Would anyone be interested in a Complexity Theory study group?

[Widerstand]

Or maybe just a general discussion group? Possible topics would be chaos theory, various aspects of dynamic systems in general, stability and instability of complex systems, (sociological) system theory, network theory, game theory, fuzzy logic - and of course their application to leftist analysis, critique, organization, revolutionary tactics, whatever really. We could discuss a variety of matters from different fields (as in done in professional research), such as physics, biology, sociology, maths, and a lot more.

Anyway, at least we can share a few resources:

Books

Gernort Ernst - Komplexität. "Chaostheorie" und die Linke (Complexity. "Chaos theory" and the left)

Introduction to complexity theory, it's basics, methods, findings and it's relevance to leftist theory and political activity. Sadly only exists in German.

Robert Axelrod - The complexity of cooperation

Discusses cooperative strategies in game theory.

Mark Buchanan - Nexus. Small Worlds and the groundbreaking theory of networks

An account of modern network theories.

Mark Buchanan - Ubiquity. Why catastrophes happen.

About complex systems, with a focus on robustness and collapse.

Stuart Kauffmann - At home in the universe. The search for the laws of self-organization and complexity.

Rather old, but I guess it's a "classic" about complexity theory.

Online resources

Scholarpedia's Encyclopedia of dynamical systems (http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Encyclopedia_of_dynamical_systems) - A wiki with high quality articles related to complexity theory.

Santa Fe Institute website (http://www.santafe.edu/) - one of the leading research institutes. Has a couple of publications and videos online.

Simulation applications:

powersim.com
iseesystems.com
vensim.com/software
mathworks.com
scilab.org
ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo
repast.sourceforge.net
swarm.org
ddlab.com

[red cat]

I know next to nothing in all this, but I am interested as of now. :)

[MarxSchmarx]

The real challenge for things like these isn't so much understanding the abstract models - it's figuring out how to apply it to real world organizations, communicating the insights to on the ground groups, and deciding whether a lack of understanding of these is hindering leftist analysis and practice. Certainly for some questions of interest to leftists I think these "systems-based" research have a lot of value - for example in understanding how an idealized planned economy can work. But in other areas, such as in propaganda, the complexity of life really make these sort of analyses intractable and, I suspect, of limited value - or, at least, don't shed light on things that conventional "scientific" approaches (like behavioral trials and focus groups) can illuminate. Thus I'm highly skeptical of the payoff of expending the enormous energy necessary to understand this field (given that full time academics are still figuring out just what it is they are up to with this stuff apart from coining new buzzwords - but I guess that hasn't stopped us expending giant resources in terms of time and labor on the state-capitalism/deformed workers state debate that puts professional historians to shame).

Anyway, if you can come up with insights, however, I'm all ears. I'd be interested in following the discussions.

[ckaihatsu]

The real challenge for things like these isn't so much understanding the abstract models -


While complexity theory *is* abstract, it's *not* a model, as much as it's an *approach* to the study of natural or social systems, akin, or counterposed to, reductionism or a holistic ("whole-istic") approach to scientific investigations.


Complexity Pages

A non-technical introduction to the new
science of Chaos and Complexity

http://complexity.orconhosting.net.nz/intro.html





it's figuring out how to apply it to real world organizations, communicating the insights to on the ground groups, and deciding whether a lack of understanding of these is hindering leftist analysis and practice.


I think you're over-planning here -- since it's an approach, and not a school of thought, or a 'theory' in its usual meaning, it doesn't have to be *separated* or institutionalized in any way from our regular dealings with political matters. It's really more a matter of deciding whether to describe a person based on their foot-movements alone, to do so based on their movements and communications, or some combination of the two, including their body-language movements as well. (This analogy is meant to correspond to reductionism, holism, and complexity approaches, respectively.)





Certainly for some questions of interest to leftists I think these "systems-based" research have a lot of value -


Considering that what we examine and participate in is larger than any particular individual, what we are concerned with is -- yes -- *systems*.





for example in understanding how an idealized planned economy can work.


Okay, that's a good example.





But in other areas, such as in propaganda, the complexity of life really make these sort of analyses intractable


Again, complexity theory is *not* a 'theory' or a singular school of thought in relation to subject matter -- it's an approach, or way, of using the regular scientific method.





and, I suspect, of limited value - or, at least, don't shed light on things that conventional "scientific" approaches (like behavioral trials and focus groups) can illuminate.


A 'complexity' approach would incorporate data from any research, along with data from a potentially infinite number of other sources, to arrive at an integrated body of conclusions / modeling, depending on the questions asked.





Thus I'm highly skeptical of the payoff of expending the enormous energy necessary to understand this field


It's actually not difficult to understand -- I'd recommend going through the material at the website I referenced above.





(given that full time academics are still figuring out just what it is they are up to with this stuff apart from coining new buzzwords -


Duly noted -- academia is an industry of its own....





but I guess that hasn't stopped us expending giant resources in terms of time and labor on the state-capitalism/deformed workers state debate that puts professional historians to shame).


(This isn't much of an issue, really -- complexity theory assists us in this regard by reminding us of the dimension of *scale*. If we're looking at the former USSR within a *global* context then it's state capitalism, while looking at it *internally* shows us a deformed workers' state.)