Quite true, Antonio. I say that the last paragraph of your intervention reminds me of my father who was an “innovative individual” and had the nerve to leave his close-minded fellow countrymen of a small village in the South of Italy in the early twenties. He had the capacity to emerge but didn’t want to ever return to his native place. I believe because of his conviction that notwithstanding TV, computer and so on, the ‘clusters’ of that society were still tightly closed and kept their prejudices, probably as cultural evolution had not enough time to operate. On this issue, it is quite interesting to note that Sethi and Somanathan (2003) argued that “in the case of cultural transmission, traits transmitted horizontally within peer groups can spread rapidly ‘within a generation’ [emphasis added], while traits that are transmitted vertically from one generation to the next, for instance within families, may require several generations to diffuse through the population”. (Sethi, R., Somanathan, E., Understanding reciprocity, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 2003,Vol. 50, 1, 1–27, p.24)

Besides personal experience, which adds only a small piece to a mosaic already known, putting in a more scientific parlance what I may have learned so far, I’d initially say that clusters of people bound together by the feeling of a common collective identity and in which its components share the same attribute by progressive expansion, have a larger probability to receive even more connections from its surrounding districts. By that process it is possible to pursue the goal of self-organization to maximize the synergy or cooperation of the group instead of the maximization of individual utility. [Heylighen, F., Complexity and Self-organization, prepared for the Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences, edited by Marcia J. Bates and Mary Niles Maack (Taylor & Francis, 2008].

Secondly, people who tend to form groups according to similarity to one another for special interests, communal cultural norms or imitation find a limit which may represent the outcome of unexpected results. In fact, it has been observed that “once the size of a group has crossed some threshold value, the human agents act to consolidate their group. It means that the agents do not seek to join the closest agent but instead try to cluster together in compact groups. […] to avoid other groups so as to create distinct buffers between them” (Palmer et al. 2003). [Daniel W. Palmer, Marc Kirschenbaum, Jon P. Murton, Michael A. Kovacina, Daniel H. Steinberg, Sam N. Calabrese, Kelly M. Zajac, Chad M. Hantak, Jason E. Schatz, Using a Collection of Humans as an Execution Testbed for Swarm Algorithms, Proceedings of the IEEE, Swarm intelligence symposium, Indiana, 2003, 58-64]. I’d add my belief that the usual topology of clusters in human social networks may tell the characteristics of social behaviour. In particular, communities are recognizable as cluster of nodes with high connectivity by using the accepted measures such as 1) the position of one particular node - a ”connector” - which has a high number of direct links to other nodes; 2) a ‘boundary spanner’, a node which could have a small number of connections but has a dominant position as the only ‘boundary spanner’ tool between different groups; finally, 3) nodes having the shortest paths to all others.

In a concise way, because of cultural group selection, only the interactions that are synergetic will be preserved and establish a ‘link’. A combination of links creates the network where agents can be seen as nodes involved in a collective exchange of ideas with other nodes on the basis of what is named a ‘marker’ of a node that permits understanding the kinds of relations which can be established with that particular node. Specifically, markers determine the positions that can be assumed within the social and inter-agents fields and, subsequently, the types of communications and interactions that can take place. At the same time, the social system itself is what creates the markers. In a summary approach, an example of this complex structure creates a social network, which links people on the basis of a cultural norm of cooperation.

In a society, the relations are basically: the exchange and handling of information (dialogue) and synchronized action (which is the return of communication). Now, analyses that used the above mentioned measures and markers have turned out to be applicable in the study of society, so that it has been devised no more as a stiff, static and automated organism, but as a complex adaptive system focusing on the relations between self-governing members through designs and methods of the sciences of complexity: ‘cybernetics and system theory’. To be synthetic, the structure of a society emerging from self-organization is made up of a network assembled from an aggregation of synergetic clusters. (Gochenour, 2005) [P.H. Gochenour, Masks and Dances: Cybernetics and Systems Theory in Relation to Flusser’s Concepts of the Subject and Society, Flusserstudies.net, November 2005].

Then, a cybernetics process is at work using the concept of organization as an important element to understand the complexity of social systems and takes from cybernetics the concept of feedback and its positive and negative control mechanisms which amplify and correct deviation respectively, to maintain the system in a dynamic balance.

All that in the presence of a vast information processing network creating the environment that brings the nodes into being by the connection of forces. This environment is what Flusser calls “culture and civilization” (Flusser, 2002) [Vilem Flusser, Writings. Trans. Erik Eisel, Andreas Strõhl (ed.), University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis]. Culture considered in its fundamental functions of: finalization, roots, integration, development of meanings, values, attitudes and models, aimed at guiding people and society.

