CHAOS THEORY: A BOOK REVIEW

Gladwell, Malcom (2005) Blink : the power of thinking without thinking (New York: Little Brown and Company, first edition.

This best seller is the 2^nd major book by Gladwell, his first was Tipping Point. Further, some of the same material is found Caldini’s The psychology of the influence of persuasion. Last, this author draws on latest findings and skips over worthy contributions by Freud and Pareto.

Blink comes from the blink of an eye. How is it that we make snap judgments to survive? That many of these decisions are correct even when we get more information?

We live with a vast reservoir of the unconscious that comes into play all the time and flavors are perception and consequent action.

One can get an adequate review from many sources, but socialvibes.net provides a good review. The New Republic’s overview is perhaps that most exhaustive. Gladwell also spends a chapter on when snap decisions are wrong. However, much of his time is showing the reader how much research errs because there is too much information or that information is not salient because it was done in the wrong setting or has the wrong research protocols.

For the purpose of this book, he spends nearly 45 pages (chapter 4) reviewing the theme of chaos theory. He introduces us to chaos theory by way of a Pentagon war game simulation. It would appear that chaos compliments the equilibrium model. He compares the two on equal footing. For him, chaos is a social manifestation of the psychological blinking. The 2 compliment each other and are both post modern in the sense that they are not neatly ordered and non-linear. Serendipity and surprise as well as the natural mess that we call life have an order that is not necessarily seen. As an example, military battle plans stop at the point of battle.

The Pentagon had arranged a new high tech, math oriented equilibrium model or systems theory to be constructed to represent the blue team. Systems theory is also called functionalism, structure-functionalism or cell sociology. Historically, it has also been called organicism and another revision, positive organicism. In this theory component parts have various arithmetic values and each part triggers another part so that the whole is larger than the sum of the parts. Simply 1+1= 3. 3 represents the large and elusive whole that keeps the system so that is on going, the parts “know”  what the other parts are doing, morale is encouraged, as is communication, and boundaries maintained. Most of us see that 1+1=2. However, the three is created by the parts doing their job.

The opposing red team was basically arranged around chaos theory assumptions. They include that certain goals (such destroying the enemy) occurs because the warriors and their leadership are constantly reminded of the micro-triggers that continually change the plan. That up to a point “less is more” and that even more information fogs the war. It is non-linear in that when you start at A, because circumstances require it, you go to T then back to B followed by S and Q.

Blinking means that one is geared directly to the realities of the war and less to numerated information that may or may not be helpful even though it may have been very helpful if every thing had gone as planned. Chaos notes that most of the chaotic world, things don’t go as planned, but that if you assume an order, you let reality tell you.

So what happened? The Blue team with reams of data and communication system had an elaborate battle plan. The scenario was to occur in the Middle East. Blue team attacked. High fives and jubilation emerged as the Blue team started eating up new territory. Red team appeared to shamefacedly retreat.

In their retreat, they moved to the vulnerable side of Blue used primitive strategies like bicycle riders acting as curriers for messages and specific lighting signals to tell planes to fly and fight. Blue was oblivious to the non-high tech actions. Further, red team sent phony messages that could be intercepted by the blue team. As blue turned one way and was assured by frequent conversations and data analysis, red team went around the other way and destroyed most of blue team’s ships and their planes (fighters.)

The war was over before it truly began. Red team acted as insurgents and quickly learned that a straightforward meshing with Blue meant a loss. So they innovated with small but necessary information to win.

In other words, blinking, chaos theory, and other non-linear strategies were pragmatic enough to outwit the data weighting and analysis of the Blue team. Further, the computers gave the Blue team false confidence to believe they could win the war with knowledge and reason.

To use another metaphor, the Titanic was sinkable.

The Pentagon was dumbfounded. Millions if not billions were infested in their new system. So what did they do? They started the war game all over, but it was scripted. Blue team beat the red team in a walk. The Pentagon declared victory.

Later as the author notes, American troops attacked Iraq using the same system that failed before. Baghdad easily fell, but soon America found itself in a deadly guerilla war. In those wars, insurgents (red team) have numerous advantages with much less resources.

As this is being written, we do not know what will happen in Iraq but we do support the troops and we also support systems theory and data analysis. With this account, we are suggesting that ALL the strategies be used in research. We favor triangulation when it comes to research protocols. That means that both qualitative and quantitative measures be used and reported in research.

Additionally, systems theory or a variation of it lost to a variation of quick decisions and chaos theory. That does not mean that in the future quantitative measures can not be run so quickly that systems theory conquers chaos theory. It could also be stated that we had two systems theories fighting each other in which the faster more pragmatic one won.

Blinking compliments both chaos theory and systems theory. In this setting, blinking and chaos hopefully will compliment systems theory. However, that discussion must be left to the future.