US Army: werther-holistic-analysis

8/14/2019 US Army: werther-holistic-analysis

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-army-werther-holistic-analysis 1/86

Holistic integrative a nalysis

of international cHange:

a commentary on teacHing emergent futures

Te Proteus Monograph Series

Volume 1, Issue 3

January 2008



Proteus USA

Te National Intelligence University, Oce o the Director o NationalIntelligence and the Center or Strategic Leadership, U.S. Army War Collegeestablished the Proteus USA to ocus on examining uncertainty, enhancingcreativity, gaining oresight, and developing critical analytical and decision-making processes to eectively provide insight and knowledge to uturecomplex national security, military, and intelligence challenges. Proteus USA is also closely associated with Proteus and Foresight Canada.

Te Proteus Monograph Series Fellows Program

Te Proteus Monograph Series Fellows Program (PMSFP) unds researchby scholars who are not aliated with the U.S. Government and military.Tese scholars can be located either in the United States or abroad. Tis

program is designed to support Proteus USA’s charter to promote urtherdiscourse, study, and research ocusing on the renement, development, andapplication o new and emerging “utures” concepts, methods, processes,and scenarios. Te overarching goal o this eort is to provide value-addedand relevant commentary that will assist strategic and high-operational leveldecision makers, planners, and analysts with “outside the box” considerationsand critical analysis o national, military and intelligence issues within the Joint,Interagency, Intergovernmental, and Multinational (JIIM) environment.

Tis publication is a work o the U.S. Government as dened in itle 17,United States Code, Section 101. As such, it is in the public domain, andunder the provisions o itle 17, United States Code, Section 105, it may not be copyrighted. Visit our website or other ree publications at: http://

www.carlisle.army.mil/proteus.

Te views expressed in this monograph are those o the author and do notnecessarily reect the ocial policy or position o the Department o the

Army, the Department o Deense, the Oce o the Director o NationalIntelligence, or the U.S. Government. Tis report is cleared or publicrelease; distribution is unlimited.



Holistic integrative a nalysis of

international cHange: a commentary on

teacHing emergent futures

by

Guntram F. A. Werther, Ph.D.



About the Author

Guntram F. A. Werther earned his doctorate (deended with “distinction”)rom Washington University in St. Louis (1990): having it also twice nominatedas the best work in comparative politics nationally (APSA Gabriel Almond Prizenominations or both 1991 & 1992).

Since 1986, Dr. Werther has taught at our major universities, consulted atthe senior executive levels o multiple Fortune 100 rms and or governments,and—as department chair and otherwise—has developed cutting edge holistically integrative, multi-disciplinary, cross-cultural programs in both online and standardormats. Currently, he is Executive in Residence at Tunderbird—Te School o Global Management, is Associate Faculty (graduate level strategy) at Arizona StateUniversity’s W. B. Carey School o Management, and is a Proessor at WesternInternational University, as well as a contractor to Fortune 100 rms and U.S.government projects addressing senior level operational decision-makers.

Dr. Werther maintains membership with several security and deense groupsin North America and Europe. Most prominently, he is a Fellow at Proteus

USA (Oce o the Director, National Intelligence), is a long-time Fellow at theInter-University Seminar on Armed Forces and Society (IUS – USA & Canada),is a charter member o the Canadian Association or Security and IntelligenceStudies (CASIS), and o the European Group on Armed Forces and Society (ERGOMAS), among others.

Dr. Werther’s current specialization is in developing holistically integrativetraining and assessment techniques or better orecasting emerging internationaltrends and patterns o international change; perhaps currently the most serious

deect within our business and government intelligence analysis capability. Dr. Werther’s “proling international change processes” approach is a holistically integrative, syncretic, and socio-psychologically grounded approach tounderstanding how change happens within and among dierent societies andactors within a complex adaptive international environment.

Previously, Dr. Werther’s 1992 comparative study o conict styles and themirroring management approaches o governments dealing with ethnic nationalsel-determination movements was reviewed as the best work in its eld (Dr.

Jay Sigler). Te book was evaluated, by the Australian Journal o International Aairs, as among the best publications on the subject o ethnic conict thenavailable internationally; listed therein with world leaders ed Gurr, WalkerConnor, David Brown, and Morton Halpern, among others.

He may be contacted at: [email protected] or 480-671-1304.



t able of contents

Introduction 1

Wherein Lies Our Best Opportunity or Advancement inEmerging Futures Forecasting 2

O Mindset and Forecasting Practice 6

O Futures Forecasting: Learning to Stand, Walk, and Run 9

What is the Justication or Such an Investment? 11

Where Are We Going in this Discussion? 11

Considerations or eaching the Futures Forecasting Art 12

Layering the Onion: Building Cross Cultural, Multidisciplinary,Historical, and Comparative Competence 15

Interpenetration: Understanding Relationship Patterns andtheir Supports/Weaknesses 18

Folding In 19

Learning to See Solution Patterns 23

A ransnational Overview o Path Development and HarmonicIssues Under Conditions o Complexity: How Change Happens within Variously Interpenetrated Complex Systems 24

Te Logic o Comparative Social Inquiry: Using Most-Similar andMost-Diferent Systems Comparison 27

eaching Appropriate Iteration 34

Historical Complex System’s Dynamics Leading to Knowledge o Variously Interpenetrated Developmental Dynamics 40

Conronting the Great Divide: On eaching Embeddedness andEmergence or Forecasting Change 46

Learning Animation and Dynamic Path Formation 50

Applying Dynamic Animation 57

Learning Synchrony and Harmonic Path Dynamics 65

Using Dynamic Harmonic Perturbations or Emerging ChangeForecasting, and Other Advanced Applications 67

Reerences 73



Holistic integrative a nalysis of international

cHange: a commentary on teacHing emergent

futures

Introduction

o accomplish—properly, correctly, and regularly—an holistically integrative assessment o international change dynamics, and orecastingtherewith emerging international change (utures), is to demonstrate a

taught skill within a ound talent.

Such a talent cannot, any more than can world-class piano playingor gymnastics, be downloaded, reverse engineered, standardized, orotherwise short-circuited, nor is it the province o the many. Onemust do the considerable preatory work, constantly maintain andupdate one’s ability, and understand that one’s work must be properly

grounded across many

disciplines. Tis well-grounded ability mustbe enolded withina capacity capable o achieving integrativemastery o insightsrom many sciences

through the art-likeskill necessary orsuccess in emerginginternational uturesorecasting. Parto this blended artand science is to seethings dynamically

and holistically: tosee ows and theiremergent dynamics.(See gure 1.).

Profiling Change Processes within Societies:

A Socio/Psychological Approach to PredictingLikely Futures

A Broad Knowledge of Comparative Values, Religions,

Philosophies, Traditional Ways of Relating;

Studies of Societally Validated Goals & StrategiesInterpretations of Political & Historical Reality, etc.

SOCIETAL BEHAVIOR/VALUES PROFILE(continually updated)

Comparative Evaluations of Societies

Reaction of Change Pressures & Processes

SOCIETAL CHANGE PROFILE

Targeted Case Studies of Change

Processes and Traditional Ways of

Relating

(context, detail, inter-relationships)

TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS

ABOUT SOCIETAL

PATTERNS &REACTIONS TO

CURRENT

CHANGE

PRESSURES

Figure 1



Holistic integrative a nalysis of international cHange:2

Facilitating the teaching o such an orientation to the world andto change within it is this monograph’s goal. Doing so, o necessity,

involves discussing basic and advanced issues. Many people can betaught basics, ewer can achieve competence in integrating basics rommany disciplines, and ewer still attain mastery. Mastery at an advanceddynamic level is yet more rare. Tis is the reason or highlighting thata competent emerging international uture orecaster is a ound talent,but one that we can to some degree train and create.

eaching this necessarily holistic orientation to emerging

international utures orecasting is signicantly at odds with many current pedagogic and analytic practices. In any event, the relativelack o holistic orientation and o the ability to reason orward in anintegrated and holistic manner has proved costly in both lives andtreasure or the United States o America.

It is this context o misalignment between need and necessity thatprovides justication or a commentary on the more proper teaching

o emergent international utures analysis.

Wherein Lies Our Best Opportunity For Advancement inEmerging Futures Forcasting?

Since the 1940s, the norms o scientic analytic practice within thehumane sciences, international aairs among them, have increasingly

tended toward the more technological and the mathematically empiricalsolution sets: indeed, oten toward building modeling-type solutionsthat seek to apply the methods and orientations o the physical sciencesto the social sciences and humanities. Here, nuanced reality producesailures in orecasting.

echnology change utures orecasting has a better record, butthe ability o models to predict “timing” is problematic (Kurzweil

2006, 2) because “sequence, procedures, and emphasis [must be]exactly correct… [where] a small change” can shit the whole modelingoutcome (Kurzweil 2006, 5). Seeing thereby “patterns o inormationas the undamental reality” (Kurzweil 2006, 5) suggests we ought tothink in terms o patterns.



a commentary on teacHing emergent futures 3

Mathematical modeling and articial intelligence-type orecastingorientations, which seek to reverse engineer how humans and societies

think and change in order to orecast emerging utures, have a decentrecord within some hard science and nancial services applications, butoverall evince a poor record within the broader realm o human andsocietal change orecasting. In part, this is due to the nuanced, shitingcomplexity normal to human aairs. Sot data realities (religion,ethnic identication, political views, etc.) are simply harder to measure;additionally, non-objective biased thinking denes and typies eachculture. Every society thinks according to its bias; not objectively.Human eatures o adaptive complexity do not muddle technology andnatural systems’ change orecasting, yet their orecasting record is alsonot good (Pilkey and Pilkey-Jarvis 2007).

Summing, reverse engineered Frankenstein-like models constructedbottom up to mimic the actions o the real thing have a poor record inhumane and social aairs orecasting, and not a good one elsewhere.

Economics is the social science most closely aligned methodologically with mathematical model building, and it is consequently among themost criticized or its too-statistical orientation at the expense o broadreasoning, or its unreal methodological assumptions, and its numerousorecasting ailures. However, an arithmetic critique is generic toorecasting in several elds (Drucker 1998; Fialka 1997, 132, 194;Hill 2003, 146-147; Fuerbringer, Feb. 23rd 1999; Economist, Jan.

31st 2004; Economist, June 23rd 2007; Economist, Jan. 13th 2007;Economist, July 2nd 2005; Pilkey and Pilkey-Jarvis 2007).

When speaking about constructing better methodologiesor orecasting emerging international utures, the stand-alonemathematical modeling approach is chimera.

Werther addressed this emerging international utures orecastingincapacity as evincing simultaneously a ailure o imagination, training,and education, a lack o respectul attention to Aristotle’s ancientinjunction about the limits o precision and accuracy appropriate indiscussions across dierent sciences (Tomson 1983, 64-65), andultimately, as a ailure to achieve holistic integration: a ailure stemmingrom an over-simple view o change dynamics as something capable o




being constructed rom available parts rather than as something to beachieved through understanding interpenetrated and highly nuanced

emergences (Werther 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000a, 2000b, 2001, 2006a,2006b, 2007).

Much has changed respecting evolving ideas about what bestpractice utures orecasting orientations will look like. Mr. imothy Bright (2007) o the Oce o the Director, Program Analysis andEvaluation [OSUD (P)], commented with respect to Unrestricted Warare inquiries: “Qualitative analyses are the coin o the realm; or

which we attempt to build metrics.… [Tis is so because] the requireddata are usually nuanced and thus cannot be modeled, such that thebest outcomes possible are best described as “rules o thumb.” Bright(2007) argued that inormed judgments have provided the most insight,and that traditional—that is to say, current—analysis approaches arenot applicable.

Far more than “rules o thumb” are possible, but Bright’s general

view is correct.

Following generically upon this theme, Mr. Michael Bauman,Director o the U.S. Army’s raining and Doctrine Command(RADOC) Analysis Center, commented that typically “the data baseis miserable…the models are inadequate,” and urthermore that weare in an emerging environment where open sources will cross overall domains. “Hence the problem lies in comprehending them andintegrating rom them” (Bauman 2007).

Comprehension o and integrating rom what are essentially complexsystems in motion—both internally and also endlessly with respect toeach other and their environment—but which are, or all that, constantly open to observation, dene the analytical landscape to be negotiatedin emerging uture’s orecasting. Tis work is largely qualitative andmostly open source, requiring skills at achieving synchrony: a pointabout inormation abundance amid lacking synchrony made by Wilson(1998, 85, 269) in his Consilience: Te Unity o Knowledge and by SirIsaiah Berlin (1997, 1-37), among others.




Apparently arriving at a similar conclusion rom the modeling side,Dr. Andy Ilachinski suggested that multiple agent models were the only

appropriate models or understanding complex adaptive systems, buturther concluded: “a multiple agents based model is only an adjunctor what the analyst has in mind” (Ilachinski 2007). Tat is to say, theanalyst is the key element o successul analysis o complex adaptivesystems.

International emerging utures orecasting lies within the amily o complex adaptive systems problems; and the optimal solution set

places the model as an adjunct to broader analyst capacities.

Within this realm, the highest eventual goal will be the holisticintegration o qualitative and quantitative methods and perspectives;but the ramework and oundation will be qualitative, with thequantitative providing adjunct, and most particularly temporal,depth.

Te relationship between the complex adaptive problem (emergingutures orecasting), the analyst, and the qualitative, nuanced natureo the data is o primary interest precisely because this kind o analysiscannot be objectively modeled absent a qualitative base.

Aristotle says o this, “Te good critic in general is the man witha general education [who is]…versed in the practical business o lie”(Tomson 1983, 65). Many men esteemed or their wisdom, Conucius

and Sun zu among them, have emphasized this necessary happy nexuso talents leading to insight (Dawson 1993; Demna 2002).

We see here a clear understanding o a necessary, wise, and complexrelationship between the broadly trained and experienced analyst, thevariously nuanced types o data to be evaluated, and the kind o trainingand education necessary to orecast successully.

