Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- people:chris_symonds:preliminary_results [2014/10/20 05:15] – csymonds
+++ people:chris_symonds:preliminary_results [2014/10/20 05:21] (current) – csymonds
@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 ====Testing and Debugging====
-This is a short section. Debugging was very hard, however became much easier once I learned how to write out to LOG.debug. This helped me to help myself, however I did still need to reach out from time to time whenever I needed to ask something of the MFM at large, outside the behavior of my Sytizens. I'm still not convinced that the whole thing is even working correctly, but I get data out of it, so that's a start.
+Debugging was initially very hard, however became much easier once I learned how to write out to LOG.debug. This helped me to help myself, however I did still need to reach out from time to time whenever I needed to ask something of the MFM at large, outside the behavior of my Sytizens. I'm still not convinced that the whole thing is even working correctly, but I get data out of it, so that's a start.
 ====Observation and Analysis====
-To me, the biggest surprise was the dominance of the parochial non-altruist and the locked-in scenarios that would arise from this. These are the Sytizens that will steal from out-group members at a potential risk to themselves. I had to make the action of stealing particularly risky, perhaps more risky than the act is worth, just to keep them from dominating the map. In all, this makes me feel like the simulation itself is rather arbitrary in it's parameters, and the rather non-scientific way I implements these genetic behaviors speaks more to what I see than biological evolutionary tendencies. The fact that parochial altruists are now the dominant force, though consistent with previous findings, strikes me as less of a surprise. A good defense still seems to be a good offense, and the first population that generates a dominant group of PAs tends to win the day. It's not clear to me that varying the resource availability will affect this at all. So while I continue to run simulations and gather results, I feel mired somewhere between feeling like I may have implementation bugs, or worse, model bugs.
+To me, the biggest surprise was the dominance of the parochial non-altruist and the locked-in scenarios that would arise from this. These are the Sytizens that will steal from out-group members at a potential risk to themselves. I had to make the action of stealing particularly risky, perhaps more risky than the act is worth, just to keep them from dominating the map. In all, this makes me feel like the simulation itself is rather arbitrary in it's parameters, and the rather non-scientific way I implement these genetic behaviors speaks more to what I see than biological evolutionary tendencies. The fact that parochial altruists are now the dominant force, though consistent with previous findings, strikes me as less of a surprise. A good defense still seems to be a good offense, and the first population that generates a dominant group of PAs tends to win the day. It's not clear to me that varying the resource availability will affect this at all. So while I continue to run simulations and gather results, I feel mired somewhere between feeling like I may have implementation bugs, or worse, model bugs.
+====Going Forward====
+I will continue to adjust the simulation parameters to allow myself more flexibility in resource control. Once this is finalized, I will turn my attention back to the genetic behaviors and see how they are now different, and make a determination then as to whether I need to revisit implementation of that behavior. Oh, and at some point stop and collect useful data.