data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fccd1/fccd117fc491c2630cb87fac4abcef24e2bfb6e6" alt="Science Science"
Simulating Societies 231
blamanj writes "Most of us were exposed fairly early to Conway's game of Life.
A few simple rules produce a fascinating variety of behavior. Now, it
appears that similar simulations can predict the behavior of populations and human societies."
One word (Score:4, Funny)
Re:One word (Score:3, Funny)
A pebble in the sky (Score:1)
There's one book of him I haven't read yet because I couldn't find it: A Pebble In The Sky.. I wonder if I can find it anywhere.
- Elkobim
Re:A pebble in the sky (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0345335635 [amazon.com]
It is quite a good story, actually.
A pebble in the sky - used is theft (Score:2)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/03453356
It is quite a good story, actually.
Right now the Writers of America are boycotting Amazon. Every time you buy a used book from them the author gets nothing, nada, not a cent.
They are the pirates of our generation, the RIAA of the MP3 world.
As with music, where you should buy the CD from the musicians instead of thru RIAA (hint - they make $5 for a $6 CD they sell in person, and $0.02 for a $15 CD you buy thru RIAA) - for books you should buy from the author (e.g. printed book). they get no money for their work when you buy it used.
Note that libraries do kick back to authors - and in Canada and the EU they kick back a big chunk of change. So please check it out at the library before you buy it used from Amazon.
[note - I'm biased, I've sold stories myself]
-
Re:A pebble in the sky - used is theft (Score:2)
A Pebble in the Sky is out of print. I couldn't buy it new if I wanted to.
Let me tell you what I would like. I would like to be able to go to the authors site and buy a copy of an ebook directly from them without paying a publisher. I think that a lot of the publishers in this country are as bad as the RIAA as far as exploiting authors. I want to be able to buy in such a way as to have the majority of my funds go to the author of the book.
But I digress. Back on the subject: In this specific situation, I don't see any option other than to buy used. In fact, the original poster said "I would have read it but I can't find a copy to read".
One more point. In the US, as far as I know (and I've been around quite a few libraries in roles other than a patron), there are no royalties paid to authors. In fact, in a lot of cases a not insignificant portion of the library's collection consist of "used" donated books which someone has purchased, read and then donated.
Re:A pebble in the sky - used is theft (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you also support Disney's position that I should have to pay them a royalty every time I watch a DVD that I purchased? I won't buy DVDs or CDs or anything else under that plan, and I won't buy books under your plan. Period. If you want to kill your market, go right ahead -- there's pleanty of other entertainment sources that take a more reasonable view.
Re:What other entertainment is there? (Score:2)
Lots to read here. [promo.net]
Or maybe you'd prefer some free and legal MP3s [about.com].
Re:A pebble in the sky (Score:2, Informative)
Re:One word (Score:1)
This post was only two minutes shy of being the most appropriate first-post in slashdot history.
Beware The Mule.
Re:One word (Score:2, Interesting)
The question is: is this inspired by Asimovs' excellent work or is it a completely new approach???
Do not beware of the Mule. Beware of Daneel R. Olivaw and his friend Giskard R. Relentlov..... They are much more dangerous....
Re:One word (Score:2)
But, perhaps having Daneel there to guide the course of history is exactly what Seldon needs to cancel the Mule out.
TWW
Re:One word (Score:2)
The impression I got from all the Foundation novels (Asimov's, at least) was that Psychohistory was 'Calculus for People'. It was a mathematical system for prediction of events. The processes described in the article are more simulative in nature. With Psychohistory, you have the initial conditions, apply your equations, and viola, instant future histories! With the 'Psyhco-simulator', the only way to see what will happen is to repeatedly apply the very simple rules of the game to your scenario and only then will you have any idea how things might turn out.
It's not a perfect analogy, but... Psychohistory is to simulations as Newton is to Quantum Mechanics.
Re:One word (Score:2)
Re:One word (Score:2)
Re:One word (Score:2)
Where from???
Senior Lecturer of Computing, University of Sunderland
Yi'aye, man: we're go'un doon th' toon!
TWW
Related links... (Score:2, Informative)
Music created [aol.com] using the game of life
Re:Related links... (Score:1)
Once again Pr1me history.. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Once again Pr1me history.. (Score:2)
It was all we had...
- SWM
Slashdot study (Score:1)
Turing Machine (Score:2, Informative)
If you're into this stuff, this link [rendell.uk.co] is cool.