A nuanced, complex systems orm o understanding, embedded asit needs to be within the practical and real experience o humankind, was common during antiquity, at least within the rationalist elementso classic cultures. It remained the coin o the realm during Age o Reason and Renaissance discourse, and was only largely abandoned inavor o specialization and disciplinary exclusivity during modern times




as a kind o love aair with technology and mathematically groundedscience replaced Alexander Pope’s more enolding notion that “(to

use my Lord Bacon’s expression) [to] come home to men’s business and bosoms , I thought it more satisactory to begin with considering man inthe abstract, his nature and his state…[to do which] it is necessary rstto know what condition and relation it is placed in (Pope 1965, 3).

Reading certain classic scholars provides some o the mostilluminating thinking on holistic complex systems’ action andassessment; and this leads to a signicant “back to the uture” aspect

within any current inquiry into better emerging utures orecasting.

One school o Enlightenment thinkers, the Encyclopaedists,and their modern spawn, are now inuential within many modernscientic disciplines. Te Encyclopaedists replaced a traditionally tentative, cautious, conservative, and nuanced view o scienticinquiry concerning how change can occur with a positivist driveor total inormation and or a mathematical orientation thought

useul in orcing and managing change: an oten tragic juncture withimplications hurtul to reason itsel, as claried by Hayek (1979).

Tis unortunate trend o applying mathematics and technology solutions inappropriately —that is, beyond their disciplinary limitsrespecting precision—to humane matters in a non-embedded(specialized) and ahistoric way is a kind o techno-barbarism: a willulignorance o and/or exclusion o complex and interpenetrated humaneactors in an attempt to build models o human societal activities.Tese are precisely the models that modern scholars increasingly tell uscannot work well or utures orecasting.

What can?

O Mindset and Forecasting Practice

Contemporarily expressing a too common generic weakness inassessment practice with respect to Unrestricted Warare orecastingproblems, the RADOC Analysis Center’s Director, Mr. MichaelBauman, commented that currently social, cultural, political,




economic, and other non-kinetic data are not entered in the databases (Bauman 2007).

How then, can such creations succeed in illuminating human andsocietal problems?

Within the Western science and philosophy tradition, modernscientic empiricism arose as a late-Medieval reaction to Scholasticismand other heavily religious-philosophical learning and thinkingtraditions. Te great, even stunning, advances in knowledge

made possible by applying scientic empiricism, meaning largely mathematics, to hard science and engineering problems has not beenreplicated within the social and humane sciences, though a concertedeort to do so ‘took o’ beginning in the late twentieth century.

Tis ‘take o’ period witnessed a shit away rom more holistic,integrative, qualitative, and sociological norms attending studies o human action and social change by importing hard science empiricism

into many social science and humanities disciplines, especially withineconomics. One can understand this concisely by noting the relatively historical, cross-cultural, and multi-disciplinary writings o greateighteenth and nineteenth century minds as various as Jeerson, Adam Smith, Bodin, Rousseau, Locke, Mill, Voltaire, Montesquieu,Montaigne, Machiavelli, Burke, Goethe, Schiller, Herder, Leibnitz,Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Hegel, and Marx; and especially by comparingthe late nineteenth century holistic sociology tradition o Max Weber,Emile Durkheim, and others to the single disciplinary, empirical-mathematic traditions that became standard disciplinary practiceduring the late twentieth century. Tis trend advanced somewhatduring the Second World War era, but it accelerated ater the Sputnik event and the United States’ subsequent panic about being behind inscience and mathematics education. “What is your specialty?” becamethe standard question; and being a generalist became viewed as lower-

tier scholarship.

It was never beore thus in human history. raditionally, greatthinkers and many secondary others moved across disciplinary boundaries with ease, crating comparatively integrated and holisticexplanations or why humans and societies acted as they did. o




be a specialist was to be not well rounded. Non-Western thinkingtraditions always had, and to some degree still retain, this more holistic

and integrative ocus on humane issues.

Generically then, the twentieth-century Western science approach was a choice to simpliy social explanations, rst by positing economicsas a primary driver o social motive, action, and change, and then by applying arithmetic models to proposed solutions sets.

At senior executive levels within the Fortune 100 community,

perhaps also within government service, there is simultaneously ademand or “simple and easy-to-use analysis tools [where]…costeectiveness is a constant theme.” Unortunately, “seeking simplicity,much o what ‘sells’ there is more about trendy marketing than merit”(Werther 2000b, 41). Kurzweil rames this as a demand or brevity (Kurzweil 2006, 5). Brevity and simplicity have the merit o beingbrie and simple; they cannot oten clariy emerging internationalchange in complex adaptive human systems o the interpenetrated and

nuanced kind. Complex real-world arrangements o things and theircomplex processes require appropriately sophisticated levels o thoughtto understand them—usually o the integrated and holistic kind—andto consequently suggest complex assessments to explain them.

Finally, there remains the bureaucratic and societal problemo ostering normal thinking versus permitting insight and new concatenation, which such as Einstein (Isaacson 2006) and Kuhn(1970) so eloquently emphasized as being necessary. Once scienticempiricism becomes the norm within humane studies, other traditionsare crowded out. Tis is what occurred in our modern world, and it isprincipally why we cannot now eectively leverage exciting and entirely new technological inormation storage, management, and assessmentpossibilities to orecast utures well: we currently lack the integrativeholistic grounding necessary to that task. Tis lack squanders great

potential.

Summing these considerations we can inquire: Is the world o data,o acts (total inormation awareness-type lacks), and o processes the problem, or are we insuciently competent at “comprehending them




and integrating rom them” (Bauman 2007)? Te ormer seems very implausible, so recent interest is now more ocused upon the latter.

Consequently, the notion: “Te problem lies in the art o analysis,perhaps in our attitudes about analysis, and certainly in our mastery o the demands o analysis [seems reasonable].…Said otherwise, isthere some lack in the nature o paint and brushes that keeps us rompainting like Rembrandt?” (Werther 2000b, 41) A negative answerdirects one’s attention toward the mind and skills o the analyst.

We have wonderul new tools in technology, but lack the ability toholistically assess.

O Futures Forecasting: Learning to Stand, Walk, and Run

Te enhancement o the trained mind o the analyst is our bestopportunity or advance in emerging international utures orecasting.However, training international aairs analysts to think in a truly multi-disciplinary, cross-cultural, comparative, historically inormed,integrative, and holistic way about the world is mere preace or anadvance.

Eventually the element o interpenetrated change dynamics needs tobe conronted. Tis requires two competencies: (1) holistically seeing

how things are put together (and how they support or oppose each other)at a static systems level, and (2) seeing how holistically interpenetratedentities move, both (2.1) internally in response to change pressures,and (2.2) simultaneously with respect to their external environmentand to other bias systems operating within that environment. Otheractors, each seen as dierent bias systems operating within the overallenvironment, also respond via their respective interpretations o change.Te metaphor o biased dancers dancing claries the dynamic aspect

that needs to be holistically captured.

Tis is, baldly phrased, the landscape o the dynamic advancedassessments’ ground.




Building upon a well-grounded capacity or understanding thevaried interrelationships among things—the “what-goes-with-what-

and-why?” and “what-leads-to-what-and-how?” questions—permitsthis advanced kind o thinking about change, about change processes,and about emergent path development, and only then is it possible tospeak about doing dynamic orward-oriented assessments o change:utures orecasting.

Tis is, summed, a statement o the analytical kernel, its holistically integrated intermediary solution sets, and its dynamic orward-directed

orecasting maniestation.

Each element is addressed herein by building up, onion-like,interpenetrated learning, assessment, and orecasting capacities:standing, walking, and running.

One thing mainly constrains our ability to more eectively orecastemerging utures: groundwork is lacking. Particularly, those qualitatively

nuanced “what-goes-with-what?” and more dynamic “what-leads-to- what?” competencies that are today articially rare.

Te second generic error is a drive or inappropriate precision amidcomprehensiveness: evincing simultaneously a lack o wisdom aboutBerlin’s (1997) qualitative “sense o reality,” which must always operateboth through “the crooked timber o humanity” (Berlin 1992), and within a “cragged hill” world o operational reality (Kennan 1993).

Wrong scientic methodological orientations critiqued by Przeworskiand eune (1982, 17-26) and others detail costs and opportunitiesattending to appropriateness o method.

Tese twin dysunctions, lack o grounding and inappropriatenessshown by unwisely applying precise methods to imprecise, adaptively dynamic, nuanced, and contextually rich data, largely describe ourcurrent situation. We have also, by way o educational choices made

and the assessment methods we have preerred to use, precludeddoing eective orecasting. In order to eectively orecast emerginginternational utures, these errors need to be undone. Tere is no simpleor brie way o remedying the current state o aairs, but remedy it wemust, i emerging international utures orecasting is our goal.




What is the Justication or Such an Investment?

Te entire U.S. eort toward producing integrated security solutions, including integrated and holistic assessments o internationalenvironments and thus o emerging utures orecasting, rests uponhaving eective basic and intermediary holistic education and trainingprograms that we do not now have (Werther 1999; Werther 2001).Beyond that, and only beyond that, can one speak useully abouttraining people in advanced holistic types o dynamic assessment and

emerging international utures orecasting: our goal.Te problems that the United States increasingly aces internationally

are indeed multiple-agent dynamic complex systems problems. Tereare many complexly nuanced moving parts, and we do not know how to model their solutions. We have the acts, but too oten cannotpredict their consequences within embedded complex adaptive systemsdynamics.

Seeking democracy and globalization, we engender anti-Americanelectoral outcomes and broad regional movements toward socialism.Seeking international development, we engender insurgencies anddestabilizing societal movements. Aiming here, we hit there.

Te realm o application is vast, and the consequences o continuingto misjudge are dire.

I the wisely educated and holistically trained mind is key, we haveour problem.

What is presented herein requires a considerable sunk costinvestment. Tere is no other way to achieve holistic integrativeabilities leading to eective utures orecasting.

Where are We Going in Tis Discussion?

Tis treatment o the training and education problem to be solved,leading necessarily to analytical capacities co-emergent with each styleo analyst world-view, understanding, and ability, proceeds thusly interms o core topics to be initially addressed.




Te core topics enold building up these oundationalcompetencies: Layering the Onion (building cross cultural, multi-

disciplinary, historical, and comparative competence), Interpenetration (understanding relationships, patterns, and their supports/weaknesses ),Path Development and Harmonics (learning how change happens withinvariously interpenetrated complex systems), Streaming and Emergence (learning how ”normal” change and responses to it are built up andsubsequently dealt with within systems), Perturbations and Multi Systems Bias Responses (learning to think within bias within contextually shitingand nuanced complex adaptive systems analytic spaces ), Proling International Change Processes (doing emergent utures orecastingrom this holistic and integrative dynamic s grounding), and Future Needs . Some topics have multiple sections and, quite logically or anintegrative and holistic treatment, these sections enold insights romother sections. Holistic integration is never straight-line thinking.

Each section treatment is necessarily brie, hopeully not over-

brie, and proceeds rom a undamental premise: human systems arehistorically emergent and humanly constructed systems o bias; andpeople, groups o them, and the societies that they orm and o whichthey are a part, attempt to be rational within their accepted normativesystems o bias. Tey are not objectively rational in some mathematicalor physical science sense.

Borrowing signicantly rom the amous phrases o Alexander

Pope and Isaiah Berlin: the “proper study o mankind is (wo)man,”and requires the right kind o (wo)man capable o attaining correctdynamic complex adaptive systems mindsets adequate to actually doing emerging utures orecasting and dynamics illumination (Berlin1998).

Consideratins or eaching the Futures Forecasting Art

Strangely, nobody expects to y an airplane, drive a submarine, orengineer a building without all o the preatory mathematical, scientic,and technological work appropriate to that task, yet we expect somehow to judge complex human aairs without doing the preatory work o attaining serious and broad amiliarity with many humane disciplines




and many cultures and societies, which is basic to that task. Instead we want simplicity and brevity, and we hope to take it on one discipline

at a time, ignoring thereby interpenetrations o human experience.Nobody wants a pilot who only learned on-board electronics, but we tolerate a social scientist who learned only economics or politicalscience. Indeed, we normally teach to just that expectation.

Current pedagogies tend toward the single disciplinary ocus, orlatterly—at best—toward multi-disciplinary and cross-cultural ormatsthat are typically descriptively and statically presented. Our problems

are multiple-agent complex adaptive systems-types, all dynamically interpenetrated across time, regions, and disciplines. We rarely teachtoward their dynamics, and i so, yet still more rarely to the holistically integrated kind o change dynamics necessary. As previously stated,such eorts are historically arithmetic.

Forces (or actors) approaches—economic orces, political orces,cultural orces, legal orces, and the like—ound now in some

international business curricula, remain basic: static and not otenintegrated with respect to contextually nuanced multiple impacts o the various orces upon each other. Te orces selected or study aregeneric and rarely dened contextually by the problem to be solved, butmore oten are one-size-ts-all categorical topics thought, pre-inquiry,to be universally relevant.

One is let with the idea that multiple actors and orces areimportant, but how they are so and how they might systemically inorm us about integrated patterns o behavior, connected trends,and emerging utures is not well specied or much attempted (see Hill2003; Czinkota, Ronkainen and Moett, 2003).

Lacking a undamentally appropriate integration ethic and holisticinsight—which must in each applied instance also be contextually nuanced—one may wonder whether any assemblage o available partsrom such a presentation could make a well-proportioned whole wereholistic integration seriously attempted?

We require something more.




What is necessary is an approach properly grounded in many disciplines, yet also holistically integrative throughout respecting its

orientation to human action amid change. It’s ultimate ocus, andcompetence-building style, is directed toward studying the change process holistically . Tis is undamental. Tings proceed according to theiridea in the sense that every grouping o persons and every society isan idea maniested: a strategic solution set acted upon according to itsnormal, and dening, bias system. Multiple philosophic and religioustraditions have noted this about cultures and societies.