To end in a rather quick manner a discourse which would become too long, I‘d conclude by saying that a society that as a first step leaves room for experimentation and then submits the different scenario to the discipline of competition is bound to be a ‘valuable’ society, whatever that term means in relation to the objectives that its members pursue. But if this is true, i.e. if it is to be expected that such a way of being of society is preferred by the majority of its members than any other else, one wonders why history has provided rare evidence of the existence and persistence of the discipline of competition, underlining its status of an exception rather than a rule.

Dear Antonio

Thank you for raising an interesting question.

Could you please provide a reference of how neuroscietists made the claim above. I am really interested of the method(staistical?) used and why such a survey was carried out in the first place.

Hi. Would it not make sense to ask what society we are looking at? Humans are pretty flexible: I guess it depends on the society and on imposed beliefs and learning structures. While I beleive that there are different personality traits that make some pople more inclined to one way and some more to the other, surely it depends on the environment?

Just a thought. I would be happy to see the science behind the numbers. I just can't see this work.

@ Issam: I looked over some of my sources, but couldn't find those exact statistics. The closest I could find was in a book by Elkhonen Goldberg, "The New Executive Brain" in a section titled "Rebels in Small Proportion: Handedness and Novelty Seeking," pp. 136 - 141. In this section he is speaking most about left-handed vs. right-handed, with the conjecture that left-handed people tend to be more innovative. He states that about 10% of the population is left-handed. He also states that society can not tolerate too many innovators for the sake of societal stability.

I will continue to keep my eye out for the reference of 15% innovators and 85% conformists.

By the way, when it come to doing things with both hands, I am left-handed, but when it come to doing things with only one hand, I am right-handed. (I seem to recall there is a name for this type of handedness.)

What is your handedness?

This topic deserves more investigation, especially in view of the fact that our global society desperately needs to cultivate more innovation to solve the myriad of global problems facing humanity today. Do you have any suggestions?

@ Britta: Ref. Goldberg (above), he believes that the physical attributes of the brain are somewhat different between leftys and rightys. So, I would conclude that we are each born with a propensity for seeking innovation or for being satisfied in our comfort zone. Of course, the social context will often constrain the extent to which one's propensities are actualized.

Maybe you could contribute with further ideas and any references you may come across?

It's a great topic.

Of course, there are many implications in many spheres, including politics and religion, to wit: the generalized claim that "all men are created equal" in USA educational policies; and religious regimentation.

Fascinating Antonio, you really got me very interested in this topic. in my first reply I did have a feeling that this is a very interesting subject but to be honest with you I never thought about it in this way. I am right handed, does that make me less innovative?

I'm sure it's not deterministic! But I guess it might help.

As we think more about this topic, there are so many implications.

It may be a good thesis for some research!

Dear Antonio

When I asked the question "does that make me less innovative?" I was making a suggestion. You asked me for a suggestion, I do have a suggestion but it is in the form of a very relevant question. Assuming that 15% of us are innovators, how many of this 15% are R handed and how many are L handed? This will tell us a lot. Do you know the answer?

Dear Antonio

The definition of an innovator is "someone who helps to open up a new line of research or technology or art" and "People who create new ideas, products or methods of doing things - not thought of before." Innovators must therefore be highly intelligent, creative and with lots of imagination.

I have found an article in the Scientific American magazine, that discusses this by asking the question:"Is it true that left-handed people are smarter than right-handed people? and the answer does depend on what you mean by smarter. It is a very interesting article and the reference is:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-it-true-that-left-handed-people

May I also add the following reference which is titled: "Why left-handed people AREN'T more creative than those who are right-handed"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2000973/Why-left-handed-people-ARENT-creative-right-handed.html

Clearly there is no concrete evidence to support the idea that majority of innovators are L handed.

Thank you for your follow up. I will look at these articles very soon.

I think the real issue is not about LH and RH people. It is an interesting side issue. (By the way, the second reference was about IQ scores for 5-year olds. There are several problems with using the3 results of this study re. innovation and conformity - For example, IQ scores are fraught with many questions regarding cultural bias; and limiting the study to 5-year olds may be too constrained to be a basis for generalization.)

The real issues are centered on innovation and conformity and societies.

JUST THINKING OUT LOUD:

The first thing we need to do is define our terms. Because I am interested in innovators who will help us develop new paradigms to solve global problems, such as global warming, future shortages of water, pollution, obesity, cultural and religious clashes, etc., I would like to define innovators with respect to these issues - maybe call them "problem-solving innovators".

As for conformists, I would like to define them in terms of beliefs or actions they manifest that make it more difficult for innovators to solve such global problems. For example: conformists may simply contribute to the inertia that makes societal change more difficult; or they may impede or actively oppose change - all due to their need to be conformists. Maybe call them "status quo conformists".

These distinctions would be in the context of solving global problems.

Any suggestions?

