Re: [FRIAM] leadership in flocks

[glen e. p. ropella]

Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky wrote circa 10-04-10 10:16 AM:
> Same organized behavior but completely different principles. Do we force
> complex interpretations where simple ones suffice.

Yes, we definitely _do_ when the validation data indicates that the more
complex mechanisms actually exist, as with the nature article.

The trouble with parsimony as you're applying it in the above sentence
is that you've abstracted out a particular phenomenon and intend to
build a model to mimic only that particular phenomenon.  This
linearization of the system (and model) ignores lots of data regarding
other related phenomena.  I.e. you're abstracting out a simple
(non-complex) phenomena and mimicking it with a simple model.  That's
not science so much as it's engineering or math.

Science has to consider all the available data, even data sets that are
incommensurate with each other.  This requires concrete models and is
why most scientists are intent on designing experiments with the "actual
stuff" and only want to use computational models sparingly or in special
cases.

Simple one's do not suffice in the concrete world of actual flocks of
birds.  Actual flocks _have_ all the complicating detail and the extent
to which that complicating detail can be removed or controlled is very
limited.  That's why the Nature article is more powerful and meaningful
than the JASSS article.

-- 
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

Re: [FRIAM] leadership in flocks

[Ted Carmichael]

Well, I don't know if the feedback is sufficient to produce emergence, but I
would guess that it is necessary, particularly in a complex system.

In regards to the SAT, aren't the grades the emergent property?  Basically,
we get a bell-curve around a mean score ... the bell curve emerges, doesn't
it?  And as the students learn more about the test, and effective
test-taking strategies emerge, the mean rises.  It's not perfect, of course,
but the feedback definitely represents a force towards an emergent property.
 And the test itself changes over time, so that the mean tends to be around
a certain score, or within a certain range.  I think the SAT was 'adjusted'
in the 90's, so that the mean was closer to the traditional range.

Static examples are more difficult.  But I think it can still work.  We talk
about the strength of the bond as the emergent property.  So ... something
has to test that strength, right?  And when it does, the molecule resists in
a correlated way, preserving (or trying to preserve) the emergent structure.

I guess a counter-example would be a pool table, with - let's say -
frictionless balls bouncing around.  When one ball strikes another ball,
they both change direction; but all the collisions between various balls are
not really correlated, and so the system is chaotic, and remains that way.
 Something else - some sort of correlated force - would have to be
introduced into the system to allow for recognizable patterns to emerge.

Part of this is just thinking out loud, as it were.  I certainly recognize
that there are levels of complexity, and issues of scope, and a lot of it
comes down to identifying the interesting patterns.  Sometimes it's more art
than science, especially in the human systems that have so many more factors
to consider.

I wouldn't claim that chaos is an emergent feature, but I also wouldn't
necessarily describe a panicked theater as purely chaotic.  To the extent
that the feedback among the people is correlated in some way - say, towards
the exits - then emergent patterns emerge, and the people stream out of
those exits.  But if by "panic" you mean the feedback isn't really
correlated, and the people are crashing into each other, running pell-mell
in any direction, then the system is chaotic and emergent streams of people
towards the exits don't form.  So, I think in that example, the
characterization of correlated feedback still works.

-t


On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 10:42 PM, Russ Abbott  wrote:

> Correlated feedback?  The example given is that of a pack of dogs chasing a
> rabbit and keeping it running in a straight line. The straight line is the
> emergent property. A similar example is a thermostat -- or a bunch of
> thermostats distributed around an area. (If you like they can control
> independently operating heating sources.) The emergent property is that the
> temperature remains within a given range. But what about static examples,
> e.g., chlorine and sodium combining to produce salt or carbon atoms put
> together to create a diamond? Would you want to dismiss these as emergent --
> or find a way to think of them in terms of correlated feedback?
>
> Part of the problem I'm having with correlated feedback is that it seems,
> perhaps, correlated with emergence but neither necessary nor sufficient. As
> an example where it's not sufficient how about the grades of students taking
> a nationwide test, e.g., the SAT. This is feedback, and there are certainly
> correlations, but I'm not sure what the emergent property is. It might be a
> teach-(or study)-to-the-test phenomenon. But then we seem to be saying that
> virtually anything that exhibits correlated feedback is emergent by
> definition.
>
> Looking a bit more closely, feedback implies an agent that is has some
> control over its actions and that makes decisions about those actions on the
> basis of some feedback. So a market, for example, has lots of correlated
> feedback. People buy or sell more or less depending on the current price,
> which itself varies with the actions of the participants. Generalizing from
> that example, one would then have to say that any collection of interacting
> agents whose actions depend in part on the actions of the other agents
> produces emergence. Perhaps. But it doesn't seem to be telling me much to
> say that. Worse, it doesn't give me any means to determine what the emergent
> phenomenon is. It may look like chaos.
>
> But then perhaps you will want to say that the chaos is an emergent
> phenomenon--as in the response to shouting FIRE in a crowed theater. Lots of
> correlated feedback resulting in the emergence of chaos.
>
>
> -- Russ Abbott
> __
>
>  Professor, Computer Science
>  California State University, Los Angeles
>
>  cell:  310-621-3805
>  blog: http://russabbott.blogspot.com/
>  vita:  http://sites.google.com/site/russabbott/
> __
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 7:10 PM, Ted Carm

