Virtual Militias

[wm]

This may just be another case of us saying the same, or similar, things with different languages . I'm just not sure when it will happen or if it will happen. The historical analogs were all predicated on low speed communications and fairly low technology, both of which make a major difference.

Marc,
I don't doubt that we are experiencing one of those instances of "two people divided by a common language."
I believe that speed of communications and level of technology will impact primarily by shortening the pendulum's period of oscillation. In other words, the swings between aggregation of power and disaggregation of power will occur more rapidly, hence more social turbulence will arise. Technological advances allow people to see much more rapidly that they are not alone in their dissatisfaction with the status quo, which makes them more likely to band together to change (the "madness of crowds" phenomenon or what was called a "right on" movement in the '60s). Technology does not, however, provide us with a silver bullet to get past the emotional (and therefore not rationally considered) knee jerk solutions that the dissatisfaction will engender. Of course, I am viewing this as a Westerner, with typical Western lack of patience.

[J Wolfsberger]

I'm really fascinated by the emergence of virtual militias which take on terrorists, insurgents, etc. in the virtual battlespace. Here's one example.

Thoughts on them?

I think it is an insurgent counterinsurgency.

(And my tongue was not in my cheek as I wrote this.)

Furthermore, I think they have a critical role to play. A great deal of what has been published in the MSM has been propoganda. It is impossible for the US Government to effectively counter it. That is the role these groups can fill.

[marct]

Hi Wayne,

I don't doubt that we are experiencing one of those instances of "two people divided by a common language."

LOLOL - too true!

I believe that speed of communications and level of technology will impact primarily by shortening the pendulum's period of oscillation. In other words, the swings between aggregation of power and disaggregation of power will occur more rapidly, hence more social turbulence will arise.

I think that is one possible solution, but I have a suspicion that centralized aggregation will be on the decrease. My gut is telling me that we are in a period of increasing neo-tribalism where there will be an increasing demand for "governments" to pull back. The flip side, of course, is that the increasing turbulence makes it much more probable that there will be more and more "revitalization movements" appearing selling the glories of a Golden Age that never existed (usually a variant of a centralized government).

Technological advances allow people to see much more rapidly that they are not alone in their dissatisfaction with the status quo, which makes them more likely to band together to change (the "madness of crowds" phenomenon or what was called a "right on" movement in the '60s). Technology does not, however, provide us with a silver bullet to get past the emotional (and therefore not rationally considered) knee jerk solutions that the dissatisfaction will engender. Of course, I am viewing this as a Westerner, with typical Western lack of patience.

Yup - it's one of the reasons why I decided to specialize in sense-making and symbolism; I wanted to get a handle on my world . Personally, I blame Descarte for most of this since we in the West have pretty much abandoned everything but the material world and, as a result, left us without a) the "technologies" to handle rapid shifts in reality, and b) our collective sense of wonder. Then again, as Stan notes with almost depressing regularity, I am a hopeless romantic .

[Hacksaw]

WM,

I caveat the following in saying that the following is based on anecdotal evidence and intuition (thus I have violating rule #1 of effective communication - never put the disclaimer in front) ....

I would argue that the impact of an omni -present info sphere is less upheaval as opppsed to more. I will use an econ example as an anecdotal piece of evidence... During the Clinton years our economy enjoyed unprescedented growth, low unemployment AND LOW INFLATION. This made teaching MACRO ECONA at USMA, a little dicey.

How can it be so? My feeble thought on the matter is that developed economies (to include our own) still suffer the same cyclical periods of "recession" and "inflation" (I do "this" because I'm not sure the definitions still hold true based on time period), the difference is that the flucuation and magnitude of the sine curve is far less pronounced. Why? A possible explaination is that near-perfect information results in a far more optimized investment decisions from the collective whole. In other words, the reduction in lag time between reality and knowledge of that same reality reduces the flucuation/upheaval of the past. Money chases high returns, regardless of locale

Might this translate to other areas of social activity. I think its likely based on the premise behind the ideas of Adam Smith. It is human nature to act in self-interest. In the example we discussed, I may have more knowledge of those with more, but I also have more knowledge of the impact of social upheaval. Hence, societies will likely reach a stasis and then as a matter of course make rapid minor corrections that result in little "mass upheaval". Of course, getting to that stasis is likely to be a b1tch or this example might not translate. I certainly can't point to any rigorous academic analysis of my premise, but then again it makes sense in the vacuum between my ears.

Now for my final disclaimer... I apologize for the typical stream of consciousness (& poor spelling) that characterize all my postings

Live Well and Row

[marct]

Hi Hacksaw,

Don't know when WM will respond but I just had to jump in <evil grin>.

I would argue that the impact of an omni -present info sphere is less upheaval as opppsed to more. ....

How can it be so? My feeble thought on the matter is that developed economies (to include our own) still suffer the same cyclical periods of "recession" and "inflation" (I do "this" because I'm not sure the definitions still hold true based on time period), the difference is that the flucuation and magnitude of the sine curve is far less pronounced. Why? A possible explaination is that near-perfect information results in a far more optimized investment decisions from the collective whole. In other words, the reduction in lag time between reality and knowledge of that same reality reduces the flucuation/upheaval of the past. Money chases high returns, regardless of locale

I think it is important to distinguish between "information", "noise" and "knowledge" here. Information, and I use Bateson's definition as "a difference that makes a difference", does not automatically translate to perception or use of information. You mention the financial markets, but i would suggest to you that they are actually more unstable now than they were 40 years ago due to the proliferation of automation and expert systems as well as massive over production capacities. Like you, I'm only able to toss out anecdotal points, but I think things like Nick Leeson and the Bearings Bank fiasco illustrate some of the problems.

Might this translate to other areas of social activity. I think its likely based on the premise behind the ideas of Adam Smith. It is human nature to act in self-interest. In the example we discussed, I may have more knowledge of those with more, but I also have more knowledge of the impact of social upheaval. Hence, societies will likely reach a stasis and then as a matter of course make rapid minor corrections that result in little "mass upheaval". Of course, getting to that stasis is likely to be a b1tch or this example might not translate. I certainly can't point to any rigorous academic analysis of my premise, but then again it makes sense in the vacuum between my ears.

Personally, I don't think it translates. Smith's premise is too focused on a singular facet of human nature and way too "rational". And, while self interest is a motivator, it is not the only one by a long shot. For example, there has been an incredible amount of work done looking at altruism, or at least the ability to fake it in social settings, as a requirement for a society to function.

Second, as a species, we've been on a roller coaster ride for at least 12,000 years ever since some twit decided to settle down and get into horticulture. We have had quasi-stable periods and, as long as change has been fairly slow, say over a 100 year period, we tends to not perceive that change too much. However, every major change in communications technology has also been matched with a fairly major change in social organization and instability. Sure, it tapers off for a while but that is because the technology matures and is absorbed in the culture. At the same time, that technology also acts as a catalyst to produce new communications technologies as it reaches its limits which, in turn, sets off more instabilities.

Personally, I don't think we will see a "stasis" period for a while, but, hey, I could easily be wrong .

Marc

[wm]

I would argue that the impact of an omni -present info sphere is less upheaval as opppsed to more. I will use an econ example as an anecdotal piece of evidence... During the Clinton years our economy enjoyed unprescedented growth, low unemployment AND LOW INFLATION. This made teaching MACRO ECONA at USMA, a little dicey.

How can it be so? My feeble thought on the matter is that developed economies (to include our own) still suffer the same cyclical periods of "recession" and "inflation" (I do "this" because I'm not sure the definitions still hold true based on time period), the difference is that the flucuation and magnitude of the sine curve is far less pronounced. Why? A possible explaination is that near-perfect information results in a far more optimized investment decisions from the collective whole. In other words, the reduction in lag time between reality and knowledge of that same reality reduces the flucuation/upheaval of the past. Money chases high returns, regardless of locale

Might this translate to other areas of social activity. I think its likely based on the premise behind the ideas of Adam Smith. It is human nature to act in self-interest. In the example we discussed, I may have more knowledge of those with more, but I also have more knowledge of the impact of social upheaval. Hence, societies will likely reach a stasis and then as a matter of course make rapid minor corrections that result in little "mass upheaval". Of course, getting to that stasis is likely to be a b1tch or this example might not translate. I certainly can't point to any rigorous academic analysis of my premise, but then again it makes sense in the vacuum between my ears.

Now for my final disclaimer... I apologize for the typical stream of consciousness (& poor spelling) that characterize all my postings

Live Well and Row

I would agree with you if I accepted that we operate in perfection, rational conformance to an informed choice model. But, I am inclined to believe, and that belief is, like yours, based on anecdotal evidence not what would pass for rigorous quantitiative analysis among academic economists, that the more we know, the more we dither about what we will do next and the greater the turbulence. Unfortunately, I doubt that we are like the archangel that R.M. Hare uses to justify utilitarian ethical thinking. As to your anecdote about the Clinton years, I think that is best explained by overt interference by Greenspan and the FED, not an Adam Smith inspired hidden hand in the market.

