Well said, Stephen. --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Sat, Aug 9, 2025, 6:38 PM Stephen Guerin <[email protected]> wrote: > Nick writes: > > > I moved to Santa Fe 20 years ago to confront The Enemy – Complexity, > which made nonsense of the idea making a best guess for the future and > planning for it collectively , calmly, and rationally. > > Nick — you came to Santa Fe to “confront The Enemy – Complexity,” but I’ve > always admired how that move was also a reach to extend the individual into > the group. Your framing of evolution beyond the lone actor fits naturally > into complexity’s home territory: the study of collective dynamics. > > Complexity challenged the civic ideal you grew up with — that we could > make our best guess about the future, then plan together calmly and > rationally around stable facts — by showing: > > - The world is nonlinear — small perturbations can cascade. > - Prediction decays fast — best guesses expire before guiding > long-horizon plans. > - Feedback loops are short — conditions shift before consensus can > form. > > From the Victorian lens of the forward-propagating individual — the gene, > the photon, the solitary actor — the unit of selection is the > forward-propagator itself, competing with only a once-in-a-lifetime > reproduction as feedback, with everything else treated as downstream > consequence. > > But complexity might instead be the handshake of duals — like the mutual > adjustment of fireflies flashing in unison or pendulums entraining to a > common rhythm — where coherence emerges from continuous exchange, not > solitary advance. This shift is much like physics’ move from solid state > (crystal order, replication) to condensed matter (emergent phenomena, > reproduction) — the very distinction Eric Smith draws between systems that > merely repeat and systems that generate novel, coherent forms. > > This spirit runs through the science: > > - Stuart Kauffman’s autocatalytic sets — molecules persist as part of > collectively closed webs of reactions. > - Harold Morowitz & Eric Smith — life’s core metabolic cycles may > emerge as planetary-scale solutions to channel geochemical energy flows; > selection might happen at the network level, not molecule-by-molecule. > - Afred's Hübler’s ball bearings — conductive spheres collectively > grow to dissipate massive charge gradients more effectively. > - Per Bak’s self-organized criticality — critical states are > properties of the network, not any single grain or fault. > - Ilya Prigogine’s dissipative structures — ordered patterns like > Bénard cells exist only through system-wide throughput of energy/matter. > > Physics offers a parallel in Feynman–Wheeler absorber theory, where > interactions are bidirectional handshakes between advanced and retarded > waves, settling into a self-consistent exchange. Carver Mead’s Collective > Electrodynamics carries this into the macroscopic: electrons act as part of > a global configuration, not as isolated particles. > > It’s the same dynamic in my favorite ant foraging model: food-seekers > diffuse “nest” pheromone outward, nest-seekers carrying food diffuse “food” > pheromone outward; each biases its walk along the other’s field. The > shortest-time path emerges from the handshake between complementary > propagations, not from any one ant “deciding” the route. > > Seen this way, complexity might not be the death of rational planning — it > could be pointing us toward a different design target: the coherent > configuration. We're still on the lookout for our “Carnot” to formalize > these principles. > > And for me, that search has been shaped by the voices in this group — > especially yours. Your probes have been part of the collective dynamic > here, and I’ve been heavily informed by them. For that, I’m grateful. > > -Stephen > > > On Sat, Aug 9, 2025 at 4:55 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Ok, but I am not done with my infernal questions. The way you pose your >> question, I cant help thinking that you know the answer. You and I could >> recite fo one another the thousand ways in which we know that humans are >> groupish. We know that people can make sacrifices for the good of groups >> of all sorts, some of which are incorrigibly abstract. We know that humans >> identify with the fate of other humans to the extent that they will put >> aside their own good fortune for that of an iconic figure. We know the >> people are capable of appalling group nastiness. There is no savagery like >> the modern army, sitting around in an anonymous office bloc in New Jersey >> lobbing missiles at wedding parties in Iraq. >> >> >> >> So what is the question concerning human groupishness . What is it >> beyond these facts that you need to know and what will change when you come >> to know it. One question you might be asking yourself is “Am I justified >> in keeping any money I earn beyond the median income of my fellow citizens. >> The answer is almost certainly, “No”. Knowing that and knowing that I am >> damned well not going to give it away, what next?” >> >> >> >> One of the hardest projects to take on is the discovery of one’s own >> hankerings. Glen, Jon, and DaveW have been very good at exposing mine. >> Make American Rational Again. Return to the genteel rationalism of the >> Deweyan 1950’s where every town had a town meeting and every discussion was >> “informed” by the “facts.” (And we were all cheerful racists instead of >> the guilty racists that we are now.) That I have grown up and helped to >> create a world in which nobody knows anymore what a fact has been like >> living my worst childhood nightmare. I was head of our planning board for >> three years in the early 70’s where I learned that small towns are the >> scariest, least rational places on the face of the earth. When we moved in >> from California, marginal hippies, the town could not rest before it was >> decided whether we were Catholics or Protestants. What???!