Home
Annual Report
Participant Biographies
MURI
Meetings
Reference Materials
Experimental Data Files
Notes |
Executive Summary (original proposal)
In 1993, Huntington stressed that conflicts between nation states
will be dominated by cultural differences. We see this today with
vivid clarity. Yet in the past decade, almost no models have emerged
that can forecast patterns of behavior when cultural forces clash.
Such models must consider the roles of beliefs, attitudes, and sacred
values within a culture, and how they interact with institutional
constraints and perceived external pressures. They must address
behaviors within a culture at the levels of the individual, the
group, and the governing body. The most important objective of our
MURI is to bring together models of beliefs and behaviors at each
of the three levels, showing how the levels interact and influence
one another (fig. 1.) To reach this objective, we have assembled
the following interdisciplinary team:
Scott
Atran, University of Michigan & CNRS, Anthropology
Jenna Bednar, Univ. Mich., Political Science & Public Policy
Ken Forbus, Northwestern, Computer Science and Education
**Rajesh Kasturirangan, National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bangalore, India
Doug Medin, Northwestern University, Psychology
**John Mikhail, Georgetown Law
Scott Page, University of Michigan, Political Science & Complexity
Avi Pfeffer, Harvard, Computer Science
Whitman Richards, MIT, Cognition and Artificial Intelligence
**Jeff Shamma, Computer Science, Georgia Tech
*Brian Stankiewicz, University of Texas Austin , Psychology
Joshua Tenenbaum, MIT, Computation and Cognitive Science
Patrick Winston, MIT, Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence
* 2005 - 2007; ** 2008 --
Consultant:
Robert Axelrod, University of Michigan, Political Science
The spectrum
of our expertise is critical to the success of our proposal. We
will use a multi-prong, interdisciplinary attack. First, the field
data available on the effects of cultural change on belief dynamics
and behavior will be brought to the attention of the collaborating
modelers, each expert in quite different types of computational
models. These include probabilistic models, Bayes nets, agent-based
networks, graphical models, causal and analogical models, and game-theoretic
models. This range of models provides us with different representational
frameworks appropriate for different levels of analysis, and subsequently,
for the integration of models across the individual, group and social
levels. In parallel, we will engage in further field studies to
increase our database. Thirdly, we use a VR microworld in the laboratory
to probe the more universal factors underlying trust, cooperation,
leadership in adversarial group decision-making.
To achieve
our objectives, we have an aggressive plan that capitalizes on collaborations
already in place, as well as creating new collaborations among modelers
and experimentalists. At least eight collaborations are proposed,
as listed in Section VI. Considering the interdisciplinary breadth
of our team (Computer science, political science, anthropology,
cognitive science, psychology, public policy, education), it is
critical that face-to-face meetings of the group take place early
and often, to enhance the understanding each other's perspectives,
semantics and mind-set. The first meeting will occur in mid-summer
'05. At the second meeting, six months later, pilot experiments,
programs and preliminary results of models will be presented. These
semi-annual meetings will be supplemented by meetings of pairs of
collaborators. This aggressive schedule is designed to lead to informative
pointers in the development of successful models even within the
first year. Because of accessibility, our initial focus will be
on modeling field studies data on behaviors and cultural shifts
observed in Guatemalian and Native Indian societies. A secondary
focus will be studies of terrorist networks and the belief revisions
underlying their dynamics.
The outcome
of this research, if successful, will be the first integrated computational
models of how individual beliefs can influence group decision-making,
how groups begin to coalesce into larger entities that lead to cultural
shifts, and how these in turn lead to revisions in individual beliefs.
Our models
will provide predictive tools that can advance adversarial decision-making.
For example, they will (1) identify key variables in social networks
within different cultures that can be manipulated to revise beliefs;
(2) show how social networks may be shattered or made to cohere
through cultural shifts or external pressures; (3) show analogies
and differences between cultural mind-sets that will provide better
perspectives on how societies in different cultures will react to
new pressures or to institutional change, and (4) give insights
into how trust and belief revision can impact the effectiveness
group decision-making.
|