In illo tempore...

[marct]

Hi Mike,

Good references. Smith's models have been applied that way and, if you get into some of the really obscure journals (obscure even in academic terms ), you can find some really neat modifications and, also, some of the limitations of the ESS model (e.g. a restricted environment).

I think that Lotka's Elements of Mathematical Biology gives us some basic models, but the problem with socio-cultural evolution is that it is Lamarckian and not strictly Darwinian (i.e. the inheritance of acquired characteristics). Not a major problem, really, since all we have to do is shift the theory of heritability, but it does mean that simple predator-prey models have some major limits.

The other key difference coming out is that socio-cultural evolution is really a form of punctuated equilibrium a la Eldridge and Gould. So, we're got these "equilibrium" phases that last for a longish time and then, wham bam, we have massive mutation and all sorts of new, competing things showing up. What's "neat" about this is that there are regularities at the process level (yes, Wilf, sometimes War really is just War ).

Anyway, I think we're in one of those punctuations right now - rapid mutation, rapid shifts and changes in heritability mechanisms, etc.

***********
postscript:

I blame John for me rambling on about evolutionary theory - If I wasn't working on that paper / book, i wouldn't be doing this - maybe !

Cheers,

Marc

[MikeF]

Good references. Smith's models have been applied that way and, if you get into some of the really obscure journals (obscure even in academic terms ), you can find some really neat modifications and, also, some of the limitations of the ESS model (e.g. a restricted environment).

If/when I eventually work on a dissertation, I'm going to try and apply an adapted model of both Smith and John Nash's work to small wars. In regards to limitations, I have been tinkering with challenging Smith's assumptions on posturing and perfect communication and Nash's assumptions on utility as THE sole means of arbitration. Applied to real world people problems, those assumptions are too narrow. There is no such thing as perfect communication (posturing is often misread), and utility arbitration does not account for emotions (grievances in terms of small wars).

v/r

Mike