I am not sure if agent-based modelling offers better insight than the knowledge of history combined with common sense, but it is probably much better than Game Theory and pure mathematical analysis. One problem is the myriad ways in which actors in societies can interact with each other: if seventy agents were lining up to enter a gate, there are 70! different ways how this could be arranged ( which equals roughly 10^100, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googol )
Another factor that makes modeling of real societies difficult is the intractable individual behavior (which depends on prejudices, preferences, personal experiences, etc.). Jared Diamond writes in his No.1 bestseller "Collapse" in chapter 9 "Opposite Paths to Success/Other Successes" that even "...people with long-term stakes don't always act wisely. Often they still prefer short-term goals, and often again they do things that are foolish in both the short term and the long term. That's what makes biography and history infinitely more complicated and less predictable than the courses of chemical reactions..." -J. ________________________________ From: Robert Cordingley Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Agent-Based Modelling of a Blowback - How Terrorists are made [...] The question has to be answered: does the process work in this domain? Do the ethnographic studies, the incorporation of the best political advisors, etc., perhaps with the use of all the computing power you can dream of, along with the latest and sharpest computing tools produce a system that has measurable performance against the real world. What is the probability that when X is tested, Y will occur? When does chaos takeover? Is it meaningful in the time it takes to implement policy? Having performance based results are key to success and probably not readily shared. ============================================================ 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