Tinking this way requires recursive thought throughout thatis placed within a dynamic study o bias-motivated ows withincomplex adaptive environments. Te great scholar Moses Maimonides’(Maimonides 1956) Te Guide or the Perplexed contains a ne Judeo- Aristotelian exposition o such embedded complex adaptive systemsthinking, but one sees embedded complex adaptive systems thinkingas undamental in Hindu, Buddhist, and aoist traditions, as well as

in selected Western thought. Insights rom classic traditions are oldedin to support the orecasting learning argument and to direct attentionto the importance o ancient wisdom in modern problems—both asoundational to diering modern societal norms, and as accumulatedinsights rom human experience.

A holistically oriented dynamic teaching/assessment ramework addressing modern complex adaptive systems orecasting problems was

developed through Fortune 100 corporate lectures as Doing Business inthe New World Disorder , beginning in 1993, and then more ormally inProling ‘Change Processes’ as a Strategic Analysis ool (Werther 2000a,20). Tis used modied Przeworski and eune (1982) “most-similarsystems” and “most-dierent systems” design logics in holistically integrated dynamics ashion. Much o what ollows presumes amiliarity with these and other basic ideas.

Following Maimonides’ advice that “the truth should present itsel in connected order” (Maimonides 1956, 1), what ollows is also anattempt to explain the teaching o emerging utures orecastingcompetencies in terms o a connected order o learning.




Tis treatment merges the stepwise competencies discussed in theWhere are We Going section above, with the broad ramework presented

in the Proling schematic.

Layering the Onion: Building Cross Cultural, Multi-Disciplinary, Historical, and Comparative Competence

Te rst teaching level o this eort is termed layering the onion,hoping to convey thereby the vision o a kind o learning that begins

rom a core and proceeds to add layer upon layer o additional learningholistically and naturally upon previous understandings. (See gure 2.)

Te core contains the teaching o comparative cultures, comparativesocial psychology, comparative religions and philosophies, andcomparative political-economic history (Werther 1997, 2000a) becausethis is where the systems o values and practice originate (bias systems)by which people, and societies o people, seek to navigate the changing

uture. Within the political-economic component, one should includethe legal and institutional ormations that societies erect to maniesttheir idea biases. More values and practice-producing considerationsmight be added, but these are the central groundings.

Layering the Onion

Core Competencies

What goes with What?

What changes to What?

Path creation/pattern

Emergences

Perturbations

Layering the Onion

Core Competencies

What goes with What?

What changes to What?

Path creation/pattern

Emergences

Perturbations

Figure 2




Each dierent human society is a successul, more or less, solutionset, historically emergent through iterative human agency constantly

interacting with their world: a kind o marketplace o competenceselected or endlessly (Hayek 1979; Berlin 1997, 1998).

Tis is a conservative and mainstream idea, though now only uncommonly applied.

“Men,” says Montesquieu, “who are undamentally reasonable placeeven their prejudices under rules” (Cohler, Miller, and Stone, 2004: xxi).

Nietzsche would notice that prejudices and rules derived rom themdene each dierent society (Kauman1966): an outcome Benedict Anderson has termed Imagined Communities (Anderson 1991).

In society’s search or goods amid prejudices—whether religiously or secularly dened—the ollowing maniest themselves as mind-paths: their neighbors, their land and sky, their need , and why they climb to their hope on this ladder, to use Nietzsche’s metaphor.

Every major religion and most philosophies, it seems, convey thenotion o being a teaching o the path or the way: Lao zu’s teachingas Te Way o Lie, Buddhism’s Dhammapada (meaning teaching/patho truth/virtue), Hinduism’s Upanishad (to sit beneath [a master]) anddharma (that which supports/essential order o things), Islam’s notiono living in the “way o God,” Jesus’ comment that He is “the way,” andso orth through their many interpretations (e.g., tasawwu as “way

o the Su”) to produce in their manner the integrated notion o ateaching o a path/way explaining why things are so and are done so(Bynner1980 [1944]); Kaviratna 1989; Holland 1979; Burtt 1982; World Publishing Company 1962; Ahmed 1993; Easwaran1985;Mascaro 1965; Bodhi 2005).

Secularly, among comprehensive thinkers, one gets this samemessage o our necessarily learning an essential path or a way in order

to interpret reality and change through the understanding o dierentminds: Gertrude Himmelarb’s (2004) Te Roads to Modernity—the British, French, and American Enlightenments, Teodore Rabb’s (2006)Te Last Days o the Renaissance and the March to Modernity, GordonS. Wood’s (2006) Revolutionary Characters—What Made the Founders




Dierent,Russell Kirk’s (1986)Te Conservative Mind rom Burke to Eliot ,and F. A. Hayek’s (1972) Te Counter-Revolution o Science—Studies in

the Abuse o Reason, Benedict Anderson’s (1991) Imagined Communities ,and Marc D. Hauser’s (2006) Moral Minds—How Nature Designed our Universal Sense o Right and Wrong , among numerous others, all convey a critical linkage o mind, path, and resulting outcomes.

What are people about is their question.

For the analyst interested in orecasting emerging international

utures, what it is rstly important to learn about is cultures, societies,and respective institutions (politics, economics, laws, comparativepsychologies, philosophies, religions, histories, etc.), not acts, nor evenrelationships among acts merely. One must learn animating principles and ways , learning how these animate society and contribute to ormingits essential idea.

A Polish student once described Poland as “an attempt not to speak

German.” Tis nicely sums Poland’s neighbor, land, sky, and ladder o hope capsules Poland’s core problem, and says something about how Poland hopes to solve it.

Among the things it is necessary to know about modern urkey is Kamal Ataturk’s idea o a modern, secular state, militarily secured;o America, legalism among other core ideas; o China, historiccentralization, order, guanxi , striving or harmony, among others; o

Fiji, conicting indigenous tribalism and Indian immigration, amongothers, etc.

ypically, such skeletal and notional architectures are not pretty,their beautiying public acing having not yet been added by society.One supposes that psychologists do not deal only in pretty things; then why ought social psychological kernels o societies be pretty?

How do we know these things? Societies arrange themselves tosolve the problems they need to solve. One sees this in their words andactions, their eorts and accomplishments.

Tese oundational understandings and insights about whatis important to any society must next be combined to orm an




interpenetrated understanding o normal societal patterns andrelationships within their animating idea(s), one with the other; the

topic and methodology o which we now address. We need to teach what goes with what, and why.

Interpenetration: Understanding Relationship Patterns,and Teir Supports/Weaknesses

So ar, the serious student with capacity has done considerable work,

and the many, untted as they are to emerging utures orecasting, havedropped voluntarily away.

As it should be, every major philosophical and religious tradition thathas animated the culture o a society has emphasized the importanceo diligence and hard eort o a particular kind in order to understandproperly: there is nothing simple or brie about this.

In reality, it seems that the ormer task o broad learning aboutoundational ideas plus the next-presented task o interpenetration isbest taught to the tted mind simultaneously through the process o olding in. Tis is the layering the onion metaphor.

Illustrating this, Conucius remarked “you think o me as one whostudies many things and remembers them, don’t you?.…It is not [so].Tere is one thing I use to string them together” (Dawson 1993, 60).

We really want to get away rom descriptions and acts. We need some string.

For Conucius this string was virtue: to be understood in theclassic Chinese sense as enolding humane correctness and practicalaccomplishment (Dawson 1993, xxi-xxii).

For the utures orecaster, that string helps to holistically and

integrally see complexes: understanding things as complexes withdening characteristics normatively grounded in ideas and in resultinghabitual goals and processes that are airly stable in time.




At this stage o learning one is relatively static and is not primarily concerned with dynamic change patterns. One would like to be, but

that capacity is not yet developed.

Folding In

Operationally, asking students to evaluate a society in terms o listing its main normative eatures, customary arrangements and processes, justications, goals, and so orth is ollowed by next asking how these

considerations old into—that is, inuence and shape (iteratively building up, i they can see it)—then existing generic social institutions o that same society.

For each society, the student considers how cultural norms andtraditions, customs, ways o behaving, and so orth animate societalinstitutions, and how these variously support (or do not) each other. What is the under-girding values architecture o each society, and

what are its institutions? Institutions are both ormal and inormalarrangements.

Having achieved this generic bi-level o interpenetration (kindly notice that we have not used the term integration yet), the studentis next asked to discover main eatures o specic social institutions(ormal or not): political, economic, legal systems, etc.

Iterating sequentially, the student olds in during this learningexperience whatever previous perspectives they have ormedrespecting culture-social institution links to orm broader culture-social institutions-political links, to the yet broader culture-social-political-economic institution links…and so orth, deeper and broadersimultaneously.

Each projective iteration requires the student to explain to the

proessor and the class how—or his/her country—previous insightsare holistically linked to the next topic added, particularly how they support or do not seem to support each other. One cannot, orexample, have incommensurable cultural and social eatures supportingdemocratic capitalism, or ascism, or communism, or Asian Way




democratic capitalism. Tey must be appropriate. We are trying toteach the student “what goes with what to produce what.”

As a part o holistic learning, a comparative and historic elementis introduced by having students sequentially present their iteratively wider and deeper understandings o how their chosen society developed , thereby constantly also olding in comparative and historicaldevelopmental observations that emerge across systems as learningproceeds.

One method that is basic is to have each student sequentially explain what were the liestyle and institutional arrangements (cultural,religious, political, economic, etc.) in ancient times (pre 1 BCE, to1,000 CE, to 1500 CE, to 1900 CE), and thusly to the current country arrangements. Again, this developmental olding in approach requiresthe student to see his/her country, and other student’s countries asemergences that spring rom previous societal arrangements and ideas(Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Islamic, etc.): nothing comes rom

nothing. Tis method is particularly useul in area studies courses.

For international business and international economics/economichistory courses, a parallel olding in approach, whereby the studentbegins with describing the market placement o the chosen rm,industry, or economy within the global space, and sequentially anditeratively olds in its competitor, political, legal, economic, and otherinuences upon its strategic choices, is similarly useul. As beore,iterative, comparative, and historical presentations are made anddeended by the various students.

Te applications o olding in are almost endless.

What it is necessary to notice is that each culture, society, or businessis an idea animating a specic and unique complex system ormation,holistically to be understood as a “what goes with what to produce

what” solution set. Te ocus upon unctional relationships in actionrather than upon imposed categories permits urther complex systemdiscussion.

Each society is put together in specic and unique institutionally and ideologically reinorcing ways because it acts in characteristic and




denable ways. Te idea animates this ormation, and this ormationmaniests the idea: recursively. Te society must solve such a denitive

integration respecting its idea, basic societal arrangements, and normal ways, and also reach a unctional degree o internal harmony aboutthem because, as Abraham Lincoln reminds us, a house divided againstitsel cannot stand. It will ail.

What becomes obvious to students in due course is that the generictypes o societies and styles o arranging societies are not endless intheir variety, nor are they random; there are interpenetrated patterns

and broad styles or solving society’s change problems. Specicity is,however, unique. For example, democracies as a generic type havecore dening processes and institutions broadly in common amongthemselves, but each specically acts uniquely: Britain, Germany,Canada, and the USA are not the same in action. Futures orecasting within and among them is thereore not identical. Tese lessons inappropriateness are emergent in the teaching process as the student olds

in new inormation recursively, just as they were emergent originally asappropriate when each society olded in learned and dening lessonsover centuries o time.

More to the point, the so-common teaching and analysis practiceo externally ascribing categorical denotations (democracy, tribal,capitalist, socialist, etc.) is soon seen to be simplistic and inadequateto doing orecasts, but complex, emergent, and interpenetrated

understandings grow to have increasing power. o say that a society is a “democracy” or is “socialist” or “capitalist” is to say relatively little.o see how it is put together and animated, has developed, and acts toproduce this particular outcome over others is powerul.

We are approaching—but are not there—the realm o teachinginternal movement and teaching about styles o movement characteristicto various uniquely dierent societies, and about genera o them. How

societies move is animated by their problems and goals, their idea (seenas their strategy or success), and by what they imagine themselves tobe: in sum, by their particular system o biases.

Nietzsche commented in Beyond Good and Evil : “Te dierencesamong men become maniest not only in the dierence between their




tablets o goods—in the act that they consider dierent goods worthstriving or and also disagree about what is more or less valuable, about

order o the rank o goods they recognize in common—it becomesmaniest even more in what they take or really having and possessing something good” (Kauman 1966, 106; emphasis in the original).

It is entirely necessary that analysts interested in emerging uturesorecasting see things holistically and as integrated complex systems thatare animated uniquely and denitively by their desires or achievingparticular “goods” and by aversions to their particular “evils.”

Tese are nowhere exactly the same between societies that areimagined communities .

Te dynamism o a society’s internals (bias system) interacting withtheir perceived externals, which we shall in due course need to teach,orms their specic generalized stylistic path: their way. Tere is amarket-based idea that now needs to be introduced and later discussed

and olded in.

Teir way is their idea o how to be in the world, and the worldselects or the appropriateness o a person or a society’s judgmentsduring every moment. Tus, since societies are successul, more orless, strategies, they conront new change in their way.

I there were not patterns to this, all would be a hopeless jumble.

Tere are patterns.Kurzweil called himsel a “patternist, someone who views patterns o

inormation as the undamental reality” (Kurzweil 2006, 5). Replace the word “inormation” with notions such as “systems o bias,” “syndromeso relationships,” and “idea-strategies” and the comment applies well toHayek’s view (1979) and to human systems utures orecasting. ArthurSchopenhauer and his German contemporaries worked heavily in this

idea-species and conorming idea-strategy area as leading to societalpatterns (Schopenhauer 1969).




Learning to See Solution Patterns

Cultures and societies are solution sets with stable patterns because“involuntarily, parents turn children into something similar tothemselves—they call that ‘education’…no mother…[and] no athercontests his right to subject it to his concepts and valuations” (Kauman1966, 107; emphasis in the original). One might add that no modernstate-supported system o education (or state system o law, politics,economics, and other normative practice) does so either.

