Social Essays on Chaos Theory
Joel C. Snell
Kirkwood College
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
Joseph P. Cangemi
Western Kentucky University
Bowling Green, Kentucky
Casimir J. Kowalski
South Carolina State University
Orangeburg, South Carolina
BrockMartin Press
Chicago, Ill.
McGraw Hill
Boston, Mass
BrockMartin Publishers
Chicago, Illinois
USA
Copyright © Joel Snell, 2006
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Library of Congress
Cataloging-In-Publication Data
Joel C. Snell, F143
Chaos Theory/Social Sciences
p. cm.
ISBN
1.Chaos Theory 1.Title
Printed In United States of America
To Our Spouses, Children, Family, Friends, and
Colleagues
FOREWORD
During my professional working experience I served as a Captain in the U.S. Air Force, but
I returned to civilian life after six years to manage the Safety Program and Occupational Safety
and Health Act compliance for a major chemical production complex; later, I was a Human
Resource Manager at an electronics manufacturing plant, and then I went on to Kennedy Space
Center to take a position as Senior Internal Auditor. During course work for my Master’s Degree
in Management of Technology at the University of Miami, I was introduced to the chaos theory. I
was fascinated at the paradox that there was some “order in chaos”. My work experience included
a great deal of planning, and I must admit some of the best-laid plans did not always produce the
intended reality. Random factors caused unplanned results. A Prussian Field Marshal, Helmuth
von Multke said, “No plan survives contact with the enemy.” That is the reason, unlike Napoleon,
he gave his subordinate officers the liberty to make on-the-spot battle decisions. However, we
still find very many instances where luck played a huge part in the outcome.
The authors of this new book on chaos theory attempt to describe how it might work and its
applications to the macro, mid-range, and micro theories of human behavior.
As they note, the meaning model, conflict model, and equilibrium model all are imbedded
in the fields of social sciences and in business. Additionally, they maintain that chaos theory does
not stand alone. It complements the three major theories.
Chaos theory’s major feature is to try to explain unintended consequences that emerge
continually in life. Further, in spite of the outward disarray of reality, order appears to be at the
base of the movement of life. Therefore it seems we can accept Albert Einstein’s observation that,
“God does not play dice with the universe.”
The authors suggest that although the book is not long, it is best to read it over a period of
time rather than in one sitting.
I hope that this book becomes of value to you in your future endeavors.
R. John Povilaitis
Senior Internal Auditor
United Space Alliance
Cape Canaveral, Florida
CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION
The Origins of Chaos Theory

Joel C. Snell

Explaining Chaos Theory

Joel C. Snell

The New Science: Chaos Theory, Catastrophic Theory, and

Topological Theory

Joel C. Snell, Joseph P. Cangemi, Claire Noble, Kay Payne, &
Casimir J. Kowalski

Chaos Theory, Catastrophic Theory and Topological Theory:

Examples and Perspectives

Joseph P. Cangemi, Claire Noble, Kay Payne, Casimir J. Kowalski,
& Joel C. Snell

Chaos Theory, Deconstructionism, and Other Post-Modern Theories

Susan Andersen, Joel C. Snell

Chaos Theory and Game Theory

Joel C. Snell, Joseph P. Cangemi

Chaos Theology

Joel C. Snell

Three Examples of Chaos Theory

Joel C. Snell

Observations

Joel C. Snell

II. MACRO-LEVEL SOCIETY
Chaos Theory and Society

Joel C. Snell, Joseph P. Cangemi
Society and Social Problems

Joel C. Snell, Joseph P. Cangemi

III. MID-RANGE SOCIETY

Chaos Theory and Management

Joel C. Snell, Joseph P. Cangemi

Chaos Theory and the Stock Market

Joel C. Snell, Saul Mekies

IV. MICRO-LEVEL SOCIETY
Chaos Theory and the Individual
Joel C. Snell
V.
MEASURING CHAOS
Utilizing Chaos Theory and Statistics: A Commentary
Joel C. Snell, Mitchell Marsh
Chaos Theory? Meta-Cognitive Analysis: an Alternative to Literature Reviews and Meta
Analysis for the Sciences and the Arts.
Joel C. Snell, Mitchell Marsh
VI.
CHAOS THEORY – FINAL OBSERVATIONS/CONCLUSION
Chaos Theory – Conclusion
Joel C. Snell, Joseph P. Cangemi
ORIGINS OF CHAOS THEORY
Joel C. Snell
Mitchell Feigenbaum is not a household name. He was a consultant to the Los Alamos
National Laboratory. He was known to think deeply and abstractly. Often, he would pace through
the night. At the time, in 1974, he was on his way stumbling and tumbling intellectually onto
chaos theory. He is considered the founder. The number 4.669, a scaling factor, underscored a
universality of math functions.
At the time, chaos theory was outside the paradigm of classical science. If anything, the
general chaos ignored by math, biology, chemistry and physics gave rise to chaos theory. It is the
study of disorder and the order that is within it, around it, and below it. The “it” has no name, and
“it” has fascinated mystics for generations.
In the early ‘60s, Edward Lorenz discovered that returning to a sequence of numbers and
starting in the middle of a printout would gradually cause enormous effects on simulated
computer wind patterns. Further, one tiny fractional change would create enormously different
outcomes. Thus, there was a metaphor. One tiny butterfly flapping its wings could cause life
threatening weather storms thousands of miles away. “It” is called the “butterfly effect”
(www.mhd.com/grae/chabs/ html
).
James Gleick traced the beginnings of chaos theory in his Chaos: Making A New Science
(1987). We discover through the author that reality is observed and categorized through non
linear science, geometry of nature, strange attractors and related.
By 1977, Louis Halle was describing chaos theory to social scientists. One of the authors of
this book (Joel Snell) reviewed Halle’s book Out Of Chaos (1977).
According to Halle, the bottom of things is chaos (or it appears to be), and then there is an
ascending level of randomness, indeterminacy, and uncertainty. All of this builds to…order. Halle
also suggested, given the proper distance, both society and the individual have meaning.
Halle was most impressed with individuals who contributed to the micro-triggers; they
have a new viable idea, invention, sonnet, or theory. Additionally, they do this in spite of all the
confusion (chaos) going on around them.
He concludes with the meshing and interfacing of mysticism and science. In other words,
chaos gives rise to a grander scheme of order.
REFERENCES
Gleick, J. (1987). Chaos: Making A new science. New York: Penguin Books.
Halle, L. (1977). Out of chaos. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Reviewed by Joel Snell in The
Annals of the American Academy of The Political and Social Sciences, May 1978, Vol. 437,
pp. 181-182.
EXPLAINING CHAOS THEORY
Joel C. Snell
Introduction
In this book of essays, we want to clarify some issues relative to chaos (and complementary
theories: Catastrophic Chaos and Topological Chaos).
Chaos Theory (Order Within Disorder)
Chaos Theory describes reality that appears to the observer to be messy, disorderly, and
complicated. Behavior is described in terms of fractals, phase portraits, attractors, and
bifurcations. However, beneath and from above, this order appears to have an order to it. In
common parlance, life goes on.
Catastrophic Chaos Theory (Revolutionary Change)
This theory attempts to explain how at certain strategic times explosive behavior
(revolutions, riots, and dramatic social change) occur. A catastrophic fold explains behavior.
Thus, a constraint or an imbalance in the lives of humans festers and antagonizes to the point that
revolutionary or major reformist change occurs. There appears to be a “tipping point”.
Topological Chaos Theory (Evolutionary Change)
How is it that gradual, evolutionary change occurs to the point where, both within ourselves
and external to ourselves, we may modify our attitudes and actions? Or we may experience
dramatic evolutionary change in subtle day-to-day thought and action. A Mobius band is used as
an illustration.
Observations

