Date post: | 28-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | jerome-chandler |
View: | 217 times |
Download: | 1 times |
FAST2
FAbric of Society. Theory and Technology)
Rosaria Conte and Mario Paolucci
LABSS (Laboratory of Agent Based Social Simulation), Roma, ISTC-CNR
SCIVE, Lisbon, Sept. 16th 2010
Grand challenges
Humanity is facing grand challenges (see FuturICT, http://www.futurict.ethz.ch/FuturIcT
Common features: Far-reaching and accelerated diffusion and contagion (eg.,
organized crime) Multiple levels with multidirectional connections Heterogeneous interfering networks Technology-driven innovation Fuzzy confines Competitive evolutionary processes (economic growth
demographic growth)
QuickTime™ and a decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
10 examples
1. Demographic change of the population structure (change of birth rate, migration)2. Financial and economic stability (trust, consumption and investments; government debts, taxation,
and inflation/deflation; sustainability of social benefit systems…3. Social, economic and political inclusion (people of different gender, age, education,income, religion,
culture, language, preferences,…; unemployment)4. Public health (spreading of epidemics [flu, HIV], obesity, smoking, or healthy diets; incentives
supporting food safety)5. Balance of power (in a multi-polar world; also between individual and collective rights, political and
company power; protection of pluralisms, individual freedom, and minorities…)
6. Conflict (terrorism, organized crime, social unrest, wars)7. Institutional design and dynamics (over-regulation, crisis of
authority, compliance, corruption, balance between global and local, central and decentral,…)
8. Sustainability of communication and information systems (education and inheritance of culture; cyber risks, violation of privacy, misuse of sensitive data, data deluge, spam, …)
9. Collective behavior and opinion dynamics (social contagion, breakdown of trust, extremism, changing values, breakdown of cooperation, compliance, or solidarity)
10. Sustainable use of resources and environment (travel behavior, consumptio habits, efficient use of energy and other resources, participation in recycling efforts)
Are we equipped to answer them?
We are developing valuable instruments and techniques for generating, gathering, and analysing data,
How about theories? We need a fabric of society: a theory-driven equipment for
understanding/monitoring/exploring society while (re)producing it
More specifically, understanding-while-producing social artefacts (material and immaterial artefacts spontaneously emerging or designed to control, rule populations of agents) and
Figuring out their potential future properties and their impact on agents.
In search for theory
Classic social constructionist perspective: A socially constructed reality
is (re)produced by people acting on their interpretations and their knowledge of it through an ongoing, dynamic process.
QuickTime™ and a decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Two views Social constructionism
-> social constructs (Berger and Luckmann, 1966)
Social constructivism -> psychological constructs (Vygotsky, 1978; Piaget)
QuickTime™ and a decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
QuickTime™ and a decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
QuickTime™ and a decompressorare needed to see this picture.
QuickTime™ and a decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Social constructivism
Vygotsky and Piaget focussed on active agency and on process of construction, how people work
together to construct artifacts.
QuickTime™ and a decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Social constructionism Focussed on the
effects of the process, ie. the artefacts:
By interacting, individuals squeeze one another’s interpretations into a common body of social knowledge
Which once handed to next generations becomes given, inevitable, institutionalised: ???
QuickTime™ and a decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Strong social constructionism QuickTime™ and a
decompressorare needed to see this picture.
Searle and Hacking warned us (1999, p. 12) against a strong variant of social constructionism, according to which all facts are social, implying that “nothing has reality until it is thought or spoken of, or written about. This extravagant notion is descended from (…) the doctrine that all that exists is mental." For Steven Pinker (2002, p. 202) “social constructions (…) exist
only because people tacitly agree to act as if they exist. Examples include money, (…) presidency of the United States.”
Defensively aimed to debunk dangerous ideologies, strong constructionism denies the
Reality of social facts because ideologically undesirable (gender differences, biological bases of behaviours, inter-ethnic tensions, etc.)
Independence of social entities to be modified (governments, regimes, institutions, etc.).
Useless and dangerous!
