Social complexity and coupled Socio-Ecological Systems

Social complexity and coupled SES, Bruce Edmonds, SES-LINK, Stockholm, June 2104. slide 1

Social complexity and coupled SES

Bruce EdmondsCentre for Policy Modelling

Manchester Metropolitan University


This Talk

• A synthetic talk, brining together a variety of ideas towards understanding SES over the longer term

• Parts will be familiar to people from different fields• Goes back to the roots of human intelligence and

survival and its relationship with structural change • In particular, the importance of social abilities in

the construction of collective ways of surviving• E.g. the importance of culture, social embedding,

social norms and context-dependency• I.e. parts of the picture towards understanding

human adaption to its environment


Structural Change in Ecology – the long view

• Structural change is continually occurring in ecologies everywhere (e.g. power law of extinction events)

• But at different time scales and to different extents• Not only due to external factors, but also the

endogenous spread and emergence of species• There is no steady state, no equilibrium, no

preservation of “an” ecology in the long run• At the moment the overwhelming structural change is

due to humankind, not only as the new omni-predator, but a changer of environments, an agent of species spread and now even creating new species


Social Intelligence Hypothesis

Kummer, H., Daston, L., Gigerenzer, G. and Silk, J. (1997)

• The brain does not give an isolated individual much of an advantage, compared to specialists

• The crucial evolutionary advantages that human intelligence gives are its social abilities

• Groups of humans are able develop individual cultures that allow them to inhabit a variety of ecological niches (e.g. Inuit or Kalahari)

• Thus protected from specific crises, i.e. somewhat insulated from any particular structural change (as a whole species, not particular groups)


An Evolutionary Perspective on SIH

Social intelligence implies that:• Groups of humans can develop their own (sub)cultures of

technologies, etc. (Boyd and Richerson 1985)• These allow the group with their culture to inhabit a variety of

niches (e.g. the Kalahari, Polynesia) (Reader 1980)• Thus humans, as a species, are able to survive catastrophes

that effect different niches in different ways (group specialisation)

• This is not necessarily the case when we all inhabit a single, global, niche!

• Human intelligence has emerged to create cultures that enable it to exploit different ecologies

• Cultures can adapt to maintain enough of its environment to survive or actively destroy it (e.g. Easter Island)


Implications of SIH

• That different complex “cultures” of knowledge are significant

• An important part of those cultures is how to socially organise, behave, coordinate etc.

• One should expect different sets of social knowledge for different groups of people

• That these might not only be different in terms of content but imply different ways of coordinating, negotiating, cooperating etc.

• That these will relate as a complete “package” to some extent

• That human cognition has a core social purpose – providing abilities for such cultures to develop


Social Embedding

• Granovetter (1985) • Contrasts with the under- and over-socialised

models of behaviour• That the particular patterns of social

interactions between individuals matter• In other words, only looking at individual

behaviour or aggregate behaviour misses crucial aspects

• That the causes of behaviour might be spread throughout a society – “causal spread”

• Shown clearly in some simulation models


Illustration of Causal Complexity

Lines indicate causal link in behaviour, each box an agent (Edmonds 1999)


Implications of Social Embedding

• In many circumstances agents can learn to exploit the computation and knowledge in their society, rather than do it themselves (invest in what Warren Buffet invests in)

• Knowledge is often not explicit but is something learned – this takes time

• This is particularly true of social knowledge – studying guides as to living in a culture are not the same as living there for a time

• Social embedding means that human behaviour can not be understood well separate from its cultural context


Social Norms

• Come from society to effectively constrain the action of individuals

• Not same as “group goals” or utility considerations• Are linked to the relevant reference group• Are a complex phenomena – a dynamic

combination of cognitive and social phenomena• An individual’s perception of others is important• Norms emerge, become established, maybe

become explicit, and fall into disuse• Maybe more important in determining action than

rational choice of action within constraints


Implications of Social Norms

• Social norms are a very powerful way of aiding coordination and control

• Can be very effective in limiting damage to environment

• Are not ‘rational’ but usually have a rationale• Once established can ‘lock in’, even when the

‘reasons’ for them have long disappeared• In the longer run, dependent on occasional

reinforcement (e.g. policing) for maintenance• An enforcement-norms-habit structure• Often more significant than punishment, reward


Context-Dependency of Cognition

• Many aspects of human cognition are context-dependent, including: memory, visual perception, choice making, reasoning, emotion, and language

• The brain somehow deals with situational context effectively, abstracting kinds of situations so relevant information can be easily and preferentially accessed

• Learning new information, reasoning, deciding new action occurs with respect to the particular context

• It is not known how the brain does this, and probably does this in a rich, unconscious and complex way that might prevent easy labeling/reification of contexts


The Social Co-Development of Shared Recognised Context

• Over time, due to their similarities, certain kinds of situation become recognised as similar by participants

• This facilitates the development of a set of shared habits, norms, knowledge, language etc. that is specific to the context

• The more this happens the more distinctive that kind of situation becomes and hence more recognisable by newcomers

• Eventually these may become institutionalised in terms of infranstructure, training etc. (e.g. how to behave in a lecture theatre)

• This co-development of context may be the reason for its social/evolutionary value


Implications of the Context-Dependency of Human Behaviour

• Behaviour of observed actors might change sharply across different social contexts

• The relevant behaviour, norms, kinds of interaction etc. might also change

• Social contexts are co-developed and changing• They may be different for different groups• Some kinds of social behaviour seem to be inherently

context-dependent (compliance)• It is unlikely that a lot of key social knowledge, norms,

behaviour etc. will be generic• Models that assume a cross-context engine of human

behaviour may be deeply misleading!


A Picture of Social Rationality

• Yes, individuals are somewhat rational, in the sense of having identifiable goals and tending to act to further their goals but…

• …but the roots and characteristics of our intelligence are substantially social in nature

• Most of our individual goals are social in nature – they cannot be achieved on our own

• Many of our goals are created by society• How we think about action is socially formed • Dependent on information from others• What we do is constrained by social norms, laws

habits, suggestions, imagined possibilities


Adaption

Different kinds of adaption involved…• Groups of humans spread to many parts of the world,

inhabiting various different environments• Groups of humans develop very different ways of

organising, living, technologies, cultures…• …partly in response to their environments, but also

creatively in response to each other• Some of these groups of humans persist for a time and

some fail• Some cultures seem to have adapted to fit into their local

environment, many very creative• but some seemed to get “locked-in” to a way of life• sometimes success is due to doing very stupid things


The Complexity of Long-Term Co-existence

• We no longer live in separate ecological niches so failing will not just affect one place, one group

• Some short-term problems may be amenable to scientific study and solutions, stepping outside culture and looking at particular situations

• Others might be solvable via political action within the current structures and culture of society

• But the longer-term, more difficult problem is how to understand then structure how our society works so humans can survive and maintain ecological diversity

• And so avoid ecological problems and adapt to subsequent problems within a global context


How we might do this

• Study ecological, cognitive and social aspects together or (at least, in the context of each other)

• Abandon individual rationality as a starting point and rather look at rationality as largely social

• Including such as social norms, status, power structures, cultures, ways of communicating

• Look at scenarios where the aim is not just solve a simple “game theoretic” problem, but respond to a complex and adaptive environment

• Where a complex society is embedded within a complex ecology

• Look at longer scales of adaption to provide context for short-term studies


The End!

Centre for Policy Modelling:http://cfpm.org

I will upload these slides to: http://slideshare.net/BruceEdmonds

Education

Social complexity and coupled Socio-Ecological Systems