Slashdot Mirror
Socionomics: the Science of History and Social Prediction
Yet...it's also easy to see that people do a lot of nutty things, and usually do so in groups. They wear leg warmers, wide neckties, then narrow neckties. Long skirts, short skirts. No skirts. Paisley. They ride roller skates, then scooters. They buy Pet Rocks, collectible Beanie Babies, and stocks of dot-com companies with no profits and no business plan. They ingest odd substances, and subscribe to odd belief systems. They also fight wars, and blow up themselves and others.
This jackass behavior has lead to some telling but apparently casual observations, such as this gem by Charles MacKay: "Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one." Offhand observation aside, it remains true that the non-rational behavior of human beings in society has usually made monkeys out of those who seriously attempt to forecast it.
This is why Robert Prechter's 2-volume opus Socionomics: The Science of History and Social Prediction is such a joy to read. It's a credible and provocative attempt to found a predictive science of human social behavior. It's also a truly different work. The number of new propositions and arguments advanced in Socionomics is matched by their highly controversial nature, and by the amount of evidence put forth by Prechter and his co-authors. Readers looking for non-fiction that is wide in scope, provocative, and meaty will enjoy these two books.
What's It All About?
It's helpful to think of Prechter's massive argument as if it was structured like an hour-glass. The first volume of the set, The Wave Principle of Human Social Behavior and the New Science of Socionomics (hereafter: HSB) is the fat upper part of the glass. It provides the theoretical justification for a shorter set of linked propositions or principles that constitute the narrow neck. The second volume,Pioneering Studies in Socionomics (hereafter: PSS) consists of a series of essays and articles that apply those principles to a wide swath of human endeavor: music, sports, politics, war and peace, scientific and intellectual trends, religion, economics and finance. This is the fat bottom of the glass, the payoff of analysis and prediction.
The Propositions
Socionomics has been defined as
the field of study encompassing the origins and effects of an endogenous human social dynamic called the Wave Principle, a specific sequence of progress and regress that regulates the complex system of collective mood and social interaction. It examines and forecasts market and social trends on the following basis: that the character of social, political, cultural, financial and economic trends are the product of collective human psychology, which is based upon an unconscious herding impulse deriving from pre-rational portions of the brain.
This definition shows why Socionomics... is a two-volume set: it's not easily summarized.
Any science must have a way to measure its subject. Prechter claims that human social behavior can be measured with several meters, but the most accurate meter is the movement and fluctuation of economic values, as expressed in stock markets every trading day. He believes that markets provide a real-time reflection of the collective social mood. Measuring social mood is important because:
1. The events of history and culture are driven by the engine of collective social mood. Social mood temporally and logically precedes social events, and is the cause of social events. War and terrorism don't cause distressed people; distressed people create the conditions and events that lead to and comprise war and terror. A booming economy does not create ebullient people; ebullient people produce more, consume more and participate in and contribute to market manias.
2. Social mood is itself the product of the interaction of the society's members. Collective mentation -- herding -- arises from the interaction of the players in a process similar to the emergent behavior of other complex, non-linear systems. Prechter quotes philosopher Eric Hoffer: When people are free to do as they please, they usually imitate each other.
3. Social mood fluctuates between polarities of primitive emotional states, such as confidence/fear, skepticism/credulity, optimism/pessimism, benevolence/malevolence, etc. These fluctuations are not effected by outside events, but move according to their own internal logic. They appear to arise in a dynamic that is endogenous to the social system.
4. Social mood fluctuations are patterned by the [Elliott] Wave Principle, a specific sequence of progress and regress that regulates the complex system of collective mood and social interaction. Prechter cites the work of market analyst R.N. Elliott, who, in the 1930's, discovered the patterns in the markets that bear his name. These patterns -- Elliott waves -- are measurable and may be charted.
5. Elliott waves, which are typically used to chart and forecast the movement of stock market valuations, are self-similar at different degrees of scale; i.e. a monthly chart of the Dow looks a lot like a weekly chart, or a 5-minute chart...or a 5-decade chart. Elliott apparently discovered that the market movements are fractal, decades before Mandelbrot invented the term and took credit for that observation.
