As organizing a workshop will take time, I second the propositions of Norman and Gertjan to open a working group for SimSoc to help produce a paper that summarizes the state of the art of scientific knowledge related to our understanding of terrorism, including the biology of violence, social identity, cost-benefit analysis, tolerance, religion and simulations. Once a collective paper has been produced, SimSoc could help in promoting  and advocating a popular version of the paper so as to try to reach the appropriate decision makers worldwide. This proposal will take time but might be more influential than what a short general statement  could ever be. To explore this idea further, without annoying all SimSoc members, I created the Google group: [log in to unmask] at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/TerrorSociobiology

Anyone wanting to join please write to my personal mail

Klaus Jaffe
http://atta.labb.usb.ve/Klaus/klaus.htm

On 11/15/2015 4:37 PM, Hofstede, Gertjan wrote:

Dear SimSoc members,

 

While I agree with the ideals voiced in Wander’s message, am delighted to see this community become engaged in discussion, and hope Wander’s Fb message gets much support, I’m not sure about such statements formally coming from SimSoc. Who would be our audience, and is anyone waiting for our message? In my role as a scientist I would rather do as Norman says (in thread below), and come up with models of the causes of this kind of violence, than make moral statements, however well formulated.

 

There is quite a bit of social science research on terrorism. Apart from social identity (in this case the social structure of suburb Molenbeek of Brussels seems to be important) there is, for instance, demographics (many young men together), anxiety at cultural level, and personal history at individual level. I would certainly be ready to be part of a group of people trying to put this work into agent-based models. We could also go for some kind of coordinated effort about this, since there will not just be one model that explains everything.

 

Even then I am not optimistic about anyone in politics looking at our models – but we’d be doing our work as scientists.

 

Very best to all

 

Gert Jan

 

From: News and discussion about computer simulation in the social sciences [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Norman Johnson
Sent: zondag 15 november 2015 19:10
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SIMSOC] Statement on behalf of our community on the Paris attacks

 

This is a portion of what I shared personally with Wander, in full support for his effort.  

 

In future statements, as social scientists we are obligated to make the community aware of the innate response of any social organism (slime molds to humans) to become defensive when uncertain or threatened, overriding any rational response.  I believe this is at the core of the problem.  And how populations get manipulated by powers that benefit from separation (increased military spending, increased centralized power, etc.). 

 

As Ozge highlighted, our tendency is to make it about “us” versus “them”.  

 

What I suggest is that as scientists, we speak to the science of the problem, and not confuse it with our moral guidance (although that too has a place). 

 

The perspective that I propose above came out of a two-year effort that Merle Lefkoff and I did 10 years ago - in trying to provide a scientific basis for her profession of conflict resolution.  

 

What became clear was that the missing piece was the dynamics of social group identity: how rational decision making is lost when an individual or group is uncertain or threatened.   Instead, the individual copies the actions of the social identity group.  This is innate to all social organisms.  Said another way, the messenger is more important than the message.  

 

It is our belief that until this understanding is commonly accepted, we will continue to be reactive and take actions that have severe secondary consequence that are not even self-serving (such as the US response to 9/11, rather than reaching out to Muslim Americans to understand why 9/11 happened).  This innate social response also makes us vulnerable to manipulation, simply by leaders creating a threat by “other”.  

This coordinated science-based message at this time may be more challenging than a simple statement of perspective proposed by Wanders and others, hence, my suggestion that it be used in future statements.  

If others are interested in or have supporting science for this perspective, I’d happily act as coordinator for a team effort.  

 

 

Norman Johnson

norman (at) santafe.edu

LinkedIn page

Google Scholar

 

On 2015Nov 15,, at 5:58 AM, Ozge Dilaver <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

 

Dear Wander - Dear all,

 

I think it is an excellent idea to make a position against IS terror and political violence in general. 

 

I am, on the other hand, concerned not to give yet another ‘us’ and ‘them’ message, even if it is a subtle one like in Wander’s original text, because I think it would very much defy the purpose. Personally, I find the politicians’  ‘attack to Western/European values’ discourse that is repeated after each horrible massacre very void, when it is so clear that those values were never applied during numerous military operations of the west to the rest of the world. And as one of the biggest debates of the week in the UK was whether the opposition leader bowed to the queen or not, I don’t find it very sincere to preach about dogmas, or to imply it is only us that has critical thinking.

 

Wander’s text touches upon the terror committed by states as well with his reference to drones, but the grave situation in Iraq and Syria is partly-- if not mostly-- created by the military operations in the region and arguing problems there can now be solved with more internet so that people can start doing what we do, is taking the horror faced there a little too lightly. After all, about the same number of civilians who sadly died in Paris this week dies in these countries on a daily basis.

 

What I am trying to say is perhaps trying not to define the issue as between us the scientist of the free world with critical reasoning, and those who need more of 'what we do’. 