We might look at it from a slightly different stance: diffusion of innovation. From what I recall, the idea is that there are key people in each community that can either block or promote the entry of innovations into a community. If so, then getting some indication of the proportion of these people might shed some light on actual numbers.

Rogers, 1995, Diffusion of Innovations

Everett M. Rogers

New York, NY: The Free Press

4th Edition

Work by John Calhoun that I read 20 years ago would set the number somewhere around 1:6. But his work was with small animals (primarily rodents). He had an evolutionary argument based on tessellation of terrain to support the population and the presence of one dominant individual per grouping. His work is quite dated and probably hard to find. I mention it only as an idea starter, not as a completely serious explanation.

We might even recast this as followers/leaders and use this as a proxy measure. In the US military, a platoon of 50 has 6 primary leaders (12%) but a platoon is usually short by ten people. If the platoon is full strength, there are usually an additional 8 very low level leaders (2 per squad) that rise in importance. That would give 28%.

Of course, there is always the old standby of the 80-20 rule :- )

Just some thoughts.

MORE THINKING ALOUD:

My career was in scientific and engineering research and development, so when I use the word "innovation", I am thinking within this context. And the reason I am focusing on this aspect of innovation is that so many of the global problems we face today will require scientific and/or engineering solutions. Even for problems in personal and social development, including substandard learning and criminal behavior, I believe breakthroughs can be achieved by innovative thinking that involves existing knowledge in neuroscience, computers, and psychiatry, among other disciplines. This thinking will probably come from people who have expertise and substantial backgrounds in fields that are quite different from the mainstream "experts" who have many years experience and lofty credentials in the area with the problems.

ADDITIONAL IDEAS ABOUT CONFORMITY AND BEING BRAVE:

It appears that there are different types of conformity: 1. Conform to the people around you (e.g., peers, groups that you want to belong to, groups that you identify with); 2. Conform to the established ways of problem solving (methods you were taught as an apprentice or as a student); 3. Conform to the status quo (If you belong to a privileged class or if you feel insecure or vulnerable that things might get worse if there is change).

We are all vulnerable to conforming in various aspects of our lives. But, when it comes to helping solve huge global problems, we need to think of the greater good and the good of our descendants - take the longer, broader view. Be brave enough to challenge existing or, seemingly, popular or authoritative views if you think you have a better idea. Brainstorm, and respect everyone's viewpoint. We need lots of ideas, regardless of how absurd they may seem at first..

A NOTE ON INNOVATION:

When I worked at The Aeropspace Corporation, technical advisors to the Air Force (SAMSO), I learned that in order to conceive of new futuristic space systems, they did not turn to established experts, but instead, they turned to young, newly graduated officers to dream of new fantastic military things that might be done in space. The naivete of these young people prevented them from being tied down by conventional "wisdom". Their recommendations were then turned over to experts to see if there would be any way of developing the supporting knowledge and capabilities that they envisaged.

When we ask of conformism and non-conformism, we must put some questions to debate: 1) why do we want to mantain order the way it is? 2) why do we want to change things and situations? 3) what kind of innovation do we want? 4) who is legitimated to bring innovation? Innovation or conservation are not good or evil in themselves, but they are claimed or rejected because of the ends we want to get. Innovation, sometimes, seems to be a kind of heresy, even in scientific community, for it could imply denying positions of a great "medallion". Sometimes, it is desired, for it could give a great advantage in competition.

@ Ricardo: Thank you for your comments. In general, I think it is good to have innovators - that is how we improve our ways of doing things. Sometimes, especially in prosperous times, innovators are often ignored or barely tolerated, but often their ideas may pinpoint underlying flaws that eventually become the undoing of an enterprise ( a company, a nation, or civilization). These disasterous outcomes can occur in societies that are autocratic and/or closed-minded and/or very large. (See Jerrod Diamond's book "Collapse.")

In enterprises that tend to be more democratic or open-minded or relatively small, disasters can not only be averted, the enterprise can flourish (See the book on the golden age of Spain during much of the rule under the Muslims, "Ornament of the World.").

Remember just because there are innovative ideas, it does not mean they will be developed or implemented. The conditions and the timing have to be right.

Certain individuals in the human race cannot resist being innovators, no matter what station in life they occupy.

If societies operated more like a brain-storming sessions where any idea is welcomed and is fully discussed in a fully open fashion, some very good ideas could be adopted and tried (at least in an analysis, or an experiment, or a modeling exercise, or a simulation, or a pilot study) and proven, or disproven, to have merit, and finally, if meritoriuos, implemented; then our world would be a better place.

Innovation and timing, that is the great question. And we must think, however, if certain individuals can not resist being innovators, sometimes their situation does not allow their ideas to be - I do not say accepted, for it comes later - considered. I do agree that such a distinction between the ones allowed to innovate and the forbidden ones is very common in authoritarian models of society. Even democratic ways of leading an enterprise may be considered something "too new", for authority does generate a fascination and, because of this, except when necessity really comes, innovations are treated like heresies.

