Theory of Social Change

[Dana D]

Human history is defined by social dynamics - its' cultures and the interaction between and within different cultures.

Cultures have mass (number of members), density (increased coherence - resistance to change – strong belief), force (the energy or activity of the individual members or the mass collectively) and vector (direction it’s heading).

Vector is difficult to determine due to the extreme subjectiveness of the parameter. Is a culture headed for self-destruct or semi-utopia? Who’s to say? Personal beliefs as well as chaos and uncertainty play a large role here. There were many that said the Roman Empire was in decline and many believed otherwise. It could have gone either way, but looking back now, the factors influencing it’s existence seemed to increase the probability of collapse.

This leads me to the idea of social momentum, the tendency for a culture to continue on it’s vector. Mass, density, and force factor into momentum.

If an individual or group (sub-set) of the culture wish to alter the vector of the culture, there is usually a significant amount of momentum to overcome. The method to accomplish this lies on the spectrum between short time/high force or long time/low force.

The definition of force is not so limited to mean merely violent action. Violence is a high force method, usually employed by high density, low mass sub-sets. Though it is often exclusively used by these sub-sets, only a dolt believes it’s the only method. High force can be applied by a large mass regardless of density without resorting to violence. The problem with the high force method is the creation of turbulence – an increase in chaos. It almost impossible to control or direct the outcome. Change is likely to occur, but the outcome is often as undesirable as the initial condition.

The long time/low force side is much less disruptive with less collateral damage. It takes patience to consistently and persistently apply this force over generations. It’s re-education of the mass. The larger the mass and more dense (double entendre intended), i.e. more momentum, the longer it will take. But it is a much more controlled method with greater potential for the desired outcome. However, the sub-set initiating the change needs to have a very high density of it’s own to stay coherent over time; to keep the force consistent and entropy low.

Like the aforementioned Romans (and every other empire/culture), we have the same sub-set opinions voiced today, some are even applying force, in one way or another. The world mass is not homogenous, neither are the separate cultures. There are overlapping sets and sub-sets with variations in density all applying variable forces in different vectors. … hummm … it’s all starting to look like fluid dynamics now.

Whoa - brain fry.

Input?

[sparkle]

Hi Dana D

I have problems with the vector. As far as it appears to me it flashes straight into the “consume as much as you ever can” direction. On an ever-increasing scale. :(

Or would you say different societies (e.g. communism/socialism vs. capitalism/imperialism) are (were) developing along different vectors? Do I understand you correctly when I say that (according to what you say) socialism had outlived itself for a long time. But because of the momentum (people actually being born into socialism, not knowing anything else and just wanting to carry on as usual) [gravity of human masses? ggg] the end of socialism came much later than anticipated. Would that be it? If not, please give me another example.

[Dana D]

Your second interpretation seems to fit better with my hypothesis. Communist socialism did have it’s momentum, mostly maintained by a dense, forceful sub-set (the Party). There were larger, less dense masses, with varying vectors within that government that were constantly requiring force to keep in line. Then there was the constant force being applied by the capitalist. The momentum established in the revolution at the turn of the century and supported by the Party, finally collapsed (altered vector) under the strain of the combined forces within and without.

[ProCop]

I have problems with the vector. As far as it appears to me it flashes straight into the “consume as much as you ever can” direction. On an ever-increasing scale.


Consumptism is good. Companies distribute the needed goods to the people. To keep the "veins" of the system in good shape it it is good to let beside the needy goods a lot of trinklets in the flow too. It makes the system healthy. What you say can mean (metaphorically) that people running in the parks are wasting their energy. No, they keep themselfs healthy. Comsumptism does the same with the society as the whole. In some countries the governments aire TV spots directed at people: "sport, sport keep yourself healthy". The commertial advertisement of trinklets do the same for the ecomnomy (on a different level).

[wesmorris]

Brilliant!

Okay, well... very very bright.

Okay I'm just saying that because I think, if I'm not misunderstandingi something, that I completely agree. I've said almost the same things before withouth the "vector and force" aspect of it.

Well put. I'll try to have some actual useful input later.

[Canute]

D - I will expect the book - The Momentum of Memes.

[sparkle]

@ProCop
That’s not what I meant. It was not supposed to be a complaint, but puzzlement. I wanted to say that if you compare the lifestyles of people let’s say of medieval times and that of our time you will conclude that we without doubt live better than a medieval king ever dreamt. But are we happier? Our “vector” (or how we want to call it – maybe draft? Meta-vector?) pushes us in the direction of material wealth. There is no draft pushing for spiritual (in the widest sense) wealth. We still have the same problems as generations before us – we want to live in peace, we want the evil to disappear, we want to stay in contact. We are free to do whatever we want. And what do we do? We train ourselves to drink Tequila the correct way, we wonder what colour we could dye our hair next time, we eat too much and then want to slim. I was wondering why there is such a meta-vector/draft pushing so hard if people are not happier than former generations. Why is there no meta-vector/draft to another direction?

