Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

[cobben]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

YES!!!

Now we're getting some where.

welcome to the 21st Century of Cybernetics & Complexity Theory applied to the Social

"Again, men have no pleasure (but on the contrary a great deal of grief) in keeping company where there is no power able to overawe them all. For every man looketh that his companion should value him at the same rate he sets upon himself, and upon all signs of contempt or undervaluing naturally endeavours, as far as he dares (…), to extort a greater value from his contemners, by damage; and from others, by the example." T. Hobbes, Leviathan, chapter 13.


The Leviathan Model: Absolute Dominance, Generalised Distrust, Small Worlds and Other Patterns Emerging from Combining Vanity with Opinion Propagation


Abstract

We propose an opinion dynamics model that combines processes of vanity and opinion propagation. The interactions take place between randomly chosen pairs. During an interaction, the agents propagate their opinions about themselves and about other people they know. Moreover, each individual is subject to vanity: if her interlocutor seems to value her highly, then she increases her opinion about this interlocutor. On the contrary she tends to decrease her opinion about those who seem to undervalue her. The combination of these dynamics with the hypothesis that the opinion propagation is more efficient when coming from highly valued individuals, leads to different patterns when varying the parameters. For instance, for some parameters the positive opinion links between individuals generate a small world network. In one of the patterns, absolute dominance of one agent alternates with a state of generalised distrust, where all agents have a very low opinion of all the others (including themselves). We provide some explanations of the mechanisms behind these emergent behaviors and finally propose a discussion about their interest.

. . .
Discussion - conclusion

. . .

5.2

We think that our results can shed a new light on Hobbes theses. Indeed, it is striking that our model leads to two situations on which Hobbes focuses particularly: the general distrust (crisis) where men are all enemies of each other (and of themselves), and the absolute dominance of one agent (the Leviathan). In this respect, the model confirms the main intuitions of Hobbes. Moreover, in the crisis-dominance pattern, these two situations alternate dynamically, as if they were the two sides of the same coin. The main point is that they take place spontaneously as an effect of the individual interactions. Moreover, we show that the same hypotheses can lead to very different patterns that were not considered by Hobbes (equality, elite).

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

Syria bans foreign currency transactions

http://www.france24.com/en/20130804-...y-transactions

I'm actually surprised this wasn't done 1-2 years ago.

Even though Assad's regime may have gained a fair bit of momentum in the civil war, ultimately the clock is still just counting down.

Syria will be facing some serious economic hardship, quality of life, and standard of living issues that will fester like cancer creating 1st and 2nd order regime continuity headwinds.

[GRG55]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

State Department Urges U.S. Citizens to Leave Yemen

U.S., U.K. Pull Embassy Staff Due to Potential for Terrorist Attacks

Updated August 6, 2013, 7:37 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON—The State Department on Tuesday ordered the departure of American citizens from Yemen and pulled out all "nonemergency" staff from the embassy in San'a, citing the continuing terrorism threat posed by al Qaeda and its affiliates to U.S. interests.

The State Department's announcement followed its decision on Sunday to close most U.S. embassies in the Middle East for the week ending August 10, citing the al Qaeda threat.

The U.K., which has warned its citizens not to travel to Yemen since 2011, said Tuesday that its embassy staff had also been evacuated from the country. "Due to increased security concerns, all staff in our Yemen embassy have been temporarily withdrawn," a spokeswoman for Britain's foreign office said. "The embassy will remain closed until staff are able to return," she said...

[reggie]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

"Again, men have no pleasure (but on the contrary a great deal of grief) in keeping company where there is no power able to overawe them all. For every man looketh that his companion should value him at the same rate he sets upon himself, and upon all signs of contempt or undervaluing naturally endeavours, as far as he dares (…), to extort a greater value from his contemners, by damage; and from others, by the example." T. Hobbes, Leviathan, chapter 13.


The Leviathan Model: Absolute Dominance, Generalised Distrust, Small Worlds and Other Patterns Emerging from Combining Vanity with Opinion Propagation


Abstract

We propose an opinion dynamics model that combines processes of vanity and opinion propagation. The interactions take place between randomly chosen pairs. During an interaction, the agents propagate their opinions about themselves and about other people they know. Moreover, each individual is subject to vanity: if her interlocutor seems to value her highly, then she increases her opinion about this interlocutor. On the contrary she tends to decrease her opinion about those who seem to undervalue her. The combination of these dynamics with the hypothesis that the opinion propagation is more efficient when coming from highly valued individuals, leads to different patterns when varying the parameters. For instance, for some parameters the positive opinion links between individuals generate a small world network. In one of the patterns, absolute dominance of one agent alternates with a state of generalised distrust, where all agents have a very low opinion of all the others (including themselves). We provide some explanations of the mechanisms behind these emergent behaviors and finally propose a discussion about their interest.