1. 
   As much as the writers are interested in this area and want these theories to prosper in
   academia and in the wider world, we do not believe that this is the final word on human
   behavior. Ideally, science is ongoing and self-corrective. This also applies to the theories that
   we have discussed.
2. 
   Additionally these theories may contest as well as complement the three major theories
   found in the social sciences and related fields: the equilibrium model, the conflict model, and
   the meaning model. We believe that these models or theories are still very helpful and will
   continue under various labels in numerous fields. We do not believe that these new theories
   will replace the established models.
3. 
   We will raise questions about the prevailing order either beyond or beneath social
   disarray that is assumed in Chaos Theory. There may be, at times, below disorder is disorder;
   or the disorder may really be order of another dimension not knowable to the senses of all, or
   most, of us. This area is outside our experience. It is a theological question. In the natural and
   social world a vacuum appears to be quickly filled with some other phenomena of change.
   Thus, order appears to prevail.
4. 
   We do not want to assume that the illusive order we are discussing is always desirable.
   We will allude to observations by Joseph Cangemi relative to some Third World countries. If
   the order is desirable, who perceives this as valuable? Who benefits? There are some
   outwardly appearing “orderly” countries, in which people do not want to dwell. The outward
   “order” comes at a price of numerous liberties. Outwardly, there are countries with seemingly
   few “social problems” because, whatever the unacceptable behavior deemed so by the ruling
   elite may not be defined as a social problem because the offenders are eliminated,
   incarcerated, or deported. Further, the press is muzzled and the problems are not discussed in
   daily public discourse in the countries just described.
5. 
   Chaos Theory has been linked to such terms as bionomics (a form of laissez-faire
   capitalism) or the new Marxism, post modernism, feminism, the new socialism (a form of
   capitalism) or numerous other topics. We do not want to make those links. However, we are
   not opposed to others doing so. In the larger scheme of things, social thought intertwines,
   intermixes, synthesizes, destroys, resurrects and rearranges new components of past ideas.
   We want the reader to know we believe that Chaos Theory and its derivatives have practical
   and useful applications, but the further linkage we also will leave to the others.
   Conclusion
   Chaos Theory is another explanation of how humans create social order. One of the
   theories, chaos, explains the overall process of how behavior emerges and changes; Catastrophic
   Theory describes rapid change and Topological Theory portrays gradual change. The rest of the
   article deals with caveats by the authors relative to these theories and their relationship to other
   social thought.
   THE NEW SCIENCE: CHAOS THEORY,
   CATASTROPHIC THEORY, AND
   TOPOLOGICAL THEORY
   Joel C. Snell, Joseph P. Cangemi, Claire Noble,
   Kay Payne, and Casimir Kowalski
   Postmodern theory suggests human behavior is more sporadic, less orderly, and less
   rational than previously thought. It complements, but does not replace modernistic theories based
   on equilibrium, meaning, and conflict. Postmodern theories include Chaos, Topological and
   Catastrophic theories. Chaos deals with the outwardly appearing non-orderly behavior and
   change of humans that essentially has an order not directly observed. Topological Theory deals
   with gradual human change, and Catastrophic Theory deals with rapid social change. The article
   purports to explain these theories.
   The authors will attempt to explain three relatively “new” theories. They will borrow
   heavily from Dragan Milovanovic’s Postmodern Criminology: Mapping the Terrain (1996).
   Background
   Many of the social sciences have honored behavioral models easy to quantify (Keil &
   Elliot, 1996). Applying hard numbers to behavior has been questioned by many academics that
   believe that “relationships are more important than counting things” (substance over relations)
   (Emirbayer, 1997).
   One of the most popular theories is systems theory (Cangemi & Payne, 1999). It is an
   equilibrium model found in sociology, political science, economics, communications and related
   fields. The model sees stability and balance over time but has trouble documenting ambiguity.
   Thus, Chaos Theory emerged roughly twenty years ago. As Wilson (1998) noted “…the
   theory was born in the 1970’s, gathers momentum in the 1980’s and was enveloped in
   controversy by the mid-1990’s. The issues of contention are almost as tangled as the systems the
   theorist hoped to unravel…many have not heard of it.”
   Hall (1991) suggested Chaos Theory is related to the science of disorder. Brown (1995)
   indicated it is the study of irregularity. Kellert (1993) noted it is the study of the unpredictable.
   Referring to the systems theory, Wheatley (1992) implied it is the study of chaos of disequilibria
   that allows for change.
   Thus, the field is about relationships that are ambiguous and perhaps not familiar to many.
   Milovanovic
   According to Milovanovic (1996), “when there is some thing in the equilibrium model or
   functionalist model that one cannot count, it is considered “noise” or extraneous. However, little
   unnoticed and uncounted behavior can, over time, bring chaos to a system; and balance must be
   restored. In other words, there is order in disorder. Three theories (Chaos, Catastrophic, and
   Topological) attempt to look at that which may be overlooked by the equilibrium model.
   Parenthetically, these observations also may apply to the conflict and interactionist theories
   known by sociologists, but called by other names in other fields. However, it is important here to
   remain with the equilibrium model because it is so well known to so many, especially in the
   academic community.
   Chaos Theory
   Chaos Theory attempts to explain how disorder (chaos) at the micro level gives rise to
   order and change at the macro level. Order in the equilibrium model is sometimes labeled the
   order of relationships or structure, and the change in relationships over time is called function.
   Terms
   The following is a brief explanation.
   Relationships or behavior not easily measured (or non-linear) are called a fractal (a
   chaotic unit of behavior).
   Fractals are likely to be non-linear.
   Non-linear behavior at times “settles down” so that it can be measured. This momentary
   stop is called a phase portrait.
   A phase portrait comes together and settles down because of attractors.
   Attractors direct behavior to a region where it is observed, monitored and ultimately
   measured. Cyclic attractors create or encounter limitations to form boundaries. Torus
   attractors cause drag so there is stoppage or they slow down behavior until it stops. Strange
   attractors enhance dynamism or facilitate energy so that behavior can start up or move on.
   This start/stop movement is called iteration. When movement begins, there appears to be
   bifurcation or splintering, which is a slight or profound change in direction.
   Bifurcation initially creates new fractals of behavior.
   Illustration
   The equilibrium model would portray the following example:
   Numerous people are in cars and are driving from work to home on an interstate. The
   traffic appears to move slowly and fairly orderly. The flow of cars starts and stops and goes from
   origin to destination. There may be an auto accident on the interstate and an individual in one of
   the cars has a cell phone and calls the police. They show up and circle the autos involved in the
   accident. Other cars generally form a line around the accident and move on. The model deals with
   tension management, integration of the parts, ability to change, and the function of the interstate
   to complete its task of getting cars from one place to another. The whole is greater than the sum
   of the parts; one aspect of behavior triggers change in all other aspects.
   The Chaos model would portray the following:
   Numerous people are traveling in cars from 50 to 75 miles an hour. Most are just a few
   seconds from death and/or dismemberment. Cars zoom in and out and are bumper to bumper.
   Some are in their cars praying, others are listening to the radio very loudly, and still others are
   listening to relaxation tapes. Some have road rage and others have road anxiety (Snell, 1997).
   Still, others fully enjoy or are not agitated by the traffic. One car has a flat tire and swerves in
   front of another. That car explodes into the first car and soon seven other cars become involved in
   the accident. Fire breaks out in one of the cars. One person is dead and three others are severely
   injured. Cars continue to zoom in and out, and near-collisions occur. Life goes on.
   When we get up close, cars are really acting imperfectly or erratically. Cars do not form
   perfect lines nor are they equidistant from each other as the equilibrium model connotes. When
   movement of one car drives along imperfectly and we take a picture of it (or measure it), it is
   called a phase portrait. Attractors cause the movement, changes, stops, and starts of the
   individual cars within the traffic rush. This erratic behavior is called a fractal. It is non-linear or
   erratic. When a car makes lane changes or related behavior it is a bifurcation or splintering.
   So of what practical value is this relative to learning about human behavior? In the
   illustration above, we may fly in a helicopter and be able to tape the behavior of each individual
   car that comes onto the interstate from a certain entry/exit for a period of two minutes. It may be
   that we can now, with a series of cameras watch, as an example, 15 cars moving from their origin
   to a 10-mile destination. We may notice that each one, up close, is somewhat erratic. One of the
   cars is so chaotic that it pulls off to the side of the road. Three others will drive uneventfully and
   leave at an exit seven miles from where they came onto the interstate. One car drives bumper to
   bumper with another, as a truck swerves beside the two. Another wants to turn, but at the last
   minute is in the wrong lane and must go out of its way to get back to the destination it originally
   wanted. All get to their destinations.
   So what have we learned?
   We have been able to measure individuals as the group process (all driving the interstate)
   continues on. In equilibrium theory, we usually do not get that close to the behavior of the
   individuals. Those 15 car drivers, for the two minutes we were taping them, not only caused their
   own behavior, but also helped cause the behavior of others. We also see each individual is not
   equal in his/her impact on the others. What we see is messy. We can now see, however, we may
   save lives if we have more signs for a crucial lane change, without which may cause numerous
   individual deaths even though the equilibrium of the system functions quite well. We may also
   see there may be behavior we cannot control or predict because of erratic driving. Chaos Theory
   gives us clues about problems to be encountered in the future.
   The movements and stops of the cars is due to attractors, and the above should fall into
   place. Incidentally, a U.S. News & World Report (Wilson, 1998) article on the decline of crime
   suggested numerous individual, as well as group, events that appear to have no direct relationship
   to each other helps to account for the decline of crime. This would approximate Chaos Theory.
   Catastrophic Theory
   This theory attempts to explain rapid and explosive change. The activist-directed
   Catastrophic Theory attempts to explain why there is explosive change. In other words, we are
   talking about forms of erratic, yet micro-revolutionary or activist-directed reform behavior. Why
   is it that push sometimes goes to shove and then to explosive change?
   The theory stated is as follows:
   Stability can eventually give rise to agitation. Agitation gives rise to flight or fight. Flight
   becomes fight if an individual explodes over a catastrophic fold. Catastrophic fold then subsides
   to stability.
   Imagine the cars, which have been zooming to various places, going from origin to
   destination, come upon a large wave in the highway. The wave occurs in one lane, but not the
   other. The uphill two-way lane has a huge wave or fold and the other is level. There is no other
   way home. The wave is really the sinking of one lane due to soil erosion. Travelers begin to push
   and shove to get to the good lane that is traversable. There is a risk to go on in the bad lane even
   though the bad spot is less than a car’s length in size. As the traffic backs up, those near the bad
   lane must either take a chance and leap over the wave (or sunken lane) or continue to remain idle.
   People continue to honk, individuals get out of their cars, shouting gives rise to fist fights and
   someone calls the police from a cell phone. A helicopter with the police arrives at the scene and
   re-establishes order. The one lane is closed for repair and the other remains open as the traffic is
   directed in such a way all can get through the area and move on to their destinations. Emergency
   money for the state’s infrastructure is directed at making this area a four-lane highway.
   What have we observed? It was not the whole system, but individuals festering around the
   wave or buckle in the highway that caused the violence that gave rise to change. The highway had
   been deteriorating for years, but the wave or buckle in the road became the “straw that broke the
   camel’s back”; and change, rapid change, came about.
   Samuelson (1998) suggested that an accumulation of tiny events gave rise to the changes in
   the crime rate. He noted: the lesson is that small changes feed on themselves, cause people (and
   institutions) to behave differently and then crystallize into huge shifts.
   Catastrophic Theory best explains his statement about the messy behavior of individuals
   rather than the institutions causing rapid explosive change. Systems theory has some difficulty
   with explaining how changes occur and yet equilibrium still remains. Catastrophic Theory may
   help explain rapid and explosive change.
   Topological Theory
   Topological Theory tries to explain how subtle thought and action intertwine and gradually
   change people’s attitudes and behavior. A Mobius band is a strip of paper that has been twisted
   once and then reconnected with glue. Imagine an ant is placed on the band, and then scurries
   along to get away from predators. As it runs along the band, it goes from the outside of the band
   to the inside, because of the twist. This activity is not necessarily understandable to the ant, but to
   the outside observer the twist makes a smooth transition from inside to outside. This transition is
   the relationship between thought and action and how both gradually change over time. Inside
   thoughts can become outside action and action triggers thought. It is done when the ant in our
   metaphor crosses the bar that holds the twisted strip together. Crossing the bar means there is a
   spark of creativity, understanding, or making sense of the wider world and defining it. It deals
   with the gradual change of the internal and the external.
   Thus, interaction is continuous. Continuous behavior creates bar crossing. Bar crossing
   creates outside action, which translates to inside thought. Inside thought creates new interactions.
   Gradual change has occurred.
   Illustration
   To use the metaphor of drivers and highway again, assume cars are driving along the
   highway and their drivers are determined to reach their destinations. They are traveling, however,
   with a negative attitude about driving. As they travel there is a very slight incline in the road, so
   gradual and so gentle the car always appears not to slip off the highway. As the car continues it
   actually crosses the bar and inside becomes outside, but the driver is unaware of the change, and
   feels this trip on this highway has been a positive experience. It was a good trip.
   What can we observe from this theory?
   At times, attitudes and changes in behavior can be gradual. It is so very gradual that when
   the change occurs, it is hardly noticed. Where Catastrophic Theory illustrates explosive rapid
   change in attitude and in behavior, Topological Theory describes gradual change. As an example,
   an editorial in U.S. News & World Report (Zuckerman, 1993) stated 73% of Americans believed
   crime to be a major problem in the country. That same year a new Democrat, Bill Clinton, was
   conservative on crime and yet was not perceived as a racist. This change, years in the making,
   found even more minorities in high crime areas wanted more police and more conservative
   policies toward offenders. In other words, numerous moderate and progressive Democrats,
   Republicans, and Independents “crossed the bar”. On the other hand, when funding was available
   they still wanted early intervention to deal with some of the initial causes of crime, but the first
   priority was more police and incarcerations.
   Topological Theory is perhaps the theory to be most complementary, if not indigenous, to
   Tnteractionist Theory. Portions of the theory may be seen as the dispenser and supportive of the
   social construction approach.
   Explanation
   It may be the three micro theories indicated above may complement the three major
   theories of the social sciences. The equilibrium model (functionalism) may be represented by
   Chaos Theory. Catastrophic Theory could assist critical or conflict theory. Topological Theory
   could support interactionism. (However, Milovanovic (1996) or any of the other sources listed
   above suggest this.)
   Additionally, by necessity to us, the terms modeling and theory are used synonymously and
   are used as the same nomenclature as Milovanovic. We understand them to be different.
   Milovanovic hints these three theories may become quantifiable.
   The three theories discussed in this article may/may not be associated with postmodernism,
   deconstructionism, feminist theory, or critical criminology. We believe these three theories may
   complement but not replace the current macro theories now used in the social sciences. We do not
   believe these micro theories will replace systems theories or other major theories now prominent
   in the social sciences. Last, this derivation from quantum physics will probably be most useful at
   the level of discovery and hypothesis building, but not at the level of verification.
   Conclusion
   This has been a discussion of three theories that have been described as post modern. Chaos
   Theory tries to describe phenomena at the micro level that are messy and disorderly but in a
   paradoxical way give rise to order. Catastrophic Theory attempts to describe explosive and rapid
   change. Topological Theory attempts to explain gradual and slow change.
   Dr. Joseph Cangemi (one of the authors) is a well-traveled, worldwide corporate consultant
   and journeys in numerous third-world countries. One of the things he noted is that disorder
   appears to be order to the culture’s elite. Visible macro disorder, where very few things and
   relationships work, drives the majority of the population into passivity and squalor. Thus, the elite
   remain in control because they know or are familiar with the real order within the disorder. For
   the elite, the social system is workable, efficient, and rewarding. This observation still supports
   Chaos Theory.
   Dr. Kay E. Payne (another of the authors) suggests that religious conversion or change in
   religious perception has provided a gradual change in interaction with others. This would support
   Topological Theory.
   This has been an interpretation and simplification of Dragan Milovanovic’s Postmodern
   Criminology: Mapping the Terrain (1996). It was originally published in Justice Quarterly.
   The authors added possible applications to the major fields of sociology, psychology,
   political sciences, criminal justice, and economics.
   REFERENCES
   Cangemi J., Payne, K., Kowalski, C., Snell, J. (1999). Chaos theory, catastrophic theory and
   topological theory: Examples and perspectives. Psychology: A Journal of Human Behavior,
   16(1), 11-20.
   Hall, N. (1991). Exploring chaos: a guide to the new science of disorder. New York: Penguin
   Books.
   Keil, L., & Elliot, E. (1996). Chaos theory in the social sciences: foundation and
   applications. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
   Kellert, S. (1993). In the wake of chaos. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Kornblum, W., & Julian, J. (1998). Social problems. Upper Saddle Creek, New Jersey:
   Prentice-Hall.
   Milovanovic, D. (1996). Postmodern criminology: mapping the terrain, Justice Quarterly, pp.
   567-610.
   Samuelson, R. (1998). The way the world works. Newsweek, p. 52.
   Snell, J., Cangemi, J., Noble, C., Payne, K., & Kowalski, C. (1999). The new science: Chaos
   theory, catastrophic theory, and topological theory. Psychology: A Journal of Human
   Behavior; pp. 24-29.
   Snell, J. (1997). Road rage? road anxiety is bad enough. The Gazette, September 8, 4a.
   Wheatley, M. (1994). Leadership and the new science. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler
   Publishers.
   Wilson, E. (1998). Consilience: unity of knowledge. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
   Zuckerman, M. (1993). What to do about crime. U.S. News and World Report, November 8.
   __ (1993). When will Washington act? U.S. News and World Report, July 19, Pp.
   35-36.
   Additional References
   Blake, R.R. & J.S. Mouton (1985). The management grid III: the key to leadership
   excellence. Houston: Gulf Publishing Company, pg. 12.
   Brown, C. (1995). Chaos and catastrophic theories. London: Sage Publications.
   Coleman, J., & Cressy, D. (1991). Social problems. New York: Addison Wesley, Longham.
   Curran, D., & Renzetti, C. (1993). Social problems. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
   Emmirbayer, M. (1997). Manifesto for a relational sociology. American Journal of Sociology;
   September, pp. 231-317.
   Erikson, E.H. (1963). Childhood and society. New York: Norton.
   Feagin, J. (1986) Social problems: a critical power-conflict perspective. Engelwood Cliffs,
   New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
   Heiner, R. (1999). Social problems and social solutions: a cross cultural perspective. Boston:
   Allyn & Bacon.
   Horton, P., Leslie, G., & Larson, R. (1991). The sociology of social problems. Englewood
   Cliffs, New Jersey: Simon & Schuster.
   Jones, B., Gallagher, B., & McFalls, J. (1988). Social problems: Issues, opinions and
   solutions. New York: McGraw Hill.
   Mooney, L., Knox, D., & Schacht, C. Understanding social problems. Minneapolis/St. Paul:
   West Publishers.
   Parsons, T. (1950). The social system, Boston: Harvard Press.
   Sullivan, Thomas (1997). Introduction to social problems. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
   Chaos Theory, Catastrophic Theory
   And Topological Theory: Examples
   And Perspectives
   Joel C. Snell, Joseph P. Cangemi, Claire Noble, Kay Payne,
   and Casimir J. Kowalski
   Chaos Theory is another complementary explanation to systems theory. Chaos can also be
   explained in terms of power. A tiny elite can benefit from what outwardly appears to be disarray.
   An example of catastrophic theory is when the psychological contract between workers and
   company are strained to the point of a strike. Negotiations can settle the expanse between the two
   and a new synthesis emerges. Topological Theory is best explained in subtle attitude change of
   individuals and groups. Although the change is gradual, over time, a new paradigm emerges that
   can be profound. The article offers readers a wider perspective on all three theories.
   Chaos Theory
   Chaos Theory describes the underlying order in systems which appear chaotic. This
   suggests the systems order themselves from another level rather than intrinsically. Shults (1992)
   compared natural systems of Chaos Theory to Christ as Logos, which can then be viewed as an
   ordering principle for Christians. When applying Chaos Theory to administration, management,
   and public policy, it provides a new large-scale way of thinking upon which we can base
   inquiries. Chaos from a modern administration perspective “means too much happening too
   quickly all at once, and seemingly out of control and incomprehensible” (Overman, 1996). Peters
   (1987) developed the concept of “thriving on chaos” as a principle for modern managers. Rather
   than using dissonance reduction as a model, Chaos Theory suggests tolerance of ambiguity. Paul
   (1995) suggested models of conflict management from Japan and Hawaii illustrate problem
   solving methods more tolerant of ambiguity than Euro-American models.
   Understanding the underlying order occurring at a different level enables managers to
   understand systems in motion. Changing structures and relationships in organizational systems
   appear to be the rule rather than the exception for organizations preparing for the twenty-first
   century. Briggs and Peat (1989) explained all sorts of natural phenomena such as changing
   weather patterns, heart arrhythmia, and the congested movement of traffic in South American and
   European countries by using Chaos Theory.
   The theory might be described as a complex, dynamic pattern of order out of seemingly
   chaotic behaviors (Prigogine & Stengers, 1984). Waldrop (1994) claimed these systems appeared
   so complex and dynamic that the small human mind could not grasp the order, so it sees it as
   disorder. Wheatley (1992) claimed most managers concerned themselves with structures rather
   than processes, concluding that most organizations could dissipate structures and reconfigure
   them at higher levels of complexity than previously thought, in order to better deal with the new
   environment. Managed and guided from information from outside the organization, dynamic
   organizations rely not on controlled inflexible information systems, but rather on the constantly
   evolving results of the organization. Even the language of Chaos Theory differs from previous
   old Systems theories.
   Systems Theory language uses terms like input, process, output, and impact as linear
   elements of the system. Chaos Theory uses terms like order and chaos to describe images of the
   system. Systems Theory language describes equilibrium or homeostasis of systems with stability
   over time. Chaos Theory appears far from equilibrium, packed with energy that flows from
   outside the organization. Systems Theory uses terms such as feedback and control…words that
   dampen deviance. Chaos Theory uses bifurcations or moments of choice in a systems evolution.
   Systems Theory language reflects forward movement and planning communication which
   amplifies diversity. Chaos Theory reflects irreducibility, suggesting that knowing a system is not
   necessarily knowing its parts. Systems Theory recognizes holism, as the whole is equal to the
   parts, while Chaos Theory refers to periodicity as a time period between fluctuations of chaos and
   order (Overman, 1996).
   Chaos Theory – Another Perspective
   Another perspective on Chaos Theory becomes evident and is observable when one visits
   some of the major cities in the world, particularly some of the major cities in developing or
   undeveloped countries. As one of the authors of this article explains (Cangemi et al., 1999),
   “Having resided outside the United Sates for more than a half dozen years and traveling to more
   than 40 countries in the last 30 years, living first hand within an environment encapsulated by
   apparent chaos is indeed a stymieing experience – stifling as well. But a closer look and deeper
   analysis of what is actually occurring will be surprising, if not shocking, to the unanointed,
   unwary observer.”
   Upon observation, in any one of a dozen cities or urban centers in Latin America, for
   example, chaos seems apparent everywhere. Drivers often stay on the wrong side of the road –
   deliberately pass on hills, do not stop for red lights, park in ways that are truly obstructing –
   besides obstructing traffic; stores often open and close when they wish, owners often take
   holidays when they desire, prices are often volatile, directions are often inaccurate (if not outright
   wrong), maps can be erroneous, offices of important individuals are often not where they are
   supposed to be; and, if they are, the occupants who are supposed to be in them somehow never
   seem to be there. One is sent from office to office, from one direction to another, with people