@!! Sorry, I >> am ranting. I moved to Santa Fe 20 years ago to confront The Enemy – >> Complexity, which made nonsense of the idea making a best guess for the >> future and planning for it collectively , calmly, and rationally. The idea >> that people should build businesses models on destabilizing the present and >> then swooping in and pillaging until one has established an irrevocable >> monopoly on the future just seems WRONG to me. I loved the idea of >> American exceptionalism. But lo and behold, we were exceptional in only >> one respect. WE had discovered destabilization as a business model. Drop >> by, plant a lethal virus, wait a few years and then return (with your >> slaves) to a “virgin” land populated only by a few desperate savages. Let >> the rape of the virgin begin. Calm down, Nick. >> >> >> >> These are my commitments, and I cannot escape them. What are yours? >> >> >> >> Nick >> >> *From:* Friam <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Pieter >> Steenekamp >> *Sent:* Friday, August 8, 2025 4:21 PM >> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < >> [email protected]> >> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Group Selection IS a metaphor. >> >> >> >> Nick, >> >> Too good to miss — I’m in. Lead me into the jungle of group selection, >> especially the human variety. >> >> What I’m after: a clear, simple (but not dumbed-down) take on what group >> selection in humans is, and why it might explain our behaviour better than >> individual selection alone. >> >> Happy to start at the very beginning — dawn of the argument, cave >> paintings, whatever you think works. >> >> And yes, send me that Famous Great Amateur reading list. I promise to >> read it with respect… and just enough suspicion to keep it fun. >> >> >> >> On Fri, 8 Aug 2025 at 17:05, Nicholas Thompson <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Hi, Pieter, >> >> >> >> Let me be a George to you as you explore this topic. I will try to >> respond off hand, quickly, and unself-consciously as you think along. I >> think this whole topic is fascinating both substantively, and >> historically. The literature seems to track (or lead?) the Zeitgeist so >> precisely from post war peace-nikery (Wynne-Edwards), to the >> revanchist academic Reaganism (Williams-Dawkins), to chaos (evodevo). It's >> really hard to take the whole argument seriously once one begins to >> understand how complex and multi layered are the mechanisms by which >> parents do and dont resemble their children. One of the tools to thinking >> straight is to own up to one's hankerings before one dives into the >> literature. What are you hoping to find? Post war peace-nikery was >> covertly deistic, hoping to find that there was some sort of over >> arching regulatory agency that would keep the species and the planet safe. >> Academic Reaganism said good luck with that! Success is virtue. And then >> evodevo, the bull in the china shop of that whole argument. I recommend >> reading the biologist, Sean B. Carroll, (not the physicist), Endless forms >> most beautiful, and The making of the fittest. It's really hard to take >> the whole argument seriously once one begins to understand how complex and >> multi layered are the mechanisms by which parents do and dont resemble >> their children. That there is any resemblance at all begins to seem like >> some sort of miracle. Or perhaps just momentum. One hankering that >> misleads us is naturalism, the idea that we can find some sort of MORAL >> guidance in the way things are. Is the opposite hankering, >> existentialism? The belief that what makes humans special is their power >> to CHOOSE. You should remember that I am not a philosopher and am, in >> fact, an amateur in all things. >> >> >> >> "Any time you want to explore this issue, I am here ready to help. >> Would you like suggestions of articles to read by that Famous Amateur, Nick >> Thompson? " >> >> >> >> signed, >> >> >> >> ChatNST >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Aug 8, 2025 at 5:19 AM Pieter Steenekamp < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> Thanks, Nick. Just like you struggled to get your head around entropy, >> I’m battling to wrap my mind around how the basic but very powerful >> mechanism of evolution works in human groups. I can easily understand >> individual human selection, or even group selection in swarming insects >> where only the queen has babies. >> >> I think I’ll take a page from your book and work with George to help >> guide me through this learning journey. Every now and then, I might check >> in with you and others here for a chat or to ask a question. >> >> The only catch is that I’ve just started a really exciting AI project, so >> I might not have much time for my group-level evolution journey — but I’ll >> try to keep it going. >> >> >> >> On Fri, 8 Aug 2025 at 03:40, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Thanks Pieter, >> >> >> >> Sorry I have taken so long to get back to you. If