Look, I’m sorry to be so blunt — I: modeling ideas
[ by Charles Cameron — a stray thought, endlessly ricocheting — with a friendly wink to @khanserai ]
.
chessboard by Ji Lee
Back in 2006 the US National Strategy for Combating Terrorism suggested:
In the long run, winning the War on Terror means winning the battle of ideas. Ideas can transform the embittered and disillusioned either into murderers willing to kill innocents, or into free peoples living harmoniously in a diverse society.
So. More than five years have passed.
Look, I’m sorry to be so blunt… but how good are we now at modeling, simulating and / or gaming ideas?
Cheryl Rofer:
July 19th, 2012 at 10:09 pm
Charles, we need more people picking up on these predictions and checking them out!
zen:
July 20th, 2012 at 3:50 am
“Look, I’m sorry to be so blunt… but how good are we now at modeling, simulating and / or gaming ideas?”
.
Not very, unless it is happening out of sight in DARPA or the Office of Net Assessment . It is at present, under the current administration, impossible in the regular armed services, law enforcement to have candid or empirical discussions related to any connection between Islam and terrorism without risking one’s career. This may not apply within SOCOM, the CIA or the rest of the IC. Or it might. The situation is not helped by the kook brigade outside tossing conspiracy theories at prominent aides to Hillary Clinton.
Charles Cameron:
July 20th, 2012 at 8:21 am
Hi, Zen — ayup!
.
There’s more on my own approach to modeling complex systems of ideation in my new post, At the round earths imagin’d corners — unconventional thinking, I know.
.
I start at a leisurely pace, but get to the musical heart of the matter eventually.
larrydunbar:
July 20th, 2012 at 6:33 pm
“Look, I’m sorry to be so blunt… but how good are we now at modeling, simulating and / or gaming ideas?”
*
Gaming, modeling, and simulation only looks at the process, not at the processor. The national strategy for the combating terror was wrong, as all strategy is. This doesn’t mean the strategist was wrong, it simply means we need to look at another strategy, and for the most part we have. I think Syria is one of those tipping points we have reached and no one is going to like. Not the Turks, the Sunni majority nor the Shia minority, not Iran, Russia nor the US.
*
Let’s see, did I forget anyone?
J. Scott Shipman:
July 20th, 2012 at 6:49 pm
Hi Larry,
.
Israel won’t be too happy, either.
Moon:
July 21st, 2012 at 10:55 am
Larry said “Gaming, modeling, and simulation only looks at the process, not at the processor.”
.
Regarding the “not at the processor” clause, does “processor” mean player in the gaming sense, or something else? I’ve played quite a few multi-player games whereby the player (process driver) is the central agent in the unfolding of events.