QuickTime™ and a decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Weak social constructionism
Searle’s (1995, p. 63) ”social facts” (SF) are such by virtue of
1. collectively willing and intending
2. to impose some particular function
3. by a constitutive rule: X counts as Y in C.
SF depend on "brute facts.”– Ontologically = cannot take effect
without brute facts – Logically = brute facts provide a logical
foundation for social facts, – Temporally = are preceded by brute
facts
QuickTime™ and a decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
QuickTime™ and a decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
QuickTime™ and a decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Dependence is mutual…
If social facts depend on brute facts
money needs metal to fulfil the function it is collecitvely assigned (Searle)
regimes kill people by means of gallows, weapons, bombs, missiles, lagers, gulags, etc.
brute facts depend on social facts as well
Gallows depend on social facts and institutions (trial, court, sentence, executioner) to take effect
QuickTime™ and a decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
QuickTime™ and a decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
QuickTime™ and a decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Did both fulfil their mission?
Only in part… Social constructivists
influenced the theory of development, rather than study of social institutions
concentrated on individual learning.
Social constructionists overesteemated
knowledge at the expenses of goals,
mindreading at the expenses of mindchanging.
No general theory of social artefacts’ properties!
QuickTime™ and a decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
QuickTime™ and a decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Types of dependence• Temporal and logical dependence apply to higher or
evolutionary more recent levels of reality. Not particularly interesting
• How about ontological dependence? Major argument against socalled reification of social artefacts
• But is it a good argument? What is an ontologically independent entity? – Genes depend on their vehicles, ie. Individuals, to replicate. They
existence depends on the existence and reproduction of individuals.
– Individuals are implemented on a bunch of atoms and neurons.
What about autonomy?
Ontological dependence and autonomy
• What is the link between ontological dependence and autonomy?
• Lets go back to the notion of limited autonomy. Humans are limitedly autonomous – as they decide what to believe and do, based on internal criteria, – which they can decide, if persuaded, to modify (Conte and
Castelfranchi, 1995)
• The same notion applies to (onto)logically dependent entities, which are limitedly autonomous (Conte and Turrini, 2006) – Constitutive rules are internal criteria for deciding what is true and
what can or ought to be done– difficult to modify social entities without modifying constitutive rules
Dependence and power
• Does implementation on lower levels of reality prevent higher level entities to autonomously exercise power on lower levels?
• Humans manipulate natural resources, biological bases, genetic transmission, etc.
Typologies of artefacts• We need a formal ontology!
(for preliminary works, see Conte, 2004; Winter, 2008; Aunger, 2010)
• Not all artefacts are supporting, faciltating our activities (possibly at the expense of our fellows)– physical– mental– prosocial– antisocial
QuickTime™ and a decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
QuickTime™ and a decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
QuickTime™ and a decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
QuickTime™ and a decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Control artefacts
• Control = objects designed for modifying our– states– actions/will
• Even in extreme ways
QuickTime™ and a decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
QuickTime™ and a decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
QuickTime™ e undecompressore TIFF (Non compresso)
sono necessari per visualizzare quest'immagine.
A complex category• Servoartefacts• Masterartefacts• Both for
– Supporting– Controlling our actions and minds– Mixed
• Supporting servoartefacts for controlling masterartefacts
• Controlling servoartefacts for supporting masterartefacts (tutors, teachers, etc.)
• Social roles as either supporting or controlling servoartefacts
QuickTime™ and a decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
QuickTime™ and a decompressorare needed to see this picture.
QuickTime™ and a decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Social institutions as complex artefacts
• Including– Masterartefacts– Servoartefacts (traffic lights
are installed by administrators, fines are applied by policemen and death sentences are issued by judges)
• Control• Support
• Ontological dependence does not prevent the exercise of power.
QuickTime™ and a decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
QuickTime™ and a decompressor
are needed to see this picture.QuickTime™ and a
decompressorare needed to see this picture.