@ Dana D
Thanks. Yes, that’s interesting and very good for speculation. I wonder whether you will end up to be able to put all those things down to a formula. Want to know how long a certain regime will stay in power…badly.

[Dana D]

ProCop - ... hmmm ... capitalism as an organism, another interesting analogy.

Canute - I really like that title! If I ever get around to publishing it I'll use it.

Referencing Hari Seldons "Psycho-history", predictive calculations utilizing this concept probably wouldn't have any acceptable accuracy until the total mass # reached the trillions, if such formulas are even possible. Input?

[Canute]

The answer lies on Trantor.

[one_raven]

Does this theory apply (or adapt) to the micro and macro scale?

Families, Cities, States, Countries, Global Trends?

Is it inteded to apply only to governemntal systems?

What about Religions?
Sub/Counter culture groups of people? (i.e. collective homosexual community, minority races within a culture)

It seems that it CAN apply on all these levels.

I think this idea has real merit.
You should try and expand on it further.

I think that the vector ascpect needs some polishing (or complete change).
It is too vague and subjective to be a useful tool for prediction.

If I were more of a history buff maybe I would have better feedback as to what could determine/comprise the vector variable.

What objective signs have predicted the rising and downfall of a social system? Social unrest? Internal policing? External war campaigns? Success and failure rate of military forces?

[dickbaby]

here's an excerpt or two from an interesting mathematical take (written around 1979) on the history of social change:

"...the Sirius cycle. According to this theory, not only celestial phenomena but all terrestrial events repeat themselves in the same order every 1461 years. But the man who made the theory famous and gave it all its value was Plato, for he set the true golden number at 25920 years; and this number, as we shall see, contains all the others. These 25920 years correspond to the complete precessional cycle."

"So events do repeat cyclically, but it is never the repeating of the same events but more like an ascending spiral; the similar events manifest in an entirely new context, but their deep roots are identical."

"There are many cycles which have been used by various civilizations: the Manvantara and the Yuga of the ancient Hindus, the cycle of Daniel, the polar or ternary cycle and the Biblical cycle of seven times 77 years. But every one of these is found in the perfect number, 25920 years, by simple division or multi_plication.

Here are the various basic cycles obtained by this method:

25920 / 2 = 12960. 12960 x 5 = 64800 years, the Manvantara cycle.

25920 / 10 = 2592 years. The Daniel cycle.

25920 / 6 = 4320 years or Yuga cycle in the tradition of India.

25920 / 12 = 2160 years, cycle of a civilization or a religion and corresponding to the precessional passage from one constellation of the Zodiac to the next.

25920 / 12 = 2160 and 2160 / 2 = 1080 years, cycle of opposition to what was created at the start of the 2160-year cycle.

2160 / 3 = 720 years, so-called polar phase or ternary division pointed out by Rev. Father Poucel. The first phase of 720 years is the prophetic period of every religion. The second is the ?clerical phase? and the third, that of the supremacy of the temporal power over the spiritual power."

The author then goes on to actuarately predict among other things the fall of the soviet union.

The whole book from which this is taken is here

http://ascension2000.com/fm-ch06.htm

[Dana D]

I acknowledge the vagueness of the vector. But if you have momentum, that momentum has a vector. I doubt we can define vector as to where it's going (predictive), but we could define the vector as to where it is from.

This analogy could be scaled down to any group size including individuals. It's just redifining some terms that scientist are familiar with to help explain human behavior. The physical world has been studied ad infinitum, but the mental world is seen as so random, often without rules or sense. To look at the mental world with physical view helps me to understand others ... and myself.

A single atom, pinging about in the atmosphere may have no discernable pattern. But when you look at it's interactions with all the other atoms as mass, vector, momentum - it begins to make sense.

Additionally, understanding the force/time relationship illustrates the importance of patience and dedication.

It is also uniquely suited to the endevour of raising children (by far the most volitile element known to man. :D )

[ProCop]

If an individual or group (sub-set) of the culture wish to alter the vector of the culture, there is usually a significant amount of momentum to overcome. The method to accomplish this lies on the spectrum between short time/high force or long time/low force.



Lenin: (paraphrase from memory): the world is not changed because the people do not <i> want</i> to live the old way, it is changed only when people <i>cannot</i> live the old way.

