[ExI] Off-List (RE: [Soc]Complex Adaptive Systems - Tending Always to 50/50 split)

Natasha Vita-More natasha at natasha.cc
Sun Oct 12 16:26:18 UTC 2008


I took the content of your post and posted it to a private list of futurists
I am a member of  (Association of Professional Futurists).  There are
several responses.  May I post these to the extropy list?  Or would you
prefer I post them to you privately?

Best wishes,

Nlogo1.tif Natasha Vita-More

-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Jef Allbright
Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2008 2:32 PM
To: Extropy chat list
Subject: [ExI] [Soc]Complex Adaptive Systems - Tending Always to 50/50 split

This seems very obvious, but I'm having difficulty finding any analysis or
commentary applicable to economics, politics, or social choice.  Does anyone
here have any useful references?

More explicitly, I'm referring to the natural tendency for such systems --
with multiple, effectively closed feedback loops with multiple, diverse
transform functions -- to equilibrate with maximal bipolar separation across
what amounts to a hyperplane representing the subset of features of
perceived common interest.

More specifically, I'm referring to the tendency of political systems
representing a complex mix of values (perceived preferences) to arrive at a
roughly 50/50 split across populations. Or the observation that variation in
preferences between human twins tends to correlate about 50/50 correlation
with nature vs. nurture (actually more on the side of nature as "the"
aggregate feedback loop of adaptation in this case is getting looser.)

More pointedly, I'm referring to the apparent lack of formal recognition of
this natural dynamic, fundamental in system-theoretic and
information-theoretic terms, toward high-probability **bipolar** separation
regardless of the complex hierarchy of the supporting matrix of values

I understand that until recently, we've lacked the computing machinery
necessary to effectively represent much more than the most superficial
levels of any issue regardless of importance.  I recognize also that many
(most?) people are by nature predisposed by nature or training to be
unequipped or uncomfortable with multiple layers of abstraction.  I also
realize the political incorrectness of such a line of thought in regard to
the democratic ideal of "one person / one vote" as if systems and
information theoretic concerns must be morally irrelevant.

Am I missing something here, or is this really an academic void?

- Jef
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list