I’d share some thoughts about Antonio Lucero presenting different types of conformity and concentrate on the first one of his classification where ‘conforming’ means making reference to the people around us (groups that we want to belong to or groups that we identify with). I hope to provide some arguments (some of them of a more technical nature) to assert that society requires a majority of conformists in order to achieve cultural evolutionary stability through the operation of the so-called conformist transmission of cultural norms.

I think there are various modes of behavior that society induces to adopt through a process of identification of an individual with the various types of groupings in which it is structured. They range from ‘weakened’ forms of identification in which the idea of individual interest is redefined to include the subjective understanding of the interest of the group of which the individual is a member, up to ‘extreme’ forms of identification of the individual with the membership group that exclude ‘a priori’ the possibility for personal interest to differ from that of the group. Central to this idea is the group solidarity that leads to cooperation in the absence of any expectation of reciprocity, rewards or punishment.

Valentin Turchin, a Soviet and American cyberneticians and computer scientist, by providing a global theory of evolution and a coherent social systems theory, carries out his analysis of society considering it as a 'meta-system' that integrates its members and preserves its characteristic of unity by using 'culture' as a control mechanism. (Cf. V. Turchin, ‘The phenomenon of science. A cybernetic approach to human evolution’, Cambridge University Press, 1977).

Then, in giving account of the formation of a society, a determining factor seems to be the ‘cultural conformity’ that will make it difficult to potential free riders to deviate from a cultural norm or ‘meme’.

Culture through its constitutive element of social norms is that form of control through which individuals are bound to perform those actions that are more favorable to the social system (groups) to which they belong instead of carrying out those activities that they would be induced to fulfill in the absence of such a form of conditioning. The feature of "sociality" of control is given by the fact that knowledge and beliefs that represent the core of culture is transmitted from one person to another through those replicators called "memes", provided that their identity is preserved in their passage from one individual to another. And one of the mechanisms of communication is precisely what Boyd and Richerson have developed while working on the cultural evolutionary mechanism based on the concept of "conformist transmission”. Such a concept refers to the imitation of those "beliefs" of the majority or ‘local’ plurality of individuals when most of the 'beliefs' competing with each other are transmitted by different persons (Cf. Boyd, R. and P. J. Richerson, ‘Culture and the Evolutionary Process’, 1985, University of Chicago Press).

Henrich e Boyd (Cf. J. Henrich e R. Boyd, “The evolution of conformist transmission and the emergence of between-group differences“, Evolution and Human Behavior, vol. 19, 1998, p. 219) emphasize how ‘conformist transmission’ entails that individuals possess a kind of predisposition to adopt that cultural trait which is more frequent in the population, thereby providing an indication of the degree of ‘adaptiveness’ of the trait itself. Such a psychological propensity means that individuals are more willing to adopt the trait more prevalent than they would be in the presence of an unbiased cultural transmission, that is faithful imitation. If the cultural transmission is not ‘biased’, preventing the action of other ‘forces, the transmission will leave the frequency of the trait unchanged from one generation to another. Henrich and Boyd assert (ibidem) that if for example 60% of a population behaves in a certain way, excluding other ‘forces’, 60% of the population of the next generation will behave the same way. On the contrary, conformist transmission will increase the frequency of the trait bringing it, say, to 65% in the next generation. Ceteris paribus, the frequency of the prevailing trait will continue to grow from generation to generation. If it were the only bias of the transmission process, the conformist transmission would ensure that - soon - the more widespread cultural trait will become the only one.

In the end, it seems to me that the most important item to consider is what Henrich and Boyd synthesize by saying: “conformist transmission generates a population-level process that creates and maintains group boundaries and cultural differences through time. Such boundaries may establish the initial conditions that lead to the development of group stereotypes, ethnic conflict, and racial strife. Delineating both the micro-level psychological mechanism of conformism, as well as the population-level processes to which they give rise, may further our understanding of these important social phenomena”. (J. Henrich and R. Boyd, ‘The Evolution of Conformist Transmission and the Emergence of Between-Group Differences’, Evolution and Human Behavior, 1998, 19: 215–241).

Dear Gianrocco, What an interesting and stimulating exposition. I must read some of your references. Thank you!

I have been thinking recently about the phenomena of terrorism and marginalization.

Judging by my personal experiences and first-hand observations of others, I would hypothesize that many people who feel marginalized are CONFORMISTS.