More to the point or emerging international utures orecasting—ways o “striving or…having and possessing something good” Kauman1966, 106) are constantly shaped by the unique idea path representingthat culture, society, its institutional arrangements o politics, law,economics, and so orth holistically understood as it conronts internaland external challenges.

Tis integrating eort and its path-like outcome are not deterministic,

but is undamentally inuential and stable over time. Tis is ar broaderand more enolding o the truth than seeing modern, objectively rational, prot-loss oriented, and maximizing economic man.

Although the teaching approaches presented above are quite basic,even primitive, compared to what is eventually possible, their mostimportant eature or eventually teaching emerging utures orecastingis that outcomes are not ascribed to pre-ormed categories or viewsabout what is important. Rather, the recursively integrating olding-inprocess builds up a holistic view through which emergent understandingsabout what a society is about, and how it changes to achieve its chosenaims. Te comparative and historical recursively olding-in procedurebuilds up knowledge o types o complex systems, which are dierently animated and have chosen dierently respecting goods sought.

Adam Smith, in Te Teory o Moral Sentiments , denied thatmen in society are motivated by narrow sel interest, economic orotherwise, but stated rather that they were primarily concerned withsecuring the good opinion o their ellows, with their social position, with superuities, with ostering thereby positive mutual regard:a consideration he phrased as sympathies (Smith 1982). Tis more




holistic notion ts the idea o societal norms as social drivers, as Hayek presumed in his view o markets acting within law. Gordon S. Wood

makes this point too, especially about George Washington and shapingmotivations within the era o his society (Wood 2006, 14-63). Onesees Conucius’ superior man o virtue in this perspective (Dawson1993). Many other ancients thought this way as well: “Vanity o vanities…vanity o vanities. All is vanity.…And I applied my mindto seek and search out by wisdom all that is done under heaven…and behold, all is vanity and a striving ater wind” (Ecclesiastes 1-15).Objective rationality is overdone.

Our attention is thus turned to teaching striving, kinds and ormso striving, and their various stable societal dynamics as seen rom theground o their various dening biases .

On the way to learning path development, we must use holistically oriented comparative systems analysis, and similarly holistic historicalanalysis, in a new way: to understand how any society normally moves.

Tis is a necessary utures orecasting competence.

A ransnational Overview o Path Development and Harmonics’ Issues Under Conditions o Complexity:How Change Happens Within Variously Interpenetrated Human Complex Systems

I the above is well comprehended, the proper analytic ground oremerging international utures orecasting is best understood as socio-psychological (in its integrated holistic sense o an ever-recursively emerging ground deriving rom the endless interactions between humans, their created institutions o culture, philosophy, religion, politics, law,economics, and so orth, and their external environment) because every major religion and philosophy, save a post-Age o Enlightenment/

Renaissance scientic assertion o a rational actor man as somethingmathematically to be understood, has thought so.

Tese older and broader traditions ocused upon the notion o ideamaniesting action, and shaping orms o action, as undamentally explanatory (Hayek 1979).




Tis orientation presents at once a simpliying and integratingprocedure o considerable power or understanding complex systems

change: even complex interactions between complex systems changing with respect to each other and their changing environment.

In Te Problem with Precision, Werther (1998) disagreedundamentally with views such as Edward O. Wilson’s assertion that“Te greatest challenge today…in all o science is the accurate andcomplete description o complex systems” (Wilson 1998, 85).

Completeness and accuracy is impossible within this realm, ortechnical and Aristotelian epistemological reasons (Przeworski andeune 1982; Tomson 1983).

Accurate and complete is asking too much, just as settling or“rules o thumb” (Bright 2007) is expecting too little. Te issue lies inknowing appropriateness systematically.

Aristotle in Te Nicomachean Ethics at Book One (iii) correctly—Ithink—stated

Our account o…science will be adequate i it achieves such clarity as the subject matter allows; or the same degree o precision is not to be expected in all discussions. Any more than in all products o handicrat….Tereore in discussing subjects, arguing rom evi-dence, conditioned in this way, we must be satised with a broad outline o the truth; that is, in arguing about what is or the most part so rom premises which are rom the most part true we must be content to draw conclusions which are similarly qualied…or it is the mark o a trained mind never to expect more precision in the treatment o any subject than the nature o that subject permits…(Tompson 1983, 64-65)

Wilson is on happier ground when asserting that “Te answer is clear:synthesis. We are drowning in inormation, while starving or wisdom.Te world henceorth will be run by synthesizers, people who are ableto put together the right inormation at the right time, think critically about it, and make important choices wisely” (Wilson 1998, 269).




Te operational question really is: How do we, in contextually sensitive ways, extract the right inormation at the right time? Te

answer is that we illuminate the system’s nature.

Trough modern specialized education, we trained ourselves tothink otherwise, and made our children think like ourselves (Kauman1966, 107). echnology and mathematics held out the chimera o nding precision respecting human and societal things that are not by their nature precise.

Desiring “accurate and complete” descriptions (Wilson 1998, 85)is the problem.

What it is possible to do is to consider complex systems changeholistically, and extract insight into their emergences in ways that haveutures orecasting utility.

One doesn’t need to see the last nail pounded to understand the ormand uture content o the house. No utures–oriented synthesizinganalyst does. One gets a pretty good idea rom the maniesting ideas andintentions o the planner, and especially rom key embedded actions,properly understood in context. Aristotle dened the educated mindas that which argues rom conditioned assumptions to conclusionssimilarly conditioned in this way . In a world o shiting nuance, notmuch is more critical than such maturity.

We need some teaching and analysis tools that add appropriate precision to the chaos o typically having too much inormation.

I emerging international utures orecasting were about being 100%correct, Edward O. Wilson would be correct. It is not, so we needto move upstream to the simpliying areas o path ormation andharmonics—and the teaching thereo to utures analysts.

Werther (2006b) addresses this in the advanced middle ground,moving specically and generally as needed, by ocusing on theemergence o utures insight via the study o change processes, whichare in complex, systems-like, communication with each other.




In terms o the proling change processes graphic (gure 1), we areproceeding into the realm o understanding movement as holistically

seen within any given iteration o circumstance .

Tis learning transition is extremely dicult, the more so when ourorientation is about the movement o integrated wholes, the internal with respect to the external, particularly.

Among the best generic descriptions o this dynamic process o societal path ormation are those given by Sir Isaiah Berlin, F. A. Hayek,

Arthur Schopenhauer, and Moses Maimonides, and in Buddhistdoctrines o change, dependent origination, and causation.

Presuming the primary audience to be Western, this discussionproceeds rom the more amiliar Western perspectives to the perhapsless amiliar non-Western perspectives, olding in, as is ever our habit,analytical complexities and their limits as we proceed.

Negotiating these complexities includes the problem o key variable identication and isolation, which we discuss using—by way o iteration—the holistic most-similar systems and most-dierentsystems design orientations o Przeworski and eune (1982), varioushistorical developmental perspectives, and other holistically integrativeperspectives.

Te Logic o Comparative Social Inquiry: Using Most-

Similar and Most-Diferent Systems Comparison

Adam Przeworski and Henry eune’s (1982) Te Logic o Comparative Social Inquiry began as a study o “values in politics” leading nextto “a ocus on within-systems relationships rather than attributes o systems,” nally becoming thereby a “rontal attack on the problems o comparative research” (Przeworski and eune 1982, ix–xii).

Przeworski and eune noticed “social events occur in syndromesthat have a specic spatiotemporal location; in other words societiesconstitute “systems,” and thereore various elements o societiesinteract with each other….Te problem thereore is to nd a set o criteria that can be used to evaluate the appropriateness o comparing




social phenomena observed in dierent social systems” (Przeworski andeune 1982, 10; emphasis added).

Because “social phenomena are not only diverse but always occurin mutually interdependent and interacting structures, possessinga spatiotemporal location” these social phenomena must be treatedas components o systems—that is, holistically and contextually (Przeworski and eune 1982, 12-13). Tis they accomplished by strategically using most-similar systems and most-dierent systemsdesigns to illuminate the unctional characteristics o interdependent

and interacting structures in conditions where “a change in oneelement o these syndromes…would bring about…a change inthe entire pattern” (Przeworski and eune 1982, 29). By ocusingupon the syndromes, i you will, it is possible to replace the nameso systems with an understanding o their interdependent unctionalcharacteristics, naturally motivated in terms o their values.

It is not dicult to see that strategically selecting, or the purpose

o targeted unctional illumination, most-similar system designs andmost-dierent system designs leads to judgments based on parsimony and generality (what-goes-with-what-and-how type statements) acrossdierent complex systems embedded in their contextual spatiotemporalrelations.

In short, we can see how complex adaptive systems are variously arranged with respect to addressing their unctional needs and desires.Under conditions o basic internal change, appropriately iterated most-similar systems and most-dierent systems analysis leads to urther judgments about their unctionally interdependent and interactingconstituent syndromes: to what changes to what and why insight atthe systems and sub-systems levels.

For example, i one wants to illuminate the probable key variablessurrounding a problem rom a near innity o potential variables, one way is to turn most o them into constants by strategically selectingseveral most-similar systems (identical as possible is best) and searchingor dierent systemic outcomes. Any observed dierent outcomescannot be due to the maximized system constants among the purposely




chosen most-similar systems, but must lie in relation to their purposely minimized dierences among them.

Naturally, the operation o the dierent variables and theirarrangements within these systems has not been specied, butsimplication o potentials, and especially o plausible potentials, hasoccurred. Please notice that, as with Aristotle’s basic insight and—as we shall later notice—also with Buddhist, Conucian, and otherphilosophical holistic traditions, the term appropriate occurs oten.Te ability to know appropriateness results mainly rom broad learning

and, especially, philosophy. Einstein, emphasizing his grounding inphilosophy, operated in this way when testing dierent appropriaterearrangements within elds, using his amous thought experiments;this, one must express, we are not doing abstractly here (Isaacson 2007,20, 95,113, 117-118,127).

Using strategic iteration o dierent most-similar systems designs,plus appropriate notions o simple causal argument (time priority,

connectedness, co-variance, plausibility, non-heterskedasticity, andnon-recursiveness) and also o complex causation (INUS systems:insucient, necessary, unnecessary, and sucient, where all necessary-sucient elements are included and all unnecessary-insucientelements are excluded), it is possible to limit core variables viaemergence to ever-smaller plausible sets.

I very similar adaptive systems with respect to a question o interest —say Sweden, Norway, and Denmark or education level impacts—havedierent system outcomes, we can holistically illuminate via iterationand causal inquiry (simple and complex) variables, and soon syndromeso variables, wherein the potential answer likely lies.

In this essay we have emphasized olding-in o integrated learningcapacities so that eventually we can study ‘emergence’ holistically orthe purpose o orecasting. Tis process, interestingly, Einstein termed“unolding” to achieve increasing clarity (Isaacson 2007, 114). Many other philosophical traditions variously label this as insightulness.




Most-dierent-systems designs, when strategically chosen, can giveinsights as to the generality o proposed causal variables or syndromes

within complex system operations.

We can iterate endlessly, limited only by our creative imagination,and can also study natural perturbation to illuminate syndromeresponse behaviors.

Tere is, at a signicantly advanced level to be discussed later,the potential to qualitatively set minima and maxima limits within

which particular societal complexes, and their constituent syndromes,normally operate. oward the end o this discussion, I will use this toaddress how the strategic design iteration o most-similar systems andmost-dierent systems designs and viewing the natural perturbationo systems, can achieve insights into emerging change and emergingutures orecasting.

Leibniz and Newton developed the calculus to solve previously

opaque mathematical problems related to motion and rates o change,both integral and dierential, using notions o minima and maximatoward limits. Przeworski and eune’s comparative social inquiry methodological insights oer a parallel window, but not the one they think, to address this dicult issue qualitatively respecting normalsocietal styles and their path-like behaviors. Tis is an importantinsight to bound normalized societal harmonics.

It is also additionally possible to use Przeworski and eune’s basicinsights into the correct nature o the logic o comparative socialinquiry—using scholars both ancient and modern—as a bridge overthe gap between, (1) the holistic analysis o static complex systems’composition and their unctional holistic reaction to basic change, to(2) more complex considerations o normative and traditional pathormation according to complex system societal ideas (bias systems)in communication with their external environments, and then to (3)yet more complex considerations about how these orm emergentharmonic paths within which change is thereater normally addressed.Hayek’s idea (1979, 43-44, 59, 65-71) o emergent unplanned market-based behavior is particularly important here.




An over-simple way to see this is to consider how an individually “stupid” ant nds a desired good (perhaps ood) by mere luck, thus

orming, unplanned, a “smart” community path o ants to exploit iteciently. Were this to develop a normalized and societally enorcedcultural response, as it does in all varieties o human societies, we wouldhave an unplanned emergent harmonic path develop (Hayek 1979, 71).Tis emergent path is society’s bias system, and the harmonic aspect isits normal deviation rom this biased emergent path.

All social systems act rom within their bias. From this ground, it is

possible eventually to unctionally address complex adaptive systems o bias in communication with other complex systems o bias within theirchange environment—emerging utures orecasting.

Te critical method is strategic iteration to illuminate how a complexsystem moves and why it moves so under various conditions o change.Te ocus is on the change process at the level o complex systemsdynamics, internal and external. Tese emergent complex systems’

proles, continually updated, become the basis—not acts or totalinormation awareness—o an intelligence analysis system oriented toemerging utures orecasting.

Tis is a critical dierence rom a non-holistic intelligence orientationthat seeks acts.

Tere are, broadly, two ways o approaching this rom a holistic

most-similar systems and most-dierent systems perspective. Te rstis to compare unctional syndromes comparatively across selectedcomplex systems at a particular spatiotemporal moment. Te secondis to note how syndromes developmentally and comparatively changeover time. Tis implies a holistically integrated and unctional study o comparative histories.