Re: [FRIAM] leadership in flocks

[Russ Abbott]

Correlated feedback?  The example given is that of a pack of dogs chasing a
rabbit and keeping it running in a straight line. The straight line is the
emergent property. A similar example is a thermostat -- or a bunch of
thermostats distributed around an area. (If you like they can control
independently operating heating sources.) The emergent property is that the
temperature remains within a given range. But what about static examples,
e.g., chlorine and sodium combining to produce salt or carbon atoms put
together to create a diamond? Would you want to dismiss these as emergent --
or find a way to think of them in terms of correlated feedback?

Part of the problem I'm having with correlated feedback is that it seems,
perhaps, correlated with emergence but neither necessary nor sufficient. As
an example where it's not sufficient how about the grades of students taking
a nationwide test, e.g., the SAT. This is feedback, and there are certainly
correlations, but I'm not sure what the emergent property is. It might be a
teach-(or study)-to-the-test phenomenon. But then we seem to be saying that
virtually anything that exhibits correlated feedback is emergent by
definition.

Looking a bit more closely, feedback implies an agent that is has some
control over its actions and that makes decisions about those actions on the
basis of some feedback. So a market, for example, has lots of correlated
feedback. People buy or sell more or less depending on the current price,
which itself varies with the actions of the participants. Generalizing from
that example, one would then have to say that any collection of interacting
agents whose actions depend in part on the actions of the other agents
produces emergence. Perhaps. But it doesn't seem to be telling me much to
say that. Worse, it doesn't give me any means to determine what the emergent
phenomenon is. It may look like chaos.

But then perhaps you will want to say that the chaos is an emergent
phenomenon--as in the response to shouting FIRE in a crowed theater. Lots of
correlated feedback resulting in the emergence of chaos.


-- Russ Abbott
__

 Professor, Computer Science
 California State University, Los Angeles

 cell:  310-621-3805
 blog: http://russabbott.blogspot.com/
 vita:  http://sites.google.com/site/russabbott/
__



On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 7:10 PM, Ted Carmichael  wrote:

> No, it's a good question, Tory.  I said I wasn't sure about the label
> "emergent" being applied to suppression, and I'm not.  Thinking about it
> more, it's a good idea to clarify the terminology.
>
> Let's see ... a single act of suppression is feedback that helps to
> preserve the emergent feature of a leadership hierarchy.  A single action is
> not emergent (at least, in this scope).  But I'll have to agree that the
> term "suppression" could easily represent *correlated feedback* among many
> agents, and is thus also an emergent feature.  I guess I was just thinking
> of suppression as part of the leadership "basin of attraction."
>
> I mean, it's the same thing from a different perspective, isn't it?  Kind
> of like: do you call mud "dirty water," or "wet dirt?"  The water is part of
> it, the dirt is part of it, but it's easier to just call the whole thing
> "mud."  In this case, the leadership hierarchy persists, the correlated
> feedback is part of it, and it's all emergent.
>
> So, I reckon we're talking about the same thing.
>
> In regards to the observer's value system, I would say that traditionally,
> we tended to view things like slime mold and ant colonies through the prism
> of human hierarchical systems.  Keller, and Segal showed that - in the case
> of slime mold - a distinct "pacemaker" cell (i.e., a leader) was not
> necessary to produce the emergent property.  This helped a lot, since the
> pacemaker cells had never been found.
>
> But certainly I would agree that our observations and value judgement may
> be flawed. I think that is the benefit of this whole field of study: we no
> longer have to rely on a single model of hierarchical structures.  We now
> have distributed models that can also work, and we simply select whichever
> model fits best.
>
> I, too, am enjoying this conversation.
>
> -T
>
> On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Victoria Hughes 
> wrote:
>
>> But by your own definition, an emergent property requires correlated
>> feedback in the system
>> supression is as likely to emerge as leadership, and thus we revert to the
>> question in earlier conversations about the value systems of the observer
>> fabricating the label of emergent or not. Right?
>> Or, seconding Dr B, am I just not used to your terminology?
>>
>> Certainly am enjoying this.
>>
>> Tory
>>
>>
>>
>> On Apr 10, 2010, at 2:41 PM, Ted Carmichael wrote:
>>
>> Comments below...
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky <
>> vbur...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> Wow, wait  a second,
>>>
>>> If the objec