Institutions’ power Institutions
rule people’s actions and their will by means of brute facts and producers’
actions (implemented on material artefacts and people’s actions)
outlive the will that put them into existence escape producers’ control. Exercise power:
• Directly, pursue/thwart goals (but consider the difference between
– Prison– Kidnapping)
• modify powers (empowerment)• Modify minds, mindchangin
QuickTime™ and a decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
QuickTime™ and a decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
QuickTime™ and a decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
QuickTime™ and a decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
QuickTime™ and a decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Consequences
• Searle’s analysis is necessary but insufficient:– X counting as Y in C implies a new set of properties of X– Based on a transfer of Z’s properties:
• X setting Z’s goals in C • X exercising power on Z (preventing them from achieving their goals),
even taking out their lives!!! • X’s limited autonomy
– Z’s autonomy is limited by X’s power– Z’s limited capacity to act on X and modify it: not so easy to control controllers
QuickTime™ and a decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Two ways to produce artefacts
Extension of properties (supporting artefacts)
Transfer of properties, or, alienation (controlling artefacts)
How ? When? Further effects?
Alienation Humans alienate not only the product
of their physical activity (labor force) But also some of their mental and
social properties, including mindchanging
Better to understand the alienating nature of social artefacts.
Lets go back to Marx.
Marx’s theory of alienation
Manuscripts of 1844 = Marx's argument that modern industrial societies result in estrangement (or alienation) of wage-workers from own life.
Theory of alienation (Entfremdung), refers to separation of things that naturally belong together, or to antagonism between things that are properly in harmony.
Social alienation deprives humans of aspects of "human nature" ('species-essence' or 'species-being’, conferring them to non-human entities (power, control, agency)
QuickTime™ and a decompressorare needed to see this picture.
QuickTime™ and a decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
In the labour process
Four aspects of alienation: of worker from his or her ‘species
essence’ as a human being of labour into a commodity to be
traded on the market, of effect of labour, appropriated by
capitalist of worker from act of production,
turned into a sequence of meaningless acts.
QuickTime™ and a decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
• “Let us suppose that we had carried out production as human beings. Each of us would have in two ways affirmed himself and the other person. 1) In my production I would have objectified my individuality, its specific character, and therefore enjoyed (…) an individual manifestation of my life during the activity, (…). 2) In your enjoyment or use of my product I would have the direct enjoyment both of being conscious of having (…) thus created an object corresponding to the need of another man’s essential nature. ... Our products would be so many mirrors in which we saw reflected our essential
nature." (Comment on James Mill).
Moving to a more abstract level
Alienation
• Reducing/losing “species-essence” properties (eg., autonomy, self-control, etc.)
• By transferring them onto other entities
• Humans give up a portion of their autonomy by transferring power, control, agency to other entities.
The major challenge 1/2 • To understand grand socio-economic challenges, we need to account
for how much of the emergence-immergence of macrolevel entities (see Conte et al., 2007) consists of
• Alienation processes – When does construction of autonomous systems leads to social alienation?
– What is social alienation? How define and characterise it? We need a theory of interconnections between ontological dependence, social power and autonomy.
– What are necessary and sufficient conditions for social alienation? Is it definitory of any society? Can there be social order without social alienation?
– What are its effects on humans?
– Are social constructs bound to evolve into autonomous systems? When does this happen?
The major challenge 2/2
Is there a gradient and new forms of social alienation or is mankind less alienated under current regimes,
What is impact of a globalized world? And what about technologically-driven innovation? Is P2P a
lenient factor? Does it do any better? What about social and mental sustainability of innovation!!!
To what extent is social pathologies and unrest inherent to any human society?