Most-similar systems designs lead to understandings o unctional

parsimony. Most-dierent systems designs lead to understandings o unctional generality. Tis is critical.

As said, most-similar systems selection (in terms o the complexadaptive system consideration o interest) illuminates the unctionalnatures o key syndromes when dierent outcomes become evident




among systems that are, by pre-selection, very similar. For example,the dierent unction o higher education in similarly highly educated

societies when in communication with other unctional aspects o thesociety tells us important things about how each society acts. Variously iterated, we can see how syndromes interact with other characteristicsyndromes o that society internally: we illuminate a societal pattern.In time, we see emerge a relatively parsimonious view o how variouspatterns o interaction, within otherwise most-similar systems,unction.

An example here would be the comparative useulness o having ahigh level o education within a corrupt who-you-know versus a non-corrupt merit-based society. All the internal syndromes will be skeweddierently, but relatively stably between them.

Przeworski and eune note that,

I stable…patterns o interaction can be treated as systems. Social

systems are composed on interacting elements, such as individuals, groups, communities, institutions or governments. What is impor-tant to or comparative inquiry is that systems with which we ordi-narily deal, such as societies, nations, and cultures, are organized in terms o several levels o components and that the interactions within these systems are not limited to any particular level but cut across these levels.…I social phenomena are treated as compo-nents o systems, two major implications ollow. Te rst is that

the behavior o any component o a system is determined by ac-tors intrinsic to the system and is relatively isolated rom infuences outside o the system.…Te second implication…is that specic observations must be interpreted within the context o the specic systems. (Przeworski and eune 1982, 12-13)

Te word determined should be replaced by the phrase seen in terms o, and the notion o levels should be replaced by a more interpenetrated

understanding.

Tis is to see, or example, in an interpenetrated manner how tribalism unctions within dierent countries at a given moment intime, how religion unctions as an interpenetrated phenomenon, how




voting so unctions, how ethnic division variously unctions, and soorth. Students would investigate the unction o tribalism in most-

similar and in most-dierent systems to illuminate its specic syndromeand the respective contextual variations thereo.

A most-dierent systems design looks at complex systems that aremost dierent with respect to the syndrome under consideration—say, religious division—in order to illuminate statements o generality regarding that syndrome. For example, in some societies democraticelection and parliamentarianism is associated with political stability

and economic well-being, whereas in others it is not. In some societies,religious or ethnic division is associated with instability and lack o development, whereas in others it is not.

Trough repetitive strategic iteration o most-similar and most-dierent systems designs, and a course o study designed to illuminatethe unctional syndromes o various societies as they interact with andinterpenetrate each other, it is possible to learn stable patterns.

Werther (1992) uses this general approach to explain historicdevelopmental and modern patterns o ethnic national disputinginvolving sel-determination claims among most-similar (2X) setso countries, and also between most-dierent systems (involvingcomparisons between the two sets o countries). Levine (2002) regardsthis as one o the ew international studies that links government policy claims and disputing style and claimant policy claims and disputingstyle across several levels o comparative analysis.

Trough this iterative learning process ocused on nding patterns, where acts are always embedded within their unctional contexts, itis possible to build up both a “what-goes-with-what and why?” and a“what-changes-to-what and how?” competence.

Przeworski and eune comment “we have concluded that general

theory consisting o nomothetic statements can be ormulated andtested in the social sciences i proper names o social systems arereplaced by variables in the course o comparative research and thatmost problems o ‘uniqueness versus universality’ can be redened asproblems o measurement.…Our position is that the characteristics o




particular systems can be expressed as general variables” (Przeworskiand eune 1982, 12).

It is likely that measurement will normally be qualitatively ratherthan quantitatively understood, and that nomothetic systems o reasonare actually systems o bias denitive o the idea that any given society maniests in its actions. Consequently, variables there will be, butthese variables are embedded within a system o good and evil: bias inaction.

Prezworski and eune correctly point to the necessity o establishingequivalence o measurement instruments such that comparablephenomena can be expressed in a “standard language” across systemsi a modeling approach is to be valid: “any measurement requires acommon language with standard rules o interpretation” (Przeworskiand eune 1982, 92-97). In their relatively mathematical and statisticalmodeling interpretation o comparative inquiry, this is required.

It is not similarly required in an iteratively emergent ormulation o comparative inquiry where the relevant “standard rules o interpretation”are the specic societal bias systems in action, but certainly not insynonymous standard rule-like ways uniorm across systems. Indeed, aproling change processes approach to emerging utures interpretationrequires the very opposite: that systems operate internally according totheir respective standardized biases and act so also externally with respectto other, dierent, acting bias systems within the larger environmentaldomain. Each system acts according to its bias.

Such is the dance.

eaching Appropriate Iteration

Te reader may have noticed that the very useul and insightul aspects

o Przeworski and eune’s (1982) holistic approach to comparativemethod, and especially their analysis treatment o values as beingvariably operational within human action (social science) as nuancedcomplexes, is couched inappropriately in the language and orientationo the mathematical and physical sciences. Aristotle’s appropriatenesscritique arises again.




Indeed, an almost Einstein-like relativity linguistic is presented. Wehear about nding a “general theory,” and searching or “universality,”

which is conceived as theoretically and operationally approachablethrough solving “problems o measurement…and [nding] standardrules o interpretation,” o societies in their “spatiotemporal location,”o nding “standard language,” and o an operationalizing agenda or itall that is seen, ultimately, as moving intellectually rom our qualitativeknowledge o values as they are operative within dierent cultures andsocieties during specic and changing “spaciotemporal” complexes(sensible), toward an assumed necessary math conversion useul orsolving problems o “measurement” and nding “standard rules o interpretation” (Przeworski and eune 1982). Tis last notion is notsensible, and it is not appropriate.

Although speculative, it seems odd that so classically grounded ahistorian as oynbee, who in his authoritative A Study o History beginsmodestly enough, “Historians generally illustrate rather than correct

the ideas o communities within which they live and work” (oynbee1946, 1), has by a mere decade later decided to quote Eliot’s “Only through time time is conquered” on the ront piece o An Historian’s Approach to Religion. oynbee proceeds then to the rather grandioseand physical-science-oriented claim regarding “A Historian’s Point o View” beginning “When a human being looks at the Universe…thehuman observer has to take his bearings rom the point in Space andmoment in ime at which he nds himsel ” (oynbee 1956, 3).

By page seven, we learn rom oynbee, about “claimants, standingat dierent points in ime and Space.…ime-Space does not have any central point at all” (oynbee 1956, 7)—relativity, i I do not misreadmy Einstein. Tis seems a very physical-science-oriented statemento the problem o thinking about human events rom the dierentnormative and temporal perspectives o human actors.

What has occurred?

Te period o the World War II was, o course, the beginning o an American social science movement toward metrics, which one can seeno more clearly in the ideological and methodological walk o classic1930’s era departments o “government” or “politics” being re-branded




as “political science” departments beginning in the 1950”s, to politicalscience departments as becoming enterprises that are heavily about

math and modeling by the 1970’s. Economics, particularly throughits separation rom political economics, shows extreme concatenation with mathematics: all the social sciences do (Cohen 2007).

Tis apparent violation o Aristotelian appropriateness, wherein alldiscussions are not to be subject to the same degree o precision, is what needs remedial clarication now.

aking whole—seeing matters at a holistic complex systems level—is more a pre-modern and Renaissance (in the West) than a post-modern learning perspective; it requires an analysis tool or extractinginsights about the behavior o the whole in varying contexts. Moresimply, one needs to see how it moves and why it moves so in dierentconditions.

Math modeling, a rather recent stab at the apple o complex systems

analysis, simply cannot contain it, as was previously discussed herein,and as Orrin Pilkey and Linda Pilkey-Jarvis make clear in their Useless Arithmetic—Why Environmental Scientists Can’t Predict the Future (Pilkey and Pilkey-Jarvis 2007).

It would be nice i we had holistic analysis tools between mereintuition and educated guesses, and those striving toward using universalmathematics language: tools that are, as Aristotle notes, sensitive to

the dierent precision capabilities o dierent discussions by allowing“such clarity as the subject matter allows” (Tomson 1983, 64).

Iteration is one such tool, and, as it happens, Einstein was a mastero this.

Speaking o Einstein’s amous “thought experiments,” in which “every day, he would do thought experiments based on [varying] theoretical

premises, sning out underlying realities,” (Isaacson 2007, 78) so that“on page ater page o the notebook, he approached the problem romeither side”(Isaacson 2007, 197), or said otherwise, while “think[ing]in pictures…improvising melodies while he pondered complicatedproblems”(Isaacson 2007, 9, 14, 26). In these experiments, we seean essentially iterative perspective on taking things whole and within




their eld. Einstein was very clear that any arithmetic came ater theclarication.

Te diculty, o course, or human utures orecasting, is that menare not molecules; they move according to their normative biases.Consequently, at best, there are strategic human bias elds operating within the eld o natural reality, to borrow, one hopes not tooinappropriately, rom the physical science language. Einstein’s methodis not ours.

From our teaching and learning perspective, this is an important dual orientation to the problem o utures orecasting that needs to be clear.Learning is an onion-like layering on o sequentially interpenetratedinsights into the matter o interest whereby “truth” emerges (unolds),but this learning process should not inappropriately conate naturalscience and humane science investigative methods and orientationsor achieving insights. What works or understanding the behavior o molecules may not work or understanding the behavior o humans

and their institutions.

We iterate to illuminate unctional societal dynamics. Some arecircumstantially linked to particular societies at one point in time. Another group comprises those that are stable in dierent times,contexts, and rames o mind. Tese tend to interpenetrate somewhat.

Iteration, in this “spatiotemporal” sense, is indicated when one

sees that “one o the major patterns identied by social scientists suchas Comte, Marx, Durkheim, Weber, and Spencer is that societiesundergo a structured process o development” (Przeworski and eune1982, 4), which to conservative and traditionalist thinkers such asBurke, Randolph, Calhoun, Sir Henry Maine, and others would beseen in their slow and organically changing body o tradition, custom,law, and societal norms, and which Enlightenment thinkers such asMontesquieu and Jeerson would place in the spirit o the laws or o the age.

In any event, interpenetration o societal operators under conditionso change by clariying interacting, systems-like entities that are to be



seen holistically—and learned iteratively—is the necessary learningand utures orecasting condition.

We have discussed that this iteration can occur, naturally, quasi-experimentally, or experimentally (although this is usually unethical),at one moment in time or in near simultaneous time/conditions usinga most-similar/most-dierent systems design approach, or it can beseen within systems as they change in time and attendant conditions(historical or time series comparison approaches).

One cannot study change, in complex systems or otherwise,statically.

Most-similar systems and most-dierent systems comparisons thatshow dierent reactions to enacted perturbations over brie periods o time, such as globalization pressures upon various societies, are very useul studies in system change dynamics.

For example, since NAFA and the push or Latin Americanglobalization, almost the entire region has shited toward elected socialistgovernments: some hostile to globalization per se, and others wantingto change the rules o the game. Within certain countries, indigenousgroups have variously mobilized, in some instances capturing the stateor the rst time in our centuries. In Europe and North America,the question o immigration and jobs loss has shited politics away rom broad support or globalization. In China and India, as well as

other countries objectively gaining rom globalization in terms o percapita income growth and high rates o oreign investment, internalinstability and normative equity issues have become predominanteatures o social debate and a new source o problems and policy.

How countries internally react is a critical insight into their changedynamics.

Most-similar systems and most-dierent systems comparisonsin terms o natural change, such as demographic decline in WesternEurope, Russia, and Japan, are similarly useul or studying changeresponse holistically across and within systems.




With respect to enorced system perturbations—hence, almostexperimental designs—such as externally pressured moves toward

holding democratic elections in places like Algeria, Gaza Strip, andLebanon, interesting systems change dynamic lessons (they each electedanti-Western and Islamist parties) are possible.

Perturbations, whether they are enacted or natural, serve to illuminatechange patterns.

Hoping to clariy this, Przeworski and eune used the language o

determination (1982, 12) and a probabilistic language o statisticalmodeling (1982, 76-87), both o which are usually inappropriate toour tasks.

Te clarication that is necessary deals with nuanced, embeddedsyndrome phenomena under conditions o change, and is mostly qualitatively—not mathematically—expressed.

Observing the sub-system’s qualitative expressions o interpenetrated syndromes —to use Przeworski and eune’s language where “a changein one element o these syndromes…would bring about…a changein the entire pattern” (Przeworski and eune 1982, 29)—as they shit , when this observation is coupled with previous knowledge o how such“what changes to what to produce what” play out in various contexts,allows us to enter basic emergent orecasting competence. We willdiscuss advanced issues later.

At this level, it is necessary to creatively and holistically use the deepknowledge that “social systems are composed o interacting elements,such as individuals, groups, communities, institutions or governments. What is important to or comparative inquiry is that systems with which we ordinarily deal, such as societies, nations, and cultures, areorganized in terms o several levels o components” (Przeworski andeune 1982, 13-13).

As a nal contemporary example to illustrate this, please consider:the Latin countries with large indigenous populations—Mexico,Guatemala, Bolivia, Peru, and Ecuador—all experienced globalizationand, or the latter three, War on Drugs-related enacted perturbations




that had the eect in our o them o collapsing a stable societal syndromeo mostly unchallenged white rule our centuries in the making.

Mexico and Guatemala have a relatively continuous history o indigenous Mayan insurgency, oten related to recurrent globalization-style regional development agendas, throughout their history; but in theormer, a modern socialist-indigenous insurgency link was developed whereas in the latter, it never gained traction. Tis lack o socialist-indigenous linkage is also true o Atlantic-coast Nicaragua.

Among the Andean Rim countries, each experienced a post-2000 political resurgence o the indigenous community leading to aunctioning socialist-indigenous link, which has embedded indigenouspeoples into ruling institutions or the rst time in our centuries.