For example, I have seen, over and over again, many people (perhaps 90%) from my own ethnic group of non-immigrant Hispanics in the USA do the following things: a) seek out their own kind in school, at work; b) choose to live in a predominantly Hispanic barrio and c) endure the higher crime, the lower school standards, the generally poorer-paying jobs. Because they feel more comfortable doing things they are used to, rather than exploring other ways of life and accepting what they feel is good and rejecting what they feel is bad in the mainstream culture, while preserving and/or promoting what they cherish in their own native culture.

I imagine this predominantly self-marginalization I have observed about my own subculture, holds true for other subcultures, especially for recent immigrants and their children.

In the case of terrorism within Western countries, marginalization is often mentioned as one of its root causes. There is an implicit implication when this is cited, that the predominant society in the host country has intentionally tried to exclude the outsiders/newcomers from fully participating in society. But I posit that much of the blame lies in the conformity of most of the "marginalized."

No doubt, there exists discrimination, but an innovative individual can search for ways to thrive and become an almost full participant in the larger society and feel not only a sense of success, but the thrill of knowing "I excelled, in spite of all the impediments."

Any comments?

Dear Antonio, as an economist who dared to explore the topics of ‘cultural evolution’ and ‘cultural group selection’, which are placed at the borders of the various social sciences even though they are progressively fading away, I believe that I still do not have the qualifications to comment your thought-provoking remarks. Even when I had the opportunity to talk with Bob Boyd and Sam Bowles, I hesitated hence missing the opportunity to engage in a face-to-face conversation with two of the most eminent scholars in cultural anthropology, co-evolution of preferences, institutions and behavior, and the evolution of non-self-regarding motives in explaining conduct. So, I didn’t receive fundamental hints and advice while dealing with a captivating issue in the field of economic behavioral studies. In fact, my efforts aimed to set up a connection between pre-disposition, cultural evolution, altruism and group selection in the process of envy reduction in economics. Specifically, I tried to develop a set of arguments for lessening ‘malevolent’ envy and show that, if humans possess a psychological bias towards accepting the group social norms, such – for example - imitating the common behavior, then cultural evolutionary processes would favor and stabilize cooperation. Then, once cooperation achieved stability, I planned to investigate more deeply how cultural group selection, the connected conformist cultural transmission rule and moralistic punishment ended in making ‘between-group cultural variation’ much less subject to erosion by migration. Sequentially, these features were likely to spread group-beneficial traits such as an altruistic behavior which I proposed to consider as the practical and real opposite of envy in a social behavior ranking within structured populations. The message I received from my readings of some of the specific and vast literature may be synthesized as follows: 1) socialization theory, which I believe has been accepted by sociologists, anthropologists and a significant segment of psychologists, claims that a society’s values are transmitted from generation to generation through a process of internalization of values; 2) individuals acquire their behavior through ‘vertical’ transmission (from parents to children, teachers and peers) and an ‘oblique’ one (from culturally significant members of community or sub-community); 3) a conformist bias is an important base of social behaviors and the variation between groups - needed for group selection to operate - is protected from the variance reducing force of migration between groups.

Presently, I am conscious to have lost the occasion to discuss properly your intriguing hypothesis of conformity as a constituent of the self-marginalization feeling of non-immigrant Hispanics in the USA. Anyway, as an insight, I am convinced that they are trying to build a psychological character of group members in order to fully participate in the political life of a wider community, acting at the same time on behalf of their ethnic group.

Dear Gianrocco, Your comments are stimulating and provide a more global view of individuals associating themselves with groups.

This complex dynamic of bonding with various groups reminds me of a clustering technique developed by Gauda and Krishna that I used many decades ago in data analysis. As I recall the technique used a measure of attraction called the Mutual Nearest Neighbor (MNN) metric. Although it was used to cluster abstract data in multidimensional space, the concept was inspired by considering how people tend to associate themselves with various groups.

The older concept of classification or clustering was based on nearest neighbor distances. In brief, the distances between a given point and all other point in the space are computed and ranked. Then, a parameter, called "k" is varied, where k is the number of distances to be considered.

For example, for k=5, then the 5 shortest distances to the given point are examined. If the majority of the distances are associated with one particular subset, then the given point is associated with that subset. By varying the value of k, you might detect how most of the points tend to cluster into separate subgroups. This technique was not very robust or adaptive.

Gauda and Krishna added the property of mutualism. For example to determine which group to associate a given point, you not only compute and rank the "Euclidean" distances to the given point, but you also rank the distances of the members to all other points.

For example, suppose the given point is at the "edge" of a very tight cluster, even if this given point's nearest neighbors are all in this cluster, they may be so tightly clustered that from the point of view of members of this cluster the given point is not among their nearest neighbors. So the given point may not have a sufficient MNN to be associated with this tight cluster.

The opposite situation to this would be: The given point is near a loosely clustered subset. Here, if many of the nearest neighbors to the given point belong to this subset, then it is likely that members of this subset may include the given point as among their nearest neighbors too. So, the given point would have a sufficiently low MNN to be associated with them.