. . .
Discussion - conclusion

. . .

5.2

We think that our results can shed a new light on Hobbes theses. Indeed, it is striking that our model leads to two situations on which Hobbes focuses particularly: the general distrust (crisis) where men are all enemies of each other (and of themselves), and the absolute dominance of one agent (the Leviathan). In this respect, the model confirms the main intuitions of Hobbes. Moreover, in the crisis-dominance pattern, these two situations alternate dynamically, as if they were the two sides of the same coin. The main point is that they take place spontaneously as an effect of the individual interactions. Moreover, we show that the same hypotheses can lead to very different patterns that were not considered by Hobbes (equality, elite).

What a fantastic post! Thank you very much for referring to this paper. I was unaware of this work, but look forward to reviewing it. I also found the following interesting...and jives with what I've distilled from my own personal research.

5.3
The model can also be related with more recent general theories of social interactions, in particular the ones of René Girard (1972; 1982). Indeed, with his thesis about mimetism as being the main driver of social interactions, Girard puts forward a mixture of the ingredients that are present in our model: imitation (opinion propagation) and rivalry (vanity). Girard considers that these ingredients can lead to a state of generalised crisis, where all hierarchies are abolished, and also to the absolute dominance of one agent. Moreover, he insists on the intrinsic instability of the leadership, the book of Job in the Bible being for him a prototypical illustration of such instability. Our model is in accordance with these general views: the same mechanisms can lead to the general crisis and to the dominance, and the dominance is always unstable. However, Girard assumes also that the same mechanisms lead to scapegoat structures where an agent is universally despised. We have not observed this last pattern with our model. If this is confirmed that the model cannot generate such a pattern, it would mean that our model does not implement correctly Girard's hypotheses about individual interactions, or that Girard is wrong about such interactions leading to scape goat patterns

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

Jordan announces power price hike:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=10909178

I recently read an article about King Abdullah of Jordan and the razer's edge he is riding trying to modernize his country while trying to avoid being deposed and murdered.

He seems like an incredibly Westernized(almost American) guy.

I wonder how he will dance on the head of a pin in the period ahead...especially with the enormous pressure his country would be under(yet again) with a jillion refugee guests.

[cobben]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

What a fantastic post! Thank you very much for referring to this paper. I was unaware of this work, but look forward to reviewing it. I also found the following interesting...and jives with what I've distilled from my own personal research.

I thought you might like that, but it wasn't what I was looking for, I didn't find that. Some 15(?) years ago when I was doing some commercial simulation work, I spent some time out of curiousity looking at fringe areas such as "social simulation". I hadn't looked there in quite some time, it was interesting.

[reggie]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

I thought you might like that, but it wasn't what I was looking for, I didn't find that. Some 15(?) years ago when I was doing some commercial simulation work, I spent some time out of curiousity looking at fringe areas such as "social simulation". I hadn't looked there in quite some time, it was interesting.

Yup, this is not an area which is heavily published. Quite frankly, I believe this entire area of research to one that is heavily controlled, and the material that does get out is written in loftfy academic speak that's can be a challenge to decipher for those unfamiliar with the style or the science.

Bruno Latour is a great source of info, even though he speaks in a style that is also difficult to decode.

What's great about understanding Cybernetics is that it is a well developed science that speaks about the relationships between objects. All one has to realize is that these "objects" include HUMANS, as Norbert Weiner so aptly reveals in his 1950's book "Control in the Animal and Machine".

[GRG55]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

How does a new form of "chaos theory" sound? With the US military and State Department supplying the "butterfly effect"...

My original post above, from back in July, 2011, came out of some thoughts and speculations from a series of discussions with friends and associates while I was in the Middle East earlier that spring. Since then the idea that the USA may be pursuing a deliberate policy of promoting instability and chaos in the region seems to be gaining some traction.

I found this comment by Martin Armstrong this morning that someone emailed to me just a wee bit interesting:

"...President Hassan Rouhani is preparing to travel to New York to attend the UN personally this month. This will be a real first for Iran. The US military strikes on Syria seem almost a desperate attempt to stop Rouhani’s diplomacy efforts. A rational play here would be to back off and try to encourage President Rouhani and show the Iranian people that joining the world community is better than confronting it.