I hope you remembered your disclaimer about stream-of-consciousness rambling as you tried to fight through the above. PM coming as well.

[wm]

Smith's premise is too focused on a singular facet of human nature and way too "rational". And, while self interest is a motivator, it is not the only one by a long shot. For example, there has been an incredible amount of work done looking at altruism, or at least the ability to fake it in social settings, as a requirement for a society to function.

Second, as a species, we've been on a roller coaster ride for at least 12,000 years ever since some twit decided to settle down and get into horticulture. We have had quasi-stable periods and, as long as change has been fairly slow, say over a 100 year period, we tends to not perceive that change too much. However, every major change in communications technology has also been matched with a fairly major change in social organization and instability. Sure, it tapers off for a while but that is because the technology matures and is absorbed in the culture. At the same time, that technology also acts as a catalyst to produce new communications technologies as it reaches its limits which, in turn, sets off more instabilities.

Personally, I don't think we will see a "stasis" period for a while, but, hey, I could easily be wrong .

Marc

I suspect that if we believe that the second law of thermodynamics applies to human actiivity, then Hacksaw is right about a stasis--we will lose our impetus to change. In other words, our "get up and go" will get up and go. But, I'm not sure that I want to map the laws of Thermo onto human behavior.
However, another result of applying the 2nd law is that random, chaotic behavior in a closed system must increase over time. I guess the question becomes whether human life on Earth constititues a closed system.

[selil]

I tried to capture the idea of the pendulum swinging between individualism and nationalism as actor capability and ability. Technology does appear to speed the swing, but it also empowers both the national actor and non-state actor. The US government has used technology substantially to strengthen it's hold. I added a line of perceived corporatism's rise within this system of struggle. Starting with the Renaissance business just keeps getting stronger. I'll do just about anything to not have to read anymore sociology today.

[marct]

I tried to capture the idea of the pendulum swinging between individualism and nationalism as actor capability and ability. Technology does appear to speed the swing, but it also empowers both the national actor and non-state actor. The US government has used technology substantially to strengthen it's hold. I added a line of perceived corporatism's rise within this system of struggle. Starting with the Renaissance business just keeps getting stronger. I'll do just about anything to not have to read anymore sociology today.

Interesting little chart, Sam . Still and all, you should drop out feudalism since the rest of your data points are based on the US and, outside of a few Golden Age myths about Virginia I don't think you folks had a feudalism.

Marc

[Tom Odom]

feudalism.

I dunno 'bout that...

We fight an awful lot down here...

[Ken White]

feudalists. Several of 'em, in fact -- both sides of the family...

[wm]

feudalists. Several of 'em, in fact -- both sides of the family...

So Ken, would Hatfield be your mother's maiden name or was it McCoy? I know it can't go back to generations any earlier than that, given your longevity.

[selil]

I thought about putting in "rednecks" but being a denizen of the northern woods where we eat smoked spotted owl and cut down trees so you can have a real view us "logger necks" know our southern brethren are just misunderstood.

[Ken White]

Redneck is no insult, Sam. I've been all over this country and they're in every State, only the accents differ. We-elll, those down here are a little more polite. Sometimes...

[Rank amateur]

During the Clinton years

near-perfect information results in a far more optimized investment decisions from the collective whole.

If this were true, I wouldn't have lost so much money when the tech bubble burst.

I would, however, suggest that BS - people are going to buy everything over the Internet - gets spread more widely, causing bigger bubbles, faster corrections.

[J Wolfsberger]

I thought about putting in "rednecks" but being a denizen of the northern woods where we eat smoked spotted owl and cut down trees so you can have a real view us "logger necks" know our southern brethren are just misunderstood.

You eat smoked spotted owl?!!

Shouldn't they be fried? Or is that just the (Southern) redneck in me coming out?

[selil]

You eat smoked spotted owl?!!

Shouldn't they be fried? Or is that just the (Southern) redneck in me coming out?

And you probably think okra is edible too.

[Tom Odom]

And you probably think okra is edible too.

okra is OK, even superb when fried or added to gumbo

boiled it alone it leaves a slime trail like a snail

[SteveMetz]

okra is OK, even superb when fried or added to gumbo

boiled it alone it leaves a slime trail like a snail

Like OSD, okra can be de-slimed with the proper technique.

[Tom Odom]

Like OSD, okra can be de-slimed with the proper technique.

you mean it can be...

transformed?