Walter Luke wrote:
> Social simulations aimed at representing fundamental social processes
>tend to use one flavor of economic model or another, where the actor is
>assumed to select the course of action which will maximize it's utility,
>whether through cold calculation or, as in exchange theoretic models, by
>repeating behaviors which have had previously positive consequences. A
>social norm, for instance, will be discussed in terms of costs of
>enforcement/compliance, prestige, and so on... While this approach is
>useful (exchange theory in particular), it seems to me that in order to
>study human social processes through simulation the problem of meaning
>will have to be addressed.
> It is easy to describe a norm against unwarranted aggression from a
>functional perspective, and not too difficult to propose useful
>theories about how a system of norms and censures will balance the
>interest of the individual against the group, the particular meaning
>with which that norm is expressed and understood is an integral
>component of the behavior of a human social system. That is to say, it
>matters whether a norm against aggression is expressed as "Do unto
>others...", "You'll feel better about yourself if you're nice", "Don't
>hurt people or God will be mad", or is simply taken for granted and need
>not be articulated, because so much of culture and social change exists
>only on this mental landscape. While different ideologies may be
>expressions of functional necessities, conflicts between groups, and so
>on, they are also active agents of social change in and of themselves.
>The fact that thought systems are not readily amenable to modeling seems
>to be what keeps social simulation primitive. One comes across abundant
>simulations describing social norms, but few which attempt to model the
>emergence of culture, ideology, etc...
> I am interested in everyone's thoughts on how such issues can be
>addressed. Can social simulation advance to the point where systems of
>meaning fall more within our scope of study, and if so how? Or is it
>impossible to describe such things empirically?
>
This is one of the most interesting questions facing sociologists and
anthropologists who are trying to use simulations to deal with highly
complex systems. In my own work it seems that what we need is a synthesis
of Darwinian natural selection theory and complexity theory if we are to
advance in the direction of culture. Put simply, natural selection theory
can determine the kinds of things an actor or agent can do (individually,
socially and therefore in terms of emerging culture), and complexity theory
can depict the path of evolution (the type of attractor involved) of a
system, and show that complex outcomes can emerge from simple underlying
structures. As a sociologist or anthropologist it may be possible to start
with simple rules that have evolved as species level conditions and run
these in simulations of social environments - even at the cognitive level
(Edelman's work on the evolution of the mind is relevant at this level).
Cultural life is hard to deal with from the top down, because of the
complexity, but if one starts from basic evolved conditions unfolding by
why of coevolution with social and cultura lcontexts then complexity will
emerge. And if it is like that which we can discern empirically then some
progress will have been made in modelling cultural and social phenmonena.
I think we can begin this type of research now. I'm planning to make a
start soon with incest - but what do others think?
Alan
____________________________________________________________________________
Alan Dean Ph.D.
Sociology and Anthropology
School of Comparative and Applied Social Sciences
The University of Hull
Hull
HU6 7RX
UK
Phone: +44 (1482) 465743
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Fax: +44 (1482) 466306
WWW: http://150.237.76.29/www/ad/alandean.html
____________________________________________________________________________
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|