6. The specific patterns described by Elliott Waves are in close relation to the Fibonacci sequence of numbers. The Fibonacci sequence, and the Fibonacci ratio derived from it, appear ubiquitously in natural forms ranging from the geometry of the DNA molecule to the physiology of plants and animals.
7. The behavior of these fractal, Fibonacci-based waves is specific and patterned. Hence, it is (probabilistically) possible to predict human social behavior.
Given the emphasis placed upon it, it's probably not too gross a distortion to define socionomics as the science of social mood: its genesis, behavior, and effects.
Justification
Any one of the propositions above is controversial; taken together they an extraordinarily claim. In the first volume of the set, Prechter attempts to provide extraordinary evidence to support his claims, and he makes a strong case.
HSB surveys the evidence of fractals and Fibonacci in nature and finance. Prechter sites study after study that finds the Fibonacci sequence in phyllotaxis, in branching or arboral systems, in nautilus shells, pine cones, the DNA molecule, neurons and galaxies ... and in the Dow, Nasdaq, and other market indices. The implication is clear: human social activities are a natural process, no less than the growth of trees or the formation of solar systems. For some readers, this tour-de-force alone may be worth the price of the book.
Prechter then leans heavily on Paul MacLean's book, The Triune Brain in Evolution to explain his endogenous herding impulse. MacLean and others have found evidence that the pre-reasoning limbic system may be hard-wired to herd or flock. The reasoning neocortex may override the impulsive, emotional limbic system if given sufficient time -- and in this possibility lies our experience of free will. But the emotional limbic system is faster and more powerful than the reasoning neocortex, and often wins out. As Prechter puts it: If you doubt its power and speed, try to envision how you would react if someone suddenly dumped a dozen writhing three-foot blacksnakes in your lap. Understanding that they are harmless, try to decide how long it would take you nevertheless to train yourself not to budge upon being surprised that way in the future.
Building on this theoretical base, HSB goes on to develop detailed statements about socionomics proper, statements that Prechter identifies as observations, not yet a hypothesis. He categorizes various social polarities that seem to characterize all social interaction. He traces -- measures -- the ebb and flow between these polarities with various social meters, including popular culture (movies, fashion, music, sports) and, of course, the stock market. For one example, there is a chart of baseball stadium attendance figures in the U.S. that sports a clearly developed Elliott Wave pattern. Based on the pattern, Prechter predicted that baseball's popularity would wain, as it subsequently has.
Application
Pioneering Studies in Socionomics continues this analysis of contemporary trends and events as seen through a socionomic lens. Here's a short list of grist for the socionomic mill: restaurants, Broadway, religion, central-banks (e.g. the Federal Reserve System), Pro Wrestling and the Bull Market, Microsoft, the attacks of 9/11, macroeconomics, and song lyrics. All of these human endeavors are found to fluctuate over time, in the now familiar fractal, Fibonacci-based Elliott waves.
Many Slashdot readers will be amused/intrigued/outraged by the chapter on quantum physics, and its parallel to the social sciences. Here Prechter sites the work (published and unpublished) of physicist Lewis E. Little. Little's thesis challenges the conventional view of quantum mechanics and presents a new theory that places activity at the sub-atomic level on the same grounds of cause and effect as all other physics. There's enough controversy in this chapter alone to merit a separate book!
What's Missing?
As sprawling as these books are, there is no discussion of methodology, seemingly a critical lacuna in the founding of a new science. In the hard sciences there is today little discussion of methodology; the discussion has concluded. In the soft or social sciences, entirely libraries could be filled with the debates on proper methodology. Which subjects should be chosen for research, and how should they be chosen? How should experiments be conducted? Or is experimentation possible? Or even desirable? Is the use of mathematics appropriate? If so, how?