Tese patterns o change were oreseeable, and their dynamicspredictable in terms o the shiting internal rearrangements o societalsyndromes that had been stable or centuries.

We are at the edge o dynamics: rom seeing what-goes-with-what?to seeing what-changes-to-what?

Te best additional holistic learning lessons to mature this analystability involve using history in a particular holistic way. Te advantagehere is that seeing comparative history as changing ows involving shitsamong syndromes leading to known holistic outcomes provides longer-

term learning insights. Tese insights are not available—althoughcertainly complementary to most-similar systems and most-dierentsystems case iterations over shorter periods—in any other way, andthey impart a sense o system dynamics broadly understood. Tis view o history is NO determinative. It seeks to study how, in variousknown historic contexts, syndrome shits produced emergent holisticsystemic changes. Nothing changes rom nothing.

Historical Complex System’s Dynamics, Leading to Knowledge o Variously Interpenetrated Developmental Dynamics

History does not repeat itsel, but human problems requiringsolution, seen in their various new contexts, seem to recur. Studying




the solution dynamics pursued by any society provides a kind o holistic time-series iteration, which illustrates their norms, values, and

institutional ways.

Seeing the regularities and divergences within and across thesecomplex systems’ dynamics is an important learning experience. Doneproperly, one begins to see how things became as they are and nototherwise. o use Przeworski and eune’s language, names, properand otherwise, such as France, India, democracy, religion, tribe, caste,and so orth, are replaced by variables interpenetrated unctionally

within their complex system contexts. One ocuses upon how things work together to produce dynamics capable o solving or not solvinghuman problems. ribalism per se is not the same within dierentsocieties and at dierent times any more than is democracy, but thereexist unctional regularities, variously contextually iterated, that can belearned dynamically better and more useully than they can be labeledstatically.

ribal or democratic or autocratic ways generically shape how oneapproaches things. When one begins to see tribe, caste, democracy,and so orth as a generic way o acting that becomes specic in speciccontexts, one is moving toward dynamics competency.

Few historians are capable o expressing things dynamically, butcomparative dynamics can be intuited even rom a merely sequentialpresentation o acts. Given the happy circumstance o dynamically oriented integrative histories actually being presented, quasi-experimental time series comparisons and cross systems comparisons(most-similar systems designs and most-dierent systems designs ) canbe constructed by the analyst to illuminate various societal paths, andtheir path dynamics, with known outcomes or each.

Tis is one method o learning how any particular society normatively and empirically responds to change pressures underdierent circumstances. What will be learned in this instance isrevealed onion-like again rom the general to the more specic kindo relationship paths: knowledge about change processes widens as itdeepens.




Te previous is a critical point. For teaching and doing predictiveorecasting, broadly interpenetrated comparative knowledge, which

may initially be relatively shallow as to particular cases, is more useulthan isolated and deep specic knowledge. Tis is why, in this kind o learning, particular cases are taught last—when people begin to know where to appropriately place specic acts into their holistic systemiccontexts.

While comparatively rare, integrative histories are available.

Tomas Bender’s recent work, A Nation Among Nations, asks us to“recognize the historical interconnections and interdependencies thathave made America’s history global even as it is national” (Bender2006, ix).

Peter Wells’ (1999) Te Barbarian Speaks: How the Conquered Peoples Shaped Roman Europe is an important history with more thana ew lessons or would-be modern global economy/global democracy

enthusiasts with visions o transorming the world without themselvesbeing transormed (Wells 1999, 266). Wells applies to the ancientRoman world’s change dynamics a perspective similar to Werther’s(1992) clash-o-claims ramework as seen in modern nation-state/ethnicnational sel-determination change dynamics. Both have orecastingrelevance on several ronts in how they see change occurring and why styles o disputing and relationships change.

Similarly, Robert A. Kann’s (1974) A History o the Hapsburg Empire 1526-1918 notes,

Te problems o the Hapsburg Empire can be ully understood only i equal attention is given to the various political entities and eth-nic groups that ormed it. Tere is no one stage o action but several stages, which have to be presented in a synchronistic view. Tis does not mean that all areas are necessarily o equal importance, and

certainly not at the same time. Te part o the stage where the ac-tion takes place is illuminated, and then alls back into darkness when history shits to some other place. It is necessary, however, tokeep in mind that that specic aspects o history have to be viewed in the rst place rom the angle o particular groups. Tis method




applies to national and cultural problems but also to political and socioeconomic ones.… Tese are important aspects o the history o

the Hapsburg Empire but not the essence o its history. It rests inthe synthesis between the supranational and national problems. Incorrelating them as seen rom dierent angles, this study has tried to break new ground. (Kann 1974, xii)

Noticing that what Kann has done looking backward helps us “benearer the task necessary or emerging trends prediction” (Werther2006b), with particular attention directed to his holistic, change-

oriented analytic architecture consisting o “several stages (perspectives)…[orming a] synchronistic view” such that “the stage where the actiontakes place is illuminated, and then alls back into darkness…[and is]to be viewed in the rst place rom the angle o particular groups.”

In Kann’s manner o presenting history, where “the essence o eachgroup’s perspective is critical and the analytic solution…rests in thesynthesis…correlating them as seen rom dierent angles…”(Kann

1974, xii), is excellent or our orecasting purposes.

Tis is, or the social sciences, an analog to Einstein’s thoughtexperiments where things are considered rom dierent angles toilluminate underlying reality, appropriately seen within social scienceinquiries with respect to the nature o the contending bias systems o the various actors upon the stage.

Tinking through such holistic and syndrome oriented historiesis very useul because it orces the student/analyst out o a personal(worse, an ideological) view.

oynbee comments “Te historian’s proession…is an attempt tocorrect sel-centeredness that is one o the intrinsic limitations andimperections, not merely o human lie, but o all lie on the ace o the Earth…by consciously and deliberately trying to shit his angle o

vision away rom the initial sel-centered standpoint” (oynbee 1956,4). Te Japanese master Hokusai presents this non-egoist perspectiveelegantly in his One Hundred Views o Mt. Fuji , “showing lie in all itsshiting orms…[in order] to see urther into the underlying principleo things” (Smith II 1988, 7).




From the author’s perspective, the most useul histories or buildinguture’s orecasting abilities that incorporate those non-egoist abilities

requisite or seeing things rom multiple perspectives simultaneously are developmental histories, especially comparative and integrativedevelopmental histories, that proceed rom the study o the history o ideas (or states o mind) as mechanisms animating dierent societalchange dynamics.

We benet by considering Havel’s Disturbing the Peace , whichdepicts the collapse o the Czechoslovak communist system as having

occurred when “all the civil structures simply turn their backs on theaggressors” (Havel 1991, 109), a subtle syndromes shit that caught thecommunist authoritarian state by complete surprise.

Gordon S. Wood’s Revolutionary Characters—What Made the Founders Dierent, explains the American ormative experience throughthe personal and societal values o its revolutionary leaders, who “werenot modern men” (Wood 2007, 17).

In a most proound essay, his classic Te Counter-Revolution o Science: studies in the abuse o reason, F. A. Hayek (1979) claried how the alternative ideas paths generating various modern societies produceddierent orms o modern society.

In his various writings on the history o ideas, Sir Isaiah Berlinreminds early and oten “that these great movements began as ideas in

people’s heads: ideas about what relations between men have been, are,and might be and should be” (Berlin 1992, 1).

Gertrude Himmelarb’s Te Roads to Modernity: Te British, French,and American Enlightenments comparatively examines three outcomeso modernizing ideas within three dierent societal contexts— American, British, and French syndromes—showing thereby thediering inuences o the same Enlightenment ideas upon these

dierent systems.

In his Enemies o the Enlightenment , Darrin McMahon, by asking“who abandoned the eld o experience or the nothingness o systemsand the emptiness o words,” reminds us that not all agreed and that




these counter-movements had systemic implications (McMahon 2001,104).

Holistic developmental histories are also valuable: Rhondo Cameron’s A Concise Economic History o the World (Cameron and Neal 2003), which rames global temporal syndromes as a logistic; Lach and VanKley’s (1993) monumental Asia in the Making o Europe as a lesson ininterpenetrated historic change; George B. N. Ayittey’s (1992) AricaBetrayed as a study o ideas and policy as seen rom the perspective o colonizer and colonized as to outcomes implications; and Peter Flora

and Arnold Heidenheimer’s (1984) Te Development o Welare States in Europe and America as a comparative study in the interconnectednature o change—change as ancient regime syndromes, industrialrevolution syndromes, and modernizing agendas, both capitalist andsocialist, interact toward dierent country-specic outcomes. Eachstudy exemplies change emergence.

Notice that we have not yet studied case studies heavily; the

teaching emphasis has been holistically comparative, whether static orhistorically oriented.

Latterly, we ocused more upon comparative change.

Case studies, national histories, and biographies o great personsare or later—ater the student knows where to place particular acts within their broader contexts. Contrary to the current moti o teaching

cases rst (History o the United States, o France, o China, o World War I, etc.; or o studying business cases involving Motorola, Intel,Ford, oyota, etc.), we begin instead with the comparative and time-series study o the origination o things and o the relationships amongthings and then old in specics onion-like to enold ever greater depth/breadth o understanding in the student.

For teaching emerging utures orecasting, this point is about as

important as they get.

Using both the integrative histories o ideas and the comparativestudy (using most-similar system and most-dierent systems designsiteratively) o how dierent ideas, values, customs, norms, and wayso relating variously interact as syndromes and, operationally through



time, shape complex systems, how they produce particular dynamicsleading to particular societal solution paths and ways, and how they

lead to a kind o bounded knowledge about how each society plays within the conict space is a serious teaching precursor to competenceat emerging trends orecasting (Werther 1992).

One cannot orecast uture emergence until one attains comparativemastery o what is changing, how, and why.

It is to the issue o emergence that we now turn.

Conronting Te Great Divide: On eaching Embeddednessand Emergence or Forecasting Change

Students and analysts must move intellectually and operationally rom perspectives involving more or less broad and deep understandingso relatively static multi-disciplinary, cross-cultural, and comparativepositions—the mastery o which is no small achievement—to dynamics,and eventually to comparative dynamics. Tis is the critical shit orstudents and analysts concerned with learning and doing emergingutures orecasting.

Te discussion thus ar has ocused on learning what goes withwhat and why as well as the more complicated inquiries into what changes to what and how . Tese were understood as being holistically

interpenetrated, always developing and developed, normative societalarchitectures and ways that are in act denitive o every particularsociety; things orm, develop, and move according to their bias. Tisbias o good and evil and o ways o attaining good is what denes andseparates each society as an imagined community.

Tese embedded comprehensions must be put in motion to producein the mind o the student and analyst understandings o how things

ow. Students must learn to see ows.So ar also, these matters were discussed mostly rom the Western

intellectual tradition, presuming that the audience is rom thistradition. Henceorth, other major traditions will be olded in,although eschewing entry into minor and aboriginal ways or clarity’s




sake. Necessarily, analysts involved in emerging utures orecasting donot have the option o ignoring the input o minor or aboriginal ways

on a complex systems’ perormance. Small and relatively powerlessgroups can have large inuences upon systems, as the insurgency andirregular conict literature, or example, teaches.

Operationally, the above preamble perspectives, even at basicundergraduate levels, can be taught to most people by using comparativemulti-disciplinary developmental histories, comparative histories o ideas, most-similar systems comparisons at particular points in time,

and most-dierent systems designs at particular points in time; butyou cannot teach people to see how things ow. Tis is neither a pointo censure nor o congratulations; it simply reects dierences in how individuals’ personal constitution and mind are made.

Tis core point was covered in Integrated Learning as a Necessary Ground o Integrated Security Solutions , wherein it was noticed that “attruly predictive levels…it is a study in synchronous ows.…Tis last

capacity…was a trained mind within a ound talent” (Werther 2006a,13). Tis essay also illuminated the emergent nature o such teaching.

Terein were elucidated some o the generally dysunctionalcharacteristics o people who see things dynamically and in ows, which bear repeating here:

Persons tted or integrative learning sel identiy – because they

cannot, by virtue o their manner o seeing the world, remainwithin their assigned bucket.

I one likes clarity, order, and precision with all the ducks lined in aneat row, i clear directions, structures, and procedures are a preer-ence, i statistics excite, then be well: integrative learning beyond the bare minimum is not or you.

I, alternatively, learning by objectives seems entirely inadequate

and articial, i rules look like advisory opinions emanating romdubious sources due in part at least to your clear knowledge o what – like sausage making – goes into making them, and o why and how it is added, i statistics and calculus classes looked like a prison




sentence and you saw therein the orm o the answer beore your arithmetic caught up; we can speak.

I yet urther, by a stroke o luck and/or a misortune o nature, you were doing something akin to digesting a thirty volume ency-clopedia cover to cover in your teen years, thought Gibbon’s (1909)Te Decline and Fall o the Roman Empire in seven volumes anexciting read, and elt misplaced in every class except perhaps his-tory because the topic at hand clearly was related to all the others; please call.

I, in the immediacy o a moment, when an scholar or bureaucrat shows you a set o variables attending to a complex, multi-disciplinary study, you see correctly the orm and perhaps scope o the answer, its several aults and strong points, its potentials and lacks,and a round dozen dierent ways o going about it; you will be called upon and are truly called – because you see wholes.

You likely ailed Logic, because your personal thinking style intui-

tively and holistically integrates a manner o reasoning, which is, or you, neither linear nor unidirectional.

I you see the comings and goings o things with their variously emergent possibilities within ever shiting complexity, and i the last ve years makes pretty good sense to you: You are already anintegrative thinker. (Werther 2006a, 9-10)

Tis is the cut point: can the student see the relationships o things,how they operate, and how they move? I so, we can proceed. Tis is asearch parameter o ancient vintage.

Conucius remarks in Analects, Book 2:10 “See how he operates,observe what path he ollows, examine what he is satised with, andhow can a man remain inscrutable, how can a man remain inscrutable!”(Dawson 1993, 7). O integrated learners, he comments in Analects,

Book 7:8 “I I raise one angle and they do not come back with the other

three angles, I will not repeat mysel” (Dawson 1993, 24).

