The Multiple Models Approach

Burning Man as a Case Study for the Synergistic Use of Memes Theory, Cultural

Theory, and Multi-Agent Mapping– Dario Nardi, UCLA, Oct 12, 2007

Objectives• Highlight Burning Man as an unique example of

bottom-up emergence of a complex system.• Convey benefits of the "multiple models"

approach to capture Burning Man’s complexity.• Illustrate some of the tools taught in our

introductory HCS course.• Imply some lessons and challenges to today's

assumptions about urban culture. • Explore possible directions for a future computer

simulation.

Agenda

• What is Burning Man?• The multiple models approach.• Modeling diffusion of memes.• Cultural Theory, organizational dynamics,

and risk / resource management.• Mapping out a multi-agent model.• Future directions.

Burning Man Basics• Annual artistic event • Located on a playa in the Nevada desert • Lasts 1 week through Labor day• Ticket to enter for the entire period• Participant and volunteer driven• Tents, RVs, and temporary structures• Gift economy• Rugged environment• Minimal rules / free expression• No electronic communications• Regular and annual themes (fire, pagan)• Leave the playa as you found it

What’s Burning Man – Part 1

What’s Burning man – Part 2

Physical Layout - Technical

Physical Layout - Thematic

Burning Questions• What’s happening regarding social norms?• When and how do people give freely?• How does news / information flow, and is it effective?• Is this a model for a new (old?) kind of city?• How do class and ethnicity relate?• How does this foster a religious experience?• Is a rugged / hostile environment necessary?• What leverage points can influence the system?• What values underlie the event?• Could it last all year?• How does it connect to the outside world?• What might happen if…?

Multiple Models Approach

In order to develop a simulation that addresses many of these questions,

more than one modeling / analytical technique is useful.

What are these?

Multiple Answers Possible

Same Object, Different Shadow

Triangulate the Underlying Image

?

Debate DetourSocial constructivism• Data is perception• Observer is biased• Tools are motivated• Infinite possible truths

Naïve realism• Data is fact• Observer is unbiased• Tools are neutral• Definitive truth possible

Multiple Models Approach• Data points

• Multiple ways to observe and analyze

• Each tool has its strengths and limitations

• Use 3+ perspectives to triangulate

Modeling / Analytical Tools• Hypothesis testing• Rational choice• Memes theory and diffusion of memes• Iterative networks• Relational networks• Temperament theory• Cultural theory• Genetic algorithms• T-maze learning / adaptation• Indifference curves• Multi-agent mapping• Others…

Tool #1: Memes

A meme is…• A unit of cultural information

similar to a gene.• A complex idea that forms a

distinct memorable unit. • A unit of information in the mind

whose existence influences events through people’s words and actions, such that more copies of itself get created in other people’s minds.

• Richard Dawkins, “The Selfish Gene,” 1976.

• Susan Blackmore, Richard Brodie,

• et. al.

More About Memes

• Like genes, memes act together in a pattern.• Like genes, memes undergo mutation, are

selected for, and change over time.• Memes result in external behavior.• Memes are influenced by environment.• Memes come about from the production and use

of cultural artifacts.• Memes are packaged or transmitted in some

way.

A meme might…

• Make a distinction, differentiating what’s what, such as California vs. Nevada

• Constitute a “how to” strategy (and thus also explain a cause-effect relationship). E.g., travel by lit-up bike at Burning Man.

• Suggest associations E.g., the “relationship” between competitive sports, beer, and attractive women.

• Suggest attitudes (e.g. fire is fun).

Example Application

BEFORE• Memes about Burning

Man before someone goes.

• Memes about UCLA, religion, art, society before Burning Man.

• Etc.

AFTER• Memes about Burning

Man after someone goes (once vs. multiple times).

• Memes about UCLA, religion, art, society after Burning Man.

• Etc.

Strategies for Spreading Memes

• Random repetition• Dissonance (physical, social, cognitive)• Trojan Horse• Cognitive occupation (“squatting”)• Branding / cognitive hook• Deployment of artifacts / architecture• Landscaping • Other…

Specific Questions for Burning Man

• How are memes conveyed before, during, and after the event?

• How does the lack of telecommunications affect the flow of memes in any city?

• Is anyone “in charge” of Burning Man meme production and use?

• In what ways do Burning Man’s memes influence participants’ memes about life outside of Burning Man?

Tool #2: Cultural Theory

Cultural Theory is…• A typology of organizational patterns (hierarchy,

egalitarianism, individualism, fatalism, etc.)• Multiple ways to define the patterns.• Focuses on people’s mental models of their

environment’s organizational patterns as well as the patterns themselves.