Chaos theory (Score:1)
Re:Chaos theory (Score:1)
I thought conception works the same way for all babies. Or do you mean when twins form or something goes wrong during conception and the baby has deformities or something?
Re:Chaos theory (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Chaos theory (Score:2)
Another example of this is the information life insurance adjusters use. They can tell you with striking precision how many 30 year old males will die in a year out of 100,000. They just can't tell you which ones it will be.
Chaos is Fractal, a second-order derivative. (Score:2)
As for God, when he calls you on the phone, tells you where Bin Laden's hiding and what the results of tomorrow's lotto pick, then you can publish a paper on his existence. Until then, less God and more functioning brain cells, please.
My prediction (Score:2)
So what? (Score:3, Funny)
The primary problem is that the raw data cannot predict the movement of society, so therefor conjecture must be used. The conjecture is based on a hypothesis which is based on one of the obove basic viewpoints: religion vs. lack-thereof, pessimissm vs. optimism and basic intelligence of the average human vs. lack-thereof.
Unless the person who writes the simulation is a prophet or exceptionally gifted, the software will be as flawed as any other model.
Re:So what? (Score:1)
Re:So what? (Score:2)
When I was a kid living in the Northwest, it was an astounding feat if a weatherman could deliver an accurate report for the next day (other than saying 'it'll probably rain', which anyone could state with a fair chance of being right). Nowadays weathermen are regularly accurate a week in advance, and for individual days within that week. That says something if you live in Oregon or Washington.
Sociologists are treading much the same path. They've discarded most of the crap after spending the first 95% of their history examining mountains of data and trying to draw conclusions from it; now they're forming models and seeing how well they test for predictive value. Sure, the models will be wrong alot, especially at the beginning, but they *will* get better over time as refinement occurs. There's no reason to believe otherwise, as certain narrowly predictive models for large groups (e.g., insurance policies) are insanely accurate right now.
No doubt some people will whine and moan that humans just aren't predictable (in an effort to convince themselves that they make their own destiny apart from the influences of society) but this is just spitting into the wind. Human groups are predictable; it's just a matter of finding the right models and correcting them over time.
Max
Distinguish between Modelling and Emulation.... (Score:3, Insightful)
And there are real problems with this school of thought, not the least of which is its claim that getting complex interactions out of simple assumptions is any harder than getting complex interactions out of a great deal of assumptions. It should be self-evident that complexity in this type of research stems largely from the number of actors, not the determinants of their behavior.
Deeper problems include assumptions of rationality and intentionality on the part of actors. There is also a tendency towards selection bias and selectivity THAT IS NEVER ADDRESSED. IE, this author may think he explains ethnic genocide in Rwanda, but never points out that his logic fails miserable in places like Switzerland, Brazil, Mexico, Russia and much of the Middle-East, where his model would predict much MORE conflict than we see.
Re:Distinguish between Modelling and Emulation.... (Score:2)
Multiagent Systems (Score:5, Insightful)
Another way to look at it is that cellular automata like Life use a single deterministic rule to govern the whole system. Agent-based systems, on the other hand, model goal-oriented behavior of the individual objects.
Again, Conway's game can be viewed as a very special case of an simple agent system, but the spirit of what is being done with agent systems is typically more involved. Comparing these systems to Conway's game of Life may create an incorrect impression for those not familiar with agent programming.
Worked with these guys in college (Score:4, Informative)
If you found this article interesting, their book is a great exposition of their early work with emergent behaviors. You can find it at Amazon here:
Growing Artificial Societies [amazon.com]
There is a similar article on complexity and emergent behavior in the latest Harvard Business Review.
-XDG
...who wrote a really horrible book... (Score:2, Interesting)
First, the book is full of examples, but nowhere to Epstein and Axtell give you enough information to actually reproduce their results (a classic mark of shady science).
Second, there are parts of the book where they draw conclusions from things that are obviously simulation artifacts (ie. if you change the grid size, these effects disappear or are mitigated severely).
Did I mention their lack of understanding of basic computer science issues? (Their formal training is in the social sciences).
For a pair of scholars at the esteemed Brookings Institute, you would would expect more. Unfortunately, you wouldn't get it.
Don't buy their book.
