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 Detour
Social constructivism
Naïve realism
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Data is perception
Observer is biased
Tools are motivated
Infinite possible truths
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-Group
High
group
Low
group
Low grid
High grid
Egalitarian –
Everyone unites in
support of cause, with
each individual
contributing his/her
norms / categories.
Individualist –
individuals act on
their own for their own
good; make their own
norms / categories.
Hierarchy – Everyone
serves their place in the
system, fulfilling as best
they can the duties of the
position they hold.
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.
Individualism: “Yes”
Burning Man is about
freedom, ads can be highly
creative, progress can be
good if managed well.
Hierarchy: “No”
The founders didn’t want
advertising and it will
destabilize the community,
maybe ruining it forever.
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 proenvironment, with displays and lectures on
use of Green technology. Also, there is a
successful “no trash” policy.
How do we explain this contradiction?
Resource Management
Egalitarian – 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
Individualism:
Use new technologies like
solar power, keep this a
creative place that invites
people to develop ideas.
Hierarchy:
We must offer basic
infrastructure such as water
and waste trucks, port
potties, etc. for public safety.
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