Elvis Dynamics

This forum contains all archives from the SD Mailing list (go to http://www.systemdynamics.org/forum/ for more information). This is here as a read-only resource, please post any SD related questions to the SD Discussion forum.
Locked
Corey Lofdahl
Junior Member
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

Elvis Dynamics

Post by Corey Lofdahl »

One of the great things about studying system dynamics is that, after a
while, you can recognize feedback-based dynamics in the most unexpected
places. I was on an plane recently, reading some well written and
entertaining though undeniable dreck about Elvis ("King of Kings," by
James Wolcott, Vanity Fair, November 2001, 162--174), when from out of
nowhere appeared the following dynamic hypothesis:

Elviss drug intake and [his manager] Colonel [Tom] Parkers gambling
debts begin to skyrocket in unison, as if the two of them were in
unconscious competition to see who can flame out first. Elvis wins
and, by winning, loses. (p. 170)

The hypothesis rests on a basic overshoot and collapse scenario. Both
Elvis and Parker are engaged in addictive behaviors, Elvis with drugs and
Parker gambling. Both *spiral* out of control -- the use of the term
spiral is itself indicative of the feedbacks underlying their behavior.
Both Elvis and Parker feel pleasure, albeit momentarily, when they take
drugs or gamble. The pleasure however is fleeting, and more drugs and
larger wagers are subsequently necessary to achieve the same pleasure
levels. This results in two positive feedbacks: 1) the more drugs Elvis
takes, the more drugs Elvis needs to take, and 2) the more Parker bets,
the more Parker needs to bet. Left unstated are systemic factors that
threaten to limit each activity. For Elvis, there is the physiological
task of metabolizing ever larger amounts of drugs; for Parker, gambling
can continue only as long as there is money to cover the wagers, or as
long as others are willing to lend money when debts are incurred, which
only postpones the inevitable.

As if this werent enough system dynamics, there is also the matter of
relative timing. The simultaneousness of their behaviors denotes some
level of synchronization, unconscious though it may be. The relative
dynamics take on the character of an arms race in which each tries to
outdo the other until one is unable to compete further. Two good examples
of arms races are battleships in World War I (Great Britain & Germany),
and nuclear weapons in the Cold War (United States & Soviet Union). The
limiting factors differ in each case, open warfare for the former and
economic collapse for the latter, but they are each limiting factors
nonetheless. It should be noted that there is something methodologically
wonderful about comparing Elvis to the Cold War in a system dynamics
context because, were one asked to defend the analogy, it would be quite
simple to do so (although leaving such a study uncompleted might be in the
best interests of the scholar specifically and the discipline generally).

The final line, "Elvis wins and, by winning, loses," indicates that
Elviss system was limited first as his body gave out before Parkers
bankroll did. Elvis finally overshot up and collapsed in a big way on
August 16, 1977.


corey lofdahl
From: Corey Lofdahl <
lofdahl@alum.mit.edu>
SAIC
burlington, mass.
"John Gunkler"
Member
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

Elvis Dynamics

Post by "John Gunkler" »

Since this is all highly speculative, might I contribute a further dynamic
hypothesis?

If Elvis felt that taking drugs was necessary for him to continue
performing, and if the Colonels bankroll depended upon Elvis continuing
performance, there would be a more than "unconscious" link between the two
self-destructive behaviors. Colonels escalating need for money would impel
him to pressure Elvis to continue performing; this pressure would impel
Elvis to take more drugs to achieve whatever state he felt he needed in
order to perform. So the two positive feedback loops would be linked.

Also, I note that the dynamics of the situation would be different if either
drugs or gambling, or both, were not addictive -- that is, "addictive" in
the sense that either (or both) did not require more (drugs, money) to
achieve the perceived same level of effect. If only Elvis drugs were not
addictive (in this sense) he could theoretically have continued to perform
and feed more and more money into the Colonels gambling for an extended
period -- staying at the same level of drug use and, presumably, not dying.
The limit to this growth would only come when Elvis ability to make money
performing was insufficient to supply the Colonel with the money he
wanted -- a limit that, for a rock star of Elvis stature, was still a long
way off.