   being shuffled around like cards, getting little accomplished and usually giving up with perhaps a
   sigh under their breath, “Es come debe ser,” (“This is the way it’s supposed to be.”) or “Es lo que
   quiere Dios.” (“This is God’s will.”).
   Most people in these circumstances simply give up. Their complaints and ideas get
   nowhere – go nowhere. They learn to suffer in silence, to go without and, in the end, they do
   nothing. All this chaos, all this movement, all the running around, all the “He’s/she’s not in
   today.” “You’re in the wrong office.” “We don’t do this anymore.” “Come back later.” “You’re
   too late.” “We don’t have any.” “We can’t do anything about that.”…only serve to dishearten the
   vast majority of the people who end up doing nothing – and, unfortunately, even often thinking
   nothing. Not much gets done.
   This is the way it is supposed to be. This is the way it was designed to be. To some
   significant degree, this was planned; or, if not planned initially, over time it developed to function
   exactly as the chaotic system functions today. There is little or no effort to move the chaotic
   system out of its current chaotic state. Keeping it the way it is, resisting restructuring, or fighting
   change, is no doubt a conscious decision. When one digs beneath the surface of all this chaos and
   confusion, then one may see, learn, and perceive all of this as quite desirable with respect to a
   very small fraction of the population who hold the power and authority in each particular society
   where the chaos exists. Therefore, it permits them incredible latitude, unimaginable liberties,
   unchallenged rights and privileges, unquestioned authority, an opportunity on a scale unattainable
   to the vast majority of citizens, and the availability and utilization of the country’s assets and
   resources.
   They never need to deal with the chaos of airports, immigration, customs, police,
   inspectors, etc. They are whisked through without their bags ever likely to be opened. They often
   have access to and even control the very personnel others rarely get to see; many times they are
   relatives. They know the system because they own the system. They know the combination to the
   system; they have the network to get what they want when they want it. There is no chaos for
   them. They know where the order is and know how to use it. Resisting change is in this group’s
   best interest. This privileged group may comprise less than one-tenth to one-quarter of one
   percent of the society in a developing or underdeveloped country. Such chaos keeps the
   population at bay, usually ignorant, allowing this thimbleful of people virtually total control of a
   society and its resources. In one of the underdeveloped countries currently more than 50% of its
   millions of citizens are still basically illiterate. Only a few people control this society, and they
   virtually own everything significant. The chaos experienced by the masses keeps them at bay –
   impedes the development of leaders who can challenge the system and change the chaos. Many
   times, should a competitor or a leader arise from the masses who might be clever enough to use
   the system for his or own advancement, he or she might be tolerated for only a while. In a recent
   case of just such an occurrence in an underdeveloped nation controlled by a few – very few – an
   up and coming successful business leader was advised to leave the country. He decided to defy
   the “in” group (the ruling class) and stay, and he continued to use the system for his own benefit
   quite successfully – unusual in this society –and, out of the chaos, came an allegation and
   indictment accusing him of embezzling the state out of millions of dollars. The interloper
   currently is in jail serving a multi-year sentence for “embezzlement”.
   He was able to use the chaos to his advantage. The advantaged few warned him and,
   apparently, decided to teach him and others, who perhaps were thinking of following in his
   footsteps, a crucial lesson. In short, chaos in these societies is, in one way or another,
   undoubtedly going to be continued. It is desirable for those who control, for those who have
   authority within the chaos.
   If one analyzes carefully and cuts through the layers and labyrinth of obstacles and dead
   ends, one would find order indeed exists. For example, the senior author of this article (Joseph
   Cangemi) developed some serious passport problems while crossing the border between
   Colombia and Venezuela (at the border cities of Cucuta, Colombia, and San Antonio, Venezuela).
   An important stamp was missing from the passport, which was discovered too late to correct.
   Military personnel, searching all vehicles, came to the taxi in which he was riding to the airport in
   San Antonio (a few miles from the Colombian border) and asked to see his passport. After
   examining his documents he was ordered out of the taxi at gunpoint, ordered to go back to
   Colombia, but instead found a hotel at the border and looked for help. None could be found. He
   waited three days in the hotel, seeking assistance until he could call a “friend” of the governor of
   the state in which San Antonio was located, who then called the governor, who got hold of the
   military and within a short period of time an aide was sent to the hotel to retrieve his passport.
   Later the aide returned and whisked him in a private car directly to the San Antonio airport. The
   military had already been apprised of the situation, knew who he was, ushered him aboard a
   plane, returned to him his passport and bade him farewell. His passport problems were taken care
   of immediately by the lieutenant governor of the state where he was residing with no problem.
   Certainly chaos was encountered, yet,, within this chaos, there was order, order known only
   by a select few to be used when essential, when called upon. Order within chaos does exist and is
   known and utilized and open only to a few; the few who remain in control year after year after
   year while their cities become more congested and less controllable, their systems more
   antiquated while their populations languish for more adequate roads and housing, better nutrition,
   and improved life changes. Try to change all of this and observe what often happens: the military
   is called out of their barracks, tanks begin to roll, houses are searched, people are exiled – or
   disappear, or “death squads” take matters into their own hands. So, chaos is the way it is, the way
   it is supposed to be, for the masses in these societies (Cangemi & Kowalski, 1983).
   Catastrophic Theory
   When two entities, separated by symbolic artifacts such as labels (management and
   employees) and separated by space (management offices, employees on the line) and possibly
   even separated by time (day and night shifts), communicating with one another often becomes
   entangled with elements of what is unknown. Consequently, individuals in organizations rely on
   expectations of reality, certainty, and simple causality. Payne, Kohler, Cangemi, and Fuqua
   (1999) described these expectations as an unwritten psychological contract on the part of an
   employee toward his or her new company, and also in the unwritten expectations of the
   organization regarding the behavior of the employee. Robinson, Kraatz, and Rousseau (1994)
   believed violation of these expectations eroded the relationship and the belief system of the
   reciprocal obligations in organizations when one party perceived the other had violated their
   agreement.
   Violations of these expectations by the employer may not only affect what the employee
   believes the organization owes him or her, but it also may affect what the employee believes he or
   she owes the organization. When an organization violates these unwritten agreements the
   employee views the organization as no longer sharing (or maybe never did share) a common set
   of values and mutual expectations. When this happens communication breaks down,
   understanding fails, and frustration increases (Sims, 1992). Violations weaken the bond, and the
   violated party feels abused and loses faith in the benefits of staying in the relationship (Rousseau,
   1989).
   Catastrophic Theory is observed in the process of the destruction of the psychological
   contract. For example, the psychological contract is evident on the part of an employee when the
   employee believes the company or organization will treat him or her with fairness, equality,
   opportunity, and human dignity. The employee believes that the employer will provide the
   appropriate equipment and tools with which to work, will provide necessary and appropriate
   communications and will provide opportunities to learn and to advance. The psychological
   contract on the part of the employer often involves the belief the employee will give a fair day’s
   work for a fair day’s pay, will come to work each day (on time), and will contribute to the
   empowerment and success of the company.
   Observations of many organizations over the last thirty years by Payne, Kohler, Cangemi
   and Fuqua (2000) have showed the following:
   Many organizations often start off respecting and fulfilling the psychological contract
   toward their employees. However, it has been noted over time, many organizations “slip” in their
   responsibilities in fulfilling their obligations regarding the psychological contract. For example,
   over time, they make greater demands on employees, often through increasing work schedules.
   Many organizations often force employees to work 7-days-a-week – for months at a time –
   “burning out” employees and causing them to resent the organization and its leadership. The
   organization sometimes goes from an 8-hour-day to a 12-hour-day shift schedule permanently,
   showing little concern for the employee’s health, fatigue or time allowed with his or her family.
   Also, the organization often “takes back” benefits it gave in the beginning, fails to keep up with
   legitimate benefits, or freezes raises for two or three consecutive years while top management
   enjoys bonuses and benefits as can be read about in the Wall Street Journal. Put all of this
   together with lack of training in people skills for front line and departmental managers, and we
   have the foundation for catastrophe in the making.
   The employees begin to feel, with the first evidence the psychological contract is being
   violated, a bit of betrayal on the part of the company. As more and more evidence is
   demonstrated the company is more interested in profits and its needs than employees’ needs,
   alienation between the two parties sets in. A mounting sense of irritation and frustration usually
   develops among employees, then the frustration hardens into anger, which all too often ends up in
   eruption. Employees that do not have a union start following an organizer, stop work, vote for a
   union, bring the union on board, and often explode…strike! During the strike the two parties
   negotiate. After the negotiations are over and the situation is restored to order, stability returns to
   the work environment. Both the leadership of the organization and the employees get on with the
   process of working together again, and life goes on in a rather predictable way.
   The following models depict the process of Catastrophic Theory: Models I, II, III.
   Model IV depicts a return to stability.
   Employees’ Needs Organization’s Needs
   MODEL I
   The Path to Catastrophe
   Explanation
   : The perception of both employees and their leaders: overlap depicts
   each is concerned initially with satisfying the other’s needs – especially
   psychological needs. This produces a positive work climate and promotes
   harmony.
   Employee’s Needs Organization’s Needs
   MODEL II
   The Path to Catastrophe
   Explanation: Over time the organization becomes less interested with the needs
   of employees, placing the organization’s needs foremost. Minimal overlap
   depicts the organization’s declining interest in employees’ needs.
   Explosion!!!
   Employee’s Needs Organization’s Needs
   MODEL III
   The Path to Catastrophe
   Explanation
   : Employees perceive the organization is not interested in them or
   their needs, as they were initially. The organization continues to make more and
   more demands of employees; employees resist. The organization becomes more
   demanding and the two entities become alienated to the point of significant
   frustration, which turns to anger – which all too often leads to hostility, then to an
   explosion of sorts: a union, if one does not exist, fisticuffs, a walkout, a strike,
   etc. Note the lack of overlap between the two entities.
   Employees’ Needs Organization’s Needs
   MODEL IV
   Return to Stability
   Explanation
   : After the explosion, reasonable stability returns, usually the result
   of negotiations, until conditions deteriorate over time again, bringing about
   another catastrophe. Note the amount of concern for each other’s needs has
   diminished, as depicted by limited overlap. The situation now is delicate and
   tenuous. For example, a large southern manufacturing facility, paying the
   highest salary for employees in this major industry in the world, experienced 151
   strikes in 20 years – apart from slow-downs and sit-downs.
   With the return to stability, it seems obvious the catastrophe, quite probably, might have been
   avoided had the leadership been a bit more sensitive and used better judgment.
   Topological Theory
   Topological Theory may be seen in the effect of self-analysis, self -reflection, self
   examination and the result they can have on human behavior. An examination of one’s
   paradigms, when measured against solid logic, or scientific data, often weakens the hold they
   have on the individual and his or her resultant behaviors. A logical and/or scientific analysis of
   one’s thoughts can lead to what Ellis (1996) described as a strong refuting – strong disputing – of
   one’s thoughts, ideas, and para-digms with the result being a modification in the thinking and
   observed behavior of the individual. As a person gathers more data regarding his or her
   paradigms, from outside the “self”, it may lead to modification of thought with subsequent
   changed or modified behavior. An example of this process might include religious paradigms and
   behaviors. Religion relates to the manifestation of devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality
   or deity often accompanied by scrupulously and conscientiously held beliefs or observances.
   As an example of Topological Theory, an individual may learn from childhood that all
   religions are basically the same: God loves everyone and everyone will consequently go to
   Heaven. Such a religious paradigm might regard God as a softie, a friend, pretty easy-going about
   sin. As a person gathers more data about God, through a source outside of him or herself, often
   through religious scriptures or fellowship with others of the same faith, he or she might learn God
   not only loves everyone, but demands perfection. Reconciling the apparent contradiction between
   God as love and God as judge may generate enormous dissonance. As one engages in self
   reflection, self-examination, and self-analysis he or she might discover imperfection in the self.
   Then an individual might begin to wonder how he or she might appease this God who demands
   perfection from one who is incapable of providing this “so-called” perfection. In gathering data
   from a variety of religions one might conclude obedience to God involves following His laws in
   efforts to please Him.
   So, an individual tries behaving rightly, but upon self-reflection, self-analysis and self
   examination, again finds he or she falls short. Angst and guilt creep in with further self-reflection,
   self-analysis, and self-examination, as one recognizes the chasm between God and self. However,
   when one relies on something outside the self to achieve this perfection on his or her behalf, such
   as the death of Christ (the Logos) for all of Christendom, who led the perfect life (we are taught),
   on our behalf to accomplish the bridging of the gap between God and self, a person has a
   paradigm shift and subsequent behavior changes as well. Angst and guilt disappear with this
   renewal, this perceived reconciliation with God.
   Such a paradigm shift occurred in the life of an acquaintance of the authors of this book.
   After years of self-reflection, self-examination, and self-analysis she could not figure out how to
   achieve a close relationship with God. She experienced low self-confidence, low self-esteem,
   irritability, strained relationships and a “me-first” attitude. She made efforts to control everyone
   around her, trying to mold them and herself into what she thought they all should be. Then, after
   reaching despair, and giving up trying to do it herself, she had an “aha!” experience, a paradigm
   shift, a change in thinking. She perceived reconciliation with God through the actions of God
   Himself, through Christ. Once this occurred she experienced behavior-changing attitudes. Toward
   others she recognized an unassuming resonance to forgive, a resilience to meanness from others,
   and this became obvious to those around her in her reactions and communications from her.
   Before, she had been critical; after, she became an encourager, before she had been jealous, after
   she became joyful for others, before she had experienced angst and guilt, after she experienced
   peace. These changes opened up new opportunities for personal advancement and relational
   closeness, for which she recognizes with gratitude the paradigm shift.
   In another example, another acquaintance of the authors experienced religiosity in a
   different way. He explains, “…often a person learns and comes to believe his or her religion is
   the only true one that exists. As one grows older and learns more about the world and something
   about the other religions and discovers there are hundreds and hundreds of religions in the world,
   the idea of there being only one true religion no longer makes sense to him. He continues to
   choose the religion of his upbringing because he is comfortable in it, but will, from now on, be
   comfortable with other religions and people who believe in these religions as well. He feels he
   will be at home in other houses of worship and will feel at ease in any one of them.” To him it
   makes no sense to hold to only one true religion because he believes it develops prejudice toward
   those who believe differently. The nightly news frequently reveals how some people kill others
   because of their strong convictions and prejudices against those who believe differently than they
   do.
   As one zealously adheres to his or her religious beliefs, others, who believe differently,
   often are recognized as infidels and unbelievers, with whom God will harshly judge. Such
   advocates may be heard to say, “They will get what’s coming to them; they will not go to
   Heaven.” The paradigm shift experienced by the acquaintance of the authors noted it does not
   have anything to do with this kind of fundamentalist thinking, “…even though I was brought up
   this way. I’m now going to invite Mustaf and his wife Juda to our house and perhaps I can learn
   something about the Muslim religion. Then I am going to invite Joseph Levy and his wife Naomi
   over to enjoy their company and learn something about the Jewish religion. In the immediate
   future I am going to a Muslim Mosque, and then to a Jewish Synagogue. I intend to respect all
   sorts of beliefs, which differ from my own. The diversity of beliefs is really exciting, interesting
   and challenging. I was brought up with a particular religion and I am comfortable in it, the same
   as others who were brought up to think and worship differently. If I were born to a Jewish or
   Muslim family I would quite probably today be a Jew or Muslim. All of this seems to be logical,
   and all of this makes sense. I will never discriminate again toward anybody on the basis of his or
   her religious beliefs.”
   After this type of paradigm shift an individual can experience an appreciation for new
   thought, consequently providing a new under-standing about a situation or set of events,
   providing a foundation for different thinking and different behavior which might not have been
   possible without a paradigm shift. Both examples help to explain Topological Theory.
   Conclusion
   This article complements Introducing the New Science: Chaos Theory, Catastrophic Theory
   and Topological Theory, (1999). Chaos Theory assumes that there is generally an order in what
   appears chaotic. The examples are third world countries where outward is chaotic and yet internal
   order is known and manipulated by the elite. Catastrophic Theory deals with long periods of
   delay/decay until there is major disruption. An example is the violation of the psychological
   contract between worker and corporation until there is an explosion of violence and unionization,
   which then can lead to a new balance. Last, Topological Theory deals with slow incremental
   changes over time. Thus, a paradigm shift is a gradual process. An example was given of a new
   religious orientation evolving over time.
   REFERENCES
   Hall, N. (1991). Exploring chaos: a guide to the new science of disorder. New York: Penguin
   Books.
   Payne, K., Kohler, P., Cangemi, J., & Fuqua, E. (2000). Communication and strategies in he
   mediation of disputes. Journal of Collective Negotiations in the Public Sector, 29(1), 29-47.
   Snell, J.; Cangemi, J.; Noble, C.; Payne, K. & Kowalski, C. (1999). The new science: Chaos
   theory, catastrophic theory, and topological theory. Psychology: A Journal of Human
   Behavior; 36(1), 24-29.
   Chaos Theory, Deconstructionism, and
   Post Modern Theory
   Susan Andersen, Joel C. Snell
   At times, postmodern theories are clumped together. Unfortunately, there are various forms that
   are not necessarily connected. Such is the case of chaos theory and deconstructionism. The
   authors discuss the differences.
   Introduction
   Chaos Theory dates back to the mid 70’s, as does deconstructionism (Snell, 1978). They
   have some commonalities. Both are postmodern, non-linear, and emphasize the impact the micro
   level has on the macro and vice-versa.
   They also are concerned with the basic tools of humanity: words and numbers. However,
   after these similarities, all else appears to divide the two.
   The authors suggest that partial deconstruction is a useful tool and that Chaos Theory is an
   excellent compliment to the meaning model, conflict model and equilibrium model of the social
   sciences.
   We believe that Chaos Theory cannot stand-alone and that decon-structionism in its full
   extent is not useful or helpful.
   Chaos Theory
   Born in the mid-1970’s, Chaos theory is concerned with movement and randomness.
   Importantly, through a series of attractors, bifurcations, iterations, and related, the world
   continues. It does so in what appears to be a chaotic movement of events, people, places, and
   relationships. New phenomena appear to be “wild cards” and come out of nowhere resonate
   beneath, above, or outside the view of the observer. There appears to be an interconnection
   between all things. It is quite possible the movement of a butterfly’s wings could cause a
   hurricane in another part of the world.
   Thus, even the most robust social science predictive model is subject to vulnerability. Chaos
   theory humbles both the physical and social sciences. The arts, humanities, theology and related
   disciplines try to capture or describe this hard to measure elusive trigger. In some ways, this could
   be the science of the Holy Spirit (Christianity), para (Hinduism), wu (Taoism), suchness
   (Buddhism), and other major religions (Snell et.al., 2001; Setzer, 1999.). Science calls it “flow.”
   So what?
   That is our point. We believe that Chaos theory helps to explain movement and
   interconnectedness, but it’s fuzzy non-linear quality does not do as well for the observer as the
   three models discussed above.
   Additionally, topological chaos and catastrophic chaos may explain slow and gradual
   change or rapid change, but we do not want to abandon the social change models now standard
   (Cyclical Theory and related).
   A practical example for business is, if a company finds a “formula” that is legal and is
   profitable, we do not suggest change, even if the world is constantly changing. However, we
   would suggest that management find numerous strategies within the formula to deal with the
   “butterfly effect” as previously described.
   Deconstructionism
   Again founded in the 70’s, deconstructionism is postmodern, non-linear, has micro/macro
   concerns, and is troubled by words and numbers. Partial deconstruction is very helpful. As an
   example, “race” can be a social construction that may do more harm than help if a person is
   defined by “one-drop” methodology. In other words, many Caucasians, Africans, and Asians may
   have other racial heritage, but are really oriented to their appearance and experience. When race
   is deconstructed in this manner, it can be very helpful.
   Deconstruction maintains that society is a construction by a ruling elite that owns the media
   and related environs and can use language to promote its own agenda. Since it believes there are
   no absolute values, one must analyze all language and ask who is being served by the person(s)
   using it?
   “Marginal” groups such as women, gays, and racial minorities try to “unmask” the motives
   of the dominant culture and have thus used deconstruction.
   Jacque Derrida, the main founder of deconstruction, utilizes the creative play of language to
   break down our notions of any absolute meaning. He shows us words can only differ from what
   they say they are saying. Thus, language is false and can never reveal “truth”. Yet humans are
   symbolic creatures.
   This “emphatic moment” should leave us free of the prison of language; we then must
   reassemble reality to carry on our everyday activity (Setzer, 1999; Pinker, 2003). The very web of
   existence is woven by words. If we destroy words, our active cerebral cortex will find new words
   and non-verbal communication to transcend the here and now (Pinker, 2003). Words that can
   enslave us can also free us. While deconstructionism is good at pointing out social injustice, it is
   weak at upholding positive values to live by.
   If language is at times arbitrary, it is also capable of connecting us to nature, the universe,
   and other people through art, prayer, and ceremony (Setzer, 1999).
   Chaos and Deconstructionism
   Chaos is concerned our words cannot really capture a moving elusive reality.
   However, the theory does not give up on words or numbers. Both symbolic systems are
   considered primitive tools to describe what moves, what can and cannot be seen. A primitive tool
   is still a tool.
   Deconstructionists, on the other hand, leave us hanging. There isn’t absolute meaning;
   therefore, we can only act on the basis of “AS IF”. Language is the way we construct life as we
   go along, but it only tells a lie.
   Deconstructionism needs a new movement to correct itself. Dismantling social
   constructions and collective definitions that are not true or are rarely valid would be an excellent
   contribution to the field. It could also join forces with cognitive psychologies, sociology’s
   symbolic interaction, and general semantics.
   Other Postmodern Theories
   There are other new age and postmodern theories and speculations that may appear to be
   related to Chaos Theory. We do not want the association.
   We can visualize numerous other non-traditional explanations will want to associate itself
   with Chaos if it becomes more well known and popular.
   We believe The Tipping Point (2000) by Malcolm Gladwell is an excellent example of
   Chaos Theory. However, we can see Chaos may be attached to an established field such as the
   Chaos of Chaucer, the Chaos of the family, Chaos management, or any other area. They may be
   valid or not. We don’t want any part of it.
   In the past, Marx, Freud, Parsons, and other have had their paradigms and vocabulary
   applied to numerous areas and, for a time, would assure the scholar of a publication.
   We believe it may happen with Chaos Theory, but do not want to own it. We may even use
   some of Chaos ourselves, but will do so with caution.
   What others do is their problem or opportunity. We will be happy to remain on the
   sidelines.
   Conclusion
   Chaos Theory and deconstructionism have some commonalities. They both are concerned
   with how words may/may not describe micro elusive changes.
   Both came to college campuses by the 70’s; both have a following. They differ in that
   Chaos Theory wants to continue to use words and numbers, and deconstructionism wants to free