FRIAM ever started a >> journal, it should be called “the emperors new clothes”. We are not >> committed to anything if not to the validity of an “amateur’s” >> perspective. As people will be quick to tell you, mine has always been of >> that sort. >> >> >> >> If I read you carefully, the position you take is that laid out in >> Dawkins The Extended Phenotype – that the genes are the basic unit of >> selection. But as Dave Wilson has been pointing out for years, Who made >> that decision? For one thing, as epigenic studies have made clear, when >> one looks in detail, it is really hard to find a thing that is exactly the >> gene. For another, that decision runs the risk of confusing the the thing >> that is selected with the forces that are selecting it. Whatever level you >> care to calculate the impact of selection, it is differential group success >> that is driving selection or it is not group selection. And if it is >> differential group success that is driving selection, then it is group >> selection. I think you might quite enjoy The Extended Phenotype. For a >> whild ride, have a look at Elliott Sober and D. S. Wilson’s Reintroducing >> Group Selection to the human behavioral sciences. There is a wonderful >> metaphor in there about two riders riding three horses. It was the article >> that broke the tide for me. I had been totally up Dawkins ass for the >> preceding 20 years. >> >> >> >> Here is the citation, courtesy og George Patrick Tremblay IV >> >> >> >> Wilson, D. S., & Sober, E. (1994). *Reintroducing group selection to the >> human behavioral sciences*. *Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 17*(4), >> 585–608. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00036104 >> en.wikipedia.org+15philpapers.org+15 >> <https://philpapers.org/rec/WILRGS?utm_source=chatgpt.com>…. >> >> >> >> Nick >> >> >> >> *From:* Friam <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Pieter >> Steenekamp >> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 6, 2025 12:55 AM >> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < >> [email protected]> >> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Group Selection IS a metaphor. >> >> >> >> Nick, I'm genuinely impressed. Honestly, I feel a bit out of my depth >> trying to respond meaningfully on this topic. >> >> So please take my reply in the same spirit I’d expect a response from my >> 10-year-old grandchild when debating computer programming with me. The gap >> between your understanding of evolution and mine feels about that wide. >> >> That said, I’d still like to offer a response to your group selection >> argument—fully aware that it may come across as amateurish, and I'm okay >> with that. >> >> Here's the question I’m grappling with: >> >> Is the following valid? >> Genes as the Unit of Selection: >> Modern evolutionary theory generally views genes as the primary unit of >> selection. Natural selection acts on individuals, and the success of an >> individual is ultimately determined by the genes they carry. >> Group Selection as a Modifier: >> Group selection can be seen as a process that influences the expression >> of genes. For example, if a group-level trait (like cooperative behavior) >> is advantageous, then genes that promote that behavior will be favored, >> even if those genes also have individual-level costs. >> >> >> >> On Wed, 6 Aug 2025 at 00:12, Prof David West <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Nick, >> >> >> >> I wish to embody the fear of being dragged away from what you think you >> are supposed to be doing, to be engaged in the topic you raise in your >> paper. >> >> >> >> I have read the paper before and, as then, I find it meritorious, well >> written, and reasonable in argument. I am, basically, convinced. >> >> >> >> However; two points: >> >> >> >> First, your use of the concept, "metaphor," is the way that I use the >> term, in a manner that glen pointed out is inconsistent with the literal >> definition of the term. I speak of metaphor when there is some thing of >> which I think I know something and I have a suspicion that some other thing >> might be of the same ilk. I use what I think I know to craft a 'model', one >> that suggests particular points and particular relations that, if my >> suspicion is correct, will have direct analogs in the unknown thing. I >> check them out individually and in combinations and, if substantiated, >> confirm my suspicion. If unconfirmed, the metaphor is refuted. >> >> >> >> This seems to me to be what you are doing in the paper, albeit it more >> abstractly and academically. Please correct me if wrong. >> >> >> >> Second, and here is the real time sink, would it be possible to make your >> ideas concrete, real groups with actual history and demonstrated >> differential "success." If you were amenable to such a conversation, I >> would propose the Mormons as a test case. >> >> >> >> One of 20 or so "religions"/"societies" to emerge from the "Burnt Over >> District" of western New York. The only one still extant. >> >> >> >> Disproportionately successful, (in material and social terms), to their >> neighbors. Smith was living in a two-story New England style home while >> down the road, Abe Lincoln, was living in a log cabin with mud floor. >> >> >> >> A schism immediately after Smith's death, with the Reformed LDS barely >> evident while the main group flourished. (Last time I checked, Mormonism >> and Sokka Gokai, in Japan, were the two fastest growing