Re:A counter-correction... (Score:2)
Really? Then what possible use are the results? The article talks a lot about a simulation that suggests that segregation is not due to racism but to simple emergent properties. If it turns out that this is a simple artifact due to the grid size, then the results are worse then useless -- they are actually harmful.
Uh... Police State? (Score:4, Insightful)
Hmmm... So the simulation is accurate, but I would hypothesize that it does not show that a free society will trend towards "honesty."
Re:Uh... Police State? (Score:1)
Re:Uh... Police State? (Score:1)
Re:Uh... Police State? (Score:2)
However, "Police State" usually connotes that people are imprisoned for beliefs, not actions. The US isn't considered a police state (except by a fringe population) because its OK in the US to advocate smoking pot, but it is illegal to actually perform the action.
Personally, as a non-drug user, I think all drug laws should be repealed. Get rid of DUI and simply punish people for reckless driving. If you still feel the need to punish people extra for using drugs, increase penalties for crimes committed under the influence, whether it's vandalism or reckless driving or murder.
-jon
Re:Uh... Police State? (Score:2)
<SARCASM>
Come on, using drugs helps terrorists. I saw it on TV, so I know it must be true.
</SARCASM>
(SARCASM tags added under the ADA to assist the sarcasm impaired.)
Re:Uh... Police State? (Score:2)
Think Prohibition. It was better for August Busch to be supplying America with alcohol than it was for Al Capone. We may have more drunks, but we have fewer Valentine Day Massacres. And the government certainly collects more in taxes from sales of Bud than they did from sales of whatever hooch Capone was peddling.
If the government officially sanctions the sale of Coke, Heroin, Pot, PCP, Crystal, LSD, X, whatever, it would make a forture for the government in tax revenues. Heck, if drug companies could make and sell recreational drugs, the cost of the pills that actually help people would drop like a rock. Cancer drugs subsided by crack. I like the idea.
-jon
BUG IN THE MODEL (Score:4, Interesting)
A fatal flaw of this simulation (as a model of real society, that is) is that it includes the "Cincinatus" characters - the incorruptible agents - but does not include the "Dillingers" - agents who are not deterred by punishment, of themselves or of others.
I have found over the years that people who are not influenced by "common sense" (or even an informed sense of self-preservation) are much more common than incorruptible people. Luckily (perhaps) these people more commonly are obsessed with greed than killing, or we'd have a lot more mayhem and a few less rich people.
Thus, the simultation should include agents that are not influenced by the arrest rate, and the model will probably become cyclic instead of trending to a fixed equilibrium.
Your statement that "the simulation is accurate" is unfounded, as any serious study of real behaviour in a police state will show. The Chinese shoot homosexuals and drug addicts; yet they still occur just as frequently as in other nations with less draconian laws. The US is "soft on crime" according to the Immoral Minority, yet our crime rates continue to drop.
But of course, anyone who thinks humans are simple agents with simple motivations is very unobservant.
--Charlie
Re:BUG IN THE MODEL (Score:2)
This is just silly. No-one argues that it is not a complex situation, but on the same note, It is possible to model cell behaviour without accounting for the mitochondria, since the whole of the cell acts consistently. As a whole, so do humans, so we can model group behaviour without finding out everyone's height, weight, and sex.
Re:Uh... Police State? (Score:2)
I know, because i live in a corrupt, supid country like argentina where there are tons of honest and great people, but the mayority....welll......
Re:Not a police state (Score:2)
Dr Seldon ? (Score:1, Redundant)
Asimov has a habit of predicting scientic advances such as robotics(Everyone know Asimovs laws of robotics ?)
Ok he was basing it on the presumption that you could predict the behviour of very large population (ie whole planets),but the concept was the same
Better watch out for the Mule...
Controlling, not predicting (Score:2)
But that then changes the whole psychohistory bent and Foundation away from predicting the future, and instead takes it into controlling the future. It kinda makes one wonder how much 'nudging' the second Foundation had been doing up to the point where the Mule showed up.
Hmm... and I guess that changes Harry Seldon from a visionary into a Despot. Well, at least he was a benevolent one.
honest experiment (Score:1)
Hari Seldon (Score:3, Funny)
For those of you who will counter that I'm neglecting the point of the Second Foundation manipulating things... don't spoil it for me. Seldon still had to get at least the first several decades right you know.