   oneself of them. Intellectually, we may have elusive experiences that may cause change in our
   life, as well as the experience of others.
   Deconstructionism then tells us we lie in retelling our experience to others. Well, yes we
   do. However, if we give up the tools of language, we have a terrible time getting from one place
   or experience to another.
   Chaos Theory indicates the elusive moment is almost indiscernible, but we will carry on
   with words and numbers. The quest is not giving up on words, but trying to use words that closest
   describe the event.
   Inadvertently, Chaos Theory may have been described in the past as a peak experience, an
   unintended consequence, a micro-trigger event or a related term. Now the noise of the extraneous
   is being included.
   Other postmodern theories may begin to borrow from Chaos Theory because of its novelty
   and legitimacy. Chaos Theory jargon can help another postmodern theory become acceptable, but
   we do not wish to be part of that, as stated earlier. Or, we would use the theory with caution.
   Partial deconstruction is useful, and Chaos Theory appears to compliment the established
   theories of equilibrium (structure-functionalism), symbolic interaction (meaning models) and
   conflict theory. However, like existentialism, so popular and prominent in the 50’s and early 60’s,
   it needs another paradigm or model to lean on.
   REFERENCES
   Gladwell, M. (2000). The tipping point, Boston: Little Brown and Company.
   Pinker, S. (2002). The blank slate: the modern denial of human nature. New York: Viking.
   Setzer, S.(1999). Whitman, transcendentalism, and the American dream: alliance with nature’s
   government through language. Modern Science and Vedic Science, 9(1).
   Halles, L.J. (1977). Out of chaos. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
   Sciences, May, Vol.437.
   Snell, J.C., Cangemi, J.P., Noble, C., Payne, K., & Kowalski, C.J. (1999). The new science: chaos
   theory, catastrophic theory, and topological theory. Psychology: A Journal of Human Behavior, 36(1),
   24-29.
   Chaos Theory and Game Theory
   Joel C. Snell
   As Hollywood would portray it, John Forbes Nash, the subject of A Beautiful Mind, created
   game theory in a bar. His drinking buddies, as well as fellow math students, were in a local
   student nightspot. In walk a number of young ladies looking for mates or someone with whom to
   pass the night. For whatever reason, all the males wanted the same young lady. He surmised this
   could not happen and that became the genesis of game theory. If we can step aside for a moment,
   the women were doing the same thing. Further, they may have wanted only one male also but
   would have to play strategies slightly varied from the males.
   Game Theory thus had its beginnings. The strategies vary from the most altruistic to the
   most selfish. It can be reduced to algebraic form (Thomson, 2001). The theory has spread its
   wings and infiltrated into math, science, philosophy, and advocacy (Shubik, 1998). The decline of
   small group research from primary group to game theory and it’s cousin, “prisoner’s dilemma,”
   were due to the ease of research into the latter rather than the former (Snell, 1988).
   In Businessweek, March 18, 2001, Peter Coy described and condensed work from Goeree
   and Holt in American Economic Review. Basically, Goeree and Holt found individuals often act
   irrationally, which would sully the game theory premises. We want to quote Coy. He states:
   “Holt says the purpose of the paper was to shock theorists into seeing situations where
   game theory doesn’t work. Without insights from behavioral economics and other fields, pure
   game theory can be a beautiful minefield.”
   Chaos Theory can help game theory. On balance, it would suggest, regardless of the
   motives of the actors (rational, irrational, non-rational, or other), complications about actions are
   assumed. Game theory will work up to a point and when that tipping point is reached chaos
   begins.
   For the purpose of this discussion, let’s go back to the bar of the famed night when Nash
   began his theory. Hollywood has it that the most attractive female (in the eyes of the males)
   gravitated to Nash. Within a few minutes, she was so repulsed by him that she sought out other
   males. Hollywood stops there, but let us move forward. She probably returned to the other
   unattached females and through glances and gestures established a territory and proceeded to
   indirectly pursue another male. Thousands of outcomes may have occurred after that meeting. It
   is likely that none of the females married any of the math males from the nightspot. Each actor,
   regardless of sex may probably marry someone on the basis of numerous criteria. Chaos Theory
   suggests that strategies may still be identifiable, but probably non-rational. In other words, the
   bigger picture is through the chaos of beginnings and endings, most will marry, reproduce,
   perhaps divorce, and die. The big picture or micro-level is that mating occurs, along with
   reproduction, and then the actors pass on into the ages. Thus, through the chaos, order still
   perseveres.
   In the mean time, game theory may catch strategic actions in certain settings and still make
   the theory viable, but flawed. However, the flaws are not enough to put it on the ash heap of
   history. This also applies to the meaning model, conflict model, and equilibrium models used in
   the social methodologies or social sciences.
   Thus chaos can complement game theory.
   REFERENCES
   Coy, P. (2002, May 18). Game theory’s hidden holes: people often act irrationally.
   Businessweek.
   Shubik, M. (1998). Game theory, complexity, and simplicity. April 15,
   publications@santafe.edu.
   Snell, J.C., & Green, D.W. (1988). Whatever happened to primary group? Community Social
   Science Convention, spring.
   Snell, J.C., (2001, December 23). Game theory for a laugh: Nash’s theory explained.
   Guardian Unlimited Observer.
   Chaos Theology
   Joel C. Snell
   Dr. Sarah Voss writes in the U-U World (May/June 2003) there is a strong possibility God
   can speak mathematically. The idea is very old and traces back to the ancient Pythagoreans. In a
   sense, God is or dependent on the right relationship between numbers. In her Mathematical
   Theology: An Interpretation she uses such terms as “sacred geometry,” “chaos theology,” and
   “quantum theology.” She also states the false dichotomy of math and the spiritual world is now
   coming to an end.
   Mathematical theology is the study of the divine through numbers. It has two theoretical
   strategies. The first is the use of science and precise math calculations for interpreting God’s
   revelations in nature. The other is through metaphor of the order of God. This is the hope. God
   speaks through the chaos of spiritual fractures. Voss then discusses the life and work of Georg
   Cantor. He drew his insight from math, Judaism, and Christianity. His former teacher (and
   influential mathematician) Leopold Kronecker heavily criticized Cantor’s work. Cantor died in a
   mental hospital in 1918, a broken and bitter man. For those familiar with functionalism or
   Systems Theory, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. For Cantor, his number theory
   suggests the part may have the power of the whole. In the Cantorian world, incompleteness is a
   necessary element to the structure of a system. Further, an entity is contradictorily sparse and
   many. Thus, there is the appearance of chaos.
   Cantorian Theory would theologically support multiple paths to salvation, religious
   pluralism, and religious eclecticism. It may also suggest that God is both the personal and
   anthroporphic God and the Over-soul of Eastern religions. Thus, anthropantheism is suggested.
   At any rate, mathematical theology challenges postmodern humanity.
   Chaos Theory: Three Social Science Examples
   Joel C. Snell
   To further clarify Chaos Theory, the authors would like to illustrate three fairly clear-cut
   examples how the theory can be applied to real-life society today. We shall look at unintended
   consequences, tipping points, and perfect storms. All are now common names for Chaos Theory
   applications.
   Unintended Consequences
   Lets assume that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone and assassinated President John F.
   Kennedy. We have also learned since those days years ago President Johnson thought Castro had
   Kennedy killed and therefore had numerous agencies of the government and private sector “cover
   up” any possibility that anyone else was involved.
   Shortly after Kennedy’s death, numerous actions were taken to suggest that Oswald did the
   job alone. LBJ attempted to conduct such activities for a noble reason. He feared that there would
   be a third world war if Castro were attached to the murder. Numerous anecdotes can be
   summoned to suggest the Commission on the Assassination and other related activities were less
   than candid and open.
   Without wanting to, the assassination investigation did just the opposite of what was
   intended. Although a war was avoided (an extremely important facet) few believed the report.
   Many flaws were noted and a vacuum was left for conspiracy theorists. Thus, the report and the
   activities of the government shortly after the assassination encouraged the majority of the
   population to believe that more than one person was involved in the killing.
   Chaos Theory is rich with various plans put asunder by other remote events. Thus, it is a
   possible that the flapping of the wings of a butterfly may cause a storm thousands of miles away.
   Tipping Points
   For years, Conservatives argued welfare essentially caused more welfare. Further, this wing
   of American political spectrum generally overlooked the success stories within the welfare
   system and the environment that flavored individuals to choose to go on welfare. Liberals, on the
   other hand, appeared to be oblivious to a growing number of welfare recipients and the moral
   calculus made by a number of women that the welfare system was a better choice than going to
   work, school, or related activities.
   Along came President Bill Clinton, whom people of color and Liberals trusted. At times,
   Clinton was referred to as the Black president. In the mean time, numerous other events began to
   evolve that suggested the welfare system was not working. This included a number of women
   who pooled their children in one apartment in Chicago and left their kids in squalor and neglect.
   Further, PBS ran a series in which welfare fathers were interviewed and described fatherhood as a
   very infrequent and casual activity. Other news sources quickly followed with similar stories.
   Clinton had run on changing the system and when the election of 1996 came he signed a welfare
   reform bill. Instantly numerous states changed their systems so that recipients could only have 2
   to 5 years to get off the welfare rolls.
   Further, once prosperous and somewhat generous middle class started losing annual income
   in adjusted income from about 1967 to date. Many blue-collar families lived in neighborhoods
   where welfare neighbors lived a much less stressful life than the working poor, blue collar, and
   middle income.
   There was a Conservative ascendancy with globalization and the success of Proposition 13
   in California in the late 1970’s. Crime was also rising in neighborhoods that no longer had active
   involved fathers. The family was changing all across the western world, and Americans believed
   welfare contributed to divorce. Although Blacks are proportionally greater in number and over
   represented relative to welfare and crime, whites commit most of the crime and are more
   populated among welfare recipients. However, closet defacto racism had once again become
   popular, so the change in welfare was a popular one. Further, sex roles had changed and many
   women worked. Additionally, birth control and family planning was no longer considered sinful.
   This also contributed to change.
   Chaos Theory calls this “crossing the bar.” Events build until there is gradual change over
   time. It is evolutionary rather than revolutionary. Attitudes and behaviors change. Once a new
   equilibrium occurs, there is reduction in the conflict between feuding parties.
   The Perfect Storm
   There are strategic times in history few of the generation in that time period forget. 9/11 is
   one of those cases. By the fact, a number like 9/11 can be given without explanation is a powerful
   indicator of its importance. It caused rapid and instant change. Let’s review some of the elements
   that gave 9/11 its impact to cause a perfect storm.
6. 
   America is a country that has not been truly attacked in over a 100 years. Where
   numerous other countries endure military coups or attacks from world wars, America has
   seen much of war from a distance.
7. 
   war.
8. 
   The United States is the most powerful country in the world since the end of the cold
   The States is highly technological so an event can quickly be telecast to the rest of the
   world.
9. 
   Technology, if located strategically, can record powerful events in real time. Further,
   once the event has been recorded, it can be replayed over and over.
10. 
    Cable news can now providednews coverage, 24/7 365 days a year. There is now a
    cottage industry of opinion makers who can instantly fill time with discussion and description
    of third historic event. Assistants can retrieve additional information from search engines and
    network files to help fill time.
11. 
    Additionally, other experts can quickly come on shows from direct or remote sites to
    comment or encourage citizen opinion of the event.
12. 
    Both local and international rites of passage and other monuments of grief can be
    displayed and discussed.
13. 
    National polls and local ones with demographic and psychographic breakdowns can be
    administered and reported to international audiences.
14. 
    Legislation is quickly passed that shifts the public attention from other issues to war and
    security.
15. Social change, unthinkable just a few hours before the attack on the Pentagon and the
    Twin Towers, is now not only probable, it is probable.
    In terms of Chaos Theory, all the events taken together at the right time and place can make
    social change possible. Using chaos terminology, this is crossing the catastrophic fold. A major
    malfunction or disruption festers shortly and explodes into major social change. Thus, we end
    with three examples of how Chaos Theory has practical explanations for both ordinary and
    extraordinary events, and can caused both rapid and casual change.
    We believe Chaos Theory will have numerous explanations and the meaning model,
    conflict model, and equilibrium model so very popular and necessary in social science today.
    REFERENCES
    Gladwell, M. (2000). The tipping point. Boston: Little Brown and
    Company.
    Pinker, S. (2002). The blank slate: the modern denial of human
    nature. New York: Viking Press.
    Setzer, S. (1999). Whitman, transcendentalism, and the American
    dream: Alliance with nature’s government through language. Modern
    Science and Vedic Science, 9(1).
    Halle, L.J. (1977). Out of chaos. The Annals of the American Academy
    of Political and Social Sciences, May, Vol. 437.
    Snell, J.C., Cangemi, J.P., Noble, C., Payne, K., & Kowalski, C.J. (1999). The new science: Chaos
    theory, catastrophic theory, and topological theory. Psychology: A Journal of Human Behavior, 31(1),
    24-29.
    II.
    Macro-Level Society
    Chaos Theory and Society
    Joel C. Snell, Joseph P. Cangemi
    Society and Social Problems
    Joel C. Snell, Joseph P. Cangemi
    Chaos Theory and Society
    Joel C. Snell and Joseph P. Cangemi
    Introduction
    In earlier articles we have described Chaos Theory and various topics relative to human
    behavior. Chaos Theory describes how, outwardly, behavior is sporadic and in disarray, and yet
    things get done. There appears to be an order beneath, beyond, or just outside of human
    perception. Theories: Catastrophic Theory and Topological Theory explain rapid and gradual
    change.
    We would now like to apply the above to society. It may appear a conundrum, but we
    would like to try relating Chaos Theory to the original Systems Theory popularized by many, but
    originating from Talbot Parsons in his The Social System (1950). In other words, systems or
    structure-functionalism, describes society in the most concrete, orderly way relative to other
    theories. Systems Theory has some difficulty explaining dissonance in a society. Thus, by
    describing this orderly paradigm with Chaos Theory, perhaps we can relate both Systems Theory
    and Chaos Theory. Parsons’ view of society was that there were “system prerequisites” to the
    survival of a society. They are: goal attainment, goal adaptation, tension management, and
    integration.
    Goal Attainment
    Goal attainment means a society is able to produce goods and services to socially and
    economically survive and create social institutions to successfully create the conditions to insure
    socioeconomic activity prospers.
    However, goal attainment is even more comprehensive. If things get done, the larger
    question is: Do families reproduce? Do schools adequately teach citizenry to be able to “get
    things done”?
    Goal attainment looks at the instrumental functions of a society. All the institutions that
    directly or indirectly contribute to the productive function of the society, so that it can survive,
    are part of goal attainment.
    Chaos Theory would suggest all the systems prerequisites are helpful social constructions
    in that they try to explain a messy world. Goal attainment is vast, as if there is a large tent over
    society and these four functions work their will. However, it is the authors’ opinion the system
    prerequisites are very helpful, if overly rational and concrete. Another way of saying this is that
    Systems Theory rationalizes the disarray, as Chaos Theory clarifies it.
    Goal Adaptation
    Almost every society needs to change and, in the industrial and global information society,
    change is a constant. Goal adaptation seeks to explain the necessary change so that society can
    prosper. As of this writing, Japan, once the wonder of the world, is struggling to get out of debt.
    Relative to issues too complicated to discuss in this short article, Japan is having numerous
    difficulties changing. Systems Theory can chronicle various overt changes, but Chaos Theory can
    elucidate the flurry of activity that both promotes and resists change and all the activity that
    relates to the area, however tangential. Further, pattern maintenance is part of goal adaptation.
    Tension Management
    This euphemistic term attempts to explain riots, revolutions, crime, anomie and depression,
    class and racial struggle. Tension management includes all institutions that promote the
    expressive dimension of social stability. Systems Theory is on balance, inherently order oriented.
    Thus, the claims of various outsiders to a system and working families are reduced, if nullified, in
    authoritarian systems. Tension management can include everything from prisons, psychiatric
    institutions (and medications), entertainment of all kinds and related activity. Systems Theory
    monitors overall stability, and Chaos Theory helps underline the messy activity of democracy and
    social movements of any ideology.
    Integration
    This area means that for a society to survive, all the parts of society (a social construction)
    must know what the other parts are doing. In early hunting and gathering societies, this task is
    highly adaptable and rather simplistic. As we now live in the knowledge society, high
    tech/electronic societies are increasingly vulnerable. The linkage in and among communications
    systems provides more conveniences and yet is more facile to sabotage, or to the vagaries of
    weather and dissident groups. As this communications continues from grass roots to electronic
    interaction, Systems Theory best explains overt activity. Chaos Theory helps to understand the
    incredible angst and disarray when communications break down. As this is being written,
    concerns about computer viruses illustrate both Systems Theory and Chaos Theory. Systems
    Theory can monitor the measurable distress, and Chaos can qualify the grassroots struggle of
    nations coming to terms with a computer glitch that has profound implications.
    Pattern Maintenance
    This is the last component. It deals with the ongoing reproduction of new members and the
    refurbishing of the social institutions. Systems Theory accounts for orderly change. Chaos
    Theory deals with the fits and starts of this change.
    Conclusion
    This has been a discussion of a revisit to Systems Theory and how Chaos Theory may
    compliment the former. Talbot Parsons’ system prerequisites was discussed and used as a vehicle
    to explain the interplay between Systems Theory and Chaos Theory.
    REFERENCES
    Parsons, T. (1950). The Social System. Boston Harvard Press.
    Society and Social Problems
    Joel C. Snell and Joseph P. Cangemi
    Introduction
    This chapter will present a paradigm to clarify that social problems appear to have an
    evolutionary path of definitions, strategies, and outcomes. Whatever the source, social problems
    emerge in both short term and sporadic ways and long term and institutional ways. Regardless of
    the source, configuration, strategies or outcomes, social problems do appear to have a common
    evolutionary characteristic of having a struggle over the definition of what is considered a
    problem, a strategy or strategies for some resolution or resistance to change, and a potential
    consensus about the outcome or resolution (if there is one). Further, this is an application of
    Chaos Theory, because it attempts to deal with disarray. It provides observations about social
    conflict, but not necessarily order or the origins of the social problem.
    Paradigm
    The authors of this chapter would like to make sense of all this by providing a paradigm
    that may clarify and render an easier observation of what is called a social problem. How there
    might be a consensus about a strategy or strategies to resolve the problem or let it be, and how
    elite and masses feel about the outcome. Further, we want to do this for both procedural
    democracies as well as authoritarian and totalitarian countries.
    Democratic Bias
    We believe that social problems textbooks do assume that the readers are American and
    that a procedural democratic model is provided. As an example, if one reads Kornblum and Julian
    (1998), the authors discuss the assumptions about a social problem on pages 14-16. Most have a
    democratic bias, and they should because most of the readers will live in a democratic society. In
    other words, in authoritarian and totalitarian states, numerous social problems do not exist
    because ideology and theology of the nation does not allow for their recognition. AIDS may be
    killing large numbers of people, but if ideology does not permit discussion of this issue, official
    reports will not include it. Or, if problems do exist, it is because of outside forces and these
    individuals creating these problems must be terminated or imprisoned. Thus, a problem is quickly
    resolved. This can apply to numerous other problems. Therefore, we want to make clear that the
    paradigm will include many societies including democratic and authoritarian nations.
    This democratic thesis is also in Sullivan (1997). The author, on page 27, discusses three
    reasons why social problems should be discussed in an international context. None of the reasons
    take into account that a country will not acknowledge that the problem even exists if it makes
    ideology or theology vulnerable. The Heiner (1999) reader on social problems assumes, for the
    most part, a democratic bias. Thus, there are examples of social problems in authoritarian
    countries, but the strategies to “solve” these problems are democratic ones. Soroka and Bryjak
    (1999) do take into account where ideology and crime within an authoritarian country conflict.
    But in the main, there are democratic premises about “resolutions”. This as is should be a given
    to the readership. We just want to maintain that social problems emerge around the world and we
    want to acknowledge it in our paradigm.
    Other Paradigms
    The area that we venture into is not new. Others have tried to simplify the process of social
    problem/strategy/outcome. Soroka and Bryjak (1999) suggested that social problems be perceived
    as tri-level phenomena. Kornblum and Julian (1998) provide a natural history of a cyclical model
    of a social condition becoming a social problem, giving rise to dissent and to the final stage of
    institutional legitimacy. This same natural history is in Horton, Leslie and Larson (1991).
    Sullivan (1997) provided a model from policy formation to closure. He also makes an insightful
    comment on “solving” problems that a significant majority do not want solved or do not want to
    pay for the “resolution.” Mooney, Knox and Schacht (1997) suggested understanding a problem
    is the best non-model which includes a confluence of the three major sociological theories of
    conflict, functionalism, and interactionism.
    Coleman and Cressey (1990) suggest a non-model of interpreting the claims that an issue is
    a social problem. Jones, Gallagher and McFalls (1998) suggested seeing a social problem as a
    synthesis and intermixture of objective and subjective dimensions. Curran and Renzetti (1993)
    suggested social problems are policy analysis of two dual paradigms: conflict and functionalism.
    Farley (1992) indicated a non-model of order and conflict not being incompatible. Feagin (1986)
    offered five propositions of critical-conflict sociology, the first of defining the problem in critical
    conflict premises to the fifth, which is the downward drift to grass roots resolution.
    Snell-Cangemi Paradigm
    The authors would like to suggest a parsimonious paradigm. Its practical value is that
    practitioners, citizens, and academicians should be able to point to this table and indicate that this
    is where the social problem is located at this time in its evolutionary path. At this point, the
    conflicting parties are given some clarity in the heated discussion of the problem. In other words,
    where are we in the evolution of this? In the quagmire or chaos of numerous voices, is there a
    path to indicate that there may be an outcome or a resolution? Or, if we discover that resolution is
    not possible, where are we if we should revisit it in a couple of years? The paradigm takes into
    account violent strategies, as well as peaceful ones; it also deals with democratic and other than
    democratic societies.
    We understand that certain intelligentsia on the Right and what is left of the Left see that
    procedural democracies are really clever manipulations of the elite (however defined). Further,
    we understand that democracy and non-democracy, or other than democracy, is fraught with
    problems of definition. Other than for this scenario, which focuses on definition, strategy, and
    outcome, we understand the immense complexities of the definitions of democracy, republic,
    authoritarian state, and totalitarian society and we will let others argue about these differences
    and the validity of the terms just listed.
    Further, the paradigm does not assume that one social problem exists in a vacuum, but is
    tied to many others. Additionally, we do not assume that any of the parties will like the outcome.
    It is possible that the resolution may have the latent function of making things worse than they
    already were. Nor does it assume any of the etiology of any one theory or theories. We assume
    that somehow and in some way (Chaos Theory), certain parties (elite, intelligentsia, or masses) or
    some other configuration when aroused seek a resolution or resolutions. We also assume that a
    resolution can give rise to other social problems or the initial debate can return in a restoration
    movement. If anything, this is Chaos Theory.
    What the paradigm promises is clarity and simplicity in seeing the path of a problem, but
    not answers to any particular problem. Hopefully, when conflicting parties are in the midst of
    battle, cooler heads can say by pointing to the paradigm: This is where we are. The paradigm
    cannot tell the parties: This is what we should do next. We believe the value of this is that, many
    times, emotions are so heated that even knowing or having an idea about the present state of the
