Wow, wait a second, If the object in motion has a group of followers I don't see emergence, Remoras follow sharks or any other moving object, there is no dynamic social system. My Wolfhounds follow rabbits, horses, snowmobiles, bicycles etc at very high speeds. If they were displayed on a radar screen you might mistake five wolfhounds as worshipful devotees of a single leader, running in absolute terror. If they all came to a stop on the radar screen you might surmise the group fell into disarray as the result of a leadership dispute. Perhaps one might think there was a socially repressive regime at work when the blips resolved as five instead of six, and the pace slowed down.
"Merle Lefkoff wrote: Regardless of whether leaders act because of endogenous traits or a circumstantial opening, they are indeed emergent throughout the system. In human systems, however, unlike flocks, over-determined structures suppress this emergent property of the system. Rather than stepping aside to allow emerging leaders to bring requisite variety to the "flock", elite hierarchies/patriarchies suppress distributed leadership and generally prevail for long periods of time." It looks like the first sign of legitimate "emergence" is the Hierarchy that perceives the front man as a leader and attempts later to suppress it, whether it is a leader or not makes no difference. The act of suppression emerges complete based on its own belief system. The belief system must have been in place prior to the flock being created, the leader was accidental (Circumstantial) but suppression is truly emergent, or is it? Are we not talking about completely different behaviors and only one of them is truly emergent? Am I just new to the wording, or am I missing something? Dr.Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky Ph.D.(Civil Eng.), M.Sc.(Mech.Eng.), M.Sc.(Biology) 120-1053 Beaverhill Blvd. Winnipeg, Manitoba CANADA R2J 3R2 (204) 2548321 Phone/Fax vbur...@shaw.ca -----Original Message----- From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Merle Lefkoff Sent: April 10, 2010 12:31 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] leadership in flocks Merle Lefkoff wrote: Regardless of whether leaders act because of endogenous traits or a circumstantial opening, they are indeed emergent throughout the system. In human systems, however, unlike flocks, over-determined structures suppress this emergent property of the system. Rather than stepping aside to allow emerging leaders to bring requisite variety to the "flock", elite hierarchies/patriarchies suppress distributed leadership and generally prevail for long periods of time. Ted Carmichael wrote: > I haven't read the papers all the way through, but on first blush, I > don't see them as contradictory. Either could be correct. > > A "leader" - whether bird or person - could act first due to internal > traits (inclination, ability, imagination) or external influence. The > first implies that the leader is different from the others in some > way, while the second implies only a situational difference: > circumstance rather than inherent traits. > > Once the leader acts, this creates space for the other birds/people to > act similarly, and follow the leader. The followers must have had the > same inclination towards this action, because they end up doing it, > too ... they just weren't over the tipping point yet. There was > something missing that kept them from acting first. The leader's > action clearly provides the missing element, and so all the followers > perform the same action. > > The remarkable thing about the flocking models, such as the one in > JASS, is that they show that leadership doesn't have to be due to an > internal trait. It may simply be a situational difference among very > similar agents. Before these models were put forth, the prevailing > view was that leadership is always endogenous to the leader. Now, at > least, we can consider other possibilities, whether or not they end up > being correct. > > -t > > On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 8:57 PM, glen e. p. ropella > <g...@agent-based-modeling.com <mailto:g...@agent-based-modeling.com>> > wrote: > > sarbajit roy wrote circa 10-04-09 06:34 AM: > > The religious grouping I belong to had cause to study/discuss > this about 150 > > years back (concerning flocks of men not birds). The leader of > the faction > > in opposition to mine (which means my faction vehemently > disagrees with his > > view) had this to say > > That quote from your opposition seems to fall in line with the nature > article, the idea that particular birds/humans (presumably with > particular traits, inbred or learned) turn out to be leaders. I > take it > from your statement that you agree more with the jasss article, that > leaders with no particularly exceptional traits emerge? Right? > > Of course, to even have this discussion, we have to allow > ourselves the > metaphor between human cliques and bird flocks... > > -- > glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com > > > ============================================================ > 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 > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ============================================================ > 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 ============================================================ 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 ============================================================ 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
