'Twasn't an intrusion, but let me say that if you can model the propagation of aggregate stupidity in country-sized social networks, I'll happily purchase the rights to your simulation!
--Doug On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Tom Vest <[email protected]> wrote: > On Feb 13, 2010, at 3:43 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote: > > > Sheesh, what a bunch of academic phraseology! > > • functional modularization > > • combinatorial evolution > > • both "top-down" as well as "bottom-up" initiative [...] > indispensable > > IM(Not So)HO, America at large has been sufficiently dumbed down by the > brutal combination of a mediocre educational system, an academic peer review > system that rigidly refuses to think outside the box, pay-for-play politics, > fundamentalist christian & christian wannabe religions, McDonalds > lardburgers, and short-sighted Wall Street quants that innovation is now > solidly a thing of the past, and will probably remain so for a very long > time. > > > > --Doug > > Actually, we said approximately the same thing, or rather your list > included a small subset of the things I was trying to cover with my academic > phraseology. > No question that your phraseology is much more colorful! Not so easy to > model however. > > I only chimed in (and subscribed) because I'm trying to model some related > problems in my own field. > I saw the terms "modeling" and "applied complexity" on the group page -- > but perhaps I misinterpreted the sense in which one or more of those terms > is being used... > > In any case, please excuse the intrusion. > > TV > > > > On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Tom Vest <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Feb 13, 2010, at 8:21 AM, Jochen Fromm wrote: > > > > > In a recent washingtonpost.com article named > > > "Erasing our innovation deficit" ( http://bit.ly/cG6vGW ) > > > Eric Schmidt said > > > > > > "We have been world leaders in [technological] innovation for > generations. It has driven our economy, employment growth and our rising > prosperity. > > > [..] We can no longer rely on the top-down approach of the 20th > century, when big investments in the military and NASA spun off to the wider > economy." > > > > > > Do you agree? What kind of approach does the > > > USA need to return to old strength? > > > > > > -J. > > > > I'm surprised that none of the current/former SFIers on the list have > mentioned Brian Arthur's recent pitch for "combinatorial evolution" as the > engine of innovation. > > As I read it, Brian's argument is that innovation is an epiphenomenon > arising from: > > > > -- the functional modularization of many different kinds of > technologies*, plus > > -- the standardization of "open" interfaces enabling those functional > components or modules to be combined in different ways, plus > > -- an environment that enables and incentivizes widespread experimental > combination of different technologies, e.g., by occasionally rewarding those > who come up with novel, useful combinations. > > > > *These could be of the "hard" or "soft" variety, e.g., chip design or > double-entry bookkeeping. > > > > So, on this account it would seem that both "top-down" as well as > "bottom-up" initiative is indispensable. > > Bottom-up activities are the proximate cause and primary engine driving > innovation. > > However, the size of that engine (e.g., the share of the total population > capable of participating constrictively in the combinatorial search) depends > substantially on the existence, scope, and openness/interoperability of > those modules and the standardized interfaces between them. Unfortunately, > by their very definition "standards" are a top-down phenomenon -- both > because they are never adopted with unanimous consent (but must be appx. > universally binding with a domain in order to work in that domain), and > because they must remain relatively stable over time, which means that for > everyone that comes along after the moment of standardization, they may feel > like an "unjust," arbitrary imposition. > > > > In 2002, a quartet of prominent Internet standards developers published a > paper called "Tussle in Cyberspace" (link below), which made a broadly > similar argument about how the Internet has evolved. However, while > mechanisms that the Tussle authors describe are broadly similar, the tone > seems quite different, to me at least. The earlier paper seemed to be > (obliquely) engaging a topical issues that was just emerging around that > time -- i.e., the aspirations of some dominant Internet service providers to > subtly alter and/or partially vacate some of the standards that make the > Internet "open" and thus had fostered the Internet's rapid growth up to that > time (note: today the issue is most commonly called "net neutrality"). In > that context, the Tussle paper seems to lean ever so slightly past the > domain of observation and Darwinian theory construction, in the general > direction of advocating the tussle process and the embrace of whatever > outcomes it yields, ala "social darwinism." > > > > In any case, I think that any present US deficit in innovation can > probably be chalked up, at least in part, to the ongoing progressive > deviation from our most recent moment of optimal balance between those "top > down" and "bottom up" forces. Some of the biggest recent winners in the > innovation game -- i.e., those who benefited most from the latest round of > technical standardization -- have started exert their own top-down authority > in ways that advance their own private interests, but which collaterally > degrade the environment for future/distributed innovation... > > > > (The question resonates for me because of the looming inflection point in > Internet protocol standards associated with the depletion of the IPv4 > address pool, which happens to be the stuff of my day job) > > > > My own 0.02, +/- > > > > Tom Vest > > > > "Tussle in Cyberspace: Defining Tomorrow’s Internet" > > http://groups.csail.mit.edu/ana/Publications/PubPDFs/Tussle2002.pdf > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > > 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 > > > > > > > > -- > > Doug Roberts > > [email protected] > > [email protected] > > 505-455-7333 - Office > > 505-670-8195 - Cell > > ============================================================ > > 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