    social problems leaves conflicted parties a little less bewildered and less angry. Thus, we have the
    paradigm.
    Snell-Cangemi Social Problems Paradigm
    GOAL
    STRATEGY OUTCOME
    Agree
    A
    B
    Disagree
    D
    C
    E
    ABC Consensus Scenario
    F
    DBC Definition Scenario
    Present
    AEF Strategies/Outcome Scenario
    Present
    ABF Outcome Scenario
    Present
    DBF Futurist Scenario
    Present
    AEF Historic Scenario
    Future
    DEF Struggle Scenario
    Past
    Present
    As one can see there are at least two options in the definition phase. We agree or we
    disagree. How do we determine those definitions? Polls, focus groups, assessment of interest
    groups and legislatures, or the wishes of a dictator or ruling elite are part of this process. It is
    more likely that we will disagree. However, agreement for whatever reason is probable or
    possible at strategic times in history. The definition is also called the goal. It may be that
    practitioners will begin to see the goal is really goals and thus each possible subset within the
    definition or goal has to be sectioned (or bifurcated) into another table and given a priority. We
    do not have the time in this short article to dwell further into this area. However, the subsets may
    help give clarity to defining the problems.
    All of the above remarks apply to strategy, outcome, or resolution. We also want to note
    that there are unusual periods in history when there is near unanimity relative to a social problem,
    however unlikely that seems. Additionally, we want to note that if there is a resolution, it may
    quite likely give rise to other problems in other areas of society. Reality appears to be chaotic
    with an underlying order. All of this, however, we leave others to argue.
    Scenarios
    A. Consensus Scenario
    Scenario 1: agree/agree/agree
    (A-B-C)
    Definition: This is probably the best of all worlds and the worst. In the utopian version, the
    totality of the definition finds few that dissent with the goal, strategy, or outcome.
    Example: A natural disaster. One may argue about safety precautions, but on the whole, the
    phenomena are so overwhelming there is general agreement in all three areas. On the other hand,
    for some other social problems, it could be that large majorities of the population perceive a
    problem, recognize a strategy or strategies, and have a vision of an outcome or resolution; but a
    powerful force at the top opposes even the recognition the social problem exists in dictatorial
    societies. In procedural democracies, it is possible that powerful lobbies or the elite can, through
    numerous manipulations, give the appearance nothing can be done or is not worth doing, or
    something was done when, in fact, little has changed. One should read this for democratic
    societies as something most agree upon. It is to the benefit of most parties and the outcome or
    resolution is thought to be acceptable. This is a likely scenario, and is considered to be a social
    problem.
    B. Definition Scenario
    Scenario 2: disagree/agree/agree
    (D-B-C)
    Definition: Now we approach something like everyday reality. In procedural democracies
    we disagree that there is a problem. However, if there is a strategic moment in time when a
    confluence of events occurs, it is possible (if not probable) that we can move to a strategy or
    strategies, and we think that the outcome is desirable.
    Example: In the case of Health Care, we may disagree about universal versus fee paid
    medicine, but we will probably find that in terms of strategy, we want board certified medical
    practitioners to perform the tasks and we want the public to be “healthy” because of the
    procedures of the practitioners. In non-democracies, the elite may disagree about who shall have
    medical coverage, but the official ideology indicates that talented medical practitioners cover all.
    This is a likely scenario.
    C. Strategies/Outcome Scenario
    Scenario 3: agree/disagree/disagree
    (A-E-F)
    Definition: Here again is a likely scenario in a procedural democracy. We agree there is
    street crime and we want citizens to feel safe in their homes and public places; however, we
    disagree about what to do with the offenders (strategy) and what will be the likely outcome.
    Example: There appears to be some consensus about incarceration, but what to do about
    drug users (not major dealers), and what is the outcome is not “settled”. It may be that it becomes
    so costly to incarcerate non-violent offenders (we will leave that definition for another time) that
    there becomes some resolution about strategy and outcome. There is also the question of those
    who are so very old or so very physically ill that they appear relatively less likely to commit
    another crime. In non-democracies, policies come from the top and changes are announced as if
    an adjustment was necessary to an already workable system. In the meantime, there is yet to be an
    agreement on strategy or outcome.
    D. Outcome Scenario
    Scenario 4: agree/agree/disagree
    (A-B-F)
    Definition: This is a very likely scenario. We thought we had the problem clearly defined
    and thought the strategy would work, and it did not. However, we are divided about the outcome.
    Example: This could apply to early drug awareness programs. We thought it would
    save so many from the despair of hard drugs and alcohol. It appears it has not worked as
    well as we wanted, or the outcome is arguable. However, we understand numerous
    pathologies are linked with alcohol and other recreational drugs, and the restrictions of
    alcohol and other drugs are subject to debate. In a non-democracy, the initial solution is
    revised but rarely completely rescinded if it violates ideology or theology. In some
    countries, alcoholism and drug abuse do not exist because those with a problem are
    exported.
    E. Futurist Scenario
    Scenario 5: disagree/agree/disagree
    (D-B-F)
    Definition: This is not unusual. We disagree there is a problem, and we do not like or guess
    the outcome, because we do not agree there is a problem in the first place. All we do know is we
    may share a democratic strategy in its resolution.
    Example: This scenario is for the future. It is a social problem that is not even a social
    condition (a problem waiting for the limelight of attention). We are not worried about it now in
    democracies or non-democracies. An example may be an everyday activity that is considered
    normal until a future activist defines it, by giving it a name. Some become “conscious of kind” or
    aware that they are or think they are a victimized group, and scenario 5 transforms into another
    scenario.
    F. Historic Scenario
    Scenario 6: agree/disagree/agree
    (A-E-F)
    Definition: This is very likely. We agree on the problem and we liked the outcome, but we
    muddled and/or struggled through the strategy.
    Example: This may be history. It is a settled social problem and we can revisit it in
    documentaries and textbooks. A good example may be the slavery of African-Americans. There
    is still a minority who support slavery, but the overwhelming majority reject it. We fought a civil
    war over it and it now appears to be gone. Social problems textbooks refer to it in the past tense.
    A settled social problem in non-democracies, they celebrate it in their history books only if it
    honors theology and ideology.
    G. Struggle Scenario
    Scenario 7: disagree/disagree/disagree
    (D-E-F)
    Definition: This is a likely scenario. All compromise, negotiation, and democratic strategies
    break down.
    Example: Thus, some form of war emerges. Regardless of the label or form,
    violence is now acceptable. This means suffering, dismemberment, and killing is now
    thought to be the choice of last resort. It may be done reluctantly or with celebration, but
    it is still carried out. It is a likely scenario that is sometimes called civil war, insurgency,
    rebellion, and related. This example applies equally to democratic and non-democratic
    societies.
    Observations
    We believe that the Snell-Cangemi Social Problems Paradigm takes into account the
    following:
16. The three major theories found in most social science disciplines dealing with conflict,
    equilibrium, and meaning,
17. Past, present and future,
18. Peace and war scenarios,
19. Democratic and other than democratic societies,
20. Chaotic variations among peaceful disagreements.
    Conclusion
    We have presented a paradigm that looks at options based on definition, strategy, and
    outcome with seven scenarios or alternatives. Two of the scenarios deal with contemporary
    consensus and struggle, two involve the past and the future, and the other three are variations
    around the three stages of variation, strategy, and outcome in the present. The paradigm is useful
    for providing clarity about the evolution and possible resolution of a social problem. It is part of
    chaos theory, because it does not assume linearity, origin, or outcome in an orderly way.
    REFERENCES
    Coleman, J., & Cressy, D. (1991). Social Problems. New York: Addison, Wesley, Longham.
    Curran, D., & Renzetti, C. (1993). Social Problems. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
    Farley, J. (1992). American Social Problems. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
    Feagin, J. (1986). Social Problems: A Critical Power-Conflict Perspective. Engelwood Cliffs, New
    Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
    Heiner, R. (1999). Social Problems and Social Solutions: A Cross Cultural Perspective. Boston: Allyn
    & Bacon.
    Horton, P., Leslie, G., & Larson, R. (1991). The Sociology of Social Problems. Engelwood Cliffs, New
    Jersey: Simon and Schuster.
    Jones, B., Gallagher, B., & McFalls, J. (1988). Social Problems: Issues, Opinions and Solutions, New
    York: McGraw Hill
    Kornblum, W., & Julian, J. (1998). Social Problems. Upper Saddle Creek, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
    Mooney, L., Knox, D., & Schacht, C. (1997). Understanding Social Problems. Minneapolis/St. Paul;
    West Publishers.
    Sullivan, T. (1997). Introduction to Social Problems. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
    III.
    Mid-Range Society
    Chaos Theory and Management
    Joel C. Snell and Joseph P. Cangemi
    Chaos Theory and the Stock Market
    Joel C. Snell and Saul Mekies
    Chaos Theory and Management
    Joel C. Snell and Joseph P. Cangemi
    Introduction
    In previous articles, the authors described some of the basic components of Chaos Theory.
    Briefly, Chaos Theory attempts to explain human behavior as appearing chaotic, disorganized,
    and undirected. It has numerous components, but the premise is: beyond, beneath, or above the
    fray, there is an underlying order. We also stated sometimes disorder is to be found and that
    intervention is necessary. We suggested order might be natural, social, or even cosmic, but we do
    not want to sully the theory with extra baggage this early in the evolution of the academic
    trajectory of social thought. Further, we also tried to distance chaos theory with other emerging
    phenomena like post modernism and the like. Additionally, we described two other secondary
    theories. Topological Theory attempts to account for gradual change and Catastrophic Theory
    may help illustrate rapid change.
    Management
    In this article we would like to apply the theory to management. We would like to use a
    relative established model to introduce Chaos Theory. However, we do not necessarily endorse
    the model. We use it as a vehicle to discuss Chaos Theory. The management model is the Blake
    Mouton Managerial Grid (Blake and Mouton, 1985). It is a model based on two criteria, the
    instrumental axis is concerned with production and the expressive axis relates to morale. Thus, a
    highly effective organization is both productive and has employees relatively happy with their
    work.
    Grid: 9/9
    The model uses the upper positive quartile of a Cartesian plane. The numbers supposedly
    have ratio qualities and the span of numbers is 1 through 9. A 1/1 organization in common
    parlance is a very poorly run enterprise, and a 9/9 is an ideal or near ideal formal association.
    How does Chaos Theory apply to a 9/9 Team Management organization? First, the
    organization is not micromanaged. Employees and middle management are given goals, but the
    workers in part determine the process. In this instance, chaos of sorts is assumed. Second, upper
    management is continually monitoring both internal production and external markets. Finally,
    chaos is assumed in that even the best run systems can be destroyed or atrophied if the
    management team fails to change appropriately in an ever-changing world.
    Thus, trend line projections what work now will work in the future, regardless of the task, is
    a wrong assumption for Chaos Theory. Wild cards and other unpredictable events may even
    destroy the organization. Additionally, the market may change so dramatically that even the best
    run business, farm, or other formal association can no longer survive. Thus the assumed unseen
    order that giveth can also taketh away from even the best-reasoned endeavors.
    Grid: 1/1
    In this situation, entitled Impoverish Management, the reader may wonder how the
    organization stays alive. In terms of chaos, temporary life of systems may be based on an order
    interrupted by human intervention. The system may be a company headed by a marginal member
    of a prominent family that uses the company or agency as a way to distribute the federal or state
    largess to local constituents. However, if the unseen order works its will, the organization will
    quickly die, once the favored status is lost.
    Grid: 9/1
    Called the Authority-Obedience, this model is probably an historic model that is still
    prevalent today. If an organization does not have a social charter or collective bargaining, and
    training of new workers is relatively short, this model prospers. Employees may come from an
    area where other work opportunities are sparse, and imperfect competition prevails. The CEO is a
    bully and can continue this behavior because there are no other attractive alternatives available to
    workers. If workers do complain, the local police may come in to stop the protest. Chaos suggests
    that if the unseen order is to prevail, a competing firm with better work conditions can succeed.
    However, human intervention may squash the market mechanism, or order is based on
    submission. Many parts of the world lives in poverty and under military governments. We tried to
    avoid the appendages described at the beginning, because we do not want to assume this order is
    benevolent. It may be, but not in this existence. We will leave that debate to others.
    Grid: 1/9
    In reverse fashion, Country Club management can survive in a market where prosperity is
    so great management can afford to treat its workers in a leisurely fashion; or the company has so
    much of the marketplace for so many years the employees are treated royally. Chaos Theory
    suggests this organization, although ideal, is subject to the vagaries of order. The personnel
    department, at one time a joy to work for, can become the department that ends the careers of
    numerous talented and well-meaning people who played by the rules only to be punished for
    doing so. In other words, it is now cheaper to out-source jobs to organizations that are run by
    bully (9/1) CEOs. Profits are greater, and the investors are happier. Soon, there is a collapse in
    cascading order of numerous organizations dying and pushing wages downward. The order
    appears to support contract work, low wages, and no benefits.
    Grid: 5/5
    Called Organization Management, both production and morale are “adequate”. Chaos
    Theory suggests this organization is as vulnerable to change as are other management strategies.
    For whatever reason, such as market location, type of competition, or source of funding, this
    organization survives.
    Chaos Theory Revisited
    It would appear that the winners in the scheme of things of which some type of order is
    assumed, the 9/1 and 9/9 appear to be the most adaptable. If a worker has a choice, she or he
    would want to work in a 9/9 organization. They become loyal to it and seek out remedies
    beneficial to the organization if problems arise. 9/1 does not engender loyalty because it does not
    have to. Workers are treated poorly and turnover is great, because the prevailing system is
    profitable. Working with the government, new competition is quickly or quietly undermined.
    Churches, schools, and other voluntary organizations are recruited to help socialize workers to
    endure or enjoy the harsh working conditions.
    Chaos Theory’s major contribution may be the type of management, in various forms, of
    capitalism. As this is being written, command socialism and democratic socialism are thought to
    be dying because the system cannot compete in a global order where capital can move almost
    anywhere and labor cannot. There is a new socialism emerging based entirely on income policies
    and a private economy. Many democratic countries are also social democracies. Thus, there is a
    mixed economy with a vital private sector and a public sector to provide a safety net. Whatever
    the order beneath chaos, adaptable ever-changing organizations appear to be those that survive.
    The next question is one that deals with capitalism. Does capitalism naturally deconstruct into
    competitive organizations continuously? Or does it naturally evolve into oligarchies and
    monopolies? We will leave that argument and other related ones to others. Chaos attempts to
    explain the disarray that appears within and among competition of various organizations.
    REFERENCES
    Blake, R.R., & Mouton, J.S. (1985). The management grid III: The key to leadership
    excellence. Houston: Gulf Publishing Company.
    Chaos Theory and the Stock Market
    Joel C. Snell and Saul Mekies
    Williams’ book Trading Chaos suggests the market will follow up and down fractals that
    appear to form a wave or cycle in business. Whatever happens between fractals is the Elliot Wave
    theory (trading-stocks.com/fractals). This discussion is of little use to consumers and others not
    conversant with Chaos Theory.
    Therefore, in common parlance, random shocks occur in the market and give the
    appearance that the market is a scary, disorderly place. Thus, it is chaotic. However, over time,
    the market appears to have an order to it that forms waves over decades.
    Some believe this originates from Fibonacci’s series of numbers
    (tradingstocks.netfirms.com/elliot-wave) of five distinct upside and distinct downside
    movements. The eight cycles are given titles. The movements last decades.
    Chatterjee (2000) hypothesizes an orderly pendulum-like wave should be replaced with
    shocks. Although there appears to be a long-range order to the market, outward continuity is a
    misnomer and a math generated series is also inappropriate. The key is residuals or random
    shocks. Further, the residual is so random, trying to describe and quantify that, which causes it,
    appears daunting.
    Holleman (2001) suggests that sociological, political, and psychological, as well as
    economic, features best describe a 50-60 year cycle of punctuated equilibrium. The “great eight”
    stages are triggered by wars, technological innovation, monetary contraction, speculation and
    excess, ending with liquidation.
    Meadows and Donelly (1998) observe economic waves that trigger chaotic shocks follow
    an outwardly appearing order that also ignites or correlates with the political climate. That a long
    wave is observable by computer monitored wages and production values. In the end, counter
    cyclic measures make the most sense in the long wave and the least sense to the political classes.
    Colvin (2000) sees any kind of wave theory as folly, because practitioners reify or
    anthropomorphize events, believing that history exactly repeats itself.
    Insana (2002) makes a practical case of what to do with the disorder inherent in the
    outwardly appearing orderly waves. History appears to repeat it self in an inexact fashion.
    Investors become time-centric and an order beneath the chaotic buying suggests that
    consciousness is blurred and distorted by bubbles and economic mania. The main feature of the
    market is “experts” begin to deny the business cycle. Non-cognitive factors blur the perception of
    the market. When experts and investors will no longer listen to signals of chaos and crashes, the
    cycle reasserts itself. The business cycle is supreme. Production nearly always lags behind
    consumption; excess emerges. The stock market falls. Chaos reasserts itself.
    REFERENCES
    Chatterjee, S. (2000). From cycles to shocks: progress in business-cycle theory. Business
    Review, March-April, p. 27.
    Colvin, G. (2000). The wheelers, the wavers and the star struck. Business Review, October
    16, p. 84.
    Holleman, J.S. (2001). Trading the signs of the times. Futures, September, p. 54.
    Insana, R. (2002). Trend watching. New York: Harper Books. (See also: Trend Watching. C
    SPAN 2, Book TV, 12.10.02).
    Meadows, D. and Donelly, J. (1998). The long wave. Whole Earth, summer, p.100.
    Trading-stocks.netfirms,com/elliot-wave.
    Trading-stocks.netfirms.com/fractals.
    IV.
    Micro-Level Society
    Chaos Theory and the Individual
    Joel C. Snell
    Chaos Theory and the Individual
    Joel C. Snell
    Introduction
    In previous articles, the authors have described Chaos Theory and its application to
    numerous topics. Chaos Theory essentially states that behavior appears messy and in disarray
    when in fact, outside the naked eye, behavior and surrounding reality appears to have an order.
    Secondary theories of Catastrophic and Topological Theory suggest the messy reality the
    perceiver believes to see can be abrupt or gradual in terms of change.
    Chaos Theory has been applied (by the authors) to real world examples, social problems,
    formal associations, and society. In this article, the authors choose to apply it to the individual. At
    the end of this article, in a number of ways, we will have applied chaos to micro/midrange/macro
    topics. We also would like to suggest this is only the beginning. We expect that numerous
    refinements and reflections will clarify the theory in the years to come.
    At the individual level, we use as a hypothetical model Erik Erikson’s Childhood and
    Society (1963). We do not say that this is the only developmental model, rather again we are
    using a relatively known, if partly flawed, model to demonstrate the impact of Chaos Theory on
    individual development. Erikson’s model is a typical addition to numerous textbook editions of
    psychology and sociology. The model suggests there are a number of stages each individual must
    resolve to live his/her life. Most authors caution that these are universal themes subject to
    Occidental cultures. Additionally, Erikson does indicate the downside of these stages. We do
    want to caution that these stages do not automatically suggest a suburban model of lifestyle. Nor
    does it assume child rearing ends as early as one surmises. It is not unusual for adult children to
    come back home to live again because they have been downsized from their job. Further, war,
    pestilence and all the age-old maladies can impact on this model and that is the focus of our paper – chaos.
    Trust vs. Mistrust
    Chaos Theory would suggest that on balance, most children will somehow get the trust
    needed, but it will be flawed; and that genetics, the physical attractiveness and disposition of the
    child, the number of children in the household, the location of the child among siblings, the age
    and social class of the parents, the use of the extended family, the quality time issue and
    numerous other variables will sully this model.
    Autonomy vs. Shame & Doubt
    Most children will probably learn to try new skills, but may be troubled by sexual abuse,
    religious zealotry of parents or overindulgence. Further, the subculture in which the child
    “prospers” may be troubled by the usual social pathologies encountered in third world countries
    such as severe nutrition, poverty, and possible incest. Chaos Theory can compliment this area.
    Initiative vs. Guilt
    Children over the world will learn play, questioning and imagination. This can be troubled
    by the numerous parental, sibling and other variables that flaw human beings. It may take anti
    depressants, tranquilizers, and cognitive therapy to compensate or revisit this stage to move on to
    the next stage. Chaos suggests that even “perfect” parenting can be compromised by genetics and
    neighborhood variables.
    Industry vs. Inferiority
    It is at this time productivity takes a leap upward, unless accompanied by the larger world
    the child can enter when he/she encounters school. Chaos suggests that the “hidden curriculum”
    (those variables at school that can damage an individual) come into play. However, most become
    resilient and industrious. Resilience is less likely in poor neighborhoods.
    Identity vs. Role Confusion
    Ideally, the individual comes to know who they are, but Chaos Theory would suggest
    constant change of the global information society would facilitate role confusion. Tribal societies
    may encourage “I am who?” to the ever fluctuating “Who am I?” Ever moving societies create
    temptations and doubts as well as opportunities that can facilitate role confusion. Additionally,
    the electronic media brings about the early and easy location of all kinds of behavior that can
    appear to youngsters as equally legitimate. And yet, as Chaos Theory would suggest, most
    individuals discover who they are and stay within certain boundaries that Harry Stack Sullivan
    identified as “me” and “not me”.
    Intimacy vs. Isolation
    Can one learn to trust? Chaos Theory would suggest the ever changing/fluctuating
    observable reality will strongly encourage an order to self by relating emotionally to significant
    others.
    Generativity vs. Stagnation
    If there is an order to the emergence of self, generativity may endure because individuals
    are exposed to a messy reality that demands an order to self to survive.
    Integrity vs. Despair
    Can self-respect transcend remorse? Chaos Theory would suggest most people could
    search for a higher power for past untoward activity, atone for general remorse, and (with
    mellowing) finally forgive themselves. In other words, Chaos Theory would suggest even in the
    most turbulent world, the individual struggles for order in the self.
    Conclusion
    This has been a discussion of Chaos Theory and the individual as postulated by Erik
    Erikson. The authors raised questions relative to how the “neat” model listed above is
    compromised by the reality of a constantly changing world filled with abuse, war, poverty,
    injustice, and numerous other family and neighborhood variables. We suggest some may never
    completely get out of one stage or may skip a stage and then revisit it through therapy.
    In the wider scheme of things, humans construct reality and models to better understand it.
    However, the stages listed above can be thought of as hypothetical models or Weberian “ideal
    types”. They are useful for inquiry, but may not endure verification as neatly as one would want
    over time.
    REFERENCES
    Erikson, E.H. (1963). Childhood and Society. New York: Norton.
    V.
    Measuring Chaos
    Utilizing Chaos Theory and Statistics:
    A Commentary
    Joel C. Snell and Mitchell Marsh
    Chaos Theory? Meta-Cognitive Analysis: an Alternative to
    Literature Reviews and Meta-Analysis for the Sciences and the
    Arts
    Joel C. Snell and Mitchell Marsh
    Utilizing Chaos Theory and Statistics: A Commentary
    Joel C. Snell and Mitchell Marsh
    Introduction
    Earlier publications (Snell et. al. 1999; Cangemi et. al., 1999) suggested that Chaos Theory
    is the science of disorder, and that many models now useful and acceptable attempt to put order to
    social life and society (the equilibrium model, the struggle model, and the meaning model). In
    secondary fashion, statistics attempts quantitatively to provide order to numbers generated by
    these order models. Thus, elementary statistics provides the researcher with answers to such
    questions as: “What is going on in the middle of the numbers that have been aggregated and