On the other hand, if only the Colonels gambling were not addictive, I
think the outcome is less strongly affected. Elvis death would be
postponed only to the extent that the link between the need for drugs and
the need to perform was significant relative to the strength of the need to
take more and more drugs without the pressure of performing. But if the
drug addiction "drove itself" strongly without pressure to perform (if the
doubling time was relatively short), Elvis death would have occurred nearly
as soon even if the Colonel hadnt existed or hadnt been a gambler.

Thanks, Corey, for an interesting example.

John W. Gunkler
jgunkler@sprintmail.com
"Fellinger, Eric"
Newbie
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

Elvis Dynamics

Post by "Fellinger, Eric" »

I think John Gs theory that Parker would pressure Elvis to perform when the
former needed more money, leading to greater drug use on the part of the
latter, is a good one, and more specific than my generalized "collective bad
news" concept. Either framework, or both together, would create a situation
more complex than the standard cold war scenario. But to say which, if
either, one would need to do a whole lot more research on the actual
individuals involved.

There may well be a paper here... Can anyone get funding for a research trip
to Graceland?

Below are earlier exchanges between Corey & myself.

-Eric Fellinger
From: "Fellinger, Eric" <
Eric.Fellinger@state.vt.us>


The exchange between Corey and myself in which the "collective bad news"
concept was developed. For your possible interest. Read from bottom to top
for proper chronology.

-Eric Fellinger

-----Original Message-----
From: Corey Lofdahl [mailto:lofdahl@alum.mit.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 9:59 AM
To: Fellinger, Eric
Subject: RE: QUERY Elvis Dynamics (SD3433)

The collective bad news stock is a useful starting point, especially as
this occured in 1977, after Elvis had been performing for twenty years so
there was plenty of time for bad news to accumulate. You point out an
interesting feedback that I hadnt really thought through before.
Theyre each responding to Elviss failing or at least atrophying career
in their own way, but the addiction of each makes the situation worse for
the other -- what you describe as co-resonance -- thereby exacerbating the
collective dynamics. Maybe there is a paper here!

On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, Fellinger, Eric wrote:

> Stalingrad, Arizona??
>
> So, was the comparison to the Cold War the authors, or yours? And was the
cloudy > > > Stalin image the inspiration for this parallel?
>
> To be honest, I think I was hoping a little that youd shoot back with a
treatise about
> how to model destructive competition. Well, then I guess Ill have to
develop it.
>
> If there were a direct interaction, it would have to be at least one step
removed... I
> doubt Elvis looked at Parker and said "That sucker thinks he can gamble,
huh?? Well,
> Ill show him whos the bigger druggie!"
>
> More plausibly, both mens misadventures contributed ultimately to
something called
> "collective bad news," which would be a stock. This then would work in
addition to
> individual stresses and whatever other demons faced them each to motivate
the self-
> destructive behavior. Thus, the interdependence between Parkers and
Presleys
> careers and fortunes led to a sort of co-resonance, in which perhaps both
cycles of
> destruction cycled faster than they would have in more isolated cases of
individuals
> with addictions. Its even possible that each was more affected by the
consequences of
> the others actions than they were by their own.
>
> Maybe theres a paper here after all??


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Corey Lofdahl [mailto:lofdahl@alum.mit.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 9:59 AM
> To: Fellinger, Eric
> Subject: RE: QUERY Elvis Dynamics (SD3433)
>
>
>
> You are, of course, precisely right. In fact they probably werent in
> competition with one another -- that was just a glib
> observation. What is
> more likely is that they were responding in their own way to
> the unreal
> and out of control world of Graceland and the failing career,
> body, and
> psyche of Elvis. The author, who of course is a journalist and not a
> system dynamicist, precedes the referenced vignette with a
> disquisition of
> Elvis seeing the face of Joseph Stalin in an Arizona cloud
> and his taking
> this, naturally, to be some sort of sign from God. So
> obviously there was
> plenty of trouble to go around.
>
> --corey
>
> On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, Fellinger, Eric wrote:
>
> > The system dynamics of addictive behavior is well
> documented, as is that of
> > the cold war style escalation. But the cause & effect of
> the synchronicity
> > is not as clear in your Elvis & Colonel case as it is in
> the cold war
> > example. Perhaps it was clearer in the magazine article,
> but: Why is it
> > not possible that both Parker and Presley were influenced
> by the same
> > external factors and reacted to them in similar ways, but
> had no direct
> > influence on one another? That is, what is the mechanism
> of the direct
> > interaction, if there was one??
>
Locked