Re:Hari Seldon (Score:4, Insightful)
The problems lie elsewhere. Two that come to mind quickly are (1) lack of agreed upon factual data to use as the basis of the hypotheses. Do people with green skin have more or fewer babies out of wedlock than people with orange skin, and has this number increased or decreased over the last 10 years? Even in the US, with the Census data and tremendous amounts of market research, there are no agreed-upon answers to fundamental questions of data. Plenty of Newtons but no Kepler.
(2) None of these models are reversible. Put in a starting point of today's conditions, set the time increment to -1, and run the simulation backwards for 100 years. What comes out will be nothing like the world as it actually was in 1900. If we can't accuratly predict what happened in the past, how can we have any belief that the models tell us anything meaningful about the future?
sPh
Re:Hari Seldon (Score:4, Interesting)
You're correct about the models not necessarily being reversable - meaning that you can't predict history from the future. However, the correct method of verifying a simulation as correct is to verify the simulation results against known data. In the article, where it talks about the Anasazi, they describe writing the simulation and then letting it run through they years that they have data about the Anasazi (where the villiages are, the water availability, etc) and comparing it to reality. As described, they got quite close to reality. Villiages ending up in the same spot as reality over 50% of the time, etc. etc. etc.. Remember, it is very hard to determine the cause (or stimulus) from the effect without additional data. However, if the cause (stimulus) is known, the effect is usually fairly easy to guess.
If we were to try to build a model of today's history, you would want to build the model, seed it like the world was in the 1700's or earlier and let it run, and see how often it ended up correct. If it wasn't quite accurate, figure out where your model is wrong, fix, and repeat.
In the Asimov stories, what Hari Seldon was doing was to come up with a set of "formulas" (stored in the prime radiant) which accurately simulated history. The more accurate the formulas and the data you have, the more correct you are going to be. Hari and the members of the Foundation were constantly working on tweaks to better account for errors in the simulation. The hard part is dealing with the truly random influences. For instance, in the article when they talked about the Anasazi, they used real weather data instead of simulating it. I suspect if the weather data was simulated, the simulation would not have been as accurate on a year-to-year basis, although if the weather simulation was realistic enough I suspect that the outcome would have been similar.
Thinking back about Psychohistory as put forward by Asimov, I think that the only thing which really stretches for me is the accuracy (within a few months) of the events which he predicted-- taking into account the numerous variables which have such a rare occurance (such as an asteroid hitting a planet wiping everything out, or another major random event), that it would be throw the accuracy of small-scale events off. It seems logical that you can be accurate on a large scale on a simulation (over many thousands of years) or on a small scale (over a hundred years or so), but not both with the same simulation.
Re:Hari Seldon (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem with the "running forward from 1900" test is that the model includes, both explicitly and subconsciously, the model maker's view and understanding of the world that already exists. Including the events that occured between 1900 and 2000, say. So of course you would expect it to show reasonably accurate results for that time period - otherwise it would have been discarded during the development phase. However, that is no guarantee that the model is accurate outside the limits of that perception of the world.
I ran into exactly this problem myself. I developed several system dynamics models that seemed to give a good simulation of the population and wealth of the City of Chicago from 1950 to 1980. But when I ran them starting with the base data for similar cities, I got meaningless results. What seemed on first examination to be a general model of city population was actually just a condensed way of displaying the known state of one particular city.
So stronger tests than just "run forward to known state" are needed. Some argue that human events include irreversible processes, so perhaps the "run backwards" test is not valid. But more is needed than a demonstration between two known states.
sPh
Re:Hari Seldon (Score:2)
Maybe there is some kind of nuclear war, maybe not, yet, the long term predicions should match no matter how long it takes us to reach them.
I don't think you can both predict what will happen and WHEN will happen. You just can't unless you simulate atom for atom, dna for dna. Which is like duplicating the world (of course you could eventually do that, but by then we'll no longer be humans).
Re:Hari Seldon (Score:2)
Well, of course. What if a nuke slipped caused by a hardware failure or someone gone insane? The model would have been 100000x wrong, even if it was perfect. I think the main reason you can predict a line is because our world puts too much power in few individuals (say: Bush, Sadam, the guy with the finger in the button, etc). So eventually, you'd need to emulate a perfect sadam, a perfect bush and know if Bush or gore would win an election. That would depend on legal muscle and unkown variables (to the general public at least)...
So eventually, it could predict what would happen but assuming the world is run in a way consensus prevails, and not just 10 guys moving the world and AFFECTING all the population, but the inverse.
