1 Introduction to Complex Systems: How to think like nature Russ Abbott Sr. Engr. Spec. Rotn to CCAE  The Aerospace Corporation. All Rights Reserved. Groups: organization and innovation

2 Flocking Craig Reynolds wrote the first flocking program two decades ago: Here’s a good current interactive version:

3 Group/system-level emergence Both the termite and ant models illustrate emergence (and multi- scalarity). In both cases, individual, local, low-level rules and interactions produce “emergent” higher level results. –The wood chips were gathered into a single pile. –The food was brought to the nest. Emergence in ant and termite colonies may seem different from emergence in E. coli following a nutrient gradient because we see ant and termite colonies as groups of agents and E. coli as a single entity. But emergence as a phenomenon is the same. In both cases we can explain the design of the system, i.e., how the system works. In the ant/termite examples, the colony is the system. In the case of E. coli, the organism is the system. In Evolution for Everyone, David Sloan Wilson argues that all biological and social elements are best understood as both groups and entities. You and I are each (a) entities and (b) cell colonies. In Evolution for Everyone, David Sloan Wilson argues that all biological and social elements are best understood as both groups and entities. You and I are each (a) entities and (b) cell colonies.

4 Breeding groups/teams/systems Chickens are fiercely competitive for food and water. Commercial birds are beak-trimmed to reduce cannibalization. Breeding individual chickens to yield more eggs compounds the problem. Chickens that produce more eggs are more competitive. Instead Muir bred chickens by groups. At the end of the experiment Muir's birds' mortality rate was 1/20 that of the control group. His chickens produced three percent more eggs per chicken and (because of the reduced mortality) 45% more eggs per group. Traditional evolutionary theory says there is no such thing as group selection, only individual selection. Bill Muir (Purdue) demonstrated that was wrong. Evolutionary processes are fundamental to complex systems Wikipedia commons

5 Wilson on groups What holds for chickens holds for other groups as well: teams, military units, corporations, religious communities, cultures, tribes, countries. Groups with rules for working together can often accomplish far more (emergence) than the sum of the individuals working separately. But if a group good (e.g., money) is also an individual good, the group must have mechanisms to limit cheating (free-ridership). Group traits (although they are carried as rules by individuals) evolve because they benefit the group. Group selection (not just individual selection) is now accepted as valid. (E.g., insect behavior.) These traits may be transmitted genetically (by DNA). They may also be transmitted culturally (by indoctrination). Moral systems are interlocking sets of values, practices, institutions, and evolved psychological mechanisms that work together to suppress or regulate selfishness and make social life possible. —Jonathan Haidt Built-in sense of fairness in both us and chimpanzees.

6 We’re smart because we are “programmable,” i.e., able to learn—both information and norms Humans are successful because we’re smart. We’re smart because we operate in complex groups. We can operate in complex groups because we have strong reciprocity. We both share and are willing to punish non-sharers. Take bees. You always think of the hive as the big social collective. That’s not true. Workers often try to lay eggs, even though only the queen is supposed to lay eggs. If workers lay eggs, there are other workers that run around, eat the eggs, then punish the workers that laid the eggs. Wherever you find cooperation, you’ll also find punishment. Think of your own body. Each cell has its own self-interest to multiply. Why don’t they go berserk? How do you get cells to cooperate? The answer is, you punish cells that don’t cooperate. Herbert Gintis Socialization: norm internalization. There's no such thing in biology, economics, political science, or anthropology. Humans can want things even when they are costly to ourselves because we were socialized to want them to be fair, to share, to help your group, to be patriotic, to be honest, to be trustworthy, to be cheerful

7 Experimental “games” Prisoner’s Dilemma. –One shot: Defect only rational strategy. –Iterated. Tit-for-tat: cooperate initially and then copy the other guy. Pavlov: repeat on success; change on failure. (More robust.) Ultimatum Game. Proposer must offer to divide $100 from TAI. Responder either accepts the proposed division or rejects it—in which case neither gets anything. –Only rational strategy: proposer offers as little as possible; responder always accepts. –What would you offer/accept? Try it. Try it table against table. –Real experiments (world-wide). Responder rejects unless offer is about 1/3. Public Goods Game. Contributions to a common pot grows (via emergence) and is divided among everyone, even free-riders. CD C3/30/5 D5/01/1

