don’t takes sides, but represent common ground.
# posted by : Friday, 09 June, 2006
: Friday, 09 June, 2006
And another thing, who gets credit for the relief of suffering, the people who are trying to connect or those who oppose connecting? It might be to the people-who-oppose-connecting’s advantage to be seen as the people who relieve suffering. So do the people-who-want-to-connect oppose relief or not?
# posted by : Friday, 09 June, 2006
: Friday, 09 June, 2006
Larry, I think that "common ground" (or call it a "common domain" or a "cross-domain domain") must be valued over the other, insular domains/values/perceptions, before such "metabolites" can be effective. I.e., they can preach and preach to the choir that already knows about suffering, but calling the common suffering a harmony when the members of that choir only hear so much dissonance in the other notes isn't going to convince anyone that it is harmony.
I see a day later that I went with the notion of largely abstract metabolites rather than assuming, as others seem to have assumed, that we are looking for some small handful of saviors or Great Leaders to connect everyone. But I like the notion that "there is a part of all humans that want less suffering" -- thoughts like that have been behind my thoughts about emergent resilience, stability, consilience...I'm just not sure that anyone can seriously advocate democracy, free markets, etc., while also supposing a necessity for Great Leaders and saviors to connect everyone. [Perhaps the best such leaders would get everyone to choose to connect themselves, so that they, the leaders, play a much less visible role in the process. Unfortunately, it seems that too many Iraqis have also fallen into, or are repeating a well-known memory of, belief in supreme leaders or saviors.]
But clearly, some people are more worried about their own suffering than the suffering others experience. Most people, probably, when you get right down to it. So I have thought of other things, like a general "fatigue of violence" -- kinda like that highlighted recently at Coming Anarchy. Some sort of cost-benefit analysis occurs on those thought loops/processes running parallel to the OODA loop which may lead many people to accept whatever seems easiest as long as whatever that is also provides "enough" security. Time scale is significant, since many people make the analysis on the basis of their experiences in recent-past, present, and short-term future rather than longterm future (although they may project these near-term experience far out into the future...like, say, terrorists blow up the WTC and suddenly we see unending chaos for the rest of human history...) Significant to this myopic process, I think, is the feeling that those nearest us in culture, ideology, histories (family and tribal), religion are less threatening simply because we have some measurement for judging their future activity -- or so we tend to believe, on those parallel circuits.
OH, and on the subject of COGs and resiliency: I think that if a person is forced to jump forward one step and then leaps back, that's movement even if the net movement is "0." There was some recent discussion on the difference of reactive resilience and proactive resilience, and I think maybe the interesting notion of COGs was related more to the reactive sort. However, taking a more literal understanding of "centers of gravity," you might say that people leap back instinctively, without much thought: kinda like gravity operates in the background, or outside of human volition. Hmmm...
I see a day later that I went with the notion of largely abstract metabolites rather than assuming, as others seem to have assumed, that we are looking for some small handful of saviors or Great Leaders to connect everyone. But I like the notion that "there is a part of all humans that want less suffering" -- thoughts like that have been behind my thoughts about emergent resilience, stability, consilience...I'm just not sure that anyone can seriously advocate democracy, free markets, etc., while also supposing a necessity for Great Leaders and saviors to connect everyone. [Perhaps the best such leaders would get everyone to choose to connect themselves, so that they, the leaders, play a much less visible role in the process. Unfortunately, it seems that too many Iraqis have also fallen into, or are repeating a well-known memory of, belief in supreme leaders or saviors.]
But clearly, some people are more worried about their own suffering than the suffering others experience. Most people, probably, when you get right down to it. So I have thought of other things, like a general "fatigue of violence" -- kinda like that highlighted recently at Coming Anarchy. Some sort of cost-benefit analysis occurs on those thought loops/processes running parallel to the OODA loop which may lead many people to accept whatever seems easiest as long as whatever that is also provides "enough" security. Time scale is significant, since many people make the analysis on the basis of their experiences in recent-past, present, and short-term future rather than longterm future (although they may project these near-term experience far out into the future...like, say, terrorists blow up the WTC and suddenly we see unending chaos for the rest of human history...) Significant to this myopic process, I think, is the feeling that those nearest us in culture, ideology, histories (family and tribal), religion are less threatening simply because we have some measurement for judging their future activity -- or so we tend to believe, on those parallel circuits.