religions.) >> >> >> >> In Utah there was a concerted effort to spawn multiple small groups by >> sending out colonies. Because each group was originally "seeded" with four >> or five families, you get a strong genetic/heritance component as well as >> "traits." (It is still possible to identify what part of Utah someone is >> from (especially females) by their physical appearance.) >> >> >> >> Some interesting "adaptations" at the trait level, e.g., when Smith was >> alive blacks were included in the community and held the >> priesthood—something that Missourians, at the time, could not abide. >> Brigham Young 'suspended' (restored in 1978 with the admission that the >> suspension was not for theological, but merely political reasons) black >> priesthood membership and gave up polygamy (de jure only) to appease the >> Federal Government and avoid a second martyrdom. >> >> >> >> davew >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 5, 2025, at 1:10 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: >> >> Dear Colleagues in FRIAM, >> >> Sometimes, if I am going to get anything done, I just have to ignore >> Friam, and keep my head down, and work at the thing I am working at. It >> always seems, on that occasion, that you-guys dangle in front of me some >> enticing topic so I must scream and put my fingers in my ears to keep focus >> on my work. So it was that when I decided I must fish or cut bait on >> entropy or it would take me to my grave, that almost immediately you-guys >> started not one but two conversations close to my heart: on the centrality >> of metaphor to science and on the group selection controversy. >> >> A couple of decades ago I brought those two interests together in a >> paper called “Shifting the Natural Selection Metaphor to the Group Level. >> There are two things about this paper that make it salient for me. The >> first is that I think it is the best paper I ever wrote. The second is >> that for each of the two people whom I most hoped to reach when I wrote it, >> D. S. Wilson and Elliott Sober, it is a piece of crap. In it, I try to >> show that the problem with metaphors is not with their use in scientific >> thinking: on the contrary, it is with their ill-disciplined use. Metaphors >> need to be worked in a systematic way, not simply flung out in a gust of >> poetic exuberance. This lesson I try to teach by working the natural >> selection metaphor in a systematic way to show that if it had been treated >> seriously in the first place, the whole dispute about group selection might >> have been avoided. Thus the paper is not only arrogant, but >> meta-arrogant. >> >> Nothing is more pitiable than the retired academic who would do anything >> to have anybody read his moribund essays. But, alas, I simply am such a >> person. So, I am attaching a copy of the paper in the hope that it will >> have some value to you within the context of your two discussions. >> >> Mumble, >> >> Nick >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Nicholas S. Thompson >> >> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology >> >> Clark University >> >> [email protected] >> >> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson >> >> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / >> ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. >> >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> >> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam >> >> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >> >> archives: 5/2017 thru present >> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >> >> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >> >> >> >> >> >> *Attachments:* >> >> - Shifting the natural selection metaphor to the group level.pdf >> - Shifting the natural selection metaphor to the group level.pdf >> >> >> >> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / >> ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam >> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >> archives: 5/2017 thru present >> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >> >> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / >> ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam >> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >> archives: 5/2017 thru present >> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >> >> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / >> ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam >> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >> archives: 5/2017 thru present >> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Nicholas S. Thompson >> >> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology >> >> Clark University >> >> [email protected] >> >> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson >> >> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / >> ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam >> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >> archives: 5/2017 thru present >> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >> >> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / >> ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam >> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >> archives: 5/2017 thru present >> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >> > .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / > ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >
.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
