.jpg)
Please Log in to Vote.
5 out of 5 members found this useful.
10% Tipping Points: A Critical Appraisal of Recent Proof
Posted August 24th, 2011 by Clint Fuhs in Integral Post
In Reference to:
Tipping Points and the Eye of Contemplation
This post aims to extend the discussion started in the August 2011 Loft series post, Tipping Points and the Eye of Contemplation. To set the context, consider an excerpt from that post: "You've certainly heard Ken's most famous prophecy—namely, that once 10% of a population reaches an integral wave of development, integral values will begin permeating the culture. But, have you heard that its been proven? Well, it has—at least according to Facebook—along with a group of RPI scientists, who've published their lower-right account of the cultural development in an obscure journal on soft matter physics. You can find it right next to the article on isochronal chaos synchronization of delay-coupled optoelectronic oscillators. Perhaps a bit of voice dialogue is in order: "Can we talk to the voice of the skeptic? Now, to be fair, the journal in question (Physical Review E) does have a section on interdisciplinary physics—and, whether interdisciplinary or not, we really don't have an issue with physics (or physicists), but we are recommending that this topic be approached with a healthy dose of critical thinking. A few perspectives that head in that direction begin this month's Loft Series talk, where Ken starts off by rightfully pointing out that these researchers are reporting on the functional dispersion of ideas across networks and not on levels of consciousness, values, or beliefs. The simulation data referenced in this research does indeed indicate that the rate of adoption of minority-held ideas increases rapidly once committed believers reach 10%, but this is no way suggests, for example, that once we see 10% of the current population reach an integral wave of development that a rapid acceleration of development toward integral will ensue." From here, I'd like to discuss a few of these issues further, but let me start by providing a few links. We first found out about this article in a short review linked to on Facebook. After hearing Ken's initial thoughts, I dug up the full-text version in the journal Physical Review E. Unfortunately, copyright restrictions prevent me from including a copy of the article in this post, but, I will quote from it below and you can always purchase the article from the above link or locate in a research database at most larger universities. Now, let me say right from the start that I have not made it through this article in its entirety. As I mentioned, it's from a physics journal and is mostly math-based. Here's a sample:
(As if you didn't already know that....)
The Binary Agreement Model suggests that if we have two beliefs A (vaccinations cause autism, for example) and B (vaccinations don't cause autism), then any given person or agent can have either of three opinions or option present on what proponents of this model call a "list": A or B or AB (mixed/not sure). It follows then, that if a speaker voices A to a listener and the listener was not previously aware of A, it is added to the listener's list of potential opinions, so he then has A and B in mind. Then, if another speaker voices A to a listener who is already aware of both A and B, the model suggests that only A is retained between both of them. From what I've gathered through a cursory review of literature on this model, that's the basic extent of it. So, for those of us interested in spreading integral ideas, it would then suggest that if we were able to add the opinion that "AQAL is an accurate map of the territory of you" to people's awareness, that we would only need someone else to basically bring it to their awareness again, to make it such that both speaker and listener would agree on it and continue spreading the idea --- well, that is, if speaker and listener behaved like the mathematical model predicts. I am not 100% positive, but I think this model, or some applications of it, came from a physics model on particle dynamics. Even if partially true, our integral skeptics should kick in: People = particles = problems. But that is only the start; clearly, other problems arise as well. What if speaker's opinion A is "over the head" (in a developmental sense) of the listener? How then (or to what degree) would/could they include it in their awareness or add it to their list? Would it be retained as a string of connected words or as a string of connected words with valid or intended meaning? Or, what if the listener is holding not a binary (yes/no, correct/incorrect) model of opinion on vaccines (or any other topic, for that matter) but rather one that: (1) saw four options that couldn't/shouldn't be ranked or selected as differentially valid in regards to each other, or (2) four options that fell out across a spectrum that traced the increasing inclusivity of perspectives on what is "right" from absolutistic to multiplisitic to pluralistic to integral. I am trying to presence the "divide" which concerns the tipping point we're interested in—namely, one version of the different cognitive patterns that exist between first and second tier. How then would such a noticeably more complex scenario affect the ability for speaker and listener to come to agreement (or to retain a common or shared item from their lists)? And, consequently how would this affect their ability (or inclination) to spread a minority view point through a socio-cultural network? Would an overlap in common items be enough? Doesn't seem likely. In short, I'm left wondering if such a simple model of behaviorally-derived "mutual understanding"—which wholly lacks a developmental component— can account accurately for anything in the human domain. I think there is little