It would be usefull though to predict short/medium term results given constant update of what this guys are doing. Societies don't change much over the years.
Re:Hari Seldon (Score:2, Informative)
Part of this is the convergence problem. There are a large number of Life patterns that lead to a blinker or a blank screen. Starting with the blinker won't take you back to them. This doesn't invalidate running forward and matching to results. The real problem is finding the initial conditions.
Re:Do not use your more recent data to set your mo (Score:3, Informative)
sPh
Re:Hari Seldon (Score:2)
Of course, psychohistory was a statistical science, dealing with the probability that a large mass of people would do X...
Sociology (Score:2)
--
Everybody must get stoned.
Re:Sociology (Score:3, Insightful)
But that's exactly what the corruption/honesty simulation is trying to argue against. It is saying that traditional social science modelling is fundamentally flawed because it assumes everyone in a particular group behaves the same and has unlimited knowledge.
A social model that viewed individuals as multiple copies of the same fully informed person could thus never "see" the social transformation that Hammond found, for the simple reason that without diversity and limited knowledge, the transformation never happens. Given that human beings are invariably diverse and that the knowledge at their disposal is invariably limited, it would seem to follow that even societies in which unsophisticated people obey rudimentary rules will produce surprises and discontinuities--events that cannot be foreseen either through intuition or through the more conventional sorts of social science.
Re:Sociology (Score:2)
Issac Asimov's Harry Seldon (Score:2, Redundant)
Other large scale societal modeling took place with The Club of Rome's Limits to Growth [clubofrome.org] -- It used the SIMULA simulation language to investigate such questions as population growth, resource usage, environmental degradation and capital investment as co-related variables. They came to some very interesting (and even disturbing) conclusions.
Re:Issac Asimov's Harry Seldon (Score:3, Interesting)
Problem is, the Club of Rome predicted that everyone in the Western world would either be starving to death or choked in their own waste by the far-off year 2000. Looking out my window today, I see that things are far from perfect, but we have a higher population, more food, and in many respects less pollution than we did in 1975. So the CoR's models were dead wrong.
sPh
Problems with the models (Score:3, Interesting)
For example, let's say your population growth model includes a value for "food value produced per acre of land". If something comes along that allows more food to be produced per acre, then that'll skew the models to hell.
This actually happened. A new strain of wheat (?) was produced a few years ago that was able to survive in much tougher conditions, and that single-handedly staved off starvation in India.
The same with waste levels. recycling has become much more prevelent, and modern cars are so much better that they're actually starting to _clean_ the air that passes through them.
The models were accurate the day they were published, but the run conditions have changed since.
DG
Re:Issac Asimov's Harry Seldon (Score:2)
The simulator was a mainframe program when it was written in the 1970s, and only the High Priests could run it. Eventually, it was ported to PC, and anyone could play with it.
I read an article (Dr. Dobbs Journal?) a few years ago by someone who spent some time running the simulator with various assumptions. He found that the model was *very* sensitive to a single parameter--I think it was pollution per capita. If that parameter was set above certain value, then the model predicted environmental catastrophy, pretty much independently of everything else.
This led me to discount the predictive value of the model.
- SWM
Sensitivity analysis (Score:2)
Which is an interesting result. It suggests that this is the key thing for society to concentrate on in order to prevent disaster.
Of course you don't want to embark on such a course based purely on Limits to Growth, but the value of such simulations is that they tell you where the hidden levers are, even if they can't give precise predictions about what happens when you pull them.
Paul.
The game of life (Score:2, Funny)
Was I the only one who thought that?
a game perhaps? (Score:1)
Re:a game perhaps? (Score:2)
We are simple (Score:2, Interesting)
simple rules, but we humans use simple rules
too because we are simple minded and are usually
driven by simple heuristics. It's not suprising
that the simulated behaviour closely matches
real behaviour. Fot it to be otherwise would
take a level of intelligence we don't seem
to have.
they simulated Enron...no really, they did (Score:1)
As in real life, a few A-firms live and thrive for generations, but most are evanescent, and now and then a really big one collapses despite having been stable for years. Sometimes the addition of one slacker too many can push a seemingly solid firm into instability and fission; but you can't be sure in advance which firm will crumble, or when.
Sound familiar to anyone?
Cool :) (Score:1)
I must say I enjoyed this story very much.