[wesmorris]

One of the key difficulties I believe might limit the usefullness of this approach is subjectivity. For instance, I would be quite interested to see if any two people could completely agree on "where society is heading". I think it works as an analogy, but is limited because you can only really talk about a particulur measurable aspect of "where society is heading". It would take a quantified series of models based in this theory to really capture anything usefull, and I'm not sure you could truly quantify any of it, as it is all quite dynamic in the same sense that opinions are dynamic (which is why i really think opinion polls are stupid). I think though that the best use for this type of thinking is for communicating ideas it will/would be usefull as a framework for arguments, but I doubt it would be an effective predictive model (as you've already stated). Regardless IMO it's quite estute.

[Dana D]

Few things are more chaotic then the human mind.

Vector, in this case, is too subjective to be measured. Consider it instead as a goal that a mass has set for itself.

[Canute]

Socially speaking I don't agree that vector is given by goals. Our social actions are certainly goal driven - but the 'vector' of social developments is just what happens - since we seem incapable of setting social goals that we can actually reach. What actually happens, the actual vector, is a function of serendipity and the ill-considered or unexpected outcomes of our goal-driven actions (which far outweigh and outnumber any intended outcomes and rarely include reaching the intended goal).

[Dana D]

Certainly can't argue with you. Then perhaps we should differentiate between the two? We have the ivector (intended) and the avector (actual). The aV is the sum of all iV's (insert godlike formula here).

[Canute]

Very good - the 'godlike' formula can then model the evolution of everything since the BB.

[Dana D]

Sparkle,

Sorry I didn't get to your PM earlier (months). Have you been able to view all posts now?

[Mr. Chips]

Nice approach Dana. Human society is a second order cybernetic system which is why so much bias exists as it is impossible to observe it from the outside (at least by humans). This approach is a scientific one as opposed to political so I think the terms socialism, capitalism and communism really don't fit in as they are open to interpretation (otherwise there would be no debate as to which is best).

A little general systems theory plus a dash of information theory can bring one to a "formula" but I doubt if any one would want to share such here or even publicly at all with current momentum often resulting in violence from the large mass momentum (a case you did not seem to consider in the above). If sufficiently descriptive, I suppose a crystalised theory in this approach in the way of a formula would point to a specific strategy and one should suppose that would be where a person might place their efforts and not necessarily in some attempt to reason with these very large and often unreasonable forces. Instead, the means should be available to make something that would hopefully allow the largest momentum to come to the least violent or those who are active about their desires to see a working world or society.

BTW, this vector analysis approach can be used to study the evolution of society strictly from a demographic point of view. Such is the stuff of science. got to love it.

[Dana D]

Mr. C - a very rich post! Thank you.

I'll have to do some research into cybernetic systems to understand the bias better.

The terms soc/cap/com are just titles for semi-defined masses. I would think that poli-sci would contribute greatly to establishment of a 'formula' since politics is a major component in defining a mass. But, not being poli-sci educated, I could be mistaken.

The countless masses with varying vectors by necessity (limited container size = Earth) have collisions (refer to gas laws). Masses with vectors of like direction and velocity generate minimal turbulence. Opposed collisions make for .... well, watch CNN.

As the mass increases (world pop.) so does the temp/press. If unchecked, the containment cannot hold. An expanded container or limiting mass is required to avoid eventual destuction/chaos.

I suppose that the eventual end state is either going to be a generally homogeneous mass (preferably with some internal, non-destructive, minor currents) or total entropy. I propose the homogeneous mass is the desired outcome. My original premise was in developing and utilizing a formula that would calculate the least disruptive/chaotic/violent path to this conclusion.

[Mr. Chips]

Quite astute. If you look at the mathematical equation for the entropy of classical thermodynamics and then the math of Shannon's entropy, known simply as the information capacity of a system, you will find direct support for your idea. There was a bit of a controversy when Claude Shannon first came up with his concept (where incidentally the maximum flow of information in a system is characterised by minimal and similar vectors of symbol generation, an isomorphic state) as to whether or not it should have a negative or positive sign associated with it. In relation to all, I suspect that "information" will come to be considered as the positive, directly countering the negative thermodynamic entropy.

The "homogenous mass" is liable to make itself known before too long and act as a crystal that falls out of a supersaturated solution, what would be called a relatively strong "strange attractor" using the terms of chaos theory. If you decide to get into the mathematics that describes such a state you will need to embrace markovian decision processes which are a bit complicated if you approach them from linear algebra though still necessary if we are to picture the trends of social evolution. You can learn about markov processes just from considering discrete math which can at least give you static vector analysis.

In fact, you can find studies of past social structures with a configured stratified hierarchy of populations in different occupations. One can draw up the markov chains for such. The comparitive study of these static views brings out the trends, such as the very general ones of ever greater populations within most subsequent social experiments while the longevity of the experiments decreases continually. We can expect the total dissolution of most current recognized social experiments and replacement by some new experiment or experiments within our life times. Maybe the reason why we will retain our lives is because we will find other ways and means that make more sense.

The basic components of a general information system (source, encoding, transmission, decoding, target) have direct applicability to modeling society. A problem that arises in using this totally scientific point of view is that the current situation appears basically random. Though we claim many seperate structures of governing, you can come to the view that we have only one that is quite disparate, quite anarchic, very little coherency, basically, not even a system. That is kind of scarey when we consider how as information handling entities we continue to change and grow in the ability to alter our environment. Without coordinating our efforts, we are liable to destroy our own world. Paranoia becomes apparent as a logical, intelligent and hopefully motivating for positive change sane state of mind. Though there is always reason to avoid panic, something has to be done.

General systems theory is an approach that contains the idea of only considering information that is common to all science. There are relations that are shared. Political science has many terms in use that are dependent on an interpretation that is not in common with most other sciences, A most telling one is for the difference in how "state" is used. It is as if we are naming our priorities rather than finding them, a coercive consideration of manipulation rather than coordination of information. Political science is a contradiction in terms, the art of misleading. Realize that to date human social experiments usually tend towards an "ossification" of their policy makers. Those who govern get further removed from understanding or being capable of making wise policy choices. They commonly use subterfuge, secrecy, inordinate compromise in the security and welfare of others, manufacture of false data, propaganda, use of force to decide diplomacies, virtually every dirty trick possible. The violence they cause becomes insufferable. Humans then make a new experiment. Over the time humanity has been here, we have abandoned old schemes at an ever increasing rate. I'm afraid that political science has become a tool of subverting management of the commons, not real guidance.

You can see a progression in the development of representation forming systems in social evolution. The general trend appears to be towards more ergodicity, a word you will need to know. Again though once you grasp the concept you might find that our current predicament is quite precarious. Besides resolving cognitive dissonance having the wherewithal to accept the fear is a barrier to the understanding. But then if there is a strategy, it might depend more on the success of its implementation rather than how well it can be understood.

[Dana D]

Thank you. Admittedly, I know barely enough about t-d to get me in trouble but zip about information theory. Correlation from an unexpected source is a pleasant surprise.

What specific form do you envision your strange attractor taking? Are you proposing a spontaneous formation? :bugeye:

I have a reservation about the final H-mass, though. Would an Einstein-Bose Condensate be the result? Highly coherent but cold and stagnant? What price, peace?

Another thought - would Heisenberg Uncertainty apply to the effectiveness of implementing the proposed formula? I.e. the application of the formula would have to be unknown to the masses or the calculations would become invalid.

If ergodic, that would be useful in testing the math against known historical precedence.

Speaking of math … I would assume a new system would have to be developed. As Pythagorean algebra was insufficient to model gravity, Newton had to invent calculus to accomplish the task.

[Mr. Chips]

If anything begins to approach validity, correlation with unexpected sources should be quite evident.

"What specific form do you envision your strange attractor taking?"

Peer to peer collaboration software

"What price, peace?"

As far as I can tell we are considering a means for sustaining maximum diversity. There will still be dangers and challenges to face even if we come to realize a communication scheme that resolves discordance through reason rather than conflict. I doubt that quantum level physical possibilities apply at the level of human social arrangements. We will probably find that we can colonize much of space, spreading humanity far and wide bringing more engineering challenges and experienced uniqueness. We will probably develop more ways to exercise individual preferences or freedom, not less, making the idea of an Einstein-Bose condensate most likely inapplicable.



There appears to be a specific and general interpretation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. The specific appears unrelated but the general idea needs to be a major goal of the process. It needs to have sufficient fuzziness as a major aspect of its operation. We can not impose an order completely. An all volunteer system could only approximate the ideal which may be sufficient to relieve humanity of many insecurities and build greater sustained freedom.

Known historical precedence would constitute the deductive evidence for such a theory. Ergodicity besides considered as a requirement for having a "system" as opposed to none, does give us a tool to test the results of any experiment, past or future.

Seems that simplicity would be a requirement so a new math system would not necessarily be suspect. The biases inherent in the second order cybernetic system may be sufficient to explain why such an idea has not been recognized to date, not necessarily because it requires new computation tools.

[Dana D]

Hummph ... where from here? Any gifted mathematicians and statisticians out there?

[Dana D]

Sorry about my absenteeism - I was out of the country for a couple months. Yes, I would like to discuss more. I feel I need some education on cybernetic systems.

- D

[Dana D]

Would you like to pursue this subject privately?

Si, amigo.