Answers to these questions, which Prechter may provide in due time, are needed to defend what's proposed. For example, an easy criticism to make of the various essays in PSS is that the subject matter is cherry-picked, and that choosing different subjects may have yielded different results. The particular criticism may or may not be valid; it will take a methodological argument to answer.
A Closing Analogy
James Gleick's Chaos tells the story of the scientists and researchers who founded a new science. Over and over, they tell a similar story: that chaotic behavior was ever-present in the physical world, but dismissed as noise in the experiment. It required a profound shift in perspective to realize that the noise was worth studying.
Is Prechter, with his Fibonacci-based fractal waves of human social behavior and socionomic insight, correctly pointing out a similar need for a profound shift in perspective? Is the noise of pre-rational human social behavior worth studying? Does our future lie in our reasoning mind, or our prehistoric brain?
Some Useful Links
- The web site of the Socionomics Institute
- An overview of socionomics by John Casti, of the Santa Fe Institute.
You can purchase Socionomics: the Science of History and Social Prediction from bn.com -- the official release date is September 23rd. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
This was something that always drove me nuts about sociology: where are the predictions? There was a whole lot of explaining the past with very grand theories, but no measurable predictions were made. While I did have a great deal of fun with the subject and learned a lot, it annoyed me that the professors kept wanting to call it a science. I did dual major in physics and sociology. One of them is science, the other is not, but they are both important.
The wave theory Prechter is talking about is the Elliott Wave Theory addressing the cyclic nature of all aspects of human society including economic markets and cultural trends.
The waves describing traffic patterns come from fluid dynamics.
Prechter's theories may predict the number of cars on the road by looking at things such as good economy==move cars purchased, less use of mass transit vs bad economy==more two-income households, more commuters vs really bad economy==less two-income households because they can't find two jobs.
But that won't describe the behavior of those cars once they're on the road or explain why one interchange design is better than another. That's fluid dynamics.
Ehh, I don't know about this book. Perhaps I'll check it out someday.
After visiting the web site I can't say I'm a fan of "socionomics." It's like socio-economics, but half-ass. When I pulled up the "manifesto" I felt like I was reading the works of some of Karl Marx wannabe.
I don't think this guy has spent enough time doing sociological and anthropological research. I understand the cheesy "wave effect"
Things get good, people get happy and apathetic, people get taken advantage of in that state, things get bad, people get pissed, people fix what's wrong, people work hard for things to get good, things get good, people get happy and apathetic, etc etc
As over simplified as that may be, it's important to realize that not every society in the world works like this. You really need to look a broader perspective in order to get some sound research.
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
It's easy for children:
When a parent asks you to do something, immediately say no.
When someone asks you to calm down, be louder.
When choosing between sweets and other, always choose sweets.
When you get a new toy, use it for a while, then try to destroy it.
Focus on any perceptible lack in your life and throw a fit of raging, pouty, indignant victimhood for each one.
Some days anyway...
Ok this is gonna be my all time geekiest post.
Like millions and millions of people, the foundation series has had a huge impact on me. Besides from the fact that I first read it when I didn't speak english, using a spanish-english dictionary to translate many many words, that it was the first sci-fi novel I ever read, and other such "specials" that make it such an influential story in my life, there's also the fact that a huge part of my life's philosophy is derived from this work:
One of the central themes of psychohistory is that sociological and even personal momentum can only be counteracted by an equal and different "force". In other words, if you've followed a path in your life, wether it is your career, romantic life, studies, etc., and have spent months or years in one direction, only a huge event in the opposite direction, or a path equally long also in the opposite (or just different) direction can change the course of that aspect of your life.
I've made many decisions to shape my life the way I wanted based on this principle. My marriage, my carrier changes (from technology to finance), weight loss, my relationship with my partnts. And they've all been conscious decisions, which makes it a lot easier when you need to find the willpower or patience to really commit to something.
In fact, it's work so well that you can almost believe there's a mathematical model behind it all.
Basically the bad news is that it's never easy and rarely quick. The good news is, it's ALWAYS possible.
There are two kinds of people in the world: Those with good memory.