What is the impact of new forms of alienation on current social pathologies, identity diseases, social unrest: criminality and terrorism, addiction, suicid, collapse of trust (and its effects)
IMPACT of FuturIcT: Theory-Driven Tools for Intervention
(ICT-enforced) Dynamics (exs)
Shape of authority / evolution of institutions
Mobility Post-democracy Growth (Social) contagion
and epidemics Communication
and (perceived) Security
FOR DOING
Systems for (exs) Tutoring and learning Preserving INFOdiversity
Peer-production Collective filtering Recommender systems
Managing Healthcare (e.g. epidemics) Security Crises, Risk taking, Panic
Innovating Financial sector Transport, traffic, logistics Electrical micro-generation,
renewable energy? Supporting
Institutional design Policy modelling Best practices identifying
Related Pathologies
Abstensionism and silent majority
Abstensionism and silent majority
Crime/corruption(raffiliation and
ecruitment mechanisms)
Crime/corruption(raffiliation and
ecruitment mechanisms)
Aging society:Economic Vs demographic growth
InequalityUnemployment
Aging society:Economic Vs demographic growth
InequalityUnemployment
Crises / EmergenciesCrises / Emergencies
PanicPanic
FOR UNDERSTANDING/ MONITORING/ ANTICIPATING
Political Radicalization/Terrrorism
Political Radicalization/Terrrorism
The good news
.. we got novel instruments Global-scale social simulation is now possibleCiting Helbing:
We could understand the major steps of human cultural evolution
We could simulate possible futuresWe can create new institutional designs
We would add
We can finally observe the growth of second society and the generation of social artefacts and their evolution
Indeed, social simulation is a most promising field of science…
Cites per field/discipline (from Conte, Paolucci, Picascia, 2010)
Citation variation per discipline
-100,00%
-50,00%
0,00%
50,00%
100,00%
150,00%
Titolo asse
SB 2000-04 78,87% 71,26% 115,63% 81,82% 95,65% 109,56% 78,18% 100,77% 42,86% 73,68% 113,76% 131,00%
tot2000-04 25,08% 25,13% 77,16% 42,03% 30,27% 0,00% -12,36% -1,84% 24,03% 50,87% 10,69% 52,52%
sb2004-08 51,57% 6,51% 34,78% 46,08% 32,22% 41,61% 65,12% 30,13% 130,00% 81,82% 33,91% 40,26%
tot2004-08 -8,56% -68,71% -10,71% -70,05% -51,86% -71,98% -58,67% -62,95% 14,21% -33,91% -64,80% -57,04%
PolSci Psych. Robotics Agent Sys Sociology Economics History Law EthologyAnthropol
ogyComplexity Geography
Cites per application domain (ibi.)
Citations variation per application domain
-100,00%
-50,00%
0,00%
50,00%
100,00%
150,00%
200,00%
Titolo asse
Simulation-based 2000-2004 126,80% 90,05% 110,22% 0,00% 114,47% 65,58% 162,50% 34,38% 133,33% 65,10% 101,64% 91,03% 98,90%
Discipline total 2000-2004 36,58% -11,63% 57,37% 52,11% -12,94% 108,00% 95,65% 25,76% 86,99% 27,03% 23,26% 66,04% 61,70%
Simulation-based 2004-2008 58,83% 53,17% 40,80% 80,00% 49,56% 42,03% 74,60% 51,50% 108,57% 27,44% 34,82% 60,40% 46,59%
Discipline total 2004-08 -71,23% -60,28% -25,92% -13,43% -67,29% -62,85% -55,70% -56,45% 21,74% -40,02% -60,38% -58,33% -31,51%
Security Education Planning Policy-mak. Administ. Govern. Sustain. dev. Consulting ICT systems ProfessionsIndustrial
prod.Epidemiology Res. M&D
Conclusions 1/2General tendency to wishful thinking in social sciences (see
voices of moral progress, Montreal 2008)?
A preference for ideologically correct theories of social constructs as non-existent or non-autonomous entities
Time for producing new theories especially since we’ve got new scientific tool.
Simulation is more than accelerator of information acquisition. It is new way of doing science. It offers us a new opportunity for studying society: create a second one.
FAST2 is meant to build on such an opportunity, create a new environment and get best equipped for the tremendous tasks before us.
Conclusions 2/2
Two caveats:• Interdisciplinarity as a primary condition
for endeavour• Theory information! Simulation is a
means for building theory while building the phenomena to theorize upon.