Moses Maimonides, in Te Guide or the Perplexed, says “WhenI commenced by way o hints, I noticed that you desired additionalexplanation…and enjoined you to continue your studies systematically;




or my object was that the truth should present itsel in connectedorder, and that you should not hit upon it by mere chance.…We must,

thereore, begin with teaching these subjects according to the capacity o the student.…You, however, know all these subjects are connectedtogether.…It is thus necessary to examine all things according to theiressence (Maimonides 1956, 1, 44-46).

Te Dhammapada begins “All phenomena o existence have mindas their precursor, mind as their supreme leader, and o mind are they made”—results ollow (Kaviratna 1989, 5). Te process o “investigation

culminates in the discovery o the process o dependent origination, which thereby becomes the cornerstone o [Buddha’s] teaching…or thebenet o those with little dust in their eyes” (Bodhi 2005, 47). Eacho the major Eastern traditions, Hinduism, Buddhism, Conucianism,and aoism, enold as basic this aspect o the interpenetrated relationso things, maniesting causes and eects, inows and outows romtheir essences/ideas/states o mind, originations, and so orth.

Secularly, Aristotle, wrote in Te Metaphysic , “all consider what istermed wisdom to be conversant about rst causes and principles”(McMahon 1991, 13), and this understanding is by no means unknownin more modern Western intellectual traditions.

We see this view within the holistic-organic societal changeperspective o the classic Western conservative traditions, whichare careul and thus skeptical o positivist interventions due tohuman complex causation dynamics and its inevitable unintendedconsequences (Kirk 1987, 19, 29, 38). We see it in the Enlightenmentand Age o Reason traditions—minus the French Positivists and theirmodern spawn—and on until such as Einstein, who strongly believedin a “harmony o nature” interpenetrating all (Isaacson 2007, 7).

It is a purpose o this essay is to overtly isolate the modern,singularly ocused, scientic specialist as historically aberrational interms o higher-level questions, and to urther isolate the attemptedmathematical modeling o holistic complex systems o human actionas a most recent—and so ar mostly unsuccessul—side path.




At this juncture, or a mostly sel-selected ew, we explore animationand path ormation, emergence, harmonics, and perturbation: as these

processes oster holistic emerging trends orecasts.

Hokusai has a rather depressing perspective on this learningprocess:

From the age o six I had a penchant or copying the orm o things…At seventy-three, I was somewhat able to athom the growth o plants and trees, and the structure o birds, animals,insects, and sh…at ninety to see urther into the underlying prin-ciple o things…at one hundred and ten, every dot and stroke will be as though alive. (Smith II 1988)

Tankully, Hokusai was a very great master, while we aim or amodest mastery.

For the utures orecaster, how do we acilitate learning this, since itcannot be taught?

Learning Animation and Dynamic Path Formation

We commence “by way o hints” and “raised” angles, as Maimonidesand Conucius suggest, because at this juncture we have mostly let o teaching and entered learning.

Everyone still reading, and a great many talented specialists nolonger with us, is a considerable talent: through broad ormal learningand/or broad experience in the world.

My suggestion is that these talents, or whom the above discussionsare comprehensible, now need to be applied somewhat systematically to answering the ollowing questions.

Generically, how is a society’s idea ormed, how does this ideatranslate into its stable and denitive orms o action, how should wecome to see this or our society and or societies not our own, and how do we use this understanding in orecasting uture action?




Germans, mostly o the nineteenth century Romantic School,coupled with classic thinkers rom several non-Western traditions,

inorm us about the rst question.

F. A. Hayek applies ree market principles to the second questionvery admirably.

Tese, together with some insights about complex systems analysis written by Sir Isaiah Berlin, address the third question, while the ourth necessarily olds in a number o traditions precisely because all things

proceed according to their bias, internally and with respect to eachother. Tis last arena is complex adaptive systems dancing, conictingharmonies, and so orth—basically, or example, the United Statesghting a war in Iraq and Aghanistan according to its biases andnorms o acting, and every other society acting and reacting within theinternational sphere according to their biased norms o action.

It is all quite rational—simply not solely involving our orms o

being rational. Emerging utures orecasting begins archeologically rom this socio-psychological ground o action.

Tis conversation was introduced ormally at the Proteus 2006Complex Systems Analysis Conerence via Proling International Change Processes: introducing a holistically integrative and socio- psychologically grounded approach to emerging trends prediction (Werther2007, 17-19). Interested readers are directed there and to the earlier

Proling ‘Change Processes’ as a Strategic Analysis ool , which presents auseul graphic overview o the “archeological perspective on analysis” which leads to emergent utures insights (Werther 2000a, 20), and alsoto Beyond the Blocking ree: Improving Perormance in Future-Oriented Analysis , wherein Werther notes, “In order to produce uture-orientedanalysis, it is necessary to evaluate how our method(s), philosophy, andthe art o analysis interact” (Werther 2000b, 42).

Te current teaching/learning-oriented discussion o emerginginternational trends orecasting extracts some key points rom thesepapers, adds additional considerations o a more sophisticated kind,and builds on them.




We begin thusly with F. A. Hayek’s topic addressing dynamic societalpath ormation rather than its particular idea animation because, likely,

in the beginning was the deed.

Philosophers will oten tell us that it is ideas that matter, and thatdierent societies, cultures, and nations are at root “them versus us”idea-strategies in action about desired goods and detested evils. Tis isall very intellectual and rational in its way.

More likely an ancient someone zigged when they should have zagged,

contemporaries noticed, and society learned thereby. Ater repetitions,a “look what Grog do” idea-path was born naturally and without heavy thinking—or at least, so thinks F. A Hayek. “Since circumstances vary worldwide and temporally, variation arises and solidies. Tis processis compositive and synthetic, more than analytic” (Hayek, 1952, 65-68).

Because o the uid and shiting nature by which complex events

move, people need to make their best judgments on the spot in thecircumstances as they nd them at that time.

Some judgments are useul, others not, and it is by this process o constant market-like selection and rejection that each particular groupgenerates their various normalized solution patterns as “successivepeople nd themselves who are to seek their way and who by the cumulative eect o their action create a path” (Hayek 1952, 70-71).

Imitation really is the highest orm o attery, and as each society constantly imitates and passes on what traditionally, customarily, andnormally works in their time and special circumstance, a unique pathis ormed, one institutionally and normatively endowed.

Such variations about societies, cultures, and nations are notinnumerable in their basic orms, or in their basic strategies and

ways o acting. Tere are patterns within patterns, but they can beunderstood. Tis is why we began with the study o religions, cultures,philosophies, histories, and societies: comparative mostly. Tese buildunderstanding.




Moses Maimonides thinks “Te majority o scholars, that is to say,the most amous in science, are aficted with this ailing, viz., that o

hurrying at once to the nal results…without treating o the preliminary disciplines (Maimonides 1956, 47), which Conucius calls concerningonesel “with the root“ (Dawson 1993, 3). So also does Buddhist (Bodhi2005, 47, 317, 356, 405) and Hindu tradition (Mascaro 1965) adviseconsideration o whole complex causal relationships, given attentionto basic learning.

Interestingly, Einstein, who read a great deal o philosophy,

particularly Hume, Spinoza, and Mach (Isaacson 2007, 81), whenasked near the end o his lie what schools should emphasize, said “Inteaching history, there should be extensive discussion o personalities who beneted mankind through independence o character and judgment (Isaacson 2007, 6). He also considered visual understandingto be key (Isaacson 2007, 9, 26), and amously said that “imaginationis more important than knowledge” so that “a new idea comes suddenly

in a rather intuitive way.…But intuition is nothing but the outcome o earlier intellectual experience” (Isaacson 2007, 7, 113). Tis intellectualexperience, Isaacson thinks, mainly came to Einstein rom his “deepunderstanding and knowledge…and his grounding in philosophy”(Isaacson 2007, 113).

One probably cannot say too oten that no historical society hasvaunted the specialist and denigrated the deeply and broadly educated

generalist as much as has our modern, science-based society, especially America (Werther 1998, 24, 1999, 287-290, 2006a, 2,).

Tat is why we are so poor at emerging utures orecasting in humanaairs, even given that, or the rst time in human history, technology permits us to see global, regional, and local change in nearly real-time and almost holistically (Werther 2007). Tis ought to be, by any rational construction, the prooundest era o utures orecasting.

Broad ignorance within the analytical population about many disciplines, roots, ormations, interconnections, and animating ideasand their emergences, principally prevents this. What is being claimedhere is that we cannot take advantage o technology because we lack




the capacity to sel-organize masses o inormation within holisticconstructions.

Building up this ability dynamically is critical.

Proceeding by way o hints, some simple examples o what must belearned about path ormation and its implications or emerging uturesorecasting are useul. In real emerging trends prediction, these variousconsiderations will be holistically interpenetrated to orm a “changeprole” or each country or societal association o interest (Werther

2000a, 2007). Here, they merely draw attention to the process o building up insights into path ormation, path dynamics, and nationalstyle o change, especially as these are normatively embedded as ideas.

Among the paths so ormed by Americans is legalism. Te UnitedStates employs roughly seventy percent o the world’s lawyers, itsoriginal complaint involving the rights o Englishmen versus themonarch was legal, its Constitution is a negotiated contract, its

behavior in almost any serious dispute o policy then and now is to work it out within the courts, repetitively, until a kind o societalconsensus occurs. Nobody uses lawyers the way that Americans uselawyers, so that today we even embed them into combat situations asbattleeld lawyers in Iraq “in day-to-day operations…[where they]dene rules o engagement, give advice on targeting issues.…Tey’reinvolved at all levels o decision making (Schaufer 2003, 1): a use orlawyers that seems not to have occurred to Iraqis, Somalis, Aghans,Chinese, Fijians, Arican warlords, or, or that matter, to anyone else.

Legalism, as one dening eature o American behavior, has analogs with tribalism in places like Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, and indeed, inmuch o Arica and the Middle East-Central Asia, with guanxi-typeembedded relations leading to strong and centralized governments inEast Asia and Singapore (among others), with egalitarian democratic welare statism in Europe, with “amily” networks o governancein Philippines and much o Latin America, with devolutionary cantonment in Switzerland, with consociational power sharing inBelgium and Malaysia, with military enorced secularization in urkey,and so orth.




For any society, not all insights will be laudable or welcome toall, such as those respecting observations o American dysunctional

bureaucratization (Olson 1982), widespread cheating (Callahan 2004),lack o staying power in society combined with a short-term ocus inoperations (Berner 2006, 59), and so orth.

Societal meanings also change, or what is corruption under American legalism is not similar to corruption under Arican tribalism,Sinic guanxi , Latin amily, and/or other embedded systems o mutualobligation. A Japanese executive may resign shameaced and publicly

because his brother did wrong, but an American would consider thisquite irrelevant to his/her legal and social obligations.

None o these insights into societal path ormation is to besimplistically understood as operating in isolation rom the speciccontexts in which it maniests itsel, nor without being interpenetrated with the other dening path-like eatures by which that society normally moves. Nor are these path-like eatures static. Tey may be

glacial, perhaps, in their rate o evolutionary change, but not static.

Teir personality-like societal character has useulness in emergingchange prediction because, once ormed, in the way that Hayek suggests when speaking o such wholes within the realm o individual choicesand subsequent societal actions.

At rst everyone will seek or himsel what seems to him the best

path. But the act that such a path has been used once is likely to make it easier to traverse and thereore more likely to be used again; and thus gradually more and more clearly dened tracks arise and come to be used to the exclusion o other possible ways.(Hayek 1952, 70-71)

Dierent society’s specic exclusion/inclusion eatures, operative within their varied contexts, are precisely what mathematical treatments

positing scientically rational human action cannot capture. Rather,they are why we are learning this manner o approaching emergingutures orecasting, and they are why Bright (2007) commented thatinormed judgments have provided the most insight, and that [now]traditional metric analysis approaches are not applicable. Expert holistic




and synthetic analysis requires wielding a general knowledge capacity applied simultaneously to many dierent specic circumstances, and

means doing so in an immediately exible manner (Wilson 1998,269).

Te previously learned “what goes with what?” and “what changesto what,” now seen as motors o action within and among societies,need to be animated in varying contexts.

Sir Isaiah Berlin contributes to this insight:

What makes statesmen, like drivers o cars, successul is that they do not think in general terms—that is, they do not ask themselves in what respect a given situation is like or unlike other situations in the long course o human history…Teir merit is that they graspthe unique combination o characteristics that constitute this par-ticular situation—this and no other…that communicate to themthe specic contours and texture o a particular political or social

situation….o integrate in this sense is to see data…as elements o a single pattern, with their implications, to see them as symptoms o past and uture possibilities, to see them pragmatically…Above all this is an acute sense o what ts with what, what springs romwhat, what leads to what…It is a sense or what is qualitative rather than quantitative, or what is specic rather than general;it is a species o direct acquaintance…It is a capacity, in the rst place, or synthesis. (Berlin 1996, 45-47)

Quite so: exactly. Neither Conucius, nor Buddha, nor Sun zu,nor Dale Earnhardt, nor any Zen master could have said it better.

We can now also useully see national histories such as Jutikkala andPirinen’s (1988) excellent A History o Finland as a particular problemset to be solved, one centrally involving Sweden, Russia, and Prussia in what it means to be and act as a Finn.

Similarly, one sees Norman Davies’ (1991) Heart o Europe–A Short History o Poland as a Polish problem set to be solved—Poland as “anattempt not to speak German,” as my student ramed it. One seesin Billington’s (1970) Te Icon and the Axe–An Interpretive History o Russian Culture the ormative and path development inuences o orest




society and the Orthodox church; within Korean history, a Korean,Chinese, and Japanese ongoing dance o inuences and conquests;

so or Vietnam, or Croatia, or Iraq; indeed to see or any society the creation and maintenance o their normalized orms and styles o behavior as being accepted solution sets, normatively endowed throughlong practice because “gradually more and more clearly dened tracksarise and come to be used to the exclusion o other possible ways”(Hayek 1952, 70-71).