So there are clearly questions that spring forward as to why would Obama derail the entire region and support the hardliner’s who will say – see, you cannot trust the yanks. When President Rouhani is coming to the US this month, this is even stranger timing. It is as if Obama is deliberately trying to create an unstable Middle East."

[reggie]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

My original post above, from back in July, 2011, came out of some thoughts and speculations from a series of discussions with friends and associates while I was in the Middle East earlier that spring. Since then the idea that the USA may be pursuing a deliberate policy of promoting instability and chaos in the region seems to be gaining some traction.

I found this comment by Martin Armstrong this morning that someone emailed to me just a wee bit interesting:

"...President Hassan Rouhani is preparing to travel to New York to attend the UN personally this month. This will be a real first for Iran. The US military strikes on Syria seem almost a desperate attempt to stop Rouhani’s diplomacy efforts. A rational play here would be to back off and try to encourage President Rouhani and show the Iranian people that joining the world community is better than confronting it.

So there are clearly questions that spring forward as to why would Obama derail the entire region and support the hardliner’s who will say – see, you cannot trust the yanks. When President Rouhani is coming to the US this month, this is even stranger timing. It is as if Obama is deliberately trying to create an unstable Middle East."

I think I've been pretty consistent in my postings that Choas is the goal, and that the systems and know-how exist, and are already deployed, to control a chaotic global society that adhere to Heinz von Forrester's Power Laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_law). Unfortunately, any indepth discussion of the techniques in-play have been short-circuited largely because the insight has been dismissed and mostly marginalized here.

Perhaps that we now have posters seeing the effects of this trajectory, and engaging in these sorts of discussions with others, we can begin to move into postings that are not covered by alternative and mainstream sources, but that are grounded in academic research that is not widely promoted except to others in the academic military industrial circles. It's time to read-up on Complex Adaptive Systems and to come to terms with the notiion that this science is being applied to the social.

I posted this reference in another thread, but the following material is relevant to any discussion of the techniques in-play...

[ATTACH]5072[/ATTACH]

The Philosophy of Total Propaganda Control
http://www.coldtype.net/Assets.04/Essays.04/Miller.pdf

To the outsider, discussions about how ‘information dominance’ dif-
fers from ‘information superiority’ might seem arcane, but they are
revealing. For example, in a paper written back in 1997 Jim Winters and
John Giffin of the US Space and Information Operations Directorate
argued that information superiority was insufficient: ‘at some base
point “superiority” means an advantage of 51-49, on some arbitrary
metric scale. That is not enough of an advantage to give us the freedom
of action required to establish “Full Spectrum dominance”’.
Dominance implies ‘a mastery of the situation’ Superiority ‘only an
edge’. According to Winters and Giffin ‘We think of dominance in
terms of “having our way” – “Overmatch” over all operational possi-
bilities. This connotation is “qualitative” rather than “quantitative”.
When dominance occurs, nothing done, makes any difference. We have
sufficient knowledge to stop anything we don’t want to occur, or do any-
thing we want to do.’

And here is a relatively recent book from the Editor of Wired magazine that supports the idea of a chaotic future.



Full Text available online
http://www.kk.org/outofcontrol/contents.php

[jk]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

My original post above, from back in July, 2011, came out of some thoughts and speculations from a series of discussions with friends and associates while I was in the Middle East earlier that spring. Since then the idea that the USA may be pursuing a deliberate policy of promoting instability and chaos in the region seems to be gaining some traction.

I found this comment by Martin Armstrong this morning that someone emailed to me just a wee bit interesting:

"...President Hassan Rouhani is preparing to travel to New York to attend the UN personally this month. This will be a real first for Iran. The US military strikes on Syria seem almost a desperate attempt to stop Rouhani’s diplomacy efforts. A rational play here would be to back off and try to encourage President Rouhani and show the Iranian people that joining the world community is better than confronting it.

So there are clearly questions that spring forward as to why would Obama derail the entire region and support the hardliner’s who will say – see, you cannot trust the yanks. When President Rouhani is coming to the US this month, this is even stranger timing. It is as if Obama is deliberately trying to create an unstable Middle East."

any theories about motivations for the u.s. to destabilize the middle east? my thinking has been that we are predominantly working for the saudis and gulf states within an islamic civil war. or, if one prefers secular geopolitical terms, in the conflict between the saudis and the iranians for regional dominance.