 

In this regard, I came across NPA’s (New Anti-capitalist Party) declaration by Julien Salingue on Facebook which seems to be popular amongst youth movements. Their slogan is ‘vos guerres, nos morts’ (your wars, our dead) better placed between the people of the world at one side, and the aggressive politicians closely linked to aggressive corporations together with IS at the other.

 

I wonder if you would agree it would be better to phrase our position as part of a global humanity versus violence rather than any implications of ‘us’ versus ‘them'.

 

Best wishes,

 

Ozge

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On 15 Nov 2015, at 10:15, Ianni A. <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Dear Wander,

Thanks for this initiative. Please count me in.

Best wishes,

Antonella

Ps: On a minor note: please note
'drones packed with with explosives'.

Dr. A. Ianni| Department  of Economics | University of Southampton | http://www.personal.soton.ac.uk/ianni/ |https://antonellaianni.youcanbook.me<https://antonellaianni.youcanbook.me/>/ |


On 15 Nov 2015, at 09:30, Osinga, Sjoukje <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:

Dear Wander,


I like your initiative and I like the unanimous responses.

Chen, I like your changeto the first sentence of the message (to add mutual understanding). I also liked Wander's original sentence because it's plain and 'energetic', (not split into parts separated by three commas). ​


I think we shouldn't wait too long anymore (the momentum is now).

The statement has everything we stand for: embrace diversity (as complex adaptive systems principle), mutual understanding and critical thinking (as general scientific principle), use technology to make the world better, not for war (the same), and a light tone (good for everybody).

Id say: go ahead with it!

Sjoukje





________________________________
Van: News and discussion about computer simulation in the social sciences <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> namens Chih-Chun Chen <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Verzonden: zondag 15 november 2015 07:08
Aan: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Onderwerp: Re: [SIMSOC] Statement on behalf of our community on the Paris attacks

Dear Wander and all,

I'm so glad that we as a scientific community are responding to these events. One thing I was wondering was whether we might also include the need for mutual understanding more explicitly in the statement.

The most dangerous thing about us human beings isn't our eagerness to use violent means when we have strong beliefs but our tendency to believe strongly and uncritically that we are right and thus justified in imposing these beliefs on others by force. This is also what leads to us, through vilifying or maligning each other, to polarisation.

As scientists, what distinguishes us is that we are able to critically examine all beliefs and positions, and to seek understand them. Tolerance based on an  understanding of how and why different people and peoples differ in their beliefs is far more valuable than tolerance based on a misunderstanding of these. So I was wondering if we might modify the text a little to reflect this idea, e.g.

A flourishing global culture and functioning global society is built on mutual understanding, an eagerness to embrace diversity, and when values conflict, informed tolerance. The IS attacks on innocent citizens appear to be aimed at undermining this tolerant culture by fuelling a polarisation process, setting up groups of people against each other. Rather than responding with violence, leading to a spiralling down to a repressive state, as scientists we believe that we should support critical thinking in areas dominated by dogmatic and repressive powers. We prefer drones offering internet access over drones packed with with explosives. Better a bombardment with laptops than with rockets. Mind that lead is better used for printing than for bullets!

Chih-Chun

---
Research Associate, Complex Systems Scientist
Engineering Design Centre, Department of Engineering
University of Cambridge
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
http://abmcet.net/Chih-Chun_Chen/home.html





Van: News and discussion about computer simulation in the social sciences [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] namens Jager, Wander [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>]


Verzonden: zaterdag 14 november 2015 20:00
Aan: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Onderwerp: [SIMSOC] Statement on behalf of our community on the Paris attacks

Dear friends

Usually we publish our ideas in scientific journals, but considering the impact of the terrorist attacks on innocent citizens on our society, the attack on Paris as the most recent gruesome act, I think that we, being scientists addressing the dynamics of society, have a responsibility to address the general public more directly. A polarisation of society, resulting in conflict, seems to be the aim of these fear-inducing attacks. The more society at large is aware of this likely aim, the more a liberal and tolerant culture might be resilient to such attacks.

I propose publishing a statement on behalf of our scientific community. The following tekst is a sightly adapted post I made on Facebook. It might serve as a start for a joint message, which should have tolerance and openness as key values for a global culture to strive for.

A flourishing global culture requires tolerance and the embracing of diversity as important principles. The IS attacks on innocent citizens appear to be aimed at undermining this tolerant culture by fuelling a polarisation process, setting up groups of people against each other. Rather than responding with violence, leading to a spiralling down to a repressive state, as scientists we believe that we should support critical thinking in areas dominated by dogmatic and repressive powers. We prefer drones offering internet access over drones packed with with explosives. Better a bombardment with laptops than with rockets. Mind that lead is better used for printing than for bullets!

If you support this message just let me know, and if you have some suggestions for improving the tekst and for bringing this message out your input is valued very much.

I hope to share a final tekst on Monday, which I want to circulate on this list.

Warm regards from concerned citizen.

Wander Jager


--
Groningen Center for Social Complexity Studies
University College Groningen
Phone +31 (0)6 361 84 622
[X][X]
Twitter: @GCSCS_RuG
Facebook: Groningen Center for Social Complexity Studies