Re: [FRIAM] leadership in flocks

[Ted Carmichael]

No, it's a good question, Tory.  I said I wasn't sure about the label
"emergent" being applied to suppression, and I'm not.  Thinking about it
more, it's a good idea to clarify the terminology.

Let's see ... a single act of suppression is feedback that helps to preserve
the emergent feature of a leadership hierarchy.  A single action is not
emergent (at least, in this scope).  But I'll have to agree that the term
"suppression" could easily represent *correlated feedback* among many
agents, and is thus also an emergent feature.  I guess I was just thinking
of suppression as part of the leadership "basin of attraction."

I mean, it's the same thing from a different perspective, isn't it?  Kind of
like: do you call mud "dirty water," or "wet dirt?"  The water is part of
it, the dirt is part of it, but it's easier to just call the whole thing
"mud."  In this case, the leadership hierarchy persists, the correlated
feedback is part of it, and it's all emergent.

So, I reckon we're talking about the same thing.

In regards to the observer's value system, I would say that traditionally,
we tended to view things like slime mold and ant colonies through the prism
of human hierarchical systems.  Keller, and Segal showed that - in the case
of slime mold - a distinct "pacemaker" cell (i.e., a leader) was not
necessary to produce the emergent property.  This helped a lot, since the
pacemaker cells had never been found.

But certainly I would agree that our observations and value judgement may be
flawed. I think that is the benefit of this whole field of study: we no
longer have to rely on a single model of hierarchical structures.  We now
have distributed models that can also work, and we simply select whichever
model fits best.

I, too, am enjoying this conversation.

-T

On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Victoria Hughes wrote:

> But by your own definition, an emergent property requires correlated
> feedback in the system
> supression is as likely to emerge as leadership, and thus we revert to the
> question in earlier conversations about the value systems of the observer
> fabricating the label of emergent or not. Right?
> Or, seconding Dr B, am I just not used to your terminology?
>
> Certainly am enjoying this.
>
> Tory
>
>
>
> On Apr 10, 2010, at 2:41 PM, Ted Carmichael wrote:
>
> Comments below...
>
> On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky <
> vbur...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>>
> Emergence is a tough concept.  My understanding is, an emergent property
> requires correlated feedback in the system.  A pack of dogs following a
> single rabbit, say - with the rabbit's actions influencing the dogs, and the
> dogs' actions influencing each other - may display emergent properties.  For
> example, in an open, flat field, the rabbit may be more likely to run in a
> straight line, with individual dogs occasionally keeping the rabbit from
> diverging to the left or the right.  The straight line would be the emergent
> property.  The dogs are both trying to catch the rabbit and avoid crashing
> into other dogs, producing a "flock" of dogs.
>
>
>
>>
>> "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?
>>
>
> I'm not sure I would label 'suppression' as emergent.  Depends on exactly
> what you are referring to.  Perhaps a better label is "feedback?"
>
> What's interesting about 

Re: [FRIAM] leadership in flocks

[Victoria Hughes]

But by your own definition, an emergent property requires correlated  
feedback in the system
supression is as likely to emerge as leadership, and thus we revert to  
the question in earlier conversations about the value systems of the  
observer fabricating the label of emergent or not. Right?

Or, seconding Dr B, am I just not used to your terminology?

Certainly am enjoying this.