Now one can also more ruitully read excellent biographies with

a deeper grasp as to why, as a problem o direct acquaintance, somegreat statesmen did that and no other thing, within the context o theirmoment.

Tis onion-like olding in process is endless, but its core eatureis that everything has a place within a broadening and deepeningunderstanding o dynamic change processes. Te Learning Forecasting by Layering the Onion gure should thus be understood as part o the

iterative process shown in the Proling Change Processes within Societies:a Socio/Psychological Approach to Predicting Likely Futures schematic.Tese learning and assessment orientations interpenetrate each other.

We arrive at using societal animation via its idea operating withinthese paths.

Applying Dynamic Animation

Like any human composition, there are theme and harmony animating groups, and within this realm o ideas, each normally acts. Wediscussed how societal paths are ormed and how they can be learned ina holistic and interpenetrated manner. At the yet higher level o analystability, it is a capacity to use those whole themed compositions that isattained.

Tis means we now need to learn about a society’s constitutive andanimating ideas in action. Tis style o action is seen philosophically/religiously and strategically/ormally.




In the beginning was the deed, so we begin with ideas as a species : aspecies maniesting orm and a strategy or survival. Tere is another

reason or so beginning.

For example, in Muslim societies one hears requently about aithand honor, in the way that in America one hears about rights and law.Osama Bin Laden speaks regularly in this interpretive language o aithand honor versus humiliation (Berner 2006, 59, 69, 83).

American experience in Aghanistan and Iraq exemplies the tribal

importance o honor.Te Holy Koran 2:191, 217 says, “umult and oppression are worse

than slaughter,” although 2:190 warns one to “Fight in the cause o Allah those who ght you, but do not transgress limits; or Allah lovethnot transgressors.” Some tribal codes enold honor.

It certainly seems that Sir Henry Maine’s (1890) classic observationabout behavior and organization within status society versus contractsociety is inormative here, as are other insights about shame-basedsocieties—which modern America certainly is not—where loss o honor is more consequential than loss o lie (Wood 2006; Boehm1984; Benedict 1989). Modern secular America and Europe is aboutrights and contract; not honor.

Te Hindu Bhagavad Gita, 2:33-34 warns “But to orgo this

ght or righteousness is to orgo thy duty and honour; is to all intotransgression. Men will tell o thy dishonour both now and in timesto come. And to a man who is in honour, dishonour is more thandeath” (Mascaro 1984). In the West, we called this chivalry, and it wasonce prime. In Japan, we say giri —the obligation to keep one’s nameunspotted (Benedict 1989, 145).

What is being expressed is that, in their philosophical relations,

cultures, societies, and nations advise action within bounded norms o behavior, which maniests core ideas. Tis is the systemic expression o the good they aspire to and the evil they seek to avoid.




Wood (2006) asserts that behavior is undamentally channeledthrough such ideas and that a society cannot be understood other than

with proper reerence to them.

However, as a practical matter, a society always lives its idea path, butno society I know o lives up to its philosophical/religious principles.Te latter shape, but do not determine.

Tis is another Aristotelian “such precision as the subject matterallows” moment: neither to be over-specied nor ignored because it is

not, inter alia, precise enough.Schopenhauer and the Romantic era Germans rescue us via talk o

national styles as idea.

Teirs was, in part, a negative reaction to the predominantly externalNewtonian and Cartesian empiricism that was growing dominantduring the Age o Reason, coupled with their emerging recognitionand statement o how inward nature normally reects outward in worldly actions. Schopenhauer (1969, 141) says o his time “everythingis ascribed to things working rom the outside, and nothing to theinner nature o things. I we could actually succeed in this way, then,as we have already said, an arithmetical sum would ultimately solvethe riddle o the world.” Tis these Germans, and a ew others, didnot believe, and so they looked inwardly or another way o knowinghuman action.

Tey proceed rom the position that “every organism represents theIdea o which it is the image or copy” (Schopenhauer 1969, 146), andthat this “Idea” is ormalized in a species (dened as a natural orm andsimultaneously a natural strategy or existence ). A species thus representsa normalized strategy o action or survival . It acts, via Schopenhauer’s willing—a concept not to be simplistically or crassly understood—according to its “Idea.”

Schopenhauer’s “Idea,” which is the denitive solution set o any societal species (and its constituent individuals) in response to its complexenvironment, gets at this precise notion o moving rom the inside outin each and every context (my emphasis). Tere are likely innite (or atleast very, very many) particular situational cases, but in each case, the




various species (and their members) denitively respond according totheir nature—according to their idea-strategy, i you will—and thus

respond to problems in ways consistent with their “path.”

Learning this is not about learning a single thing captured in any onesingle study, but about learning endlessly changing contextual lessons.Such observations mean that a case study is not the thing to be studiedper se, but is rather the idea-species’ problem being worked upon atthat instant. Every case is a snapshot o a behavioral moment, or someew behavioral moments, upon an idea path. Similarly, comparative

history’s orecasting lessons are not in the particular acts or even theirrelationships, but in the characteristic ways o addressing problems thateach group adopts. Tis species-as-idea-strategy analysis ocus is alsoappropriate or studying biographies and current news.

An excellent example o this is Peter Katzenstein’s (1985) Small States in World Markets–Industrial Policy in Europe , which examines why someo the richest counties in the world are small, generally resource poor,

open, and highly exible trading nations—they have each maniested,to use ecological language, a successul niche strategy or eciently appropriating desired resources. Tey can be rich no other way, andto become rich, their idea and actions must conorm within a narrow realm o contextual possibility.

Schiller (1855) expresses this, in History o the Revolt o the Netherlands , as being about how seven small, resource-poor, tradingprovinces o the dominant Spanish Empire, where Philip II, “the mostpowerul sovereign o his line—whose dreaded superiority menacedthe independence o Europe,” was overthrown in his possession o theUnited Provinces (Netherlands) not by heroes, but by a necessity “wherenecessity made genius, and accident made heroes” (Schiller 1855, 10).Necessity is a strong guide.

At the sub-national level, James C. Scott’s (1985)Weapons o the Weak–Everyday Forms o Peasant Resistance , addresses how relatively

powerless groups typically respond to much more powerul dominantgroups via “orms o struggle [which] stop well short o collective deance…make use o implicit understandings and inormal networks…thatrequire little coordination and planning” (Scott 1985, xvi); which all




sounds rather useul in understanding in part why we are losing, orat least not winning, the War on error, why insurgent recruitment is

spreading to new countries, why Great Britain among others is worriedabout the enemy within, and why a metastatic, largely disjointed, andsel-directed orientation has developed worldwide (Windrem 2007).

Tere is nothing unpredictable in this—that is how powerless groupsmust ght back.

Tey cannot win ghting stupidly, so they strategically adapt to

the dominant power’s conict dynamic. Werther (1992) shows how small groups win major concessions against large powers in this way.Te major power and the minor power dance in this manner quitepredictably, a act that nicely permits orecasting emerging utures(Werther 1992).

Te Combating errorism Center o the United States Military Academy currently notes that “adherents o al Qa’ida and like minded

groups do not value sel-preservation in the way that the United Stateshad anticipated,” and now—hal a decade into the War on error— wants new ideas on how to eectively combat such persons (USMA/CC 2007).

In his initial declaration o war, published in Al Quds al-Arabi on23 August 1996, Osama bin Laden said, “Tese youths love death asyou love lie. Tey pass the traits o dignity, pride, courage, generosity,

truthulness and sacrice rom ather to ather. Tey are most deliveringand steadast at war. Tey inherit these values rom their ancestors,even rom the ime o the Ignorance beore Islam” (Berner 2006, 60).

In the same declaration o war, bin Laden said, “errorizing you, while you carry arms in our land, is a legitimate and morally demandedduty.…Tose youth are dierent rom your soldiers. Your problem will be how to convince your soldiers how to ght, while our problem

will be how to restrain our youth to wait their turn in ghting andin operations” (Berner 2006, 64). Rather depressing, really, but notunpredictable surely.

I one accepts 2006-2007 era American domestic views—amidadmitted expanding insurgency recruitment—that the U.S. military




is at or near the breaking point and that retention bonuses and stop-loss orders are needed to staunch the ow o personnel, and i current

Congressional debates regarding unding and staying in or leaving Iraqare valid signals; Osama bin Laden has been a pretty good emergingutures analyst rom 1996.

Furthermore, his target was, and is, destroying the U.S. economy through overspending and its reputation through deeat in Muslim lands:“In summary, America is a great country which possesses tremendousmilitary might and a wide ranging economy, but all this is based on

a rail oundation, and it is possible to target this rail oundation.… We are continuing in the same policy [as with the USSR]—to make America bleed prousely to the point o bankruptcy, God willing… Armies do not triumph with large numbers, but are deeated i thespirit o deeatism prevails” (Berner 2006, 225, 309, 213).

Respecting the September 11th, 2001, attacks, bin Laden said“Tey shook America’s throne and struck the U.S. economy in the

heart.…Tis is clear proo that this international usurious, damnableeconomy…can easily collapse” (Berner 2006, 169).

As this is being written, majorities o Americans now believe theIraq War cannot be won, and general optimism—as measured by an AP-Ipsos poll and other surveys—is at record lows, with merely 25% believing the country is moving in the right direction (Framand ompson, 2007, A6). Simultaneously, anti-globalization anddomestic economic dissatisaction is rising, prompting the conservativeEconomist to place the picture o a beached, rusting ship hulk on theircover with the lead “Te uture o globalisation” (Economist, July 29th-August 4th 2007), ollowed shortly by “Rich man, poor man—the winners and losers rom globalization” (Economist , January 20th-26th2007), while the New York imes , among other major sources, regularly writes stories such as “Cracks in the Foundations,” wherein it said “A

crisis mood has descended over the [World rade Organization trade]talks …a new era o protectionism could be ushered in…leading to aslowdown in the global economy” (Weisman 2007, C1).

Te purposes o this timely—i painul—example o War onerror/Iraq War/Economics holistic emergent dynamics, includes




looking at dynamic group animation problems as that group/species’stable, bounded action parameters seen in terms o their idea-strategy

conronting the world. Painul as this is to say, Osama bin Ladenunderstood this well. We, however, mostly have not understood. Justin this way, most analysts missed emerging Andean Rim syndromeshits as precursors to a basic complex system change.

Second, as in several o the previous examples, notice that societalcomplex systems behave quite nicely within their normal actionpatterns, and whenever they begin not to, one can notice it because

the interdependent unctional characteristics o interacting syndromes within complex systems suggest that “a change in one element o thesesyndromes…would bring about…a change in the entire pattern”(Przeworski and eune 1982, 29). Tat is unlikely to be subtle andis never invisible, and thus it can be investigated as to emergingconsequences. I will have more to say about this as a orecasting toollater.

Tird, societies and other actors tell you what they are up to, why, andhow; i not directly through words, then directly in actions grounded within their idea-strategy (personality, i you like). Understand this,and you can orecast emergence eectively.

A deer cannot move without leaving signs, and i you understandthe nature o the deer, its goals and problems at various times, and itsenvironment, you can predict the uture movement o the deer withinits complex environment. Any good hunter understands this.

Apply this to societies and other groups in an embedded ashion,and emergence occurs.

Fourth, societies are constrained by what went beore and by whattheir current reality and perception thereo is, and they move rom thatcomplex systems syndrome position. China and India may be growing

at high rates with excellent oreign direct investment, but they still havemassive numbers o very poor people, huge and growing inequality gaps,perverse demographic realities, growing political and social-culturalconict, strategic limitations, inrastructure and resource challenges,and so orth that they must address and which they will try to address




rom within their idea-strategy, that is, as Indian bias systems and asChinese bias systems, not objectively.

Schopenhauer commented too generally, “We know the psychologicalcharacter o the species, and rom this we know exactly what is to beexpected rom the individual” (Schopenhauer 1969, 131). Tis is toodeterminist, but it is broadly useul.

Although overstated as to precision, Schopenhauer’s generalobservation about the importance o psychological character and o

idea-as-species-strategy as a valid predictor o uture action within and by ormations provides the necessary groundwork or a broadly holisticbehavioral solution to emerging utures orecasting based on stable orchanging behavior o such ormations.

It must be emphasized that it is actual actions and their dynamicsthat must be proled.

Herder intuitively applied character to the actions o nations andsocieties in the orm o their national styles. His was an inward-oriented, romanticist alternative to the mostly external scientic-mechanical explanations o the era. O course, or human individuals,and thus or their collective actions within and between their societies,the problem o behavioral prediction is—as was said—eminently more complex than Schopenhauer’s comment implies, but the basicorientation o action stemming rom one’s psychological character

dierentiates this perspective rom the externally oriented andobjectively rational empiricism o other schools. And do notice thatidea-species psychological character is stable, whether or an individualor or society (Schopenhauer 1969, 114).

Te orecasting solution derives rom holistically integrating knownand established societal patterns o responding to change pressures(society’s harmonics) with currently observed situational changes. For

example, when conronted with a chronically slow economy duringthe 1990’s, Japan elected patience or over a decade. Te United States would not choose this. Similarly, Aghan, Somali, and Vietnamese wayso ghting are not the same, nor are they the United State’s ways: as we




learned to our detriment. Our pattern is not theirs’, nor theirs’ ours’.Forecasting must consider this, and derives rom it.

According to Sir Isaiah Berlin, enterprises should show “a capacity or integrating a vast amalgam o constantly changing, multicoloured,evanescent, perpetually overlapping data, too many, too swit, toointermingled to be caught and pinned down, and labeled like somany butteries.” (Berlin 1996, 46). Berlin is a realist cure or theRomantics.

Berlin believed that enterprises—meaning both human actionsand judgments based upon them—ought to practically reect humanexperience as it really is: enