From - Thu Apr 17 14:32:23 2003 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: carl@andisplanet.com Received: from wiley (node-402421a9.mdw.onnet.us.uu.net [64.36.33.169]) by andisplanet.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 844FB910E8 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 08:20:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from geraldgleason.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by wiley (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2SEspv29889; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 08:54:55 -0600 Message-ID: <3E84623A.1050006@geraldgleason.com> Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 08:54:50 -0600 From: Gerry Gleason User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.9) Gecko/20020408 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: georgedafermos@discover.org Cc: discuss@ggpl.org Subject: Re: Osaka Organis design/ Waking the Planet References: <20030328102042.31863.qmail@inbox.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable George Dafermos wrote: >> >>Hope this isn't just more confusing. >> >>WRT >> > >It all makes sense now. The all-pervasive underlying pattern...i know. I= should also confess that most of times I've tried to engage with Wolfram= 's book, I end up looking at the pictures instead of reading it. > Good. That you were confused probably means we should make some of this = a bit more explicite in the text. > >>Very interesting. I wonder if you could find some similar relatonships = >>in say, nerve cell grouping in brains and similar. I have some partiall= y=20 >>formed thoughts about how the small groups would be densely connected=20 >>internally, but the external connections to larger groupings might be=20 >>"function specific" so that any individual would have a scope < 150 but= =20 >>the small group as a whole would be connected to a much larger network.= >> >>If the larger community (surrounding?) is similarly organized, I can se= e=20 >>the scope being very wide indeed, but more in terms of replicating (wit= h=20 >>variation) the 15 -> 150 units in physically seperated spheres. >> >In fact, the number of 150 has everything to do with brains. > Of course, I was speculating about network relationships and fan-outs in = neuron relationships, but this is more direct to the capacity issues=20 that actually relate to social networks. >The number 150 originates from the work of the British anthropologist Ro= bin Dunbar on social channel capacity. Having examined several kinds of p= rimates (monkeys, humanschimps, etc) in order to identify why we humans h= ave a bigger neocortex (a region in the brain which deals with complex re= asoning), Dunbar concluded that group size is what determines the size of= the neocortex. On other words, the larger the groups we live with, the l= arger the neocortex. Dunbar's main thesis is that our brains evolve to co= pe with the complexities of larger social groups. For instance, if you be= long to a group of five people, you have to keep track of ten separate re= lationships. But if you belong to a group of twenty people, you have to k= eep track of 190 relationships. Obviously, while there is only a fivefold= increase in group size, the additional burder on one's social channel ca= pacity is twentyfold. Dunbar has developed an equation (the size of the n= eocortex relative to the size of the whole brain) which works out the max= imum group size of any given animal. In the case of humans, the number is= roughly 150.=20 >And yes, as Francois correctly pointed out, the theory of small worlds = and networks is definitely relevant.=20 > >George > I'm still a bit unclear exactly how this works. Is 150 about the number = of relationships you can keep track of? The total number of=20 relationships in a group of 150 would be 11175, so I can't see how a=20 person would be able to track all the relationships in the larger group. = I can speculate that what characterizes the smaller group is that you=20 would have the capacity to track all the relationship (somewhat), and=20 have some capacity for special relationships outside the core group. 15 = people -> 105 relationships leaving a "reserve" capacity of about 45*15=20 =3D 675 for external relationships. I realize that I'm just playing with= =20 numbers here, but I also took the total relationships in the larger=20 group and divided that by this reserve number and got 11175/675 =3D 16.=20 I'm speculating that if you consider the external relationships to be=20 more like 1 person to 1 group, that works out pretty well. I grew up in a large family (five sisters), and I would observe that the = direct relationships are much more significant, but maybe my sisters=20 would see this differently. In any case, these would be the second=20 tier, or first indirection, although you are directly related to both=20 parties here. With the external (to the small group) relationships, the = direct connections are no longer "dense", but you will be at most two=20 hops from anyone in the larger group (assuming the external connections=20 are somewhat independent). Perhaps this represents the largest networks = in which community norms can effectively operate to regulate behavior. The questions that are prompting all this speculation for me are about=20 how this connects to the way new communication media are reshaping our=20 political and social environments. Before any of these technologies=20 came along, all communication was verbal and face to face, and even=20 after writing emerges, it was a rare technology practiced only by an=20 elite, often in the service of the society, not the individual. Now, we = can develop close personal relationships with people we have yet to meet = halfway around the world, and people lament the loss of connection with=20 the communities they live it (we have lived in our house 2 and 1/2=20 years, and although I have met a few neighbors, I'm not on a first name=20 basis with any of them). So what happens when you go beyond the 150? In my draft, I added the=20 list of rules for the VNO level that parallels the MicroOrg rules, and I = stated that the VNO scope is limited by the scope of the idea, but this=20 suggests that there needs to be more to it. I'm thinking that 1) each=20 VNO would have a core group that has the same rules and limits as any=20 MicroOrg cell that is focussed on the VNO mission and service=20 relationships (contracts), 2) when you get beyond 150 in the core +=20 "customers" there needs to be some sort of split, and 3) I'm not sure=20 about this one, but perhaps this would introduce another layer of=20 MicroOrgs between the VNO and the MicroOrgs delivering the service. I'm reluctant to introduce hierachy, but I think as long as this=20 develops organically in a self-organizing manner I don't think there is=20 a problem. The small worlds theory suggests that there would never need = to be more than a few layers, and by sticking to a very flat topology=20 and allowing for movement of people between MicroOrgs the structures=20 would be resistent to power grabs and empire building. I remember a=20 joke (most likely first encountered in the fortune file) that first=20 stated that the probability of error/failure is directly proportional to = the number of layers of management above the persone making the=20 decision, then goes on to point out that there are 40 layers above the=20 guy in the silo with his finger on the button. (one of those jokes that = you either have to laugh at, or be overwhelmed by anxiety and/or fear) Gerry