[vt]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

http://www.humanevents.com/2013/09/0...r-goes-to-war/ Community organizer goes to war By: Ann Coulter 9/4/2013 03:28 PM Oh, how I long for the days when liberals wailed that “the rest of the world” hated America, rather than now, when the rest of the world laughs at us. With the vast majority of Americans opposing a strike against Syria, President Obama has requested that Congress vote on his powers as commander in chief under the Constitution. The president doesn’t need congressional approval to shoot a few missiles into Syria, nor — amazingly — has he said he’ll abide by such a vote, anyway. Why is Congress even having a vote? This is nothing but a fig leaf to cover Obama’s own idiotic “red line” ultimatum to President Bashar al-Assad of Syria on chemical weapons. The Nobel Peace Prize winner needs to get Congress on the record so that whatever happens, the media can blame Republicans. No Republican who thinks seriously about America’s national security interests — by which I mean to exclude John McCain and Lindsey Graham — can support Obama’s “plan” to shoot blindly into this hornet’s nest. It would be completely different if we knew with absolute certainty that Assad was responsible for chemical attacks on his own people. (I’m still waiting to see if it was a Syrian upset about a YouTube video.) It would be different if instead of killing a few hundred civilians, Assad had killed 5,000 civilians with poison gas in a single day, as well as tens of thousands more with chemical weapons in the past few decades. It would be different if Assad were known to torture his own people, administer summary executions, rapes, burnings and electric shocks, often in front of the victim’s wife or children. It would be different if Assad had acted aggressively toward the United States itself, perhaps attempting to assassinate a former U.S. president or giving shelter to terrorists who had struck within the U.S. — someone like Maj. Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood terrorist. It would be different if Assad were stirring up trouble in the entire Middle East by, for example, paying bounties to the families of suicide bombers in other countries. It would also be different if we could be sure that intervention in Syria would not lead to a multi-nation conflagration. It would be different if we knew that any action against Syria would not put al-Qaida or the Muslim Brotherhood in power, but rather would result in a functioning, peaceful democracy. And it would be different if an attack on Syria would so terrify other dictators in the region that Iran would respond by instantly abandoning its nuclear program. If all of that were true, this would be a military intervention worth supporting! All of that was true about Iraq, but the Democrats hysterically opposed that war. They opposed it even after all this was known to be true — indeed, especially after it was known to be true! The loudest opponent was Barack Obama. President Saddam Hussein of Iraq had attempted to assassinate former president George H.W. Bush. He gave shelter to Abdul Rahman Yasin, a conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. He paid bounties to the families of suicide bombers in Israel. Soon after Bush invaded Iraq in 2003, Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi was so terrified of an attack on his own country, he voluntarily relinquished his WMDs — which turned out to be far more extensive than previously imagined. Al-Qaida not only did not take over Iraq, but got its butt handed to it in Iraq, where the U.S. and its allies killed thousands of al-Qaida fighters, including the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Iraq became the first genuine Arab democracy, holding several elections and presiding over a trial of Saddam Hussein. Does anyone imagine that any of this would result from an Obama-led operation in Syria? How did his interventions work out in Egypt and Libya? As for chemical weapons — the casus belli for the current drums of war — in a matter of hours on March 16, 1988, Saddam Hussein slaughtered roughly 5,000 Kurdish civilians in Halabja with mustard, sarin and VX gas. The victims blistered, vomited or laughed hysterically before dropping dead. Thousands more would die later from the after-effects of these poisons. Saddam launched nearly two dozen more chemical attacks on the Kurds, resulting in at least 50,000 deaths, perhaps three times that many. That’s to say nothing of the tens of thousands of Iranians Saddam killed with poison gas. Indeed, in making the case against Assad recently, Secretary of State John Kerry said his use of chemical weapons put him in the same league as “Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein.” Not even close — but may we ask why Kerry sneered at the war that removed such a monster as Hussein? There were endless United Nations reports and resolutions both establishing that Saddam had used chemical weapons and calling on him to give them up. (For the eighth billionth time, we did find chemical weapons in Iraq, just no “stockpiles.” Those had been moved before the war, according to Saddam’s own general, Georges Sada — to Syria.) On far less evidence, our current president accuses Assad of using chemical weapons against a fraction of the civilians provably murdered with poison gas by Saddam Hussein. So why did Obama angrily denounce the military operation that removed Hussein? Why did he call that a “war of choice”? Obama says Assad — unlike that great statesman Saddam Hussein — has posed “a challenge to the world.” But the world disagrees. Even our usual ally, Britain, disagrees. So Obama demands the United States act alone to stop a dictator, who — compared to Saddam — is a piker. At this point, Assad is at least 49,000 dead bodies short of the good cause the Iraq War was, even if chemical weapons had been the only reason to take out Saddam Hussein.