OH, and on the subject of COGs and resiliency: I think that if a person is forced to jump forward one step and then leaps back, that's movement even if the net movement is "0." There was some recent discussion on the difference of reactive resilience and proactive resilience, and I think maybe the interesting notion of COGs was related more to the reactive sort. However, taking a more literal understanding of "centers of gravity," you might say that people leap back instinctively, without much thought: kinda like gravity operates in the background, or outside of human volition. Hmmm...
# posted by : Friday, 09 June, 2006
: Friday, 09 June, 2006
CGW
“rather than assuming, as others seem to have assumed, that we are looking for some small handful of saviors or Great Leaders to connect everyone.”
If you were looking for saviors or Great Leaders to do the connecting, I would say stop. Ordinary people, warts and all, is what you really need.
I am not saying that things inside the COG don’t move; nor am I saying that the COG itself doesn’t move although that probably is exactly what I said. What I mean is that there is no movement such as from a caterpillar to a butterfly or from observation to action. Or in other words, the type of energy a COG represents remains the same. COGs seem to remain mostly potential energy (energy of ideas) and only change in intensity. Words like: springing back into shape, position, elastic, recovering strength, and jump (which I found when looking up the word resilient) represents, to me, energy flowing from mostly potential energy to kinetic energy and back again. A spring represents mostly potential energy, so when something springs back to shape, it sounds to me like it is converting back to potential energy. As I said I am not sure how relevant this is but it does give me something to think about. A COG represents a steady potential of varying degrees of intensity. So there is always an attractive or repulsive force associated with a COG. But with resiliency there is more often a change in the type of energy, from potential to kinetic or kinetic to potential.
“rather than assuming, as others seem to have assumed, that we are looking for some small handful of saviors or Great Leaders to connect everyone.”
If you were looking for saviors or Great Leaders to do the connecting, I would say stop. Ordinary people, warts and all, is what you really need.
I am not saying that things inside the COG don’t move; nor am I saying that the COG itself doesn’t move although that probably is exactly what I said. What I mean is that there is no movement such as from a caterpillar to a butterfly or from observation to action. Or in other words, the type of energy a COG represents remains the same. COGs seem to remain mostly potential energy (energy of ideas) and only change in intensity. Words like: springing back into shape, position, elastic, recovering strength, and jump (which I found when looking up the word resilient) represents, to me, energy flowing from mostly potential energy to kinetic energy and back again. A spring represents mostly potential energy, so when something springs back to shape, it sounds to me like it is converting back to potential energy. As I said I am not sure how relevant this is but it does give me something to think about. A COG represents a steady potential of varying degrees of intensity. So there is always an attractive or repulsive force associated with a COG. But with resiliency there is more often a change in the type of energy, from potential to kinetic or kinetic to potential.
# posted by : Friday, 09 June, 2006
: Friday, 09 June, 2006
Friction vs. Resilience....
Friction and Resilience...
Does Resilience increase Friction ?
Hmmmmmm......
Friction and Resilience...
Does Resilience increase Friction ?
Hmmmmmm......
If you were looking for saviors or Great Leaders to do the connecting, I would say stop. Ordinary people, warts and all, is what you really need.
Well, I wasn't looking for those things; it's just that talk about the role of "business people" and "NGO's," etc., in reference to the metabolites, seems like such a search. In focusing on the abstract, democratic and capitalistic rulesets, as "metabolites," (and, liberal education) I was trying to see how these things might connect people on a freer basis than having to trust NGO's and business people for that type of connecting. Not that these wouldn't be important parties, but they are not parties that can operate in a vacuum -- or, more to the point, they might not be trusted if connectivity cannot be built from the ground-up through the people.
I.e., we might see a handful of persons or organizations trying to go about "connecting" disparate groups, but such "metabolites" would be useless if most people did not trust them with the flows of their information, so to speak... It also has to do with that old concept of the Nanny State, and the way that "saviors" can be used by people to increase insular resilience because then those people don't really have to cross boundaries to get a relief from suffering or improved security.
Having mentioned the Nanny State in this way, however, I'll also admit that my most fuzzy impression of what is needed in places like Iraq might be a combination of a new New Deal and a new G.I.Bill for Iraqis. But I've been rather hesitant to mention these things. I haven't really thought them through all the way. But providing more jobs while improving infrastructure and opportunities for cheap (or, earned) but quality education for more people would solve so many problems in newly connected regions, I think. It would take a lot of money to do it right, though...
Well, I wasn't looking for those things; it's just that talk about the role of "business people" and "NGO's," etc., in reference to the metabolites, seems like such a search. In focusing on the abstract, democratic and capitalistic rulesets, as "metabolites," (and, liberal education) I was trying to see how these things might connect people on a freer basis than having to trust NGO's and business people for that type of connecting. Not that these wouldn't be important parties, but they are not parties that can operate in a vacuum -- or, more to the point, they might not be trusted if connectivity cannot be built from the ground-up through the people.