to debate regarding the notion that this model is fraught with reductionistic tendencies—but, it's also fair to say that it needs to be to enable the computer simulations this study relied upon. Simulation models that account for developmentally-constrained idea/opinion dispersal just don't exist and might not for some time. How far then (if at all) can we extend or generalize this tipping point finding? Does it have any business being extrapolated Into the Left-Hand quadrants? What about up the spectrum from an absolutistic frame toward something more complex? If mathematically-derived humans, with binary cognitive conceptions, who behave like particles, tend to express the 10% tipping point pattern, does that have any bearing on real humans with real interior quadrant dimensions? Furthermore, and in regards to the loft series clip discussion on the three eyes of knowing, what sense are we to make (or, put more strongly, what devastating critique are we to leverage) on what seems like the eye of flesh, and its empirical injunctions, barging into the territory revealed by the eye of mind? To be fair, the authors offer two suggestions for follow-up studies and both are quite exciting—well worth considering, at least from my perspective. First, "....given a network with nontrivial community structure, what is the optimal scheme for selecting committed agents (for a given committed fraction) that would minimize consensus times and reduce Pc [Pc is their percent need in the committed fraction...i.e. 10%]" So, they are basically asking, can we find ways to reduce the 10% to 6%. By "nontrivial community structure" perhaps they could mean an educational community interaction platform that was balanced in its treatment of LL and LR dimensions :)—but, the "optimal scheme" would have to at least account for depth, if not, as much of AQAL as possible. And, second, they suggest "....extensions of the model to include utility-driven opinion switching by agents may be useful in designing optimal incentive schemes for opinion spreading..." This too is interesting, but also frightening if the notion of "utility-driven" gets stuck in the flatland rationalist, (orange/early green) utilitarian ethic. As Ken has often said, a Basic Moral Intuition (BMI) that seeks the greatest good for the greatest number has to blindly sacrifice a ton of depth, and will ultimately succumb to the tyranny of the majority. So, simply put, while staying along the lines the authors suggest, how about designing incentive schemes for opinion spreading at or for each level in some applicable developmental model? Then, instead of utility-driven motives for opinion switching, we could have appropriately calibrated level-sensitive motives based on, levels of food (need-motivation), while also accounting for a changing sense of the BMI. But, at this point, maybe I'm a bit to hopeful or, perhaps, grasping for meaningful partial truths out of a misplaced sense of guilt for attacking what is actually a study whose methods are far above my ability to comprehend.
|
Core Integral is excited to announce that Course 02: Advanced Integral, the second installment in their acclaimed three course e-learning series on the Integral Approach, has launched and is now available for download or shipment. Created by Ken Wilber and Clint Fuhs, Advanced Integral will indulge your mind with a self-paced, custom curriculum that promises to guide your understanding to a level that's taken folks years to attain on their own.- Please Login to Add Comments
- show all sub-comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
flocking behavior
Posted August 26th, 2011 by Ambo SunoHi Clint and all - I've enjoyed the ideas and challenges presented to computer modeling reality(ies), so far. Reality as AQAL constellation maps at one moment in time and then the next and the next, across perhaps an infinity of objects, people, and phenomena of study - an ambitious proposal. It helps that the moment after the last moment often looks a lot like that one before, there is a tendency for constancy. There is also, it is said, a tendency for change and novelty, and in looking in at only one point (in the sea of infinity of object points of beginning) there could be modeled something that looks like a branching tree. Many of these points and clusters of points are constellated and act according to larger group rules, physical, organic, socio-cultural, and perhaps more etheric-seeming kosmic rules not yet clarified, external and internal. At a simpler view of this branching modeling, we have a highly complex root structure, with so many interconnections - the human neuronal brain might be a better model at some point because there are more interconnections, some seemingly redundant. But the modeling would have to include many brain-like interweavings of reality.
I haven't read the book, but I have enjoyed the title - something like, Man's Presumptuous Brain. The way I started out my narrative entry into the topic above makes this sound to me to be almost impossible. Yet, these studies and predictive modeling experiments clearly are already under way.
Stepping into this conversation seems to have me, of course, way in over my head, as well, yet maybe an interesting thought will come out. Immediately I want to appreciate that Clint has made the obvious to us acknowledgment, when we remember, that we are talking about the "relative" realm. If the incomprehensible seething ever-and-always present wholeness has within it this perhaps somehow resonantly seething relative realm, then there may be further x-factors of complexity that we won't know or understand. Evidently that doesn't mean that we can't try. We began it already with fire, flint-napped tool, wheels, sky-scrapers, CAT scanners, extra-planetary probes and this computer/network mediated ILC.
As one piece in the puzzle and laying out of the task that Clint has done here, I want to acknowledge the work on "flocking behavior", which must be a basic inclusion in this work of modeling but worth mentioning as a visual and as a sort of an artist's measuring thumb of the size and complexity of what is being attempted - to map and calculate in a way adequate to predict something like a percentage tipping point.
How do groups and individuals within a group move forward in "intended" directions or in play (btw, I read that birds activities are 30% of the time in play)? People have studied this and there seems not to be total agreement on the details, but the general outlines included in Wiki probably are close. I paste and link some of this below. Following the Wiki material, I do a little riff on surfing as a small and simple example of flocking behavior mixed with other influences. It seems that at certain degree of closeness and focused selection, what happens on the water can be predicted - at other degrees of closeness and choice of focus prediction would seem impossible.
For fun, notice that the percentage mentioned here is 5% - "The group of people exhibited a very similar behavioral pattern to that of a flock, where if 5% of the flock would change direction the others would follow suit."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flocking_%28behavior%29
Flocking rules
Basic models of flocking behavior are controlled by three simple rules:
1. Separation - avoid crowding neighbors (short range repulsion)
2. Alignment - steer towards average heading of neighbors
3. Cohesion - steer towards average position of neighbors (long range attraction)
With these three simple rules, the flock moves in an extremely realistic way, creating complex motion and interaction that would be extremely hard to create otherwise.
The basic model has been extended in several different ways since Reynolds proposed it. For instance, Delgado-Mata et al. [2] extended the basic model to incorporate the effects of fear. Olfaction was used to transmit emotion between animals, through pheromones modelled as particles in a free expansion gas. Hartman and Benes [3] introduced a complementary force to the alignment that they call the change of leadership. This steer defines the chance of the boid to become a leader and try to escape.
[edit] Measurement
Measurements of bird flocking have been made[4] using high-speed cameras, and a computer analysis has been made to test the simple rules of flocking mentioned above. It is found that they generally hold true in the case of bird flocking, but the long range attraction rule (cohesion) applies to the nearest 5-10 neighbors of the flocking bird and is independent of the distance of these neighbors from the bird. In addition, there is an anisotropy with regard to this cohesive tendency, with more cohesion being exhibited towards neighbors to the sides of the bird, rather than in front or behind. This is no doubt due to the field of vision of the flying bird being directed to the sides rather than directly forward or backward.
[edit] Algorithmic complexity
In flocking simulations, there is no central control; each bird behaves autonomously. In other words, each bird has to decide for itself which flocks to consider as its environment. Usually environment is defined as a circle (2D) or sphere (3D) with a certain radius (representing reach).
A basic implementation of a flocking algorithm has complexity O(n2) - each bird searches through all other birds to find those who falls into his environment.
Possible improvements:
• bin-lattice spatial subdivision. Entire area the flock can move in is divided into a large number of bins. Each bin stores which birds it contains. Each time a bird moves from one bin to another, lattice has to be updated.
◦ Example: 2D(3D) grid in a 2D(3D) flocking simulation.
◦ Complexity: O(nk) , k is number of surrounding bins to consider; just when bird's bin is found in O(1)
Lee Spector, Jon Klein, Chris Perry and Mark Feinstein studied the emergence of collective behavior in evolutionary computation systems.[5]
[edit] Applications
In Cologne, Germany, two biologists from the University of Leeds demonstrated a flock like behavior in humans. The group of people exhibited a very similar behavioral pattern to that of a flock, where if 5% of the flock would change direction the others would follow suit. When one person was designated as a predator and everyone else was to avoid him, the flock behaved very much like a school of fish.[6]
Flocking has also been considered as a means of controlling the behavior of Unmanned Air Vehicles (UAVs).
Flocking is a common technology in screensavers, and has found its use in animation. Flocking has been used in many films[7] to generate crowds which move more realistically. Tim Burton's Batman Returns (1992) featured flocking bats, and Disney's The Lion King (1994) included a wildebeest stampede.
Flocking behaviour has been used for other interesting applications. It has been applied to automatically program Internet multi-channel radio stations [8] . It has also been used for visualizing information [9] and for optimization tasks [10] .