[vt]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

Arabs agree to pay total cost of a full invasion:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics-live/liveblog/the-houses-syria-hearing-live-updates/#e68f139f-e012-476c-876e-2467ba30e5e3

Are we now Obama's mercenaries?

[GRG55]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

Arabs agree to pay total cost of a full invasion:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics-live/liveblog/the-houses-syria-hearing-live-updates/#e68f139f-e012-476c-876e-2467ba30e5e3

Are we now Obama's mercenaries?

Surely nobody here is surprised?

Who do you think paid for most of the costs of Gulf War I? Why do you think General Schwarzkopf was instructed to stop short of deposing Saddam (but now the USA is being urged to lead the overthrow of Assad)? Take a good guess why the the USA, after Bush Sr. used Voice of America radio to encourage disgruntled Iraqis (which not surprisingly turned out to be predominantly the Shia and Kurds) to rise up and overthrow their government, refused to intervene to prevent the ensuing reprisals and slaughter by Saddam's loyalist forces?

In 1991 Iran, still exhausted and drained by 8 years of war with Iraq, could do very little to influence the outcomes. 20+ years later the chess pieces on the game board are arranged just a little bit differently. The Saudi's regard the Shia as apostates. Contrary to some opinions voiced on this site, the sectarian foundation underpinning this conflict is the primary dynamic.

The regime in Iran, subject to condemnation and US led sanctions, is odious. But no more so than the medievals that run Saudi Arabia, which enjoys unconditional support from the USA and its European allies.

Odious though their corrupt and theocratic government might be, the people of Iran are an entirely different matter. I was in one of the Arab Emirates in the Persian Gulf on the afternoon and evening of 9/11 (it was afternoon in the Gulf as that morning's events were unfolding in NY and D.C.). I witnessed first hand, with utter dismay and a naive lack of understanding at the time, the rejoicing going on among many of the Arabs (I lost track of the number that volunteered to me, a complete stranger, that it was "the happiest day of their life"). Across the Gulf something quite different was happening:

"On the evening of September 11, 2001, about ten thousand Iranian people gathered in Madar Square, on the north side of Tehran, in a spontaneous candlelight vigil to express sympathy and support for the American People"

[aaron]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

any theories about motivations for the u.s. to destabilize the middle east? my thinking has been that we are predominantly working for the saudis and gulf states within an islamic civil war. or, if one prefers secular geopolitical terms, in the conflict between the saudis and the iranians for regional dominance.

It seems to me Russia benefits the most from an unstable Middle East. They get to sell arms to countries for profit. They get to profit hugely from the higher prices of oil. Doesn't Putin need that money to continue to consolidate power?

Regardless, if I were Russia, I would want the chaos to go on and on and on. It is profitable.

[GRG55]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

It seems to me Russia benefits the most from an unstable Middle East. They get to sell arms to countries for profit. They get to profit hugely from the higher prices of oil. Doesn't Putin need that money to continue to consolidate power?

Regardless, if I were Russia, I would want the chaos to go on and on and on. It is profitable.

NOBODY does it better than America...

Among other problems, the Russians lost about $4 Billion equivalent annual sales of armaments to Libya after the good Colonel was punted.



WASHINGTON — Weapons sales by the United States tripled in 2011 to a record high, driven by major arms sales to Persian Gulf allies concerned about Iran’s regional ambitions, according to a new study for Congress.

Overseas weapons sales by the United States totaled $66.3 billion last year, or more than three-quarters of the global arms market, valued at $85.3 billion in 2011. Russia was a distant second, with $4.8 billion in deals...

...The agreements with Saudi Arabia included the purchase of 84 advanced F-15 fighters, a variety of ammunition, missiles and logistics support, and upgrades of 70 of the F-15 fighters in the current fleet.Sales to Saudi Arabia last year also included dozens of Apache and Black Hawk helicopters, all contributing to a total Saudi weapons deal from the United States of $33.4 billion, according to the study.

The United Arab Emirates purchased a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, an advanced antimissile shield that includes radars and is valued at $3.49 billion, as well as 16 Chinook helicopters for $939 million.

Oman bought 18 F-16 fighters for $1.4 billion.

In keeping with recent trends, most of the weapons purchases, worth about $71.5 billion, were made by developing nations, with about $56.3 billion of that from the United States.

Other significant weapons deals by the United States last year included a $4.1 billion agreement with India for 10 C-17 transport planes and with Taiwan for Patriot antimissile batteries valued at $2 billion — an arms deal that outraged officials in Beijing...