Skip to main content
Post a Comment

Out-of-Sync ‘Loners’ May Secretly Protect Orderly Swarms


Responding to an article in Quanta, Out-of-Sync ‘Loners’ May Secretly Protect Orderly Swarms:

Wasn't this always obvious? Maybe not.

I've been reading more in complexity and systems, and as most people do, toy with ideas about evolution, but this seems applicable. in the same way that not all humans show the same level of conformity nor rebellion, humans vary in their level of collective action, and in some cases, being the outsider can pay off with reproductive success, particularly if the herd is dominated by a few top-level reproducers. In some ways it can produce more robust offspring, and facilitate species survival.

One book I read that explored this was Complex Adaptive Systems: An Introduction to Computational Models of Social Life, and from that, the idea of modeling a group and randomizing initial behavior, then using a genetic algorithm to 'reproduce' could easily wind up with the article's scenario, provided the 'environment' was sufficiently varied. If one only has a single and unvarying environment, then likely one trait will dominate, even push out completely the lesser trait, but real life is messy...
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst by Robert M. Sapolsky My rating: 5 of 5 stars I finished reading this crying. It is a work of neurobiology, social science, anthropology, and history, but ultimately it is a work of great humanity, suggesting ways that humans, our groups, our systems, and our societies can be made better. View all my reviews
Post a Comment
Read more

A Journey — if You Dare — Into the Minds of Silicon Valley Programmers

My responses in a NY Times comment section for the book, Coders: The Making of a New Tribe and the Remaking of the World by Clive Thompson : #1 - Link Although I've been a software developer for 15 years, and for longer alternating between a project manager, team lead, or analyst, mostly in finance, and now with a cancer center, I found it funny that you blame the people doing the coding for not seeing the harm it could cause. First, most scientific advancement has dark elements, and it is usually not the science but how it is used and sold by business people that is the problem. This leads to the second problem, in that it is not coding that is in itself problematic, but specifically how technology is harnessed to sell. It is normal and desirable to track users, to log actions, to collect telemetry, so as to monitor systems, respond to errors, and to develop new features, but that normal engineering practice has been used to surveil users for the purpose of selling. Blaming
Post a Comment
Read more

Don't learn to code. Learn to think.

A response to  Don't learn to code. Learn to think. : Below is is my usual response when I see an article stating that everyone should learn to code:  Rather than programming, it is more important to impart the thinking of computer science (CS) than a specific implementation. Programming can be an end point for some students, but it is likely that programming itself will be increasingly automated, so that one needs more the general concepts common in CS. Even then, programming itself is to some degree a grunt task that one progresses beyond:  The following are typical components of a CS degree: algorithms & flowcharting systems thinking logical systems and set theory object-orientation & patterns probability, statistics, mathematics All of the above can be useful in an increasingly automated and data-driven world.
1 comment
Read more