"You'd think that predicting human behavior would be easy.
Anyone who has ever been married and/or had the care of children ( of any age ) knows how laughably naive it is.
Ok, so people do things for their own benefit. A simple enough concept. The problem arises in the definition of "own benefit."
Clearly some people, for some peculiar reason, think it's in their own benefit to climb a clock tower with a 30-06.
All attempts to accurately predict just which individuals are likely to do so have proven futile and are likely to remain so. Any cursory examination of the record will quickly show that the clock tower people are roughly divided between those that "we always knew would be trouble" and "I never would have expected it of her. She was always so sweet and caring."
You might just as well needlessly sacrifice a chicken for scrying, or toss sticks about, to determine the likely behaviour of individuals.
Masses of people are a different issue, within limits. Do you know what tool they use to determine traffic patterns in shopping malls?
The kinetic theory of gasses, which assumes purely random motion of ideally spherical and inelastic particles.
Statistically large numbers of people confined to a corridor behave almost exactly like the molocules of a gas in a cylinder.
This has nothing to do with the herd like instinct that results in cultural fads though. Predicting fads falls much into the same catagory as predicting the behaviours of individuals and is much easier post facto than a priori. ( Go ahead, tell me you actually predicted the craze for Hula-Hoops or Davey Crockett hats)
Not that there aren't people ( can you say Jeanne Dixon) who aren't beyond making post facto "predictions" and claiming them as a priori.
Most marketing people fall into this catagory. No one makes a multi-million dollar salary for saying, "Gee, damned if I know."
Market predictors are people no better than ( and fall into the same catagory as ) the average, run of the mill, "psychic," astrologer or Tarot Reader. They give things their best guess, couched in weasel words in case things go wrong, disregard their misses and offer their odd hit as "proof" that their predictive theory actually works.
It's all hogwash, smoke, mirrors and a waving of hands so that you don't notice Dearly departed Aunt Millie is really just a ballon with a tissue over it being dangled about by a sting.
I'm not saying that all of these people are being deliberately fraudulent ( although many of them are, thus the cynicism among some of the populace who realize they are being treated like morons ), most astrologers actually deeply believe their particular line of bullshit. This doesn't mean they aren't deeply self-deluded though. Sincerity is evidence of nothing but sincerity.
But I'm being redundant. All of this is common wisdom.
Isn't it?
KFG
I think it also depends on the parents. I know a very smart and kinda well-behaved kid - he has lots of energy, I don't mean he is quiet, he's just not destructive or aggressive - and suprise surprise, his parents are a.) not retarded b.) comfortable with themselves, know what they want and why. They draw lines alright, it's just that they never loose control of themselves or the situation, they know they can handle it and the kid feels that.
Really, before you say kids suck just look at the average parents, there's your answer. Lots of sucky humans having kids they can't handle.
I argue that the real problem for socio-economics is not irrational decisions, but is instead a combination of consumers having incomplete data and the naturally subjective nature of value.
I'm not a marketing expert, but let's start with value. Paying actual money for a pet rock is not apparently economically rational on the surface. People bought something they could as easily pick up in the back yard. I submit that the value was the belonging that came from the purchace itself rather than any intrinsic value in the object (an ordinary rock).
We can question the rationality of such a value, but that many consumers valued it is a simple fact.
The other big factor is lack of sufficient information. In general, that translates to the cost of gathering information needed for an economic decision. Too many economists (in particular armchair economists) assume that the consumer actually has all information relevant to a decision in hand at the time a decision is needed. That is almost never the case. I argue that it is less the case today than in the past. A consumer may place value on environmental friendliness but will have to spend a great deal of money and time to find out that brand Q is actually made by R which is a subsidiary of S which also owns T which has division U that makes V and in the process polluted the drinking water where they live. You can bet that R and S value the consumer's ignorance and spend good money making sure that the relevant information never becomes common knowledge. If it ever does, they'll form company W (wholly owned by S) which will 'buy' R and rename the product to X. That's how we have someone who protests polluters but at the same time economically supports one of the worst.