Analogs in real life could be: the tightly clustered group being a snooty country club that does not welcome outsiders; and the loosely clustered group being a casual group of hikers that is happy to welcome another hiker into their group.

Of course, there is a continuum of tightness that can be characterized by the parameter k.

Sometimes mathematical modeling/simulation can help elucidate more complex issues. The important property of mutualism needs to be included in any analysis. The association is a two-way street. In a closed, conservative society, it may be nearly impossible for an open-minded, innovative individual to be accepted. So, if this individual recognizes the situation, then, if possible, he/she should leave to find a more open society. A kind of "brain drain" phenomenon is the result.

This is an argument for a society, in its own self-interest, to try to be open and inclusive.

Quite true, Antonio. I say that the last paragraph of your intervention reminds me of my father who was an “innovative individual” and had the nerve to leave his close-minded fellow countrymen of a small village in the South of Italy in the early twenties. He had the capacity to emerge but didn’t want to ever return to his native place. I believe because of his conviction that notwithstanding TV, computer and so on, the ‘clusters’ of that society were still tightly closed and kept their prejudices, probably as cultural evolution had not enough time to operate. On this issue, it is quite interesting to note that Sethi and Somanathan (2003) argued that “in the case of cultural transmission, traits transmitted horizontally within peer groups can spread rapidly ‘within a generation’ [emphasis added], while traits that are transmitted vertically from one generation to the next, for instance within families, may require several generations to diffuse through the population”. (Sethi, R., Somanathan, E., Understanding reciprocity, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 2003,Vol. 50, 1, 1–27, p.24)

Besides personal experience, which adds only a small piece to a mosaic already known, putting in a more scientific parlance what I may have learned so far, I’d initially say that clusters of people bound together by the feeling of a common collective identity and in which its components share the same attribute by progressive expansion, have a larger probability to receive even more connections from its surrounding districts. By that process it is possible to pursue the goal of self-organization to maximize the synergy or cooperation of the group instead of the maximization of individual utility. [Heylighen, F., Complexity and Self-organization, prepared for the Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences, edited by Marcia J. Bates and Mary Niles Maack (Taylor & Francis, 2008].

Secondly, people who tend to form groups according to similarity to one another for special interests, communal cultural norms or imitation find a limit which may represent the outcome of unexpected results. In fact, it has been observed that “once the size of a group has crossed some threshold value, the human agents act to consolidate their group. It means that the agents do not seek to join the closest agent but instead try to cluster together in compact groups. […] to avoid other groups so as to create distinct buffers between them” (Palmer et al. 2003). [Daniel W. Palmer, Marc Kirschenbaum, Jon P. Murton, Michael A. Kovacina, Daniel H. Steinberg, Sam N. Calabrese, Kelly M. Zajac, Chad M. Hantak, Jason E. Schatz, Using a Collection of Humans as an Execution Testbed for Swarm Algorithms, Proceedings of the IEEE, Swarm intelligence symposium, Indiana, 2003, 58-64]. I’d add my belief that the usual topology of clusters in human social networks may tell the characteristics of social behaviour. In particular, communities are recognizable as cluster of nodes with high connectivity by using the accepted measures such as 1) the position of one particular node - a ”connector” - which has a high number of direct links to other nodes; 2) a ‘boundary spanner’, a node which could have a small number of connections but has a dominant position as the only ‘boundary spanner’ tool between different groups; finally, 3) nodes having the shortest paths to all others.

In a concise way, because of cultural group selection, only the interactions that are synergetic will be preserved and establish a ‘link’. A combination of links creates the network where agents can be seen as nodes involved in a collective exchange of ideas with other nodes on the basis of what is named a ‘marker’ of a node that permits understanding the kinds of relations which can be established with that particular node. Specifically, markers determine the positions that can be assumed within the social and inter-agents fields and, subsequently, the types of communications and interactions that can take place. At the same time, the social system itself is what creates the markers. In a summary approach, an example of this complex structure creates a social network, which links people on the basis of a cultural norm of cooperation.

In a society, the relations are basically: the exchange and handling of information (dialogue) and synchronized action (which is the return of communication). Now, analyses that used the above mentioned measures and markers have turned out to be applicable in the study of society, so that it has been devised no more as a stiff, static and automated organism, but as a complex adaptive system focusing on the relations between self-governing members through designs and methods of the sciences of complexity: ‘cybernetics and system theory’. To be synthetic, the structure of a society emerging from self-organization is made up of a network assembled from an aggregation of synergetic clusters. (Gochenour, 2005) [P.H. Gochenour, Masks and Dances: Cybernetics and Systems Theory in Relation to Flusser’s Concepts of the Subject and Society, Flusserstudies.net, November 2005].

Then, a cybernetics process is at work using the concept of organization as an important element to understand the complexity of social systems and takes from cybernetics the concept of feedback and its positive and negative control mechanisms which amplify and correct deviation respectively, to maintain the system in a dynamic balance.

All that in the presence of a vast information processing network creating the environment that brings the nodes into being by the connection of forces. This environment is what Flusser calls “culture and civilization” (Flusser, 2002) [Vilem Flusser, Writings. Trans. Erik Eisel, Andreas Strõhl (ed.), University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis]. Culture considered in its fundamental functions of: finalization, roots, integration, development of meanings, values, attitudes and models, aimed at guiding people and society.

To end in a rather quick manner a discourse which would become too long, I‘d conclude by saying that a society that as a first step leaves room for experimentation and then submits the different scenario to the discipline of competition is bound to be a ‘valuable’ society, whatever that term means in relation to the objectives that its members pursue. But if this is true, i.e. if it is to be expected that such a way of being of society is preferred by the majority of its members than any other else, one wonders why history has provided rare evidence of the existence and persistence of the discipline of competition, underlining its status of an exception rather than a rule.

Very interesting. You provide a lot to ponder and integrate. I will be reviewing this epistle in the next few days. I'm sure I'll have some comments/questions. Thank you for spending the time.

I think this topic is one of the most important issues of the day.

I apologize that my response to you is somewhat rambling - I am just exploring assorted thoughts converging on me without having organized them in any way, a sort of brainstorming.

After reading the material you kindly provided above, these are some ideas that may or may not be relevant: 1) The tendency of us modern westerners to view social and personal phenomena from the logical "left-brain" viewpoint with linear causal explanations; 2) As a corollary to this, the one-dimensional idea that "competition" explains which alternative survives and flourishes; and 3) The notion that cybernetics can encompass what goes on in the brain.

Consider the established fact of our brains being social organs that require inter-cerebral connection (the need for one person's brain to be "felt" by another person's brain -empathy- , as well as the phenomenon of mirror neurons where we identify with the actions of others - also empathy). We need one another. (Solitary confinement is a very severe punishment.)

Consider the historical reports of innovators capturing the "souls" of the masses, causing them to be inspired and to follow A new belief system. When people are discontent with the status quo, they may be receptive to what an empathetic leader is teaching them - the possibility of a new order.

Consider the interpretation by the psychiatrist, Dan Siegal (famous for the book "Mindsight'), that the biological reason for adolescents (in the USA) giving paramount importance to connecting with their peers is due to the fact that, in their future, they will need to deal with their peers and their value system, rather than those of the previous generations.

All the above phenomena, are conducive to a predominantly conformist society, aided by the various electronic social media. A great deal of synergy is taking place. In and of itself, this is not a bad thing, UNLESS THERE IS AN IMPENDING CALAMITY!

Jerrod Diamond, in his book "Collapse", discusses societies and how they dealt with impending calamities. Some, such as the Easter Islanders and the European Greenlanders chose to ignore the warning signs (that maybe some innovator called attention to) and ultimately perished.

Yes, Anirudh, that is the ideal. Unfortunately, today's USA society, in contrast with a generation or two ago, is out of balance. The conformists have taken much more pervasive control, and they are pushing the world towards many, avoidable calamities.

In addition to "being" a conformist or an innovator, there is the concept of expression/suppression. Some people may be innately innovators, but in their societies they may not be permitted to express nonconformist ideas. So they appear to outsiders as conformists. (Often times in history we read about nonconformists who have been persecuted for proclaiming their true beliefs.) On the other side of the coin, there may be people who are innately conformists, but because of the subculture they wish to be associated with, they may act and speak as though they were iconoclasts (such as many people in the "Hippy Movement" in the 60s).

So it may difficult to judge how many people are TRULY conformists or innovators. I guess we can only judge by the circle of friends and relatives whom we know very well, and then extrapolate to society at large.

Among the people in my circle of friends and relatives, I notice that there is a concentration of innovators within certain nuclear families and a concentration of conformists within certain other nuclear families. And, of course, there is often a maverick in a nuclear family. (Forgive my rambling, please.) One key ingredient, I think is level and quality of education. Often, the head(s) of a family, if well educated and innovative, is aware of alternate possibilities and can inculcate these to the children who, in turn, often become innovators themselves.

I recently viewed a video on YouTube: "Weapons of Mass Instruction" by John Gatto. In this video he speaks about how our schools and universities succeed in turning out graduates who conform to the concepts and behavior that is taught in these institutions. On the side of this phenomenon are many nonconformists who tend drop to drop out early and become great innovators - He cites numerous examples (few of which I have verified, but believe to be true).

So, are our schools and universities, to a large extent, contributing to the lack of innovators to help solve the global problems we face today?