Tory



On Apr 10, 2010, at 2:41 PM, Ted Carmichael wrote:


Comments below...

On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky > wrote:

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.


Emergence is a tough concept.  My understanding is, an emergent  
property requires correlated feedback in the system.  A pack of dogs  
following a single rabbit, say - with the rabbit's actions  
influencing the dogs, and the dogs' actions influencing each other -  
may display emergent properties.  For example, in an open, flat  
field, the rabbit may be more likely to run in a straight line, with  
individual dogs occasionally keeping the rabbit from diverging to  
the left or the right.  The straight line would be the emergent  
property.  The dogs are both trying to catch the rabbit and avoid  
crashing into other dogs, producing a "flock" of dogs.




"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?

I'm not sure I would label 'suppression' as emergent.  Depends on  
exactly what you are referring to.  Perhaps a better label is  
"feedback?"


What's interesting about the leadership hierarchies, in human  
systems, is that the structures themselves are an emergent  
property.  Persistent patterns, changing components.  The leadership  
hierarchy becomes a "basin of attraction," with it's own support  
structures and correlated feedbacks, even as the people within the  
hierarchy change over time.


-t

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

Re: [FRIAM] leadership in flocks

[Ted Carmichael]

Comments below...

On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky
wrote:

> 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.
>
>
Emergence is a tough concept.  My understanding is, an emergent property
requires correlated feedback in the system.  A pack of dogs following a
single rabbit, say - with the rabbit's actions influencing the dogs, and the
dogs' actions influencing each other - may display emergent properties.  For
example, in an open, flat field, the rabbit may be more likely to run in a
straight line, with individual dogs occasionally keeping the rabbit from
diverging to the left or the right.  The straight line would be the emergent
property.  The dogs are both trying to catch the rabbit and avoid crashing
into other dogs, producing a "flock" of dogs.



>
> "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?
>

I'm not sure I would label 'suppression' as emergent.  Depends on exactly
what you are referring to.  Perhaps a better label is "feedback?"

What's interesting about the leadership hierarchies, in human systems, is
that the structures themselves are an emergent property.  Persistent
patterns, changing components.  The leadership hierarchy becomes a "basin of
attraction," with it's own support structures and correlated feedbacks, even
as the people within the hierarchy change over time.

-t

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

Re: [FRIAM] leadership in flocks

[Steve Smith]

Vladimyr -

  
  
  
  
  A “leader”
in a cycling peloton
is such a temporary phenomenon that one has to be very careful how the
term it
is used. But in the bird flock the leader seems to be part of a social
dynamic
which might not actual exist but in the minds of the writers? 
  

I agree
strongly with this point.   

I think scientists (maybe especially those working in complexity?) are
as prone as "civilians" to projection in their observations of natural
phenomena.   We see a "lead bird" and assume that the bird is
"leading".   

A cynical variation on this in human populations (especially in
Dilbereetaville) is the observation that many of our leaders are really
like a "band leader" who sees the parade and jumps out in front of it
waving his/her baton.


Merle -

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.

I am not inclined to
disagree that this happens (all too frequently) but I wonder at the
assumption in the first phrase "rather than stepping aside".  It
suggests that any leader is interested in the health of the
flock/herd/tribe/state.   I don't think that herd and pack animals'
leaders act much differently than human leaders in this case.   They
seem to be driven by instinct to maintain dominance over the group,
often defending that dominance unto death.   It is their instincts to
dominate and survive that leads the pack/herd to survival.   An active
form of metonymy where he group inherits (some of) the characteristics
of the leader.

Do we believe that humans are truly unique in this trait?   It seems to
me that "leadership" in all animals is emergent and a consequence of
local forces (the individual urge to be dominant, almost exclusively
among males, at least among mammals).  Humans have the latent
possibility for something more altruistic/noble perhaps... but it is
the failure to rise to such altruism/nobility rather than a degeneracy
away from what is "natural" for herd/pack mammals?

I was just reading John Searle's mind language and society
where he makes the case that only humans have a significant grasp on
causality.   This suggests to me that non-human "leaders" are leading
circumstantially, instinctively, emergently and are "selected" the same
way.   

 It is *only* in humans that we see any significant deviation from this
toward altruism... and that often seems only to be apparent, rather
than real.   Do we have true leaders/statesmen or do we merely have
politicians who know how to pose as the former?