People on the water ostensibly are there to catch waves and it is presumed that they want to go to the best waves for them, depending on their kosmic-surfing address. Some people generally like to be more by themselves, not have to compete for the waves and perhaps enjoy the process with less distraction. I tend to be this way. However, understandably people tend to cluster around the better breaks, as birds like to inhabit the trees with the best and/or most fruit. If you're in the cluster, maybe jockeying a bit for the best spot, given the larger and shifting picture of the cluster, you're perhaps paying attention to both your position and seaward for incoming waves. Let's say someone is in a 'good' spot at the left end at a right-moving break, the direction you want to ride. Then you notice a big wave and perhaps set coming in from outside and further to your left. You notice other people starting to notice and maybe lie down on their boards to paddle - there may soon be a flurry of paddling activity heading in that direction. If you don't move quickly someone else will get the wave, establish a right-of-way going right, in front of you and you will miss out. This could happen time after time. Having some self-interest, you, I start in that direction as soon as I can. Part of my movement is more focused intentional and some is more reflexive. From the outside, sometimes it seems almost reflexive, like flocking behavior - it's not exactly clear who started to move first. Some people, I am guessing, don't even know so clearly why they are moving. It's weird - sometimes there is the clear sense that there is a need for proximity, for social closeness, which may be a bit complex having to do with who is in that group and who are already connected. Some of the attention to moving is focused on the wave, and sometimes it may be more about competition, quite conscious, not-so-conscious, or some degree of intentional. That intentionality and awareness is also context dependent as you are moving stroke for stroke from a superior or inferior strategic position as the competitive status of the moment manifests. Add in your varying judgment of where you think the wave will break in relation to closeness to shore and laterally, plus your relationship to the people around you, and ... and you are making many complex adjustments.
My Hawaiian friend brings more of the Aloha-spirit with him and he stays mellow, lets other people proceed and he picks up plenty of waves. Part of his and some others' attitudes are influenced by their level of mastery and the board they have.
So in surfing there is this strange experience of flocking behavior and individual will and many other contextual factors. All just with surfing, from relative microscopic to relative macroscopic - systems within systems, phenomena subsumed in and overlapping with phenomena.
ambo- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Thanks Clint!
Posted August 26th, 2011 by Lincoln Merchant> " It will take a few more reads to make sense of this—that is, if I can… or even want to try. Put differently, I don't think humans were worked with or consulted in this study. "
I've been reading Ken Wilber and Integral stuff for about 7 years and I can tell you that at the beginning I was very far from being Integral and I still remain far from having a 2nd Tier COG, even if I've notched up in a couple of lines (maybe). Does the "tipping point" require full COG shifts to Teal or can it just be in certain lines? Is it necessary that there be enough exit-Green/Teal/Turquoise individuals in positions of influence and power (leaders and change agents) in culture/academia/business/politics/etc. for the tip to occur? What percentage of individuals who are entering or live on 2nd tier are not particularly successful, influential, or powerful, but just seemingly everyday folks? Does it matter in counting towards the 10%?
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Humor
Posted August 24th, 2011 by StanleySorry, but as I was reading this I was visualizing the kind of reaction I would get trying to explain this to the dudes hanging on the corner;
You can find it right next to the article on isochronal chaos synchronization of delay-coupled optoelectronic oscillators.
But seriously, I sure hope that we reach that tipping point before it is too late.
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
1 out of 1 members found this useful.
what...
Posted August 25th, 2011 by stefanoAs this discussion is above my head, I'll jump in.
Yeah I'd seen on geeky websites news of the 10% finding, and whilst it echoes the magical 10% Ken mentioned could be a tipping point for yellow, I thought the reason for it being 10% for yellow is that yellow is so much more effective (I guess, by not getting bogged down in culture wars). So they're talking about two different things.
Sorta like all those math equations, I think what's interesting here is trying to understand what, exactly, that piece of research tells us. Is it just confined to exercises in the LR? Or does the tetra-arising nature of quadrants mean that in some respect, this can give us clues to the LL?
The reductionist view would be to say that the only way to understand things like religion and mass culture, is by studying it using purely LR methods, like computer networks, or genetics. And lots of people do think that way. So they miss the meaning of the messages being passed around.
That's what made me scratch my head -- really, you could take any belief, any message, with any meaning, and just arbitrarily pump it into a system at the most effective nodes in the network and bingo, everyone flips to agreeing? Any belief? Really?
On the other hand, there are many ideas and "things people know", in common circulation, that people can't actually check for themselves, like, "cholesterol is bad for your heart", or, "money is evil", and so we rely on ... something ... to adopt those opinions ourselves. Are we passive receptors or does our existing worldview filter what we adopt and what we discard?
What might be interesting is that the pure abstract perfect mathematical model of a FLAT network predicts that 10% is a significant tipping point, BUT that doesn't hold in "real life" (ie. when all 4 quadrants are involved) so,
a) can we measure the percentage tipping point in real life social systems?
b) can we then ask why it is different from 10%
I mean, if it can be found to be different, then wouldn't that be an interesting indicator that there is something going on in DEPTH LL that is not visible in an abstract FLAT LR model?