Prisoner's Dilemma Simulation of Kin-Selection (Score:2)
Here is a paper (by the same author) on the simulation of the evolution of communication based on kin structure [soton.ac.uk] under the Prisoner's Dilemma [csu.edu.au].
I had a simulator like this on my Commodore 64 (Score:2)
Getting it backwards (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Getting it backwards (Score:2)
But it does demonstrate how unlikely it is that an integrated environment will be the result if a significant part of members of society is looking for an "integrated" neighborhood:
Everyone that moves to a neighborhood raises the chance that the neighborhood, or parts of it becomes becomes dominated enough by a particular race that fewer people consider it integrated. This causes a domino effect: Everyone looking for integration will keep on moving out of "ghettos", and will extend the ghettos that way.
As such it demonstrates that wanting to live in an integrated environment is not necessarily achieved by moving to the best integrated environment, but by moving into the proximity of a ghetto of predominantly people of another race.
That is unlikely to happen unless the "ghetto" has desirable factors. Such factor might be to be prestigeous, to have low crime rates, good schools etc. However those factors are closely related to the issues you bring up, and if people in the poor group wants to integrate they can't afford to, and if people in the "wealthy" group wants to help integration they have to move to the "bad part of town".
So even if the model is extremely simplistic, it does point at one possible contributing factor to the formation of ghettos: Everything else being equal, for integration to occur a significant amount of people need to be willing to either move to or stay in an area they perceive as a ghetto with mostly people of another race.
Re:Not even getting it at all! (Score:2)
They're quite relevant, it's just that the logical results from those factors were already included in. Poor income distribution, job access, and government actions are all among the factors that can lead to racism. The simulation started with the assumption that racism existed, so assuming the factors that lead to it is unneccesary.
What would be interesting is to run a detailed sim where racism is not assumed, but the factors we think lead to it are.
not buying it (Score:2, Insightful)
The models described seem far too simple to describe something as complicated as society. As a physicist who has dabbled in biology, I know the perils of applying simple models to biological systems. How sensitive are these models to the addition of another type of interaction between people, or another outside influence? For every simple model that shows A>B, I can come up with one that shows B>A, unless the simple model is very well rooted in fhe fundamental physics (or sociology) of the problem. I don't believe that the fundamentals of sociology are well enough established to make these models believable.
For example, consider the Schelling model of segregation discussed in the article. From a physicist's point of view, this is a statisictal simulation of a system of two types of particles on a lattice, with an attractive interaction between particles of the same type. There's no temperature, so the system will phase separate, since that's the lowest energy state. No surprise there. A five minute chat with a physicist could have saved Schelling a lot of computer time. The more interesting question is what happens when you add some randomness in the form of temperature. Then the system will phase separate below a certain temperature, and form a single mixed phase above that temperature. What is the sociological analog of temperature? (Ok, I know that one... If a particle of one type is hot for a particle of another type, then you get particles of mixed type....)
The simulations are cute and I'm sure they're fun to play with, but I wouldn't put much stock in them.
-- Steve
tit for tat (Score:3, Insightful)
The program that ended up as the most successful was also the simplest. University of Toronto Game Theorist Anatol Rappaport had submitted a program he called tit for tat. [google.ca] Tit for tat initially cooperated with all the other players. In subsequent turns if the other player it was interacting with had defected last turn, it defected this turn. If the other player had cooperated last turn it cooperated this turn.
Yes, the interactions between people are very complicated, and this game is very simple. Still food for thought though.
Book about the subject (Score:2)
(Sorry, i'm against linking to online book stores)
Growing Artificial Societies - Social Science from the Bottom Up
Joshua M. Epstein & Robert Axtell
ISBN 0-262-55025-3
/. and Zipf's Law (Score:2)
Re:/. and Zipf's Law (Score:3, Interesting)
i've done this in other research, it checks out, it's pretty neat to calculate the length of posts/conversations etc, rank them and graph them, and see a zipf distribution pop out. anybody else out there doing this?
Re:/. and Zipf's Law (Score:2)
what you have there is more like a normal distribution, around 1.5 or so, than a zipf distribution.
what you really need to do - depending on how long a break you want to take from work ;) - is take every single post (all 210 as i write) from this discussion and calculate the length of each one, e.g. by counting the number of characters in each post. your post has 241 characters in it without the spaces, my one before that 572 without the spaces (exclude spaces cuz cutting and pasting from browser to word processor to count, introduces spaces, e.g. for indents).
when you get lengths of each of the 210 posts, you can rank all your results, e.g. from shortest to longest, print out the graph, and bingo you should have zipf curve.
