1 / 25

A Social Environment Model of Socio-technical Performance

A Social Environment Model of Socio-technical Performance. Brian Whitworth Institute of Information and Mathematical Sciences, Massey University, Albany, New Zealand. Socio-technical levels. Homo-Economicus. Individual does what benefits themselves, by reduced effort, increased gain, or both

kalila
Download Presentation

A Social Environment Model of Socio-technical Performance

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. A Social Environment Model of Socio-technical Performance Brian Whitworth Institute of Information and Mathematical Sciences, Massey University, Albany, New Zealand

  2. Socio-technical levels

  3. Homo-Economicus • Individual does what benefits themselves, by reduced effort, increased gain, or both • Mill’s economic man, who seeks wealth, leisure, luxury and procreation • Competition for limited resources creates a need for competence

  4. Individuals Competing Model

  5. Rule 1: The Selfish Rule • Freely acting individuals {I1, I2 …} face action choices {a1, a2 …} with expected individual unit values outcomes {IU(a1), IU(a2), …} follow the rule:If IU(ai) > IU(aj) an individual should prefer ai over ajSelfish individual choose acts expected to give more valueto yourself. • A defeasible rule • Value includes psychological gains like appreciation, or social gains like reputation

  6. Homo sociologicus • Our bodies are cooperative cell colonies, with cancer what happens when cells “defect” • Ants and bees form massively cooperative societies by genetics - the competing evolutionary unit is the colony not the individual, i.e. Biologists now argue for multi-level selection • Marx’s communist man • Social cooperation creates synergy benefits

  7. Communities Cooperating Model

  8. Rule 2: The Social Rule • If a social unit S of { I1, I2 …} individuals faces social action choices {a1, a2 …} with expected social unit values of {SU(a1), SU(a2), …}, then:If SU(ai) > SU(aj) then prefer ai over aj • Socialized individuals choose social acts expected to give more value to the communityNote: Social acts reference social units not individuals, e.g. “defend society” is independent of individual state. Allows social “castes” like worker or soldier

  9. Synergy • Difference between what individuals produce as a social unit vs what they produce alone • Trade illustrates positive synergy • Conflict illustrates negative synergy • Generally pays individuals to join positive synergy social units, and leave negative ones (they are better off alone) • A property of the number of interactions, not the number of group members

  10. The Social Dilemma • While genetics drives ant society, people can choose to follow Rule 1 or 2 • What if Rule 1 conflicts with Rule 2?i.e. what is good for society is not what is good for the individual? • Only Rule 2 allows synergy gains, but Rule 1 is the primal rule in nature

  11. The Prisoner’s Dilemma • Prisoners Bill and Bob face two year jail for a crime they did commit • Each can plea bargain to testify against the other • If Bill testifies and Bob doesn’t, he walks free and Bob gets 7 years jail • If both testify, both get six years (one off for testifying). By Rule 1 it always pays individuals to defect

  12. Other Social Dilemmas • Tragedy of the commons: • Farmers by a commons with cows and a land plot • If a farmer grazes the commons, his herd grows fat • If all farmers do so, it is overgrazed and dies off • Parallels modern conservation problems • Volunteer dilemma • Social loafing • False representation, etc, … • Individuals alone can’t solve social dilemmas, one “do gooder” is just a “sucker”

  13. Social Instability • Anti-social acts like stealing “short-circuit” synergy gains • Each defection reduces synergy in a cascade effect • Rule 1: Synergy is unstable Peak of Synergy Valleys of Defection

  14. Zero-Sum Barrier Non-Zero-sum:Expand the pie – to expand your slice! Zero-sum:Expand your slice – world domination! Human civilization somehow achieved massive non-zero-sum gains by non-genetic means

  15. Social Order • In perfect social order all individuals are “one mind”, cf in a crystal all atoms move as one • Social anarchy- gas atoms move individually • A community with social order, by religion, culture or laws, avoids stealing and cheating (social disorder) • Can solve the social dilemma by following Rule2, but at the expense of freedom/Rule1 • “Barbarians” (Rule 1) vs “Civilization” (Rule 2)

  16. Social inventions • Unfairness. Not inequity—unequal distribution of outcomes—but not distributing outcomes according to contribution, e.g. that fit adults live idly while others work to support them is unfair • Justice—punish unfairness so Rule 1 no longer profits—social order plus individual freedom • Social unit transmits world requirements (accountability) • People have a natural justice perception • Revenge is a primitive form of justice • State justice (police, laws, courts, prisons) aims to deny unfairness (Rawls, 2001)

  17. Social Hijack • Individuals take social control for their own ends, just as a virus hijack a cell • Benevolent dictators (Plato) enforce social order (synergy), then justly return the gains to society • Dictators keep control by repressing and indoctrinating • Dictatorships are: • Unstable. Slaves have “nothing to lose but their chains” Marx • Impermanent. Kings, emperors, pharaohs, etc die, leaving a power vacuum. Bloodline dynasties over time produce incompetent offspring • Unproductive. In Zimbabwe Mugabe addressed social inequity by driving white farmers off productive farms, then gave them to cronies who looted - turned Zimbabwe from the bread-basket of Africa into the basket-case of Africa.

  18. The golden rules • Do unto others as you would they do unto you • Rabbi Hillel’s sum of all rules: “If you don’t like it done to you, don’t do it to others”. • Kant’s proposal: “Act only on that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law”, i.e. if everyone does it, is it still successful? • Pareto’s optimality principle: “Good actions benefit at least one other and do no harm.” • Rawl’s “veil of ignorance” requires state justice to be “blind” to individual needs. • Harsanyi rules out immoral or anti-social acts (Harsanyi, 1988). All encourage free individuals to choose Rule 2

  19. Social environment Model

  20. Good Citizen Rule 3 Rule 3 a. If {SU(ai) ≥ SU(aj) and IU(ai) > IU(aj)} then prefer ai to aj Choose acts that don’t harm society significantly, but benefit oneself OR b. If {IU(ai) ≥ IU(aj) and SU(ai) > SU(aj) }then prefer ai to aj Choose acts that don’t harm oneself significantly, but benefit society Rule 3 is a hybrid of Rule 1 and 2

  21. Self vs Community Choices Rule 3 favors service, synergy and opportunity

  22. Socio-technology • Online people help others they have not met and may not meet again, Neither Rule 1 nor Rule 3a explain this • Socio-technical systems succeed by good citizens – “small heroes” doing small selfless acts for others • That virtue” is productive and supportable by technology is an important social discovery (Benkler & Nissenbaum, 2006) • Socio-technical systems are a new social form, that change the social focus from denying defection to enabling good citizenship, e.g. open source

  23. Examples

  24. Other applications • Enron – A higher form of cheating • Credit crunch – A higher form of incompetence (in risk management) • Social inflation – When social environments ignore the demands of their environment, and social tokens lose external value, e.g. money (social token) loses value relative to external standard of a loaf of bread • Rectification –the demands of outer environments ultimately “cascade” over inner ones

  25. Modelling Social Behavior?? • Social Foxes/Rabbits • As before PLUS • Combine: If both agree, form combined unit with double rewards plus synergy • Defect: If in combined state, • Defector gets plus synergy • Sucker gets minus synergy • Foxes/Rabbits • Move • Predate • Breed In Rule 2 state each creates others synergy

More Related