I also accede that many cultures have managed to enhance the
hierarchy/patriarchy (why are matriarchies never impugned by
attribution of these traits?) into dysfunctional caricatures (albeit
ones that often span generations and huge regions).

I've ranted here before about "Homo Hiveus" and will indulge in a brief
revisit of that rant.   I very much want to attribute a lot of human's
collective "bad behaviour" on acting completely out of the scale we
were evolved for.  If we evolved in family groups of 100-200 among
clans of perhaps thousands in ethnic/language groups of perhaps tens of
thousands, how in the world do we expect even cities of millions to
make sense much less a world with billions.   We are evolved to make
decisions based on family and trust networks with dozens of others, not
millions and billions.  Our artificial social/economic/religious
constructs of church/currency/state have allowed us to operate outside
of these natural scales but at what cost?   

As an often-maligned male, I take exception to the general assumption
that the problems of abusive/runaway hierarchy are a male-only trait.  
Power Corrupts.  Period.  On Venus as well as on Mars.   Do we have any
evidence that women do better at "leading" totally out-of-scale
societies than men?   If there is any (anecdotal?) evidence in support
of Matriarchy, it might be that Matriarchies don't seem to grow out of
control the way the Patriarchies in evidence have?   

- Steve





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

Re: [FRIAM] leadership in flocks

[Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky]

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 
> 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 lear

Re: [FRIAM] leadership in flocks

[Merle Lefkoff]

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 
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

Re: [FRIAM] leadership in flocks

[Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky]

How similar to the sperm peloton and the cyclist peloton, now we have flocks
with leaders and cliques?.

 

If each model has a different organizing principle then why does my simple
mind think there are similarities?

 

I liked Hugh Trenchard's ideas the best, there was no need for more than a
simple available power assessment on the part of the individual agent.
Sticking the term leadership into the discussion really puts a strange twist
to everything.  

 

Trenchard's ideas would have probably worked for the flocks equally well,
and that is truly interesting. Craig Reynolds 1982? wrote his early "Boids "
paper with only very simple principles none of which included power or
aerodynamics.

 

Same organized behavior but completely different principles. Do we force
complex interpretations where simple ones suffice.

 

A "leader" in a cycling peloton is such a temporary phenomenon that one has
to be very careful how the term it is used. But in the bird flock the leader
seems to be part of a social dynamic which might not actual exist but in the
minds of the writers? 

 

Inventing complex explanations for simple situations seems similar to what
conspiracy theorists practice.

 

 

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

 <mailto:vbur...@shaw.ca> vbur...@shaw.ca 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf
Of Ted Carmichael
Sent: April 10, 2010 5:39 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] leadership in flocks

 

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
 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

Re: [FRIAM] leadership in flocks

[Nicholas Thompson]

Ted, 

Perhaps I havent been following this thread closely enough to put my oar in, 
but the following passage  caught my eye: 

"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."

Think about this passage as if the "boids" were cells in a early developing 
embryo.  EVERY cell is exactly the same, yet some become leaders.  We will be 
talking about this next fall in a CUSF seminar on epigenisis. 

Nick 

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, 
Clark University (nthomp...@clarku.edu)
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
http://www.cusf.org [City University of Santa Fe]




- Original Message - 
From: Ted Carmichael 
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Sent: 4/10/2010 4:39:22 AM 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] leadership in flocks


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 
 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

Re: [FRIAM] leadership in flocks

[Ted Carmichael]

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> 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

Re: [FRIAM] leadership in flocks

[Douglas Roberts]

Of course, one significant difference between bird flocking behavior and
human religious flocking behavior is that birds have brains...

--Doug

On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 6:57 PM, glen e. p. ropella <
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

Re: [FRIAM] leadership in flocks

[glen e. p. ropella]

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

Re: [FRIAM] leadership in flocks

[sarbajit roy]

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

Source: http://books.google.com/books?id=6NkvMc41_0cC&;
Title: "Great Men ..." (1868)  (pg.8)
Author : Keshub Chandra Sen

"Great men are sent by Grod into the world to benefit mankind. They are His
apostles and missionaries, who bring to us glad tidings from heaven ; and in
order that they may effectually accomplish their errands they are endowed by
Him with requisite power and talents. They are created with a nature
superior to that of others, which is at once the testimonial of their
apostleship and the guarantee of their success.

