Human Struggles Can Be Defined in a Mathematical Formula

[stromboli]

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 121213.php

University of Miami physicist and his collaborators discover a mathematical law that explains a wide variety of human confrontations

Would you believe that a broad range of human struggles can be understood by using a mathematical formula? From child-parent struggles to cyber-attacks and civil unrest, they can all be explained with a simple mathematical expression called a "power-law."

In a sort of unified theory of human conflict, scientists have found a way to mathematically describe the severity and timing of human confrontations that affect us personally and as a society.

For example, the manner in which a baby's cries escalate against its parent is comparable to the way riots in Poland escalated in the lead-up to the collapse of the Soviet Union. It comes down to the fact that the perpetrator in both cases (e.g. baby, rioters) adapts quickly enough to escalate its attacks against the larger, but more sluggish entity (e.g. parent, government), who is unable, or unwilling, to respond quickly enough to satisfy the perpetrator, according to a new study published in Nature's Scientific Reports.

"By picking out a specific baby (and parent), and studying what actions of the parent make the child escalate or de-escalate its cries, we can understand better how to counteract cyber-attacks against a particular sector of U.S. cyber infrastructure, or how an outbreak of civil unrest in a given location (e.g. Syria) will play out, following particular government interventions," says Neil Johnson, professor of physics and the head of the interdisciplinary research group in Complexity, at the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Miami (UM) and corresponding author of the study.

Respectively, the study finds some remarkable similarities between seemingly disconnected confrontations. For instance:

The escalation of violent attacks in Magdalena, Colombia -- though completely cut off from the rest of the world -- is actually representative of all modern wars. Meanwhile, the conflict in Sierra Leone, Africa, has exactly the same dynamics as the narco-guerilla war in Antioquia, Colombia.
The pattern of attacks by predatory traders against General Electric (GE) stock is equivalent to the pattern of cyber-attacks against the U.S. hi-tech electronics sector by foreign groups, which in turn mimics specific infants and parents.
New insight into the controversial 'Bloody Sunday' attack by the British security forces, against civilians, on January 30,1972, reveals that Bloody Sunday appears to be the culmination of escalating Provisional Irish Republican Army attacks, not their trigger, hence raising new questions about its strategic importance.
The findings show that this mathematical formula of the form AB-C is a valuable tool that can be applied to make quantitative predictions concerning future attacks in a given confrontation. It can also be used to create an intervention strategy against the perpetrators and, more broadly, as a quantitative starting point for cross-disciplinary theorizing about human aggression, at the individual and group level, in both real and online worlds.

This is over my head, but I thought it interesting. Let the learned on here debate it.

[josephpalazzo]

Here's the original paper.

http://www.nature.com/srep/2013/131210/ ... 03463.html

I'm reading it now. May comment later on.

[josephpalazzo]

So far, I have two comments:

 (1) They have only looked at a few number of events, were able to formulate the escalation in each of those events as a power formula. Such graphs do not tell us why these events escalate and how to deal with them.

(2) They have ignored a large number of events where there were no escalations - those events just fizzled out. Just think of how many times people have marched on Washington on an issue, and nothing ever came out of it, and the march/protest  just fizzled out, no escalation to really talk about ( on their graph, it would be a very short line that would give no meaning whatsoever to their power formulation).

Conclusion: nice paper, but of little use. Furthermore, I don't see future research along those lines will be productive. Sad to see there were physicists involved in that endeavor - they should know better,  

[Solitary]

This is not how science is suppose to work. Leaving out pertinent evidence that is contradictory is not science. I too can't believe scientists would do this.  :roll: Solitary

[Solomon Zorn]

Hari Seldon is turning over in his grave...oh wait...he won't be born for several thousand years!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hari_Seldon

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Yeah..my lack of interest in reading the linked articles grew exponentially in proportion to the bullshittiness in the quoted text.. Amazingly accurate though, huh?  #-o  :)

[Insult to Rocks]

This seems like too ridiculous of a study for any serious scientist to attempt. The amount of evidence needed to support something as broad as an equation describing human conflict is staggering, and I really doubt that the findings would be of much use even if it proved true.