As an example of a similar practice, consider that many people value organic food. A great many companies are fighting hard to make sure that 'organic' never recieves a legal definition. Many object to GM foods. Nearly every company that produces GM foods is lobbying hard to restrict other companies from labeling their products as GM free.
Another case that confounds economic prediction is advertising specifically designed to create illusory value without actually lying by tying their product with unrelated but valued things (romance, family togetherness, big boobs, etc.) The only real question there is how suggestable are consumers really, and do the many conflicting false associations more or less cancel out.
Why I didn't get rich is that I didn't know *when*. It's pretty obvious when you watch a drunk juggling chainsaws that it's going to get messy, but you don't know when and if it's going to be him or the audience that's going to suffer.
Anyone with even a basic clue, which evidently leaves out most economists, knew the dot-com boom was going to end. As I said, Amazon was worth billions and could be replicated with a million dollars and six months. Obviously even if the online book market was big enough other companies would step in with their own portals and take some of that traffic. There wasn't any lock-in besides branding and that's never been enough, in the end, to win out over lower prices. (Which is what the other companies would have offered, to break into Amazon's market.)
That obviously meant that Amazon wasn't going to be a billion dollar company forever. I knew this from the beginning. Maybe I really am that smart, with an IQ of 300, but I knew that their easy ride couldn't last. I don't actually think it's that hard to see though, much as I'd like to think that I must be a genius to have noticed it.
Did I know when it was going to die? No. There's a big difference between being smart enough to see that a house of cards will collapse and predicting the weather and knowing when.
And gold always goes up when the market goes bad. Always has, always will, until someone manages to transmute lead to gold and people realise it's just a shiny metal. Again, the reason I'm not rich is that while I can predict the trivial things I can't tell when.
Let me guess, I'd have to be a physicist to predict that the sun will shine tomorrow?
I expect this will be totally ignored, but I guess after a half dozen or so of these arguments I will try.
_ _________
When I write professionally, British English is expressly forbidden from the journals I publish in. I would imagine that is because they are American journals. This is, effectively, an international website and no one adheres to any standards of any kind. You might want to try to write so that other people can understand you, but believe me there are people who do not. If I were to publish in an English journal, and they required OED spelling I would do it. If American physics journals switched to British English, I would adapt - and maybe even start writing that way in my personal communications - but they do not. I doubt they would even consider it.
I love local color. I want southerners to keep the accent they have, and the Welsh too (even though I have difficulty parsing it). Why would you want to destroy other people's long established traditions? Lots of people speak English in their own ways and lots of unique quirks would be lost if we all just stopped using our slang and aligned to the OED like iron filings in a magnetic field.
The funny thing is that you all can understand each other perfectly (thus you can argue about it) so this obviously is not about communication, which is what language is for, anyhow.
________________________________________
a war on terrorism? How can we end a war on a method?
Another problem with the "rational economizer" idea is that it fails to take into account the costs and benefits of busily calculating costs and benefits. Thinking too hard about your situation may not be the optimal thing to do (in fact, in the limit, it's no better than doing nothing at all, and far more boring). For most people, gut instinct and not worrying produces better results than trying to be rational, but those results are much harder to predict. So add a third factor: laziness. A person will only choose one thing over another based on selfishness or compassion if the benefits to themself or others outweigh the effort of establishing those benefits. Otherwise the person will chose randomly or based on insignificant factors.
Concerning compassion and selfishness, there are interesting game theory results showing that, in many circumstances the optimal strategy for an individual is to try to help anyone who has not been found to be taking advantage of you, and to forgive as quickly as possible if the other's behavior improves. So a rational participant who realizes this will act with compassion toward anyone who shows compassion and toward anyone new. If anyone is at all helpful, the cooperative group will quickly exclude and outcompete the uncompassionate individuals.
Of course, this depends on a situation in which it is productive to cooperate; if there's nothing to be gained in your particular situation by working together, there's no point in being compassionate.