They are not made great by culture or experience : they are born great. They
are ordained and sanctified as prophets at  their birth. They succeed, not
because of any ability acquired through personal exertions, nor of any
favorable combination of outward circumstances, but by reason of their
inherent greatness. It is God's light that makes them shine, and enables
them to illumine the world. He puts in their very constitution something
that is super-human and divine ; hence their greatness and superiority. They
are great on account of the large measure of divine spirit which they
possess and manifest.

It is true they are men, but who will deny that they are above ordinary
humanity ? Though human, they are divine. This is the striking peculiarity
of all great men. In them we see a strange and mysterious combination of the
human and divine nature, of the earthly and the heavenly. It is easy to
distinguish a great man, but it is difficult to comprehend him. A deep
mystery hangs over the root of his life : the essence of his being is an
inexplicable riddle. Who can solve it ? That some nations have carried their
reverence for prophets so far as to deify them, and worship them as God, or
rather God in human shape, does not in the least appear to me surprising or
unaccountable, however guilty they may be of man-worship. For if a prophet
is not God, is he a mere man ? That cannot be. Such an hypothesis would not
adequately explain all the problems of his life. The fact is, as I have
already said, he is both divine and human ; he is both God and man. He is a
"God-man". "

On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 10:43 PM, glen e. p. ropella <
g...@agent-based-modeling.com> wrote:

>
> Although I tend to agree with you because I think validation and trust
> are synonyms, I think it's too easy to cherry pick conclusions from
> either article and say that their research is evidence for those
> conclusions.
>
> The Nagy article merely gives evidence that particular birds may well
> lead flocks, in general.  (But remember that not all flocks are the
> same.  These are expert racing pigeons, after all. ;-)  But it doesn't
> demonstrate that flocking _always_ requires particular leaders.  It's
> sufficient but perhaps not necessary.
>
> And although the Quera article has validation problems, it might still
> be taken for rhetorical evidence supporting the idea that, in some (real
> world) flocks, perhaps leadership is emergent.  I.e. it is _possible_
> that (real world) flocking doesn't require particular leaders.
>
> As Sarbajit was saying, any single research effort gives us only a tiny,
> flawed, aspect of reality.  So, while I also trust the data-based
> modeling done by Nagy et al more, I wouldn't denigrate Quera et al as
> pure fluff.  I also wouldn't convict myself to only trusting data-based
> rhetoric and disbelieving model-based rhetoric.  But, obviously, that's
> me. [grin]
>
>
> Robert Holmes wrote circa 10-04-07 06:17 PM:
> > A thoroughly neat synchronicity in the current research on flocking.
> >
> > Here's some
> > science:
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7290/full/nature08891.html(populist
> > version here
> > )
> >
> > And here's some fluff: http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/13/2/8.html
> >
> > They come up with distinctly different conclusions. Guess which one I
> trust.
>
>
> --
> 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

Re: [FRIAM] leadership in flocks

[glen e. p. ropella]

Although I tend to agree with you because I think validation and trust
are synonyms, I think it's too easy to cherry pick conclusions from
either article and say that their research is evidence for those
conclusions.

The Nagy article merely gives evidence that particular birds may well
lead flocks, in general.  (But remember that not all flocks are the
same.  These are expert racing pigeons, after all. ;-)  But it doesn't
demonstrate that flocking _always_ requires particular leaders.  It's
sufficient but perhaps not necessary.

And although the Quera article has validation problems, it might still
be taken for rhetorical evidence supporting the idea that, in some (real
world) flocks, perhaps leadership is emergent.  I.e. it is _possible_
that (real world) flocking doesn't require particular leaders.

As Sarbajit was saying, any single research effort gives us only a tiny,
flawed, aspect of reality.  So, while I also trust the data-based
modeling done by Nagy et al more, I wouldn't denigrate Quera et al as
pure fluff.  I also wouldn't convict myself to only trusting data-based
rhetoric and disbelieving model-based rhetoric.  But, obviously, that's
me. [grin]


Robert Holmes wrote circa 10-04-07 06:17 PM:
> A thoroughly neat synchronicity in the current research on flocking.
> 
> Here's some
> science: 
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7290/full/nature08891.html 
> (populist
> version here
> )
> 
> And here's some fluff: http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/13/2/8.html
> 
> They come up with distinctly different conclusions. Guess which one I trust.


-- 
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