8 The public goods riddle Free riders fare better than those who contribute. But then cooperation (and the public goods) will vanish. Punishment is important in sustaining cooperation. But how can punishment emerge if it is costly? Categories of players Loners do not participate; they neither contribute nor benefit. Defectors do not contribute but benefit. Cooperators contribute and benefit but do not punish. Punishers are contributors who also (pay to) punish defectors and simple cooperators—to prevent simple cooperators from free-riding on punishers. Which category dominates depends on modeling assumptions. Hannelore Brandt, Christoph Hauert†, and Karl Sigmund, “Punishing and abstaining for public goods,” PNAS, Jan 10, Sigmundhttp://

9 Exploratory behavior How can the human genome, with fewer than 25,000 genes produce –A brain with trillions of cells and synaptic connections? –The filling out of the circulatory and nervous systems? Cell growth followed by die-off produce webbing in duck feet and bat wings but not in human fingers. Military strategy of “probing for weakness.” Ant and bee foraging. Corporate strategy of seeking (or creating) marketing niches. The general mechanism is: Prolifically generate a wide range of possibilities Establish connections to new sources of value in the environment. The general mechanism is: Prolifically generate a wide range of possibilities Establish connections to new sources of value in the environment. Mechanism generation Function explore Purpose use result Bottom up

10 Like water finding a way down hill From a tutorial on the immune system from the National Cancer Institute: How do they find the open pathways? It’s not “invaders” vs. “defenders.” Through evolutionary exploratory behavior, if there is a way, some will inevitably find it. How do they find the open pathways? It’s not “invaders” vs. “defenders.” Through evolutionary exploratory behavior, if there is a way, some will inevitably find it. Quite a challenge! We are very well defended. But we still get sick! Some “invaders” will make it past these defenses. The problem is not even that some get through, it’s that they exploit their success. Innovative organizations make that inevitability work in their favor. Innovation is the (disruptive) invader not the defender. Microbes attempting to get into your body must first get past your skin and mucous membranes, which not only pose a physical barrier but are rich in scavenger cells and IgA antibodies. Next, they must elude a series of nonspecific defenses—and substances that attack all invaders regardless of the epitopes they carry. These include patrolling phagocytes, granulocytes, NK cells, and complement. Infectious agents that get past these nonspecific barriers must finally confront specific weapons tailored just for them. These include both antibodies and cytotoxic T cells.

11 Innovative environments The Internet The inspiration for net-centricity and the GIG Goal: to bring the creativity of the internet to the DoD What do innovative environments have in common? What do innovative environments have in common? Other innovative environments The scientific and technological research process The market economy Biological evolution

12 Innovative environments Innovation is always the result of an evolutionary process. Randomly generate new variants—by combining and modifying existing ones. Select the good ones. (Daniel Dennett, Darwin's Dangerous Idea) Requires mechanisms: For creating stable and persistent design instances so that they can serve as the basis for new possibilities. For combining and modifying designs. For selecting and establishing the better ones.

13 Designs in various environments Recorded asCreated by How instantiated Established InternetSoftware Programmers who know the techniques Self-instantiatingBy users Scientific knowledge A publication Scientists who know the literature The publication is the instantiation By peer review Market economy Trade secrets Product developers who know the tricks Entrepreneurial manufacturing Consumers Biological evolution DNA Combination and mutation Reproduction Whether it finds a niche Entities: nature’s memes An implicit design Construction, combination and mutation Implementation of a level of abstraction Whether it finds a niche All bottom-up

14 How does this apply to organizations? To ensure innovation: Sounds simple doesn’t it? Creation and trial Encourage the prolific generation and trial of new ideas. Establishing successful variants Allow new ideas to flourish or wither based on how well they do.

15 Initial funding Prospect of failure ApprovalsEstablishment Biological evolution Capitalism in the small. Nature always experiments. Most are failures, which means death. (But no choice given.) None. Bottom-up resource allocation defines success. Entrepreneur Little needed for an Internet experiment. Perhaps some embarrassment, time, money; not much more. Few. Entrepreneur wants rewards. Bottom-up resource allocation. Bureaucracy Proposals, competition, forms, etc. Who wants a failure in his/her personnel file— when “mission success” is the corporate motto? Far too many. Managers have other priorities. Top-down resource allocation. New ideas aren’t the problem. Trying them out Innovation in various environments Getting good ideas established