Grey Swan

Robert Axelrod’s interesting book The Complexity of Cooperation uses computer simulation and agent based modeling to examine real life phenomena. One particularly interesting model employs computer agents to examine the spread of culture. In this model, each agent is randomly assigned a set of ideas that represent ‘culture’. Agents freely spread and adapt each others ideas over the course of generations. The closer two agents’ cultures are, the more likely they are to adopt each other’s beliefs. In the end, a number of ‘cultures’ emerge that share little or no cultural characteristics in common. This happens despite the fact that all agents initially share a large number of ‘ideas’.

The point of this model is (and I will not explain the model in any more detail, if you are interested check the book out) that the spread of ideas does not facilitate the adoption fo a global belief system. In fact, Axelrod’s model demonstrated that it can actually schism groups of people who previously had much in common*. I think this concept applies to the modern world. Currently, many people in the west believe that the majority of the world will or currently does share their liberal beliefs in democracy, peace, freedom of expression, etc. However, we should take lessons from Iraq, Somalia, Afganastan, Bosnia, and a host of other countries that this is NOT true. If we look at what has happened in the Muslim world in the last thirty years, we can clearly see how globilization can lead to radicalization. Muslims who previously held moderate world views have been exposed to western culture and responded with a resounding ‘no!’. In fact, all around the world groups are promoting there differences despite the constant spread of information.

A corollary to Axelrod’s research is that we can infer how well people from foreign countries will assimilate in our own based upon how closely their culture trends with our own. If they are very different, they are likely to maintain or increase those difference. If they are similar, they are likely to fully integrate. Countries like America, Western Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Israel tend to have close enough cultures that intracountry movement in these areas is followed with full integration. Conversely, immigrants from the Muslim world, like the Turkish immigrants in Germany, may never fully accept their new countries culture. Please note, I am not trying to single out muslims. Rather, I simply use this group as an example because of its salient importance in world affairs.

* Why is this true? Well, most people would not agree that it is true at all. However, not only do I believe it is true, but I also believe that we can find corollaries in evolution. What we find is that a species that is initially uniform will begin to speciate even across areas where the spread of genetic material can continue. As natural variations occur, these differences will grow because species will have a preference to mate with those who share similarities – and because they mate with those closest to them. Eventually a new ‘species’ emerges. Clearly the human race, given another few million years would have suffered a similar fate, just as Neanderthals did before us. Of course, this only partially explains how culture works, and it does not explain why globalization would speed the rate of radicalization, only why people might ‘radicalize’ to begin with. One possible intuition is that since people have a preference for those with similar ideas, globalization points out the true magnitude of differences between different groups, and consequently pushes different culture groups farther apart. However, we should remember that culture is a dynamic system that can neither be easily explained nor be easily predicted. Constant flow of information only adds to the complexity of this system.