    ranked? How do numbers disperse from the middle? Do one or more groups’ numbers
    significantly differ by chance from another set of numbers of another group? Do some variables’
    numbers better ‘explain’ variance of another variable when ordered in multiple regression?”
    Discussion
    Is Chaos Theory amenable to these statistics? We suggest that the field is so new that our
    best guess is probably not. However, we do want to suggest some statistics that may be of value.
    Descriptive Statistics
    We would like to suggest “streaming descriptors” might be helpful. Like the streaming
    video of the Internet, “streaming descriptors” provide short-term descriptions that disorder
    encourages. Thus, fractals bifurcate and, after the work of the fractal in relationship to attractors
    form a phase portrait, a snapshot can be taken by placing a numbered integer on the phase portrait
    before a new iteration takes place. The “settling down” is the phase portrait. Numbers are
    generated by a value system implicit in the research design. If anything, the streaming descriptors
    may indicate volatility. Thus, at times, movements in and among the fractals generate more
    nominal numbers than at other times.
    Chi-Square
    Chi-square may be useful in establishing if movement in one phase portrait is significantly
    greater than at another time. Chi-square is useful because as a goodness of fit, it is nominal and
    the most cautious form of comparison.
    Conclusion
    The science of disorder may not be amenable to research statistics that try to bring order to
    non-linear/non-orderly behavior. However, if any statistics are useful, we suggest that the
    streaming descriptors and chi-square may be of value.
    REFERENCES
    Cangemi, J.P., Payne, K., Kowalski, C.J., & Snell, J.C. (1999). Chaos theory, catastrophic
    theory and topological theory: examples and perspectives. Psychology: A Journal of Human
    Behavior.
    Snell, J.C., Cangemi, J.P., Noble, C., Payne, K., & Kowalski, C.J. (1999). The new science:
    chaos theory catastrophic theory and topological theory. Psychology: A Journal of Human
    Behavior, 36(1), 24-29.
    Chaos Theory?
    Meta-cognitive Analysis: An Alternative to
    Literature Reviews and Meta-Analysis for the Sciences and the Arts
    Joel C. Snell and Mitchell Marsh
    Introduction
    The authors will introduce a new method of analysis that combines qualitative and
    quantitative methods to help researchers analyze data when they do not have national random
    samples.
    Review
    Glass noted in his “Meta-analysis at 25” that he could not believe the success that his
    statistical method had, and the number of entries on the Internet that use Meta-analysis
    (Glass.ed.asu.edu/gene/papers/meta25. html). His original idea was to question Eysinck’s
    literature review on psychotherapy. Glass found inner peace with therapy while Eysinck indicated
    the whole talk therapy issue a fraud or a placebo. Glass reviewed the same studies and others and
    aggregated the numbers in the direction of successful outcomes and those that found no
    difference. To control for bias, due to larger numbers in some samples as opposed to others, he
    was able to homogenize the data by using measures of central tendency over variance. Thus
    means were compared with the two groups and were divided by the means of the standard
    deviations or, in academic jargon, he randomized the data and used a “t” or “f” test (depending on
    the number of studies.)
    The whole procedure was an incredible success. As most researchers know, purposive
    samples are often drawn because the researcher cannot afford to sample the entire nation.
    Corporations and political parties can do so, but individual researchers do not have that
    kind of money. Thus, samples are drawn from available samples (purposive sampling) and are not
    random. Non-random samples are used both in experimental and control samples with matching
    demographics and a goodness of fit test used to ascertain if there is a difference at the .05 level of
    confidence. Another strategy uses a large purposive sample and cross sectional design of
    analyzing the “with-in difference” between two demographics or psychographics. Both assume
    “as if” there is a large randomized national population. A third strategy is to draw a random
    sample from a school, city, or target area and assume “as if” it is a large randomized national
    sample. All the examples listed above are flawed, but very useful.
    Glass takes this a step further by aggregating all studies and uses significance testing for
    differences or lack thereof. In other words, he quantified literature reviews. To individuals with
    little monies, one can contact the reference librarian and get, over time, a number of studies on a
    particular topic, quantify them, run a significance test, and publish the findings. In 25 years, Glass
    notes how much the strategy has been used.
    Further incarnations by others have used statistical manipulations to further randomize the
    data, and some have stratified it by using only the best studies and those with the most transparent
    findings that can be manipulated (Ibid.). Thus, where original studies had double-digit samples,
    Meta-analysis could provide thousands of individuals. Further, various controls, different stimuli,
    various measures of outcomes were leveled into a single set of numbers to analyze by a “t” test.
    Last, all studies that may have had nominal or ordinal qualities were treated as interval or ratio
    data and hard number theory were assumed. Meta-analysis gave individual researchers with little
    or no grant money a chance to compete with large research institutions.
    Glass defended his method with exuberance, but did admit that Meta-analysis was not as
    robust as a large national random sample. He indicated, “Moreover, the typical Meta-analysis
    virtually never meets the condition of probabilistic sampling of a population.” (Ibid.) To make
    this clearer to some, in a national presidential election Meta-analysis would take all the
    candidates primary wins and losses, aggregate and randomize them and predict the winner. On
    the other hand, the two major political parties would have a large random sample that would keep
    interviewing and continuously sample up to Election Day. In other words, Meta-analysis is now a
    legitimate tool in research analysis but is not superior or equivalent to a national random sample.
    There are numerous criticism of Meta-analysis that deal with the lack of randomness, the
    leveling of research procedures, and related issues. This is where we would like to introduce a
    new research strategy that may be applicable to the hard sciences, soft sciences and the arts. Our
    position prior to this presentation is that randomized samples take precedence over Meta-analysis
    and if the researcher wants to use Meta-analysis, we support that alternative. However, if the
    academician is uneasy with Meta-analysis, we suggest a less robust but more defensible method.
    We call it Meta-cognitive analysis. It is another strategy that quantifies literature reviews.
    Methodology
    Meta-cognitive analysis recognizes that, in the literature review on a particular topic, 1.
    Numerous samples of varying randomness will be used, 2. Various research designs will be
    maintained, 3. Different statistical tests will be used, 4. Outcomes will be reported differently.
    However, the results will be cognitively assessed as in content analysis.
    In our procedure, we first look to see if there is any particular bias or prejudice. If so, we
    stratify and leave them out. Second, if a study is methodologically flawed but some how gets
    published, we do not include the study. Third, some studies have no difference in their findings
    and are published in less prestigious journals; we most surely want to report those findings.
    Thus, step 1 is to use that which are, to the best of our knowledge, legitimate, defensible
    studies. Step 2, we look cognitively at the outcomes, rather than in Meta-analysis the numbers.
    Thus, if there are differences we place them in one cell (the upper left hand) of a 2 x 2 table. Step
    3, if no differences are discovered they are placed in the upper right hand corner. In step 4, all the
    studies from literature review are added and divided by two.
    As examples, if there are 40 studies, the bottom left hand cell will have 20 and the bottom
    right will have 20. The bottom 2 cells represent chance (based on simple probability, not
    sequential probability.)
    Let’s take a placebo study. An antidepressant that is given to one group with similar
    demographics and psychographics and a placebo is given to a like group. The first upper two cells
    indicate when antidepressants are used; 30 studies indicate the medication works “better” than the
    placebo. In the upper right hand corner, 10 studies indicate that there were no differences between
    the antidepressant and the placebo. The bottom two cells contain half of the total. Thus, 20 goes
    in the bottom left hand and 20 go in the bottom right hand. Do not use percentages or relative
    numbers. If any cell has less than 5, we will use Fischer’s correction, as we are going to use the
    Chi-square test of significance.
    Chi-square is essentially a nominal test. Thus, nuances and discretion afforded by more
    robust, hard number oriented analysis used in Meta-analysis is lost. On the other hand, the
    leveling and homogenizing data are suspect to some researchers who question it. Meta analysis is
    not a salient issue in our method.
    In our example, when we are comparing the efficacy of a particular antidepressant, we
    calculate by using a Chi-square formula found in any elementary statistics books. It is: X2= sum
    (observed-expected) squared/expected.
    In this instance, the antidepressant is “better” than the placebo. How much “better” and to
    how many people? We don’t claim to know. That is the genius of this strategy. It is a quantifiable
    process with strongly qualitative aspects. It is a very humbling procedure and can use numbers in
    a qualitative interpretation of a literature review. Further, we are not opposed to using strictly soft
    numbers and reporting that 30 studies found a difference in the direction of the antidepressant and
    10 found no difference.
    The Arts and Humanities
    Let’s now move to the arts and humanities, using the same 40 cases indicated above.
    Let’s assume that 30 scholars see the beginning of the civil war (on balance) as an
    economic struggle between the agrarian south and the industrial north. On the other hand, 10
    scholars see the Civil War as a struggle on balance over the issue of slavery. We then conduct the
    same identical test, 30 in the upper left hand as an economic struggle and 10 in the upper right
    hand as slavery issue. The bottoms 2 squares both have 20 each. We then calculate Chi-square.
    Historians will be the first to note the Civil War was about something else or there is a mix of
    issues. We agree. That is why a qualitative analysis or literature review must come first. Further,
    Chi-square can provide a 3 x 2 table for other or mixed results. However, unlike Meta-analysis,
    the nuances of history are described previous to the significance testing and it is done in a
    qualitative way through the use of words rather than numbers.
    For the arts, a particular piece of poetry, art, or literature is first reviewed in terms of
    shadings and nuances of various experts or jury referees. Their findings are described in
    qualitative ways. All the virtues of the arts are on display. The panel judges the interplay of
    idiosyncrasies that make one piece of art qualitatively different and perhaps superior. And, not all
    panel members are equal. Chi-square can take that into account, but cannot do so without a
    doubling of the weight of a particular panel member. This weighting is very subjective, but
    permissible.
    Thus, a panel reviews a new poem; 30 members find it (on balance) a great work of art, the
    other 10 find it not very favorable. The researcher or researchers can make that qualitative
    judgment combined with a quantitative analysis. This procedure can also be used for popular
    culture.
    The Physical Sciences
    The hard physical sciences may need this the least, but it is still usable. In the literature
    review a particular topic is analyzed. A hard physical science researcher without the benefit of a
    lab and considerable money to run it may find Meta-cognitive analysis useful by aggregating the
    literature review in terms of differences versus no difference. Thus, the researcher may find a
    publishable article and a new insight into physical phenomena.
    Summary and Conclusion
    The authors have reviewed three previous strategies to assess viability of a finding in the
    natural world. The first is a literature review, the second is Meta-analysis, and the third is to draw
    a random national sample and test an hypothesis. We suggest a fourth strategy. We call it Meta
    cognitive analysis. It may be equivalent to literature review and Meta-analysis, but inferior to
    random sampling/hypothesis testing. Our strategy is to quantify literature reviews in a more
    humble, but more defensible way. We collapse literature reviews into difference versus no
    differences, or favorable/other than favorable responses. We then test this relative to chance with
    a Chi-square test and assume “as if” we have a random national sample.
    Meta-cognitive analysis may apply to the arts and humanities, social sciences, and the hard
    physical sciences. Thus, it is applicable to Chaos Theory. In terms of findings, the strategy levels
    the playing field for those without large grant money and research teams to gather original data
    and test hypothesis. We believe our strategy is less robust than original sampling, but may be
    equivalent to literature reviews and Meta-analysis in terms of defining a problem and is superior
    to Meta-analysis in that we do not level strategies, numbers, and classifications and related.
    REFERENCES
    Glass.ed.asu.edu/gene/papers/meta25.html
    Kirsch, I. (1998). Listening to prozac but hearing placebo: a meta-analysis of antidepressant
    medications. Prevention and Treatment, Vol. 1, Article 2.
    Butler, L. (1998). Prozac and placebo: there is a pony in there somewhere. Prevention and
    Treatment, Vol. 1, Article 3.
    Raeburn, P. (2002). Not enough patients? don’t do the study. Businessweek, October, 20th,
    pp.143-144.
    VI.
    Chaos Theory – Final Observations/Conclusion
    Joel C. Snell and Joseph P. Cangemi
    About The Authors
    Chaos Theory – Conclusion
    Joel C. Snell and Joseph P. Cangemi
    Chaos Theory
    Chaos Theory, as stated previously, is new to the social sciences, but is really much older
    when viewed from the hard sciences. Chaos Theory came to the social sciences in the 1970s, but
    not much was known about it until recently. Unfortunately, it is still rather new to many
    academics and practitioners in the social sciences.
    Chaos Theory is the study of disorder and disarray. It means that, to the naked eye, much of
    the world looks disorderly, but that beneath this chaos is an order; most things do get
    accomplished. There is also a creative destruction of places and spaces that have outlived their
    usefulness in this order – difficult to uncover initially. Old and new become blurred. Some
    insights are rediscovered to be useful hundreds of years later. Two competing fields may discover
    that they are really studying the same thing, but are using different nomenclature.
    Catastrophic Chaos Theory
    Chaos Theory deals with tipping points and how individuals reach a space or place where
    marked changes are called for. The catastrophic fold is the term that can ignite what appears to be
    revolutionary change.
    Topological Chaos Theory
    Topological Theory deals with a Mobius band that acts as a metaphor to mean that change
    is evolutionary, slow, and cautious. Over time, individuals, groups and cultures change very
    subtly to the point we know things are changing, but not as rapidly as we might think. Thus, order
    emerges out of disorder.
    Conclusion
    The social sciences have been dominated by functionalism or systems theory (an
    equilibrium model), symbolic interactionism (a meaning model), and conflict or critical theory (a
    struggle model). Although these three main theories have been extremely useful and continue to
    be so, we believe that they can be complemented by the Chaos Theories. Although they can
    probably be cross-linked and intertwined, we suggest that Chaos Theory is more likely to
    complement systems or functionalist theory, Catastrophic supporting Conflict Theory, and
    Topological Theory enhancing meaning theories. The authors want not only to crossbreed the
    theories but also to encourage research, analysis, and further inquiry into the reality we believe
    that we live in.
    Final Observations of Chaos Theory
21. 
    Chaos Theory is a rather new addition to the social sciences. If it holds up and makes
    wider application to the social sciences, the theory would suggest that research paradigms and
    theory itself is more descriptive than predictive. A chaotic micro-trigger can have larger
    influences on human behavior than once thought. Deterministic models were generally
    thought of as more suggestive than hard line prediction. If chaos theory does not hold up,
    then hard line ratio number prediction will survive. It may be, in the future, if Chaos Theory
    continues to prove valid and helpful, triangulation of research strategies will be the best way
    to pursue the knowledge of human behavior.
22. 
    This would also suggest correlation is generally a better word to use than causation,
    when it comes to human behavior.
23. 
    Further, less robust measures are more nominal in orientation, as an example chi-square
    rather than robust ratio oriented multiple regressions may be used. Or, even better, given
    there is a large enough sample, the authors may want to present their findings in both multiple
    regression and in multi-tabular Chi-square tables. Thus, Chaos Theory is assumed with the
    less robust Chi-square. However, the authors of various new studies will give the readers a
    combination of presentations that will include the randomness of Chaos Theory. Chi-square
    may be less strong, but is comprehensive enough compared to multiple regressions. The less
    discrete measure is more likely to involve erratic activity of multiple micro-triggers. Path
    analysis may become suspect.
24. 
    Chaos Theory is not directly related to post-modernism. The science of the Holy Spirit,
    Suchness, or Wu is still not a hard science, because no one knows when the next micro
    trigger will emerge or, in Topological Chaos, how the entire model gradually changes. It is
    probably post-modern, but it is not necessarily new age. If Chaos Theory continues to
    prosper, many other “questionable” and “other” theories may emerge that really do not have
    any direct relationship to chaos Theory. However, they may claim a relationship.
25. 
    Words like unintended consequences, wild cards, perfect storms, surprises, upsets,
    conundrums, magic moments, puzzles and related may or may not denote Chaos Theory.
    However, the words may suggest that chaos is at work.
26. 
    Although chaos has at least three sub-models (Chaos/Topological Chaos/Catastrophic
    Chaos) this does not mean that other social change models are not useful and valid.
27. 
    Chaos Theory will also have to look at multiple stimuli. It is very likely that micro
    triggers will give rise to numerous other triggers, that gives rise to millions of other triggers,
    so that ongoing change is everlasting. Most linear deterministic models take snapshots or
    longitudinal snapshots of reality. We would suggest the metaphor of some computer videos
    of stuttering, streaming and shifting pictures that are even more longitudinal than snapshots,
    but not quite that of a “moving” motion picture. However, that is the ultimate goal of Chaos
    Theory. It is the capturing of movement in real time.
28. 
    Chaos is suggested by some as one of the great discoveries of the 20th century that is in
    the same league with the likes of Quantum Theory and Theory of Relativity. For the social
    sciences, we suggest the theory is more sublimentary and will complement but not replace the
    three major theories of equilibrium, conflict and meaning.
29. 
    Chaos Theory will demand all the social sciences may want to rethink the word
    “science”. In other words, social methodologies may replace the term social sciences,
    because chaos reminds the observer of the softness of predictions and interpretations.
30. Chaos Theory will, hopefully, become common knowledge to students who take courses
    in the social sciences in the years ahead. This little book of essays is to reinforce the idea
    chaos should be with us for a long, long time.
    About the Authors
    Joel Charles Snell
    Joel Charles Snell is a professor of social sciences at Kirkwood College in Cedar Rapids,
    Iowa, since 1990. He has a B.A. in Sociology (Psychology) from the Municipal University of
    Omaha, M.A. in Sociology (Psychology) from the University of Nebraska at Omaha, and Ph.D.
    Studies in Sociology (Counseling Psychology) from South Dakota State University. He has
    taught many courses including General Sociology, Criminology, Social Problems, Medical
    Sociology, Juvenile Delinquency, Concepts in Social Sciences, Liberal Arts Orientation,
    Sociology of Aging, Sociological Imagination, and Anytime/Anywhere Distance Learning
    courses. He also taught at the University of Omaha, and ten years at Dana College.
    Professor Snell is a Research Fellow with the Arlington Institute in Washington, D.C.,
    since 1991. The institute is a “think tank” that deals with alternative future scenarios. The CEO is
    John L. Peterson, the former Military Strategist for the 1988 presidential candidate Michael
    Dukakis and former Vice President of the United States Al Gore.
    Professor Snell has been a member of the Editorial Board or a Reviewer for the following
    publications: The Annals of American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, Psychology- A
    Journal of Human Behavior, Journal of Criminal Justice Education, Southeastern Political
    Review, and Focus: Social Science Journal.
    Professor Snell is the author and co-author of over 500 articles. He is co-author of nearly
    one million dollars in research and institutional grants from the Department of Education, the
    National Endowment for the Humanities, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Law Enforcement
    Assistant Agencies, and the U.S. Department of Labor and Options of Brown University.
    As a Sociologist Futurist for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 1975, Urban Studies
    Branch in Omaha, Nebraska, Professor Snell was involved in transportation analysis, recreation
    cost/benefit analysis, soil analysis, social ecological studies, social geography, and technical
    writing. Professor Snell wrote the first man-to-land analysis for the entire corps. While a research
    consultant LEAA Criminal Justice Studies for the Department of Criminal Justice in 1975, at the
    University of Omaha in Omaha, Nebraska, Professor Snell wrote or co-wrote articles,
    monographs, and technical reports pertaining to criminal justice along with Dr. Vince Webb, Dr.
    Dennis Hoffman, Dr. Sam Walker and Dr. Bill Wakefield.
    Joseph Peter Cangemi
    Dr. Joseph Peter Cangemi attended the State University of New York at Oswego for his
    undergraduate preparation (recipient of the Distinguished Alumnus Award, 1983), then went on to
    receive a Master’s Degree from Syracuse University and a doctorate from Indiana University. In
    1996 he received an honorary doctorate (LLD) from William Woods University in Fulton,
    Missouri and in 2001, sponsored by the Russian Academy of Sciences, he was awarded a DHC
    (Doctorate Honoris Causa), an honorary doctorate from Moscow State University of Humanities
    in Moscow, Russia.
    He is author or co-author of 16 books and monographs, over 300 papers and published
    articles, and presently serves as executive editor of Psychology and Education – An
    Interdisciplinary Journal. He was editor of Journal of Human Behavior and Learning and
    Organization Development Journal from 1983 to 1988. Dr. Cangemi has been a member of the
    Psychology Department at Western Kentucky University since 1968. In 1979, 1991 and 1999 he
    received the Excellence in Productive Teaching Award and in 1987 the Excellence in
    Research/Creativity Award from the University’s College of Education and Behavioral Sciences.
    In 1983 he was presented Western Kentucky University’s Distinguished Public Service Award.
    He was the featured personality in 1989 in Organization Development Journal, and in 1992 was
    highlighted with Lech Walesa, Polish Solidarity Leader, Nobel Prize Winner, and past President
    of Poland, on the cover of the journal Education.
    In 1999 and again in 2000 he was Western Kentucky University’s nominee for the
    Carnegie Foundation’s Professor of the Year national award. He holds Diplomate status in
    counseling from a number of professional organizations.
    Casimir J. Kowalski
    Dr. Casimir “Cash” Kowalski was born in Poland and spent his formative years in
    Germany. He immigrated with his family to the United States. After attending grade and high
    school in Syracuse, New York, he went on the obtain a Bachelor of Science in Education in 1965
    from SUNY Oswego, which honored him in 1984with its Distinguished Alumnus Award. In 1972
    he earned a Master’s Degree in Guidance and Counseling and in 1973 and Ed. S. degree in
    Student Personnel Services from Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, Kentucky. In
    1975 he received and Ed. D. degree in Higher Education Leadership from Indiana University,
    Bloomington, Indiana.
    Dr. Kowalski has consulted with a number of organizations on such topics as adult
    education, leadership development, teaching effectiveness, student retention and fund raising. He
    has generated millions of dollars for the institutions with which he has been affiliated through
    creative fund-raising projects and grants. In 1987 he was invited by the Organization
    Development Institute to present a paper on participative leadership at the Seventh World
    Congress in Moscow, USSR. The following year he was visiting professor to Lanzhou University
    in China, where he lectured to students, faculty and government officials on participative
    management and higher education issues. In 1989 he was invited to Poland by the Polish
    Academy of Sciences where he conferred with Solidarity Leader and past President of Poland,
    Lech Walesa, on problems of leadership in the Polish economy.
    Dr Kowalski has developed and successfully implemented techniques to strengthen
    institutions through organizational development, strategic planning and fundraising. In 1991 he
    was awarded the Outstanding Civilian Service Medal by the U.S. Army. In 1992, 1993, and 1994
    he was invited to Ghana, Africa by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to
    consult on strategic planning with the presidents and faculty leaders of the University of Ghana at
    Legon and the University of Cape Coast. In 1994, he traveled, by invitation, to the University of
    Suceava, Romania and the University of Istanbul, Turkey to establish linkages with Ohio State
    University for faculty and student exchanges. He visited Universities in France, the Netherlands,
    Japan and Russia in 1993 and 1994 to establish additional partnerships with the College of
    Business, The Ohio State University.
    Proficient in several languages, Dr. Kowalski is author/co-author of six books and co-editor
    of two books on topics of leadership and organizational behavior, and reform of teacher education
    in South Carolina.
    Chaos Theory – Article and Book Reviews
    Halle, L.J. (1977). Out of Chaos. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, VI, p. 657.
    Reviewed by: Snell, J.C. (1978). The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
    Sciences, May, Vol. 437.
    Chaos Theory: Catastrophic Theory – A Book Review by Joel Snell
    Gladwell, M. (2000). The tipping point. Boston: Little Brown and Company.
    Chaos Theory: Topological Theory – A Book Review by Joel Snell
    Derber, C. (2002). The wilding of America: Greed, violence, and the American dream. New
    York: Worth Publishers, 2nd Edition.

