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.
...called is Psychohistory. I believe he predates everyone else. (See the Foundation series).
"You'd think that predicting human behavior would be easy." You must not have any children living with you.
Amazing research!
People act without thinking?!
People follow the crowd in making bad decisions?!
People buy products without researching them?!
Bad products actually sell because of this?!
WOW!
- "Nobody came out that night, not one was ever seen. But Old Man Stauf is waiting there, crazy sick and mean!"
I predict that many of the first /.-ers who post replies won't have finished reading the review, but will simply have skipped the entire long-winded, complicated review in order to go for a first post instead.
Bill Beatty started the conversation on this phenomonon, and the use of antiwaves to cancel it. You can read it and view the animations here
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
That's the reason for the variable speed limits around the M25 (London UK Orbital motorway). Every 500m or so, there are a new set of overhead speed limits. The idea is to dampen the phononically-modelled wave into a more laminar flow for the lanes. In theory the individual lanes can be controlled, but I've never seen it.
:-))
It is reportedly working better than the previous (fixed speed) system though, with friends of mine who have to drive a car around the M25 claiming their journey time is shorter. Personally I've got a 'bike
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
1) Recently, there's been a lot of this "Economists assume people are rational but they're not!" stuff. Obviously, they're not purely rational and quantifying the non-rational behavior is important and useful. But I'd be astonished if there's not a lot of Stephen Jay Gould-style straw man argumentation here -- where the economists realize that they're working with simplifications and aren't as stupid as the new guys like to make them out to be.
2) Prediction: Reducing enormous chunks of social behavior to Elliot waves (!) and Fibonacci series is going to turn out to be at least as much of an oversimplification as anything any economist has done.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
"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 found this review of Socionomics interesting. There has recently been some interesting work in behavioral finance, so I thought that these books might be worth reading. That is, until the Elliot Wave and Fibonacci sequences were mentioned. There is no statistical evidence for Elliot waves, or at least for a predictable periodicity of market and economic cycles. At most the Elliot Wave is another name for the capitalist economic cycles of expansion and contraction. Yes, these cycles definitely exist. But they don't reoccur in the same way. Put another way, there is no predictability that anyone with a command of statistics and mathematical technique has found.
Only chartist cranks believe this stuff. And a quick Google search shows that the author, Robert R. Prechter is, in fact, a chartist crank. He runs a company called "Elliot Wave International" which apparently sells a newsletter for other chartist cranks.
There are people on Wall Street that believe in Elliot Waves. I saw a self-produced documentary on a very successful trader named Paul Tudor Jones. He and one of his colleagues are shown pouring over a chart and babbling on about Elliot waves. It then shows Jones trading. The market starts to move against his position. He then whips out his lucky gym shoes and his lucky inflatable dinosaur (I'm not making this up!) In the end Jones managers to profit from his positions. It it Elliot waves or was it the lucky inflatable dinosaur?
Successful traders have been notably unable to explain how they do what they do. Even a bright intellectual like George Soros has never been able to explain his method in terms that had any meat or meaning. His son once mentioned that after watching his father trade for years he thought that it was Soros' back that was the key - it started to hurt when it was time to get out of a position.
Successful traders seem to have a talent for merging information from a variety of sources and the ability to act on these almost unconscious patterns. So some of them may claim they follow Elliot waves, but it has no more meaning the the lucky inflatable dinosaur.
One poster claimed that Prechter has predicted this or that. Well, so has the Jenne Dixon (the psychic astrologer who wrote for the National Enquirer). Anyone who makes lots of predictions will be right sometime.
One of the problems in this whole area of discussion is that people switch topics when they argue that Elliot waves exist. For example, the presence of short term trends is sometimes used as evidence for Elliot waves. This is not true. There is a lot of work at Wall Street investment funds on doing statistical prediction in the markets (this is called statistical arbitrage). But none of this has to do with Elliot waves or Fibonacci series. Wall Street has one ideology: making money. They don't care what works. If it could be shown that voodoo worked they would do it. There was a fad for Elliot waves. It did not make money in a reliable fashion and now no major investment funds uses these techniques. They are discredited.
Chaos theory will only be called chaos theory until we expand our understanding to encompass the underlying phenomena that bridge the events that today seem unconnected.
Um, no.
Chaos theory has nothing to do with a lack of understanding of the underlying phenmonena. One of the first chaotic systems that was well studied after all was Isaac Newton's three body problem. Everyone knew how gravity worked between two bodies, but the greatest minds of two centuries could not figure out what happend with three or more bodies. Finally it was proven that except for a small handful of exceptions, there is no way to determine what three or more bodies will do to each other under the influence of gravity. (Fortunately for life on Earth, our solar system appoximates one of those handful of solutions.)
Chaos theory is not about the problems understanding the causes, but the problems predicting the effects.