JASSS - journal for this kind of thing (Score:3, Interesting)
The Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation (JASSS) [surrey.ac.uk]. It is on-line. It is free. It is great.
doesn't work in stock trading societies (Score:2)
The problem is that once someone figures out some new profitable information about the market, it works for a while until enough people figure out the same method. Then it becomes useless.
I expect prediction of society as a whole to fail for the same reason. When people learn what is being predicted, they'll do sometime new and unpredictable.
doesn't follow. (Score:2)
The trick is knowing which is which...
Let's make this into a REAL game... (Score:2, Funny)
We could "simulate" all sorts of events, you know, terrorist attacks, meteor impacts or natural disasters. Anything. The winners would sweep the stakes according to some sort of victory resolution scheme. Maybe THAT could be coded in Perl.
All players could "initiate" actions at any time that would, eventually, over many turns, determine the final outcome. Players could interact with one another according to some proximity scheme. Players could coorperate toward common goals.
At intervals we could make tournaments, where the winners of the local series would compete in the World Series. The World Champion would collect a huge prize and maybe move into The White House.
Hmmm. I think I'll go to the pub...
Here's an interesting celular automaton (Score:2, Interesting)
www.geocities.com/enriqueeder/trip.html [geocities.com]
Each pixel is a cell in the automaton. Each cell has 3 quantities each of which has a value between 0 and 255. The quantities correspond to the amount of red, green and blue in the color of the cell.
The color of each cell in the next frame of the simulation depends on its current color and the color of its neighbors in the current frame. The rule is that each quantity (red, green and blue) has an enemy or inhibitor quantity. For example green is by default the enemy of red, so the more green a cell's neighbors have in the current frame, the less red that cell will have in the next frame. Red is also the enemy of blue, and blue is the enemy of green. So each quantity has an enemy.
The simulation is seeded with a randomly colored cell by clicking on the black screen. To run the simulation, click the Go button. To stop it, click the Stop button. To advance just one frame click the Step button.
If you click the Design button, a window will pop up where you can modify the parameters of the calculation. The Neighbors amount determines how much the amount of the enemy quantity in a cell's neighbors affects that cell in the next frame. The Self amount determines how much the cell stays true to its current color. The Enemy amount affects how much one quantity is affected by its enemy quantity. The Direction button flips the quantities' enemies.
The unexpected result is trippy swirling patterns as red chases green, green chases blue and blue chases red.
interesting possibilities (Score:2)
Could CS nerds end the recession? (Score:2)
CS nerds might be in a good position to end the recession. We know how to do big simulations and distributed computing and how to mine for data to feed a simulation. We know how to run several simulations in parallel, each representing a different course of economic intervention.
The economy is driven primarily by human actions and decisions. In principle, humans could all agree that recessions are bad, and each tweak our behavior to end the damn thing. Given how much suffering the economy can cause, it seems ridiculous to leave it entirely to chance.
It may turn out that benign interventions are impossible because of conflicts of interest (an individual's own interests dictate behavior that prolongs the recession or injures society, what the economics folks call a tragedy of the commons [dieoff.org]). But it might at least merit investigation.
My own small effort in this direction appears in my sig.
dept. line` (Score:2)
Simulation of Chaordic Processes project (Score:2, Interesting)
The word "chaordic" is used as defined by Dee Hock (the person behind VISA) at http://www.chaordic.org [chaordic.org] and in his book "Birth of the Chaordic Age", which is essentially processes at the boundary between CHAos and ORDer and the social implications for how to design effective and responsive organizations for a dynamic society. The focus will be specially on computer simulations to support part of the goal defined here http://www.chaordic.org/who_hist.html#FourCond [chaordic.org] of: "Development of visual and physical models of chaordic organizations so that people have something to examine, experiment with, and compare to existing organizations. The models must contain the ethical and spiritual dimensions generally lacking in current models. In addition, computer simulations will need to be created to allow people to quickly see how clarity of purpose and principles allow institutions to self-organize, evolve over decades, and link in new patterns for an enduring constructive society."