I.e., we might see a handful of persons or organizations trying to go about "connecting" disparate groups, but such "metabolites" would be useless if most people did not trust them with the flows of their information, so to speak... It also has to do with that old concept of the Nanny State, and the way that "saviors" can be used by people to increase insular resilience because then those people don't really have to cross boundaries to get a relief from suffering or improved security.
Having mentioned the Nanny State in this way, however, I'll also admit that my most fuzzy impression of what is needed in places like Iraq might be a combination of a new New Deal and a new G.I.Bill for Iraqis. But I've been rather hesitant to mention these things. I haven't really thought them through all the way. But providing more jobs while improving infrastructure and opportunities for cheap (or, earned) but quality education for more people would solve so many problems in newly connected regions, I think. It would take a lot of money to do it right, though...
# posted by : Saturday, 10 June, 2006
: Saturday, 10 June, 2006
“Friction vs. Resilience....
Friction and Resilience...
Does Resilience increase Friction ?
Hmmmmmm......”
Hmmmmm… is right.
Friction is a relationship. It is the relationship between two electrons; they are accelerating towards each other and moving parallel to each other in different directions. This relationship involves forces, which are perpendicular to each other (potential and kinetic), that produce a third resultant force. In other words, because of friction there are vertical and horizontal forces present and a third resultant force is born from that relationship. This resultant force is either in the form of potential or kinetic energy.
Because energy cannot be destroyed, only changed, the flow of energy is a study of resiliency itself. When needed, energy can change from kinetic energy (energy of mass) to potential energy (energy without mass).
Mass creates potential energy and potential energy causes mass to move. When mass moves it becomes kinetic energy, or energy with velocity. Velocity and its cousin acceleration is what enable energy to be resilient. Energy is resilient because you can have maximum acceleration at zero velocity. As an example, let’s say I am a juggler. When I throw a ball into the air it reaches a point where it has zero velocity and maximum acceleration, then it falls back into my hand (and I hopefully catch it).
Friction is the relationship that determines if something becomes more kinetic or potentially significant.
Security, Rule Sets, Money, Infrastructure, Resources have frictional relationships to each other. This is because logistics represents a parallel movement of objects. To keep these objects related to People, there needs to be a center-seeking force (which turns out to be acceleration). Acceleration then is the relationship between People and the other objects Security, Rule Sets, Money, Infrastructure, and Resources.
Friction and Resilience...
Does Resilience increase Friction ?
Hmmmmmm......”
Hmmmmm… is right.
Friction is a relationship. It is the relationship between two electrons; they are accelerating towards each other and moving parallel to each other in different directions. This relationship involves forces, which are perpendicular to each other (potential and kinetic), that produce a third resultant force. In other words, because of friction there are vertical and horizontal forces present and a third resultant force is born from that relationship. This resultant force is either in the form of potential or kinetic energy.
Because energy cannot be destroyed, only changed, the flow of energy is a study of resiliency itself. When needed, energy can change from kinetic energy (energy of mass) to potential energy (energy without mass).
Mass creates potential energy and potential energy causes mass to move. When mass moves it becomes kinetic energy, or energy with velocity. Velocity and its cousin acceleration is what enable energy to be resilient. Energy is resilient because you can have maximum acceleration at zero velocity. As an example, let’s say I am a juggler. When I throw a ball into the air it reaches a point where it has zero velocity and maximum acceleration, then it falls back into my hand (and I hopefully catch it).
Friction is the relationship that determines if something becomes more kinetic or potentially significant.
Security, Rule Sets, Money, Infrastructure, Resources have frictional relationships to each other. This is because logistics represents a parallel movement of objects. To keep these objects related to People, there needs to be a center-seeking force (which turns out to be acceleration). Acceleration then is the relationship between People and the other objects Security, Rule Sets, Money, Infrastructure, and Resources.
# posted by : Sunday, 11 June, 2006
: Sunday, 11 June, 2006
Larry
Alert Critt to that last comment for the Rules wiki, will you ? (We need to save that in a link on on the main page -he gave me an admin password but it isn't working) I've bothered him more than enough already today :O)
Post a Comment
Alert Critt to that last comment for the Rules wiki, will you ? (We need to save that in a link on on the main page -he gave me an admin password but it isn't working) I've bothered him more than enough already today :O)
<< Home
