Phil Henshaw wrote: > Try predicting the repeat offences of individual criminals. It's not > possible. > I'm actually not suggesting predicting anything on a individual level, except to the extent that ex-officio roles like Olmert, Nasrallah, Ahmadinejad, bin Laden, and Bush would probably need to be modeled. I'm suggesting predicting trends in a set of subpopulations over time. The primary purpose of a model like this would be to make aggregate predictions about the cascade of events from a significant event. Secondarily, because getting fine-grained data on how events actually transpire is hard, a simulation facilitates what-if exploration of a tactical and strategic space, given an array of made-up but plausible group reaction functions.
Zbigniew Brzezinski might have pondered "if we fund the Mujahideen to fight the Soviets, what's the likelihood these people will endure and extend their narcissistic rage toward the United States [as Al-Qaeda]". Or the Mossad might have thought more carefully about how much rope they extended to the Hamas. A computer simulation that tracked these organizations as existing and intermixing with the general population (trying to spread their message) could provide some risk profile for the kind of damage they could do. It would at least remind elected officials in later years of the fact they exist at all. One place to start would be to use signals intelligence to infer a network of communication patterns. Then on that network overlay representative agents that have some capability set, depth of funding, human resources, and degree of extremism or political agendas. The overall political climate would determine what rate volunteers could be recruited, and the organizational types would determine where they went. (That goes for all sides.) For example, we keep hearing analysts saying how Israel has polarized the Lebanese to the point that now Hezbollah is popular. Perhaps that fades away fast, or perhaps it collapses in a month or two of intensive destruction, or perhaps it intensifies and mobilizes a larger set of fighters. Point is, it's surely got some scaling and dynamics -- mad people create dynamics at least so long as they are alive. I see such a model as sort of thermometer to answer questions like: Who is mad What are they doing now (as a group, relevant to the conflict) What could they do in the next week, month & year, if they achieve it What can't they do in the next week, month & year if they are stopped Where are they Who are they connected to as allies and as enemies What do they want What do they need What do they believe and how mutable is it Some of these things will change over time, some of may have narrow variances some of them wide. But hit it hard enough, or wait for someone else to, and something has got to give. If some of those shifts are predictable, then that's potentially usable for decision makers. It doesn't mean it all has to be predictable. It doesn't matter what virtual soldier Shlomo is having for lunch (unless perhaps he shows up on CNN). The parts that are hopeless can be discarded and the parts that show utility can be elaborated. But this is not like medicine where doing harm is avoided. No, in our world it seems to be the norm to futz with the patient using blunt dirty instruments and see what happens (and then sometimes bother to write it down). Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