And we might get -- just making up some results here because I'm too lazy to start an institute to study this stuff, but you know this coffee and chocolate is just too good to put down at the moment [1] -- a range of results depending on where the research was performed
Group A tips at 5%
Group B tips at 10%
Group C tips at 40%
Groups D to G don't show any tipping behaviour.
I'm wondering if each altitude (assuming you could test each subculture individually) would "tip" at different points, or not tip at all. I might expect that the way a belief spreads through a tribe may be very different to how it spreads through a modern rational culture.
In effect this could be a measure of something ... allegiance? ... how much people value thinking for themselves ... how much their safety is based on hierarchy and relationships ... etc?
[1] The magical percentage for this chocolate is 90% cocoa. Mmmm....
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 1 members found this useful.
Who is What ?
Posted August 25th, 2011 by vernpeace-- hi, look...this...is...the...21st
...and...marvelousnesss...is
...a...foot...in...life...we...some
...times...get...stuck...no...matter
...how...much...energy...we...throw
...at...it...we...can...not...get...past...49%
...even...the...half...way...mark...seems...
impossible...then...something...marvelous
...can...accur...that...beyond...to...measure
...2%...of...energy...appears...and...takes...us
...to...51%...and...for...some...strange...reason
...its...easy...effort...less...once...we...arrive...at
...this...tilt...ing...however...in...verns...experience
...we...really...dont...influence...that...tilt...that...2%.
peace&love...vern
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
2 out of 2 members found this useful.
Let’s focus on people who are ready to leave green!
Posted August 27th, 2011 by Mats LarssonClint, think your critique of their simplified computer model makes a lot of sense: People = particles = problems. This is true for sure!
Further, what Ken alluded to also makes allot of sense to me: What version/aspect of AQAL are people who identify with red, blue, orange etc most likely to "buy".
But maybe most importantly, which version of AQAL is most likely to be accepted by people who feel uncomfortable when they identifying with green? Is it not this group that is most likely to be truly inspired by AQAL?
I think it would be of interest to do in depth interview with people that are members of Integral Life that probably has been down that road a few years back and now to some degree manifest or at least tries to manifest the Integral Vision.
Or maybe it is possible to create some type of inventory (in combinations with open ended questions) which list different aspects of AQAL, that Integral Life members can rank in an easy manner, which can be informative in this regard?
One possible question could be: Which of the following aspect of Integral/AQAL was most inspiring to you when you first encountered it. Chose five and then rank them from 1 (most inspiring) to 5 (firth most inspiring).
Thanks,
- Mats
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
wishful thinking still exists in Integral
Posted August 25th, 2011 by Ev MilesThe thoughts that popped into my silly little mind while reading this.
The tipping point concept has always bothered me… seems a bit too 100th monkey-ish... just too damn convenient.
what about the complexity of an idea? The idea of say environmental concern - (green) or rights of people - (orange) are rather simple compared to the meta-idea of AQAL. The complexity of the idea of AQAL seems to be a quantum leap in understanding and being. I took to Ken's writings right away in 2006 and had aha after aha but 5 years later with a daily (Yes, daily) obsession, I still am trying to be it in any real sense.
what if it takes 300 years to get from 2% to 10%? The dark ages of the Integral unfolding? Orange was pretty well established in Greek thought long before the middle ages and we spent 1,000 years ignoring it due to circumstances beyond our control or circumstances the majority preferred to focus on - the Dude abides!
To Clint's point about capacity. I have witnessed dozens of associates get a dose of integralism from me and then from another person i know (and even several people i know) and they show absolutely no lasting interest in it - because every time, they have miss interpreted it (pre-trans fallacy) as an orange level - secular, masculine, divisive, judgmental, cognitive perspective and they snuggily and predictably launch into a pluralitis attack on it.
Even more odd is - I have had close friends definitively understand the model, even get excited by it and proceed to ignore or forget about it. Habits, desires, shadows, projections, scripts are too powerful for a single introductory idea to penetrate.
My eyes always roll when I hear the term computer modeling.
to the idea of speeding 10% up to 6% - for any given idea one would like to influence the world with - well, we should not want that, right? BMI? Do we forget the world arises dialectically and always will, so witness we should, not design predict.
I think the Integral catch phrase will spread like stated in the equation and it will burn out through marketing adoption compulsion (Zen perfume) and be replaced with Integral-ish-ism #2, but integral consciousness is 300 years away - easy.
--
Ev Miles :: Buckminster Darwin :: Tumblr