People are invited to join the mailing list if they want at this page http://mail.freesoftware.fsf.org/mailman/listinfo/ simulchaord-discuss [fsf.org]
if you want to contribute to project related discussions or submit
snippets of code (with the understanding contributions will be archived
and can be incorporated into the project under the GPL license). I have been posting some artificial life links there related to modelling social systems to get things started -- one of the first was a link to the Atlantic Monthly article discussed in this Slashdot thread. For now, I am using
use the list to record my own musings on related simulation issues
including design, architecture, and use cases. I will also be posting my experiences as I try to create such simulations. Feel free to lurk for a while or chime in.
Here is a page leading to the entire mailing list archives (aroudn twenty messages so far): http://mail.freesoftware.fsf.org/pipermail/simulch aord-discuss/ [fsf.org]
The main project page is here: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/simulchaord/ [gnu.org] Cooperative development of releases of code is hosted on Savannah using CVS although I haven't yet put up any content (files or homepage) besides what's archived in the mailing list.
At the moment I am looking at using Swarm http://www.swarm.org [swarm.org] as the base -- although I may just use Python instead -- or even use both for different aspects.
Introspective Models (Score:3, Informative)
People have the ability to see the broader picture and alter the way the work in it. For example, in the scenario from the article where any particular square bases it's actions on the squares next to it, a "human" square would base it's rules on the squares next to it, BUT also on the makup of the board as a whole.
Once the simulators begin to allow the rules themselves to change, then we will see some really amazing results.
For those who don't get it (Score:2, Offtopic)
For those who don't get subtil things (or just happened to miss this one)
When you perdict something people tend to act on the perdiction. Thus God sent a profit to warn Niniva of coming doom, but the people repented and so God no longer needed to send that doom. So does the fact that the people lived (for 100 years before some other country invaded) mean that God doesn't exist, or that repenting will save your life?
If everyone knew the terrorist were going to fly a plane into the world trade center in september nobody would have been there. (other than press, and some engineers to study the situation). If the terrorist knew they were discovered like that odds are they would call the whole thing off, and everyone would then laugh at those who gave a warning about something that never happened.
2000 is a perfect example. There were big comptuer problems related to the roll over from 1999 to 2000, but because there was warning the problems were fixed, so there were no problems, so the warnings must have been uneeded right?
There are many more examples that can be thought of. The point is clear though: warnings are a double edged sword.
However I'm willing to perdict the next terrorist bombing will be in Iseral/Palistine. You are now warned. (too bad I can't be more specific, this will do you little good if you live in that area)
For those who don't WANT it (Score:2)
Subtle.
When you perdict something people tend to act on the perdiction. Thus God sent a profit to warn Niniva of coming doom,
Predict. Prediction. Prophet. Nineveh.
2000 is a perfect example. There were big comptuer problems related to the roll over from 1999 to 2000, but because there
Computer. Rollover.
was warning the problems were fixed, so there were no problems, so the warnings must have been uneeded right?
Unneeded.
However I'm willing to perdict the next terrorist bombing will be in Iseral/Palistine. You are now warned.
Predict. Israel. Palestine.
Your score is 11. Your rating is JeffK. Thank you for playing!
Re:For those who don't WANT it (Score:2)
I think he made some pretty valid points.
Re:No prediction involved (Score:2)
Rationality isn't really an issue - it can be considered just another decision rule that can be formulated pretty much as "do whatever is in my best interest" where best interest is defined to include the value gained (if any?!?) from helping others, altruism etc.
Many experts in the field of rationality and choice theory would of course argue that humans are not fully rational and frequently make decisions not ultimately in their own interests. People are for example generally bad at making tradeoffs between short and long term goals, and also at evaluating risks.
This shouldn't be taken as an argument for paternalism, but rather that the ability of an individual to calculate the outcomes of their decisions is not good enough to calculate the best decision in a limited time with imperfect information.
Basically humans seem to operate on the level of "bounded rationality" where they operate according to fairly simple "rules of thumb" and only deviate from these when they experience or anticipate a significant positive or negative outcome that encourages them to think more carefully about the issue. After which, of course, they devise a slightly more sophisticated rule of thumb and continue as before.....
Re:Progressivism without the hubris. (Score:2)
Re:Brookings Institute Simulation Error (Score:2)
I post a detailed technical critique of the original research about which the article is written, conducted by the scientist about which the article is written, and someone downrates my post as "Offtopic".
This gives you a clue as to what the problem is to which I referred in my critique.