[mykcob4]

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-12/uom-smf121213.php

University of Miami physicist and his collaborators discover a mathematical law that explains a wide variety of human confrontations

Would you believe that a broad range of human struggles can be understood by using a mathematical formula? From child-parent struggles to cyber-attacks and civil unrest, they can all be explained with a simple mathematical expression called a "power-law."

In a sort of unified theory of human conflict, scientists have found a way to mathematically describe the severity and timing of human confrontations that affect us personally and as a society.

For example, the manner in which a baby's cries escalate against its parent is comparable to the way riots in Poland escalated in the lead-up to the collapse of the Soviet Union. It comes down to the fact that the perpetrator in both cases (e.g. baby, rioters) adapts quickly enough to escalate its attacks against the larger, but more sluggish entity (e.g. parent, government), who is unable, or unwilling, to respond quickly enough to satisfy the perpetrator, according to a new study published in Nature's Scientific Reports.

"By picking out a specific baby (and parent), and studying what actions of the parent make the child escalate or de-escalate its cries, we can understand better how to counteract cyber-attacks against a particular sector of U.S. cyber infrastructure, or how an outbreak of civil unrest in a given location (e.g. Syria) will play out, following particular government interventions," says Neil Johnson, professor of physics and the head of the interdisciplinary research group in Complexity, at the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Miami (UM) and corresponding author of the study.

Respectively, the study finds some remarkable similarities between seemingly disconnected confrontations. For instance:

The escalation of violent attacks in Magdalena, Colombia -- though completely cut off from the rest of the world -- is actually representative of all modern wars. Meanwhile, the conflict in Sierra Leone, Africa, has exactly the same dynamics as the narco-guerilla war in Antioquia, Colombia.
The pattern of attacks by predatory traders against General Electric (GE) stock is equivalent to the pattern of cyber-attacks against the U.S. hi-tech electronics sector by foreign groups, which in turn mimics specific infants and parents.
New insight into the controversial 'Bloody Sunday' attack by the British security forces, against civilians, on January 30,1972, reveals that Bloody Sunday appears to be the culmination of escalating Provisional Irish Republican Army attacks, not their trigger, hence raising new questions about its strategic importance.
The findings show that this mathematical formula of the form AB-C is a valuable tool that can be applied to make quantitative predictions concerning future attacks in a given confrontation. It can also be used to create an intervention strategy against the perpetrators and, more broadly, as a quantitative starting point for cross-disciplinary theorizing about human aggression, at the individual and group level, in both real and online worlds.

This is over my head, but I thought it interesting. Let the learned on here debate it.

I understand why a complicated mind like yours is interested in a mathematical approach to humanity. After all math is the language of science and science is the key to almost everything. What I find disheartening is that reducing everything down to an equation doesn't work. 1) There are far too many variables to be accounted for and if you miss just one of them the whole product is way off. 2) Life is not digital, it's analogual. It's like nearing a wall. If you do it digitally in ever halved increments, you never reach the wall. If you do it analogually, you smash right through it. Thus the enigma.

[Atheon]

The formula is 1+1=3.

[zarus tathra]

So far, I have two comments:

 (1) They have only looked at a few number of events, were able to formulate the escalation in each of those events as a power formula. Such graphs do not tell us why these events escalate and how to deal with them.

(2) They have ignored a large number of events where there were no escalations - those events just fizzled out. Just think of how many times people have marched on Washington on an issue, and nothing ever came out of it, and the march/protest  just fizzled out, no escalation to really talk about ( on their graph, it would be a very short line that would give no meaning whatsoever to their power formulation).

Conclusion: nice paper, but of little use. Furthermore, I don't see future research along those lines will be productive. Sad to see there were physicists involved in that endeavor - they should know better,  

I'm pretty sure that governments would really like to know how to make a protest/riot fizzle out.