Clark McPhail sent me two articles. For starters, I refer to McPhail,
Powers and Tucker's "Simulating Individual and Collective Action in
Temporary Gatherings." The most advanced collective PCT model in that
article is "a ring of fifteen." I have showed it to friends and asked
them what the game reminds them of. I call it "mob action." I come
back to this: it matters what kind of control you are modelling into
your simulations. You model violence well. You aren't modelling
peacemaking. You've captured half or less of human control reality.
I am reading PCT, care to do likewise with the stuff I cite? l&p hal
From Tom Bourbon [931021.1128]
Re: a post from Hal, not identified by a date-time header.
Clark McPhail sent me two articles. For starters, I refer to McPhail,
Powers and Tucker's "Simulating Individual and Collective Action in
Temporary Gatherings." The most advanced collective PCT model in that
article is "a ring of fifteen." I have showed it to friends and asked
them what the game reminds them of. I call it "mob action." I come
back to this: it matters what kind of control you are modelling into
your simulations. You model violence well. You aren't modelling
peacemaking. You've captured half or less of human control reality.
I don't understand what you mean by "the most advanced collective PCT model."
The PCT model for each character is identical in every example in the
article. All that changes from one example to the next is the setting of
various reference signals and gain factors within each individual model.
Also, why would the inclusion of 15 simulated characters make that example
more "advanced" than any other?
Hal, from what I understand of the field work done by sociologists, arcs and
rings are the most common "organizations" of people. They occur any time a
number of people each try to be within a certain distance of someone or
something, but not "too close" to the object or person that is the focus of
their attention. And not "too close" to any other person. That's what
people (and many other creatures) do, all over the world; so do the
characters simulated in the CROWD demonstration (not "game"). People would
do those things whether they wanted to make love, peace, war, or anything
else. I really don't understand the comments that follow, from your post.
Can you explain each of them for me?
1. >I call it "mob action."
2. >I come back to this: it matters what kind of control you are modelling
into your simulations.
3. >You model violence well.
4. >You aren't modelling peacemaking.
5. >You've captured half or less of human control reality.
I do not understand any of the statements, alone or in any combination. Can
you try to help me?
Tom