Chaos Theory: A Book Review – A Book Review by Joel Snell
Caldini, R. (1993). The Psychology of the influence of persuasion. New York: William
Morrow, revised edition.
Chaos Theory: Topological Change
Lemonick, M.D. (2002). How everything works. TIME, May 20, p.67.
Wolfram’s New Rules
Levy, S. (2002). Great minds, great ideas. Newsweek, May 21, pp. 56-59
Arndt, M. (2002), Simple science, Businessweek, May 27, pp. 92-94.
Chaos Theory and Spirituality: Topological Change
Setzer, S. (1999). Whitman, transcendentalism and the American dream: alliance with
nature’s government through language. Modern Science and Vedic Science, Volume 9, #1.
www.mum.edu/lit_dept/whitman. pdf.
Chaos Theory: Catastrophic Theory Book Review by Joel Snell
Peterson, J. (1997). Out of the blue. Danielle, Arlington, Virginia: La Porte Book Publishers.
Chaos Theory: Topological Theory
Omerod, P. (1998). Butterfly economics: A new general theory of social and economic
behavior. New York: Pantheon Books.
Margaret Wheatley’s Leadership and the new science and Beyond…
Malik, Pravir www.aurosoorya.com/newscience.html
Strongest, S. (2003). Synch: the emerging science of spontaneous order. A review in
Newsweek, March 17, 2003, p. 49.
Chaos Theory: Topological Theory A Book Review
Putney, G.J., & Snel, J.C.(1965). Normal neurosis. New York: Harper and Row.
A Book Review
Ritzer, G. (2004). The Globalization of Nothing. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press.
A Review
Tolson, J. (2004) A word’s eventual journey. US News & World Report, 2/2: p. 51.
A Review
Surowiecki, J. (2004). The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many are Smarter than the Few and
How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies, and Nations. New York:
Doubleday.
The book was originally reviewed by: Morrow, L. (2004). Triumph of the masses. TIME, May
24, p. 78.
Chaos Theory: A Book Review
Gladwell, M. (2005). Blink: The power of thinking without thinking. New York: Little Brown
and Company.
Iron Law of Failure – A Book Review by Joel Snell
Omerod, P. (2006). Why most things fail. New York: Pantheon.
Halle, L.J. (1977). Out of chaos. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, VI, p. 657.
Reviewed by: Snell, J.C. (1978). The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Sciences, May, Vol. 437.
This work is a book about almost everything. It appears to be Halle’s final summing-up.
Mixing sober “realities” with witticism and early analogies, Halle attempts to describe and
summarize the world as we think it is in the last of the twentieth century. Unbelievably, like
Goethe in his time, almost all topics are covered including religion, physics, chemistry, music,
art, and a hundred other topics. However, he constructs his argument logically in this monstrous
mass of material. Starting with the physical realm from the very small to the very big, and, noting
with humility, what might lie beyond each, he builds from micro-entities of life to the emergence
of the “mind” and “civilization”. Concluding with what the mind has created and its implications,
he asks, “Where are we going?” The immediate future appears to him to dim, but from the ashes
there may rise a new order and a vision recognizing the interdependence of all of life.
According to the author, at what seems to be the bottom of things is chaos and each
ascending level builds upon it, in its own erratic way. Randomness, indeterminacy, uncertainty
and its numerous extensions keep building and building to a contradiction. Order. As most
organicists would note of any discipline, there is a transcendent, usually unseen phenomena, that
the whole is larger than the sum of the parts. At this point, Halle suggests that, given the proper
distance, not only society, but also an individual’s life has meaning.
The author is particularly impressed with the mind of the genius that is creating a new
sonnet or theory when the streets are filled with war, vice, and anarchy. Again, mind rises above
chaos. Critics may argue that Halle has started with teleological or evolutionary, deistic
assumptions and made the facts to fit the theory. On the other hand, the author is quick to note his
assumption, state his case, and present a masterwork in non-dogmatic terms.
As he notes toward the end of the work, a mystic (of most any persuasion) feels there is a
flow, a “whole”, a “way”, and an essence. Though man has “mind”, and therefore tension, at
another level of consciousness and vision, one can see beyond the chaos to a grander scheme. It is
like being on a mountaintop and feeling only casual replies from some chaos now only dimly
viewed in the valley below. This is a book for many and all seasons.
Chaos Theory: Catastrophic Theory
A Book Review
Gladwell, M. (2000). The Tipping Point. Boston: Little Brown and Company.
Introduction
This is an excellent book featuring Catastrophic Theory, where a small change in
confluence with other stimuli summates to a major significant change. It was one of a number of
perspectives that comprise Chaos Theory. However, this new addition to the social science
literature explains in social terms how a tipping point surfaces.
The foundation of Catastrophic Theory is that a tipping point, critical mass, or new
threshold is reached almost overnight by a series of events that may not be newsworthy, but
silently build to a crescendo where change occurs. As an example, crime plummeted when
Wilson’s “broken window theory” became popular and citizens of “The Big Apple” became
annoyed or terrified with crime on an everyday basis. Mayor Guilliani used the broken window
theory (those small flaws in the environment) by cracking down on graffiti. After that, a series of
steps to make arrest easier helped crime to plummet.
In Chaos Theory, Snell, Cangemi, and others (see earlier) described the phenomena with
physical science premises followed by social science examples. This book goes one step further
by describing the social triggers that bring about social change. The three rules of tipping point
are the law of the few, the stickiness factor, and the power of context.
The Law of the Few
There are just a few individuals who create change and they can connect with others with
about five or six degrees of separation. These individuals have the sociological and psychological
acumen to effect change. They are:
“Connectors” are folks who know most people who can create change. Their Rolodex is
filled with the change leaders and all the people they know who can fill the ranks for social
change. From a few, one can draw upon the thousands. Connectors can help cause a social virus
of epidemic proportions that facilitate the necessary change. If you want things done you go to
these special opinion leaders.
“Mavens” are the edge people that start new trends. They know the “buzz” and can
facilitate change, but they cannot create or sell change to others. Mavens are obsessed with the
“new” in the social environment.
“Persuaders” are the ones who sell social change. The most charismatic get in the media,
and change begins with a diffusion process to the rest of the population.
Thus, if you want social change, the connectors get you to the mavens who distribute ideas
to the persuaders who in turn market it to the rest of the population.
All of this would support Pareto’s optimum ratio that 20% account for about 80% of
everything. Or Michel’s “iron law of oligarchy” that, in the end, a few direct and persuade the
many.
The Stickiness Factor
How is it that some ideas have more adhesion to form cohesion among the leaders? Part of
the social glue of an idea begins with the discussion above relative to the few who persuade the
many. The author draws from the direct marketers who know in a very short time what works to
sell a product or service.
First is the messenger (the salesperson listed and discussed above). Second is the ad that
creates a feeling that isolated individuals are part of the message. Third, there must be an easy
entry to get from the message to the product or service (which in this instance are ideas). Last, is
the repetition necessary so that the many can hear from the few? Thus, change occurs.
The Power of Context
An earth-shaking event ignites the change. All of the above discussed is boiling under and
is ready to surface, then a President is killed, or two airplanes deliberately ram and destroy
prominent buildings in New York City, or a whole fleet of ships is destroyed in a surprise attack
in the harbor called Pearl.
In reverse fashion, a hapless subway rider shoots four young men who are trying to mug
him on the New York City subway. Say the name Bernie Goetz and even twenty years later eyes
will light up. He is the guy who temporarily went to jail while his assailants appeared to go
free…at least those that survived.
Although personalities and demographics are salient, context starts the epidemic of change.
The power of the environment is demonstrated in the Zimbardo study where nice students quickly
turn into brutal people, given the right environment. However, this is not deterministic. There is a
continuum of internal and external triggers of personality and environment in terms of whom
becomes the most brutal.
From this discussion, the environmental and personal triggers give rise to the quality of the
power of numbers.
Sociologists describe the primary group as a very small group that is no more than 15 and
usually the number is smaller. They are the ones that share secrets and bonds in life. Secrets are
traded and intimacies abound. Peer pressure is immense.
Psychologically, individuals can only handle about six or seven categories in short-term
memory. Sociologically, between 10 and 15 members is all the room there is in one’s primary
group. On the macro-level, 150 is tops. Beyond that, few have that much in common. As noted
earlier, 20% account for about 80% of almost anything.
After that there is overload. To repeat: seven categories, 20%/80%, 15 people in primary
group and 150 in work groups. From all this comes social change. These numbers are the
environmental triggers on our character and our ability to effect change.
How do numbers impact our choices and our character to create change? It is through a
diffusion of ideas that go through a series of epidemic curves, starting slowly, tipping, rising
sharply, and becoming mainstream (institutionalization).
Rumors and influence are the seeds of tipping. This applies to shoes, suicide, smoking, and
a whole host of other human activities. Thus, chaos as witnessed by Catastrophic Theory is
presented in this excellent book about tipping and social change.
Chaos Theory: Topological Theory
A Book Review
Derber, C. (2002). The Wilding of America: Greed, violence, and the American Dream. New
York: Worth Publishers.
“Wilding” originally meant that gangs of (usually) males would collectively attack (at
random) an individual for money, sex or humiliation. In this book, it is a metaphor for anti-social
degenerate individualism.
The IK culture is known among anthropologists as the most evil, mean-spirited culture of
the remaining tribal societies today. What they do to others as well as what harm they bring
within the group is beyond description. The author contends that this is where the USA is headed
today.
The book is an application of Topological Theory today as indicated by Snell, Cangemi et
al. In physical science terms, Topological Theory is like a Mobius band that is twisted once and
connected to form a double eight circle. An ant is placed on the band and it scurries forward
going from the outside of the band to the inside without ever making a jump. The band is slow
and continuous like social thought that slowly evolves from one value perhaps to its opposite.
Thus, once materialistic, but generous, Americans have gradually withdrawn from public life in
pursuit of their own loneliness rather than fight the evils of the night on the street.
Thus, in this historical cycle, many Americans are moving from an optimistic and
empathetic society to something like the IK.
What are the components that slowly and in topological ways move us into a meaner
society? The author lists many causes; however, he describes two Americas of wilders and non
wilders as a simple metaphor to describe the ascent of wilders.
Although this was written before the attack of the Pentagon and the World Trade Center
attacks, the short social solidarity that followed these events appears to have diminished. Again,
wilding (the unencumbered, unlimited selfishness) appears to have blossomed. The January 28,
2002 TIME magazine cover suggests: “You’re on your own, baby- so many choices and no one to
trust in today’s world.”
Derber suggests that Durkheim’s description of social isolation and anomie is still pertinent
today. This work has a communitarian premise and looks to a society that is social democratic
capitalism. Thus, there is a balance between unregulated individualism and unregulated
community order.
In topological fashion wilding is a gradual product “of a declining society that is losing its
authority to instill respect for social values and obligations”. It is also the basis of Robert
Merton’s Strain Theory (all somehow want success, or should want success, but vary in their
adaptations where pecuniary or monetary achievement is paramount).
Derber then describes wilding at various levels. His first is popular culture and everyday
life. Wilding in this dimension  everyone cheats. Additionally the media encourages it! In the
mean time, consumers are continually tempted with things they do not necessarily need and the
economy has bifurcated. The top 20% made the most economic gains since the 1970s and the
bottom 80% have stagnated. Thus, there has been a credit card mania slipping the bottom group
into further debt. Further, lying is necessary to get ahead or to avoid getting “ripped off”. It is a
survivalist mentality.
Students binge drink, cheat on exams, abuse credit, and watch violent and sexually explicit
genre. The folks at the bottom want to violate the law to get their share.
At the economic level, corporations cheat and abuse workers and consumers. They leave
employee pensioners penniless. Capital can move almost anywhere and labor cannot. Thus,
momentum drives down wages and pushes up profits.
Corporate welfare fosters global sweatshops and environmental degradation. Temping
becomes the norm and immigrants keep internal domestic wages low. Workers become cynical
and become part of the nickel and dime masses. Robber barons return to Wall Street.
Countervailing forces such as stock analysts and accountants are bought off by huge
corporate entities as they become deregulated. Overcapacity is created and volatility is
encouraged.
At the social level, crime is cut in half since the mid-1970s, but is higher than any other
industrialized democracy. It has drifted to the suburbs, national parks, and in domestic settings.
The family is being shredded. Thirty percent of households are individuals, not families.
This is an historic high. It is too easy to get pregnant, to get married, and to get divorced.
Marriages, on average, may last 4 years for the first coupling.
Our infrastructure of roads, bridges, schools, and related is in need of repair and
replacement. Various statistics are noted.
We have become a nation of prisons.
The author suggests a commutarian ethic to infuse in one or both parties (now propped up
by corporate interests). It is based on social democratic capitalism rather than laissez-faire
markets.
The author’s tone in writing is one in which the spiral could go up, but is likely to go
downward. In topological fashion, the events described above may gradually turn trusting
empathetic social members into degenerate individuals, who look out only for themselves.
The non-wilders (those kindly souls) withdraw and cocoon. When they venture out, they may be
like Putnam’s folks who “bowl alone” in the afternoons.
Chaos Theory: A Book Review
Caldini, R. (1993). The Psychology of Influence of Persuasion. New York: William Morrow,
revised edition.
The world is a chaotic place and humans appear to have a rage for order. At times, humans
can think critically and at other times faithfully. When one is a target of mass marketing, the
stimuli (media) encourage the person to think with one’s glands or non-critically. In other words,
this is a form of thinking unknowingly or unconsciously, neither critically nor faithfully. In other
words, this is a form of thinking where external and internal triggers create a “click-whir” process
of survival behavior. As ethnologists note, this surviving mechanism helps individuals and groups
to seek life even if it means following the herd over a cliff. Marketers have learned to short circuit
this perception-action and Caldini is there for us to understand the process and fight back. In
other words, he becomes the Holden Caulfield of Catcher in the Rye. He describes various
weapons of influence and how to resist them in this chaotic world.
Like an automatic pilot partly out of kilter, the following are the short circuit chaos
reducing, fuzzy logic used by us. They are:
“Reciprocation” ― You get a gift in the mail and feel obligated to reciprocate with money.
In the industry, the gift is called “slum”. It is cheap and inexpensive, but invites guilt from the
receiver. The author encourages the reader to accept the gift graciously.
“Commitment and consistency”― In this instance, the marketer gets one to say yes to a few
non-controversial questions. Then, when the product or service is suggested, one has to go against
himself (cognitive dissonance) if one wants to act rationally and orderly in a chaotic world, one
feels obligated to say “yes”. One has made a commitment. To say “no” one must intervene early
in the conversation and tell the marketer what he/she is doing. If one can do that, one has made
order out of chaos.
“Social proof” ― Chaos abounds, one looks to others for order. What are others doing?
One thinks others know what we don’t know and in collective confusion, we go along. Laugh
tracks, shills in an audience, and comments like the “fastest growing” or bandwagon effect helps
us all perhaps to go on a highway to nowhere. The author suggests resisting it by developing
one’s own internal clock or voice.
“Liking” ― It is very hard to say no to someone you like. So? Buy as little as possible. All
of us are vulnerable to the physically attractive, individuals who we perceive as being like
ourselves, who flatter us, and those who appear cooperative. Liking appears to be an orderly
process in a disorderly world.
“Authorities” ― Good people are told to do bad things in a chaotic environment. They
usually follow authority figures’ requests. Authority is given to few individuals by clothing and
titles.
“Scarcity” ― In a chaotic world, we may go without. So buy now if you don’t want to be
left behind or left alone. Scarcity also has a deadline. We can lose some freedoms if we don’t act
now. Perhaps there is only one left and there may be another potential buyer. All of this causes a
“brain clouding arousal”. To say no, the author encourages calm and indicates that
overwhelmingly there is usually more.
To reduce chaos, the author calls for arming oneself from the exploiters. Chaos remains,
but you can still make choices if you know the strategies of confusion and the superficial order
promised from the chaotic world.
Chaos Theory: Topological Change
Lemonick, M.D. (2002). How everything works. TIME, May 20, p.67.
Automaton is the name of an alternative way of looking at nature and its uncertainty by
using pixels of computer building and design. Stephen Wolfram has produced a 1200 page
overview that suggests science has been moving on the wrong track for 300 years. In his New
Kind of Science, he begins with computer pixels that are black or white and finds that if the
computer is left alone to wander it will create most of the shapes within the universe.
The basic premise is that any one pixel is surrounded by different colored pixels, and the
rest is up to randomness. From this simplicity, the computer keeps building and building until
there are contradictions that form order.
What Wolfram is doing is trying to symbolically represent nature. The closer the symbols
become to nature the more seriously science will adhere to it.
The verdict is out because Wolfram presents so many hypotheses to test. Thus, it may be a
year or years before a judgment can be made.
Wolfram is a talent. At the age of 20 he had earned a Ph.D. in theoretical physics from
Caltech. From there he developed computer software that became mathematical and he became a
millionaire many times over.
It may take years to test everything stated in his new book, but if some or many of his ideas
become sustainable, it would suggest another facet of math that indirectly supports Chaos Theory.
Wolfram’s New Rules
Levy, S. (2002). Great minds, great ideas. Newsweek, May 21, pp. 56-59.
Computer Experiments called cellular automata can generate complicated and
unpredictable patterns beginning with simple rules.
Simple Rules also underlie the vast complexity of the natural world – everything from living
organisms to traffic jams to the shape of the universe.
Nature can thus be said to run its course in the same way that a computer runs a program.
Applying that idea can help solve tough problems that have baffled scientists for centuries.
A Review of Wolfram’s New rules
Arndt, M. (2002), Simple science. Businessweek, May 27, pp. 92-94.
“No doubt his most controversial notion is the radical claim that most of what happens in
nature, from the way leaves flutter in the breeze to the thought patterns of our brains, may spring
from the same computational processes.”
“The weather represents computations as sophisticated as anything in our brains.”
Chaos Theory and Spirituality: Topological Change
Setzer, S. (1999). Whitman, transcendentalism and the American dream: alliance with
nature’s government through language. Modern Science and Vedic Science, Volume 9, #1.
(www.mum.edu/lit_dept/
whitman.pdf).
Dr. Setzer* is a contemporary Vedic scholar and in this evaluation of Transcendentalism
she provides a current analysis of a movement that traces back to the mid-19th century.
Parenthetically, Chaos Theory suggests that there is an unseen order beneath numerous
contradictory events. As a theory it is non-theistic. At best, the word often used is “flow”. It is a
neutral term and other than theistic in origin. However, we are entering an arena that may be of
interest to scholars in both religion and literature, as well as the social sciences.
Western religions are anthropomorphic and mysticism is usually called “concrete
mysticism”. God is a creature that is beyond understanding. Christian mystics describe difference
of matter and theism by “accidents” and “substance”. Jews describe the holy other in the Kabula,
and the Nation of Islam usually describes mysticism through the Sufi’s.
Eastern religions see God as an Over soul. The unseen is “Wu” (Taoism), “suchness”
(Buddhism), or for the Hindu it is Namarupa or “presence”.
As Setzer notes in a lengthy analysis of transcendentalism of the mid-19th century and
current Vedic (Hindu) thought is that matter and spirit may be connected. Language is part of
matter and can be directly connected to spirit through poetry and perhaps other aesthetic forms.
Language can even unify the chaos in society, although deconstructionists would argue against
this.
Setzer provides an exhaustive account of culture, religion, society, history and the self in
trying to rescue the criticisms of the trans-cendentalists by postmodern literary critics. The
authors do not have the time or space to make a complete review of her excellent article, but
would ask the readers to make their own assessment. She does describe various levels of
consciousness and the connection to language and the language of culture.
Sociology and social psychology’s symbolic interaction may Setzer’s analysis. The self
was borrowed from transcendentalism. The self is composed of the “I” and the “Me”. The “I” is
the special spark from God (the atman) or spontaneous self. The “Me” is the social portion of the
self that is predictable so that the fabric of society can remain intact. There are portions of us that
require us to be group creatures so that the machinery of society can continue. How we vary from
each other as individuals is the search in the universe of a grain of sand or in the very innermost
portion of the “I”.
Symbolic interactionists maintain that language creates the mind and the self. Today, that is
considered too deterministic, because the self has now been explored in the material sense of
brain physiology and the non-material in terms of mysticism and related.
Setzer’s entire article in some ways reconnects the self with matter and spirit in spite of the
deconstructionists’ assumptions that we are creatures with minimal root metaphors and that we
must assume that there is a reality, however socially constructed and spurious.
For the purposes of this book, we wander too far. We want to acknowledge the unseen and
suggest that it may play a part in the chaotic underpinnings that create macro order. It surely is
Chaos Theory.
*Susan Setzer is now Susan Krogh-Ryder
Chaos Theory: Catastrophic Theory Book Review
Peterson, J. (1997). Out of the blue. Danielle, Arlington, Virginia: La Porte Book Publishers.
This book by award winning John L. Peterson is a first class experience in reading about
Catastrophic Theory. What Peterson does is examine close to 190 wild cards that pop up in the
future (unannounced and unwanted). There is even a page for what happened 9/11/01.
Each page has some probable kinds of events like a large blackout, to a computer virus, to
possible occurrences where folks learn how to do out-of-body experiences or UFOs become a
recognized reality.
Then the author takes each “out of the blue” event and discusses possible social and
technical implications and where original sources may be obtained. After that, each event is
placed in a number of categories (impact factors) and given a tentative number on the impact on
society in encouraging …chaos, although that term is not necessarily used.
The categories are: rate of change, reach, vulnerability, outcome, timing, opposition, power
factor, impact index, foresight factor and quality.
The book is an insightful and readable source and can easily be used to discuss numerous
impacts in the future. The possible implications include such things as tools, energy, group
relations, wellness, and others.
Although this was published in 1997, the reader should look at some of the wild cards
discussed and the categories. This includes: terrorism goes biological, human mutation, medical
breakthrough, bacteria becomes immune to antibiotics, terrorist attack in the United States,
environmental war criminals are prosecuted, the growth of new age philosophies, stock market
crash, second nations get nuclear weapons, and related are discussed. It is an excellent book for
the Chaos Theory library and is an excellent resource in Catastrophic Theory and its related
components.
Chaos Theory: Topological Theory
Omerod, P. (1998). Butterfly economics: A new general theory of social and economic behavior.
New York: Pantheon Books.
Butterfly economics means that little things mean a lot economically. No matter how you
measure it, human behavior has a random quality to it, and yet, order generally prevails. Omerod
applies “Chaos Theory” to voting patterns, marriage, divorce, and even to crime. Conventional
economic models remain flawed. Why one technology out competes another is sometimes
random and not easily understood. Economics should move slightly away from the hard sciences
and move more toward social factors.
Margaret Wheatley’s Leadership and the New Science and Beyond…
Pravir, Malik
www.aurosoorya.com/newscience.html
This is a fairly complete analysis of Margaret Wheatley’s Leadership and the new science.
According to Pravir’s analysis of Wheatley, we live in a world that, at times, goes beyond cause
and effect. Thus, when social activity occurs, there is a chaotic, yet somewhat orderly, co
evolution of events. One world co-evolves as we interact with it.
Mechanistic paradigms cloud our vision about the wider reality. “It has been found that free
systems have been held within boundaries that are well-ordered and predictable. A chaotic system
over time becomes orderly”.
We live in a “flow;” we may find a way to deal with it, and yet methods become rigid.
Thus, if the flow is constantly changing, so too should the strategies; and usually there is a lag.
Ultimately, it appears that reality has a personality and intelligence. This causes a “fuzziness” that
irritates empiricists.
For organizations, strategic planning should be replaced with “just in time” action. In other
words, “strategic thinking” should replace “strategic planning”. It is more important to react
effortlessly. In an organization it is less important whom one is than whom one meets. Rather than
having an organizational chart of line and staff, it would be better to have interaction channels.
The most important aspect of an organization is looking for the subtle processes and to try
to put words to them so that the process stays ever adaptive. In other words, what did we do to
solve a problem? Can we do it again, but in many different ways?
Strongest, S. (2003). Synch: the emerging science of spontaneous order.
A review in Newsweek, March 17, 2003, p. 49.
There appears to be a spontaneous order beneath and far above the disorder that appears to
us everyday. The author gives examples of how numerous people, plants and animals generally
act “in sync”.
The author discusses how women become menstrual together when certain other females
come into contact with them. Perspiration appears to be the key. Thus, their bodies adjust to those
other females around them.
Other synchronicity appears to be found in traffic patterns, fireflies flashing together and how fish
schools can cause the flight away from predators. Other examples appear in neurons, and even
fads. Fads deal with social networks and “tipping strategies”.
Chaos Theory: Topological Theory
A Book Review
Putney, G.J., & Snell, J.C.(1965). Normal neurosis. New York: Harper and Row.
We revisit this social science best seller of many years ago. The original ideas came not
only from the authors, but also G.A. “Bob” Young, M.D. One of the authors (jcs), along with an
illustrious group would listen and interact with his psychiatric heresies. His position was that
growth came from inside and connected with environmental triggers through the mechanism of
projection. The group included a talk show host from Kansas City, an Anglican priest, a high
school principal, and a cattleman from a western state.
We listened and talked about the issues discussed in this book. Incidentally, the time of
these meetings was about the same era as Girl Interrupted. The difference is that most would
grow and the emphasis was that medication for depression was important, but the other major
consideration was how to grow and how to live in everyday society.
What is attractive to the authors about this book is that Normal Neurosis describes at the
end, the “downward spiral”. Most would probably agree with this position but for different
reasons and interpretations.
The basic premise is that we chase after the very things that we probably don’t want and
project onto others that we should want them. Further, we act in ways that are probably not
nurturing to others or ourselves. Americans are driven.
The Putneys describe this in ways that are topological, indirect, and evolutionary in
content. We drift downward out of search for indirect self-acceptance.
The goal was autonomy. However, we know now that this issue is not enough. We are still
citizens of the world and not “unencumbered selves”. Thus, we are interconnected and there are
certain “habits of the heart” that we should conduct even in the large post modern, global
information society.
Without some commutarian ethic, we become a dust heap of social isolates, adrift in
a wider world.
A Book Review
Ritzer, G. (2004). The globalization of nothing. Thousand Oaks : Pine Forge Press.
Mystic Pizza is a small Ma & Pa pizzeria in Mystic, Connecticut. There is only one in the
country. Mystic has a wonderful pizza with secret ingredients. There are three waitresses of
whom all the locals know and have an ongoing relationship. In fact, one of the three looks a lot
like the movie star Julia Roberts.
The establishment has been in its original site since forever. It has been passed down by
generations. The restaurants exterior and interior have changed little over the years, but it is
attractive and well maintained. The family restaurant attracts folks from many parts of New
England because of the good food and the tradition and lore attached to the food retailer. It takes
a while to get the pizza, but it tastes so good and the tipping is quite good for a place of this
stature. The Mystic chamber of commerce includes Mystic pizza in its promotions. Pizza Hut is
also in Mystic. There are hundreds of such restaurants owned by somebody or a group of some
bodies that live faraway. The corporation somewhere standardizes the pizza and they may make
some regional changes to suit customers in a particular local. All the “help” wear the same
uniform and the turn over is considerable. If you have seen one Pizza Hut, you have seen them
all.
That is an overstatement but there is a lot of truth to that remark. It is serves pizzas in a
hurry and they taste damn good. The menu is developed in one part of the country; the ingredients
are transported from another part of the county from the Pizza Hut factory to the local retailer.
Business procedures are standardized. If the site is not profitable, the building is leveled and sold
to another retailer. The Chamber of Commerce has a picture of Main Street; Pizza Hut is one of
the retailers in the picture. According to Ritzer, Mystic Pizza is something and Pizza Hut is
nothing. Nothing is a phenomena that you can touch, see, and feel, but little else.
Welcome to the Nullities. They include that:

1. Central headquarters creates the pizza retailer somewhere else and controls it. The local
   building is quickly constructed or removed according to profitability (and they look pretty
   much the same.)
2. 
   The pizza is interchangeable with other Pizza Hut pastries all over the country and
   beyond.
3. 
   The “help” are wonderful, efficient and forgettable because of restricted conversations
   and turn over.
4. It is not a service (or product) that one remembers and reflects upon. It just works.
   Ritzer does not say that nothing is necessarily bad, rather is a product of his first book,
   McDonaldization. In that he describes the globalization of American services and products that
   extend all over the world. Although he makes a plug for the anti-McDonald’s like the “slow food
   movement”, he recognizes that nothing will continue to gain popularity because it generally
   works. If you are driving along an interstate and there is a sign advertising a Ma & Pa versus a
   nothing, you will probably choose the nothing because you have eaten at them before and food
   and service is probably safe and affordable. Ritzer’s excellent book is a wonderful follow-up to
   McDonaldization. He places in an appendix a heavy-duty discussion of nothing and illustrates his
   theory in a grand narrative using post-postmodern theory. We will remember Mystic Pizza and it
   may continue to survive. However, Pizza Hut has deep pockets and can compare profitability
   with like locations all over the country and world. Thus on going life of Pizza Hut is likely unless
   it is taken over by somebody else from somewhere who for some reason wants to sell each
   building. Ritzer should finish with a trilogy. The first two (globalization and nothing) may give
   rise to Bowling Alone at Walmart: Nobodies From Nowhere. This means that globalization and
   nothing finally give rise to the social fragmentation or blurring of a Nobody in nowhere. It
   signifies that the individual has so many changes and so many disruptions by nobodies, from non
   places, non-things, non-people, and non-services that life becomes overwhelming and individuals
   retreat from community. This is an excellent example of Chaos Topological Theory.
   A Review
   Tolson, J. (2004) A word’s eventual journey. US News & World Report, 2/2: p. 51.
   As Tolson’s review of Robert Merton’s latest and last book The Travels and Adventures of
   Serendipity, we discovered how word usage vary by time and eras of scholarly and popular usage.
   This is the last Merton book before he passed on last year.
   Serendipity is one case of a term that has history and cultural variation throughout the ages.
   It means a chance discovery and originates with Horace Walpole who used the term in 1754. For
   many years, the word fell into disuse because of the intellectual temperament of utilitarianism and
   evangelicalism. Walpole was thought to be a dabbler of trivia.
   By the 20’s, sciences and social sciences were repeatedly discovering by chance new and
   insightful research, which was then replicated and validated by scientific protocol. Merton also
   played a hand in reintroducing this term in American sociology.
   With the advent of Chaos Theory, Snell et al. (1999) believe serendipity should remain in
   the mainstream for a long time. Serendipity is one of the most profound pillars of Chaos Theory
   and the ongoing discoveries such as the recent insight of the use of fMRI reducing bi-polar
   depression. Those anti-depressants were inadvertently discovered in treating tuberculosis patients.
   Serendipity may become synonymous with the first bifurcation discovered in a new study.
   At any rate, Merton may have for our country the first and last word on this subject that he
   “discovered” in his own lifetime.
   A Review
   Surowiecki, J. (2004). The wisdom of crowds: Why the many are smarter than the few and
   how collective wisdom shapes business, economies, societies, and nations. New York:
   Doubleday.
   The book was originally reviewed by:
   Morrow,L. (2004). Triumph of the masses. TIME, May 24, p. 78.
   Most information at this point in history is that the few guide the many. In “Pareto’s ratios”
   20% account for 80% of most everything. According to “Michel’s Iron Law of Oligarchy” the
   few run the public. The most rewarded of a movement are those that win and run the new regime
   or government. In other words, the few benefit from the action of the many. For LeBon, crowds
   demonstrate our collective ignorance. Crowds can bring the worst out in us. When Marx describe
   the masses, they are enlightened when they realize how little power they have not owning the
   means of production (false consciousness.) Pareto also warned that the masses become lionized
   only when the talented are shunted and remain at the bottom. If they are able to move up, they
   can be pacified and no longer will represent the masses (the circulation of the elite). All suggest
   that the few run the many. If they do not succeed, they will be replaced by another group of elite,
   claiming to represent the people.
   Surowiecki, an economics and financial writer for The New Yorker essentially throws out
   the above paradigm and suggests that the masses are generally but imperfectly correct.
   Sociologist may quibble in a salient fashion about the interchange of the terms of collectivities,
   crowds, masses, mobs, movements and related. All have different meanings. However, the author
   appears to use these as synonyms for the “many”.
   He suggests the following to support his thesis.
5. 
   Galton asked a crowd to estimate the weight of a dressed carcass of beef. The valid
   answer was 1,198 pounds. The crowd privately wrote their answer on stubs of paper and
   guessed 1,197.
6. He borrows Hayek’s “spontaneous order of the masses”.
7. 
   He suggests the power of starlings and their collective wisdom of survival by flying in
   certain formations.
8. He cites the intelligence of a big city pedestrian flow or humans reacting in a traffic jam.
9. 
   He reviews a 1958 experiment where New York City students were asked to meet
   another student and where they would be when the stranger arrived in town and did not know
   directly how to find their big city friend. All said that they would go to the information booth
   of the Grand Central station.
10. 
    Scientists all over the world within a short period and without overall supervision were
    able to contain the SARS virus in a matter of weeks.
    This thesis is quite controversial and if it is survives the usual Hegelian dialect of reviewers
    and critics will moderate the place of intellectual legends of both the right and the left. If this
    new paradigm succeeds the few guiding the many may be retranslated into the few may guide
    the many in only certain circumstances.
    The book appears to be a valuable contribution to the literature on institutional change.
    Chaos Theory: A Book Review
    Gladwell, M. (2005). Blink: The power of thinking without thinking. New York: Little Brown
    and Company, first edition.
    This best seller is the 2nd major book by Gladwell, his first was Tipping Point described
    earlier in this book. Some of the material is found in Caldini’s The Psychology of the Influence of
    Persuasion. Further, this author draws on the latest findings and skips over the 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 of the time and favors our perception
    and consequent action.
    One can get an adequate view from many sources, but www.socialvibes.net provides a good
    review. The New Republic’s overview is perhaps the most exhaustive. Gladwell also spends a
    chapter discussing when snap decisions are wrong. However, much of his time is spent showing
    the reader how much research errs because there is too much information, or the 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
    his book…Chaos Theory. He introduces us to Chaos Theory by way of a Pentagon war game
    simulation. We maintain that chaos complements the equilibrium model. He compares the two on
    equal footing. For him, chaos is a manifestation of the psychological blinking. The two
    complement 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 not
    necessarily seen. As John Povilaitis noted in the forward, 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, where 3 represents the large and elusive whole that keeps the system so that it is
    continuous. The parts know what the other parts are doing, morale is encouraged, as is
    communication, and boundaries are maintained. Most of us see that 1+1=2; however, the 3 is
    created by the parts doing their jobs.
    The opposing red team was basically arranged by around Chaos Theory assumptions.
    Certain goals (such as 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 and then back to B followed by S and Q.
    Blinking means that one is directly geared to the realities of the war and less to numerated
    information that may or may not be helpful if everything had gone as planned. Chaos notes that in
    most of the chaotic world, things do not go as planned; if you assume an order, then you let
    reality tell you.
    So, what happened? The blue team with reams of data and communication systems had an
    elaborate battle plan. The scenario was to occur in the Middle East. The blue team attacked, and
    high-fives and jubilation emerged as the blue team started eating up new territory. The red team
    appeared to shamefacedly retreat.
    In their retreat they moved to the vulnerable side of the blue team. The red team was using
    primitive strategies like bicycle riders acting as couriers, and using specific lighting signals to tell
    planes where to fly and fight. The blue team was oblivious to these non high-tech methods.
    Further, the red team sent phony messages intended to be intercepted by the blue team. As the
    blue team turned one way, and felt assured by the frequent conversations intercepted and data
    analysis, the red team went around the other way and destroyed most of the blue team’s ships and
    fighter planes.
    The war was over before it truly began. The red team acted as insurgents and quickly
    learned that a straightforward meshing with the blue team meant a loss. They then innovated with
    small but necessary information and ultimately won.
    In other words, blinking, Chaos Theory, and other non-linear strategies were pragmatic
    enough to outwit the data weighing and the analysis of the blue team. Furthermore, the computers
    gave the blue team the 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. The blue
    team beat the red team in a walk, and the Pentagon declared victory.
    Later, as the author notes, American troops attacked Iraq using the same system that had
    failed before in simulation. Baghdad easily fell, but soon American troops found themselves in a
    deadly guerilla war. In such wars, insurgents (the red team) have numerous advantages with much
    less resources.
    As this is being written, we do not yet 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 of the strategies be used in research. We favor triangulation when it comes to
    research protocols. That means that both the 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 cannot 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 complements both Chaos Theory and Systems Theory. In this setting, Blinking
    Theory and Chaos Theory will hopefully complement Systems Theory. However, that discussion
    must be left to the future.
    Iron Law of Failure – A Book Review by Joel Snell
    Omerod, P. (2006). Why most things fail. New York: Pantheon.
    Omerod, who is the author of Butterfly Economics illustrates how catastrophic Chaos
    Theory works in the natural world and in the life and death of most businesses. For short
    interims, reality appears to stabilize and change appears to be gradual. Then a whole spectrum of
    species and businesses die. From the ashes of the catastrophe, new businesses and species
    emerge. The cause of the death of the last business is a tremendous change in the economic
    system. For species, it is a massive change in the environment that affects the topography and
    kills plants and animals.
    In Economics, one has the illusion with bell curves, ratio numbers, statistical analysis of
    “stasis.” However, equilibrium soon breaks and struggle slaughters most of anything. That
    which arises is an adaptation to the present, not the next catastrophe.
    Companies are blind sided like dodo birds. Only a few survive. The large slaughter is
    somewhat like the Iron Law of Oligarchy by Robert Michels. His premise is that in most, if not
    all things, a few start and then many, and yet only a few survive. If they have enough power they
    then cook or jimmy the system to create imperfect competition. The few win over the many.
    However, Omerod’s contribution is that he underlines through Chaos Theory how the many fail.
    Or, how the many do not grow to be giants.
    We do not live in an even flowing linear world. We may impose order with words and
    numbers, but the order is really not seen even though it is there. Chaos appears to triumph, only
    to give birth to more survival of new businesses. In the end, it is winner takes most. It is
    somewhat similar to Pareto’s Optimum Ratios. About 20% get 80% of everything. It takes
    liberals, social democrats, and neo-socialists to redistribute some of the wealth to the 80%.
    Omerod is proud of Coca-Cola when they changed the “classic coke” to “new coke.”
    When that flopped, they quickly changed back to the original formula. Thus Coke survived. On
    the other hand, LONG TERM CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, a hedge fund, failed. Yet, the
    academics running it kept going back to the same premises. It finally bailed and was backed by
    the government to investors.
    Omerod has little faith in long term planning of any sort or redistribution. We still do.