• Asks us to look at a group’s shared beliefs and practices as well as physical structure.

• Is useful to examine public policy, resource management, group risk-taking, leadership, assignment of responsibility, etc.

Grid-GroupLow grid High grid

High group

Egalitarian –Everyone unites in support of cause, with each individual contributing his/her norms / categories.

Hierarchy – Everyone serves their place in the system, fulfilling as best they can the duties of the position they hold.

Low group

Individualist –individuals act on their own for their own good; make their own norms / categories.

Fatalist – individuals act on their own and are out for themselves, but the “rules of the game” are pre-set by “the man.”

Geometric Definition

Egalitarian Circle

Hierarchical Tree

Individualist Network

Fatalist Random Walk

Example Application

Allow advertising within Burning Man?

Egalitarianism: “No”This is bad, it will promote competition, accumulation of successes, outside values, inequality, and hard feelings.

Hierarchy: “No”The founders didn’t want advertising and it will destabilize the community, maybe ruining it forever.

Individualism: “Yes”Burning Man is about freedom, ads can be highly creative, progress can be good if managed well.

Fatalism: “Doesn’t matter”People do what they want, Burning Man will be shut down or invaded by corp. Let’s enjoy it as it is now.

Another Application

• There is heavy use of gas, fire, plastic, etc for purely artistic / nonsense reasons.

Yet…• Burning Man participants tend to be pro-

environment, with displays and lectures on use of Green technology. Also, there is a successful “no trash” policy.

How do we explain this contradiction?

Resource ManagementEgalitarian – We can manage needs but not resources, therefore people should conserve, minimize environmental impact and hopefully eliminate “needs.”

Hierarchy – We can manage resources but not needs. Maintaining one’s position requires expenses and needs, but we can command movement of resources.

Individualist – We can manage both needs and resources; we should keep our needs under control as we create new technologies for new resources.

Fatalist – We all have human needs, and resources are outside of our control. Even if you work to get new resources they may be taken away.

Environmental Stances

How are energy and trash handled?

Egalitarianism:People should conserve, minimize personal needs, share resources, and reserve neg. environ. impact

Hierarchy:We must offer basic infrastructure such as water and waste trucks, port potties, etc. for public safety.

Individualism: Use new technologies like solar power, keep this a creative place that invites people to develop ideas.

Fatalism:“Dude, I’m just here to have a great time.”“Notice how the Google exec’s have private planes.”

Cultural Theory’s Meta-Model Hypothesis

Successful communities have all 4 organizational patterns present in

dynamic tension.

All 4 CT models are present at Burning Man, perhaps acting as a miniature of real-world dynamics.

Challenges to Egalitarianism• How do we maintain some order without a central authority?

(usually the answer charismatic leadership)• How do we handle conflict when we believe everyone is

worth sitting at the table? (ignore past transgressions, give positive rewards for better future behavior, or distinguish between the person/institution and the failing.)

• How do we recruit / retain members without coercion (“walk the talk and talk the walk” appealing to values like integrity, remarketing their goals as more palatable, and physically separating the group from the system such as a commune.)

• How do we keep the group from falling apart because of strongly different opinions? (split into two groups or focus on attacking outside groups like “the system”)

• How do we prevent inequalities between members since everyone is (should be) equal. (lead a simple life without luxuries, slow or halt growth to prevent inequality that comes with change, articulate the value of all gifts members bring)

Tool #3: Multi-Agent Mapping

Steps to Mapping the System• Boundaries (inter-system & intra-system)• Agents (number, type, flow). “Is everyone an

artist?” “Who’s not here?” “Is this your 1st burn?”• Artifacts (bicycles, flame throwers, etc)• Options for action.• Effect of time, weather, and environment.• Standard rules of engagement.• Influence from outside the system (Nevada

rangers, Native Americans, Uncle Sam, Google)• Special locations / timed events (Center Camp,

the road in, Burning the Man, cleaning day)

Closing

Future Directions

• What might we wish to learn?• How much to put in a multi-agent model?• Might make multiple small simulations,

each reflecting a different key aspect of the Burning Man phenomenon.

• Can utilize additional analytical tools. For example, indifference curve or T-maze learning can compliment CT’s qualitative view of risk and resource management.

Thank you!

A special thanks to UCLA graduate student and Burning Man “Countess”Megan Mulet for her input from years

of experience of Burning Man.

Dario Nardi: dnardi@ucla.edu, http://www.darionardi.com