Unfortunately, Antonio, in many instances, I would say "yes," that our schools and universities contribute to a lack of innovators. As systems age, survival leans toward bureacracy and self-preservation of the institution, with bureacracy defined in meriam webster.com as:

a : a body of nonelective government officials

b : an administrative policy-making group

2 government characterized by specialization of functions, adherence to fixed rules, and a hierarchy of authority

3a system of administration marked by officialism, red tape, and proliferation

The philosophy José Ortega y Gasset, in "La rebelión de las masas" (The Revolt of the Masses), writes that society by definition is a dynamic between select minorities and masses. It follows that every society, to remain a society, needs an interaction between élites and conformists. However, how can you assign rigid percentages to the amounts of innovators and masses? The percentages vary with the circumstances.

I belong in the group of the non-conformists since, resisting family pressure to become a physician, I became a humanities professor, as distinguished from my three younger brothers, who entered medicine. Within my humanities profession, I wrote books on wide-ranging fields not encompassed by the formal PhD training. My objective was to broaden the scope of the profession.

What is Innovation? that is the great question. In our times I think realy less that 0,1% is realy inovation people.

I am not a neuroscientist or a social scientist; I am a geneticist. I am not going to argue about the claim made or ask philosophical questions that amount to mere intellectual masturbation. For once, I am going to climb out of my ivory tower of academia and statistics and give it straight.

I don't care what research suggests, but most people are conformists. Most wear similar clothing, most have iphones in spite of there being better and different phones on the market, most discuss similar topics at party; geez! there are even rules in dating/picking up at the clubs or bars. If you defect, you are looked at as a weirdo, creep, socially awkward or a dysfunctional and you are ostracised.

In academia, the disease of "conformity" is endemic. Standardised tests, similar grading pattern, the same rote learning, adopting similar ways or talking, presenting oneself and appearing "interested" and being "nice" and "appreciative". While selecting a lab or even in the lab, you need to align your interests with the available choices, follow similar protocols and can't go off on a tangent with a new interest. The power points have to be in a certain way and so should your talking style. I see us as less human and more of parrots.

In society, we hold so firmly to stereotypes and categorising people based on their race, ethnicity, religion and geography. And if we find someone who doesn't fit the perceived (accepted) model, we call them "posers" or some other derogatory title and not accept them. Not to mention, we tend to stay in our cliques - the chinese hang out in their little groups, the Indians seem to stick to their own, the whites and the blacks and so on....!

I am not sure about the numbers of conformists, but there are a lot. Although, it seems like we are making progress, I wonder how much of it is significant. I don't think we are gonna have the likes of Shakespeare, Milton, Newton, Einstein and Turing. Those days, those attitudes and that mindset is long gone.

There have always been people who accept the status-quo and some who challenge, but it seems that with our education system, media and politics, we (or the powers that be) are successfully turning the minority of innovators, freethinkers and creative people into worker drones. I am sure this reduction of this minority will be harmful in the long run. I belong to the minority and I like to think freely and be a bit creative in my ways, but thanks to education I have to fall in line with the "accepted" norms. 

Whew! Saurabh, It is clear that you feel strongly about this, as do I.

I couldn't agree more with what you say.

Do you think there is any remedy? Related to this is the situation in which for (centuries?) England protected, nurtured, and supported intellectuals, such as some of those you mentioned. How was this achieved? Civilization has reaped so many benefits from them - no question of its worth. Can the modern world use this as a model?

We must not give up hope to change our current trajectory!

 Antonio, I am not sure whether and how England protected its intellectuals. I must admit that we mustn't give up hope to change our current trajectory. In the light of the current situation, with the limited knowledge I possess, I think preserving the intellectual community so that the numbers don't shrink seems to be a good stopgap.

In the scientific fraternity, there are a few individuals who are truly exemplary in their way of thinking and approaching a problem, but they seem to get diluted out or seem a bit scared of taking calculated risks out of fear of shame or failure. This is in spite of the fact that most of the discoveries and inventions were risky ventures, either calculated or foolhardy.

I have noticed that fields like arts and humanities still tend to have creative people. I think facilitating an association between these two completely different branches could be fruitful. I wonder how it will work given that they are so different in their approaches and functioning. I say this because I tend to derive most of my inspiration from people from arts and humanities and sometimes, I feel comfortable hanging out with them than science folks. 

Polymath people - People who have the creativity of the arts AND have the math and science "chops" are the ones we need.

As happened during WWII and the Cold War: When a society feels (or is really) threatened by a technologically advanced adversary, then it will look for and support those who can innovate and make breakthroughs - regardless of their academic pedigree.

It is a sad commentary to claim that we need war (or the threat of war) for our modern societies to support and promote the "nerds" to save our asses!