Hussein, I love the example! I don't think the idea here is to look at anything novel, but to look at a well known problem from the point of view of complexity / agent based modeling. This combining the accusation that we do not talk about complexity enough, and the relatively mundane observation that rule-based social systems get corrupted fairly reliably. Presumably a well made model would begin to answer your question: Which parameters at which values would resist such corruption, or perhaps even reverse it.
P.S. Being on a mid-sized college campus, the solution to the Dr. Clever problem is to get people to talk to each other... a lot... beer helps. As I tell my friends, the soul of the campus is won or lost by the social committee. Eric Chair, Faculty Senate Social Committee ;- ) On Sun, May 8, 2011 09:36 PM, "Hussein Abbass" <h.abb...@adfa.edu.au> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >Before I propose a model, let me share my feeling of the >whole exercise. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >For some reason, I am not sure why do we see this as a >new problem. I would argue that any political system by definition must have a >mechanism for hiding information. An autocratic society will have the hidden information >centralized in a very small group. A democratic society, by definition, is a distributed >hidden information system. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Any definition of democracy in a constitution is not a >functioning definition of democracy, simply it is too idealistic to function. >Any functioning definition of democracy can’t be constitutionallized, no one >would have the guts to propose it. Even if someone does, politics understand >that decisions in an idealistic democratic society rely on frequencies, and high >frequency is always controlled by the simple minded people – we have many of >them, they are the most successful political tool after all! So no one of them >would agree on a functioning definition of democracy; it is too complicated and >non-idealistic, Utopia is the ultimate aim for dreamers and the majority are. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >If I understood the problem correctly, it boils down in >my mind to two conditions defining sufficient conditions for obfuscation to >emerge in a democratic society. Although we really need to define what type of >democracy we are talking about here, let us - for simplicity - assume that democracy >as we all think of it, is one – a big assumption indeed! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >The two sufficient conditions are localization and >isolation. I can get lots of inspiration easily from areas such as control of >virus spread and the communication literature. But let me give you an example >where we can create perfect obfuscation. Imagine a social system as a social >network > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >(1) Localization: Here, localization will simply be >achieved through a social value. Imagine in one society that confrontation is >not perceived as a good attitude. Imagine we are modelling Obfuscation in a >Faculty. We can imagine the consequence of this social value of avoiding >confrontation; discussions will tend to be done within small groups – maybe of >size 2 - most of the time. Issues are solved that way, so large group >discussions are not needed and confrontation is nicely avoided. Is not this how >universities are structured anyhow! This simple behaviour will localize >information. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >(2) Isolation: the trick now is how to get these groups >to stop communicating to one another. We know from virus spread, idea spread, >etc, that we can spread the virus very quickly in a network from a single initially >infected node. To isolate ideas in a social system, we need a powerful social >value! Here, let us call it trust or confidentiality or anything similar. The >objective is to promote everything as important and we all need to trust each >other in keeping a secret. Confidentiality would stop members of a group to >discuss the topic with other group members. It is a shield to protect the >spread even when groups overlap! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >The previous two conditions will create obfuscation. >Localization will cause information to be discussed locally, while isolation >will reduce the probability that information will travel across the network. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Ok, so far, we defined two sufficient conditions for >obfuscation to emerge. Can we take this one step further to create a dictator >who appears to be a democratic decision maker in a democratic society? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >My answer is yes, this is an old piece of news or political >trick! The previous setup is perfect for that. We just need this dictator to be >the head of the Faculty. If we wish to have an invisible dictator, the head of >the Faculty can simply be a useless figure! Obviously, it can be a small group >of size 2-5 as well, but they need to be fully and directly connected to each >other and almost connected to everyone else. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Let me put this in a simple story. Prof. Clever is the >dean of Faculty of Idiots. Prof Clever would like to be a dictator in a >democratic society. He appoints 3 other Professors to form a strategy >committee. He believes in separating strategy from execution, thanks to all the >wonderful literature in management on that topic. Prof. Clever cancelled most >Faculty public meetings and created many committees. These committees seek >people opinion to have a truly democratic environment. He told the people we >are a civilized society. We should not confront each other in public. Issues >can be solved smoothly in a better environment and within a small group. Public >meetings are now to simply give presentations that no controversial issue is >discussed; their information content is 0 to anyone attending them. But they >demonstrate democracy and support the members of the Faculty of Idiots’ right >for dissemination of information. Prof. Clever promotes good values. Important >values that Prof. Clever is promoting are trust and confidentiality. In >meetings, people need to trust each other to facilitate exchange of >information. But this requires confidentiality; otherwise problems will emerge. >Obviously, meetings are called by management, members of the meetings are engineered >by management, the whole social network is well-engineered such that different >type of information do not get crossed from one sub-graph to another. The >faculty of Idiots is the happiest faculty on earth. No public confrontation >means no fights, a well-engineered civilized society. Small group meetings are >dominated with Prof. Clever or simply take place to tick a box in a report. >There is only one person in the Faculty of Idiots who knows everything, Prof. >Clever. No one else knows more than anyone else to the extent that everyone >simply knows nothing. But everyone is happy, everyone feels important because >he/she is trusted and everyone feels they are well-informed of the task they >are performing! Prof. Clever eliminated competition, no leader can emerge in >this social system that he does not approve. Prof. Clever is the nice guy that >everyone loves and respect. He listens, he is socially friendly, and after all >is indeed Clever! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >So!!!!! we can get obfuscation to emerge. There are so >many old political tools to do so; take political propaganda as a powerful one >among many others! There are many different variations to do it, not just the >above model. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >The harder question for me is, how can we undo it if it >is engineered as above? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Why is it hard to break it? Because the two principles >representing the sufficient conditions for its emergence rely on social values! >Any attempt to break it, will be met with resistance in a part of the >population and will be called unethical, if not illegal! It is a robust >self-regulating strategy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Another hard question is how can we get the social >network to recognize obfuscation in the previous setup? If they can’t recognise >it, they can’t do anything about it! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Finally, notice what I defined above as obfuscation and >framed it as a bad thing is indeed a form of democracy!!!!!!!!!! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Cheers > > > > > > > >Hussein > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > >From: friam-boun...@redfish.com >[mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Vladimyr Burachynsky >Sent: Monday, 9 May 2011 9:17 AM >To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' >Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Modeling obfuscation (was - Terrorosity and it's Fruits) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Eric and Mohammed, > > > > > > > > > > > >I don’t think anyone can be Off base at this point in sketching >out a scenario. But you might be trying to tackle Goliath in the first >round! > > > > > > > > > > > >Firstly I assume human beings are not very bright, They seem to >use extremely simple rules of self satisfaction, though the emotions might be >more complicated. > > > > > >It is not widely accepted but dogs can figure things out as >quickly as humans on occasion and there is no wearisome Narrative. > > > > > >I look at it from the point of view that agents are simple > but Stupid . This gave me a headache until I realized that many human >beings actually do not know why they did something in particular, then and only >then do they invent the Narrative. They are not actually attempting to deceive >anyone but simply wish to convince me that they did something for a Good >reason. They avoid acknowledging the fact that they did not think.They then >drop into the socially acceptable lexicon to explain everything. Often I have >remarked that the act of speaking out loud convinces others as well as most >importantly the speaker himself.. So the speaker is lying to himself >first and then accepts this as his story and probably could pass a lie detector >test afterwards. > > > > > > > > > > > >The fact that narratives are spun is a red herring. They did not >know how they made the decision. That frightened the hell out of me in complex >engineering projects. I had no way to anticipate human error of this >sort. People actually can construct insane scenarios to motivate themselves and >then totally forget them. This form of misperception is internal to the brain. >I have watched audiences fall for magicians tricks so completely that I have >been stunned into disbelief. Yet it is so repeatable. I have seen some >references to hidden Blind spots in reason explored by neurologists. Generally >I think Biology was too cheap and lazy to give us a completely functional >brain. I will be the first to admit to having difficulty with my brain at >times. > > > > > > > > > > > >To cope we have a pervasive belief that we are intelligent in >spite of many serious flaws. As a scientist I consider determining the extent >of thinking important. I am forced by language to say what I Think for lack of >an alternative. I repeat the phrase for more than half a century but still do >not understand what it actually means, nor do the philosophers directly address >the act. Seems they were more preoccupied by passion in contradiction. > > > > > > > > > > > >We say Man is a learning animal which implies it progresses >somewhat. But I suspect culturally we have found many insidious means to >prevent learning. Why ? Is it unconscious. Somewhat like the vexed mother fed >up answering questions about the color of the sky and butterflies and moths. >Ignorant people are easier to control, suggests history but why? > > > > > > > > > > > >Let’s build something Stupid (Whimsical and arrogant)rather than >Intelligent. If we have no idea what one is how can we answer what the opposite >actually entails. An agent should have more than one choice of action and some >of those should be utterly insane. > > > > > > > > > > > >Your institutional Review boards you describe sound as >nasty as a Byzantine Palace Intrigue. So let’s start much simpler. For the >present the agent should not know what is in his best interest , that is only >to be determined by which emotion dominates at any moment. He can make up >stories afterwards. I often consider the role of Historians that of making >reasonable explanations out of stupid events. The conspiracy theorist will hate >this if it bears out. > > > > > > > > > > > >As for the gains first we waste time looking for reasons >where there are none. Next we can find some way of warning individuals not to >encourage group think. With near to 7 Billion on this planet maybe it is time >to alert ourselves to the flaws in our own brains.; Fear, Gullibility, >Conformity, short sighted self interest emotional reasoning. In the early >stages I would limit the agents to simply responding and not have them try to >become operators of other agents, but that seems to be the goal. Jochen forwarded >an interesting article to the group on the ecology of the mind, I have yet to >study the material but it looks intriguing . > > > > > > > > > > > >It is an old joke , but the more people in the room the dumber >it gets. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky PhD > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ><#> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >120-1053 Beaverhill Blvd. > > > > > >Winnipeg,Manitoba, R2J3R2 > > > > > >Canada > > > > > > (204) 2548321 Land > > > > > >(204) 8016064 Cell > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >From: friam-boun...@redfish.com >[mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of ERIC P. CHARLES >Sent: May-08-11 4:00 PM >To: Mohammed El-Beltagy >Cc: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Modeling obfuscation (was - Terrorosity and it's >Fruits) > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >I think I know >what you are talking about, but I'm not sure what the best way to model it >would be, or what we would gain from the modeling exercise. Are you talking >about something like this? > > >Institutional review boards (IRBs) oversee research that involves human >participants. This body was formed due to laxness/nastiness on the part of >biomedical researchers. It was later extended due to (perceived) >laxness/nastiness on the part of social science researchers. At first, all they >did was to declare studies ethically alright, or not. Later, they were taken >over by a number of outside forces, including university's >"risk-management" departments. Their main function is now to try to >avoid lawsuits, with secondary functions of promoting arbitrary bureaucratic >rules and arbitrary whims of committee members. Giving a "pass or >fail" on ethics is, at best, a tertiary goal. To make things worse, >the lawyers and bureaucracy have actually done a lot to undermine the semblance >of ethical stricture they produce. > > >If this is the type of thing you are talking about, it seems an oddly complex >thing to try to model, mostly because it is extremely open-ended. You need 1) >agents with different agendas, 2) the ability to assess and usurp rules created >by other agents, 3) the ability to force other agents to adopt your rules. >Note, also, that in this particular case, the corruption is accomplished by >stacking contradictory rules on top of each other. Thus you need 4) an ability >to implement contradictory rules, or at least choose between so-called rules. >The bigger challenge seems to be figuring out a way to accomplish such a model >without in some essential way, pre-programing the outcome (for example, in the >way you set agent agendas and allow agents to form new rules). > > >What variables would be manipulated in the modeling space? What is to be >discovered beyond "agents programmed to be self-interested act in their >own best interest"? I'm also not sure what this has to do with agents that >"actively obfuscate the participatory nature of the democratic >decision." So... maybe I'm completely off base. Can you give a concrete >example? > > >Eric > > >On Sun, May 8, 2011 06:56 AM, Mohammed El-Beltagy <<#>> wrote: > > > >> > > > >Eric, > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >Thats an interesting way of looking at >it. As complex game of information hiding. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >I was thinking along the line of of having >a schema for rule creation. The schema here is like a constitution, and >players can generate new rules based on that schema to promote their self >interest. For rules to become "laws" they have to be the choice on >the majority (or subject to some other social choice mechanism), this system > allows for group formation and coalition building to get the >new rules passed into laws. The interesting bit is how the drive for self >interest amongst some of those groups and their coalitions can give >rise to rules renders the original schema and/or the social choice >mechanism ineffective. By "ineffective", I mean that they yield >results and behavior that run counter to the purpose for which they >were originally designed. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >What do you think? > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >Cheers, > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >Mohammed > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 2:44 AM, ERIC P. >CHARLES <e...@psu.edu> wrote: > > > >> > > > >I can't see that this posted, sorry if it >is a duplicate -------- > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >Mohammed, > >Being totally unqualified to help you with this problem... it seems interesting >to me because most models I know of this sort (social systems models) are about >information acquisition and deployment. That is, the modeled critters try to >find out stuff, and then they do actions dependent upon what they find. If we >are modeling active obfuscation, then we would be doing the opposite - we would >be modeling an information-hiding game. Of course, there is lots of game theory >work on information hiding in two critter encounters (I'm thinking >evolutionary-game-theory-looking-at-deception). I haven't seen anything, >though, looking at distributed information hiding. > > >The idea that you could create a system full of autonomous agents in which >information ends up hidden, but no particular individuals have done the hiding, >is kind of cool. Seems like the type of thing encryption guys could get into >(or already are into, or have already moved past). > > >Eric > > >On Fri, May 6, 2011 10:05 PM, Mohammed El-Beltagy <moham...@computer.org> wrote: > > > > > > > I have a question I would like to pose to the group in that regard: > > > > > > Can we model/simulate how in a democracy that is inherently open (as > > > stated in the constitution: for the people, by the people etc..) there > > > emerges "decision masking structures" emerge that actively obfuscate > > > the participatory nature of the democratic decision making for their > > > ends? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ============================================================ >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 > Eric Charles Professional Student and Assistant Professor of Psychology Penn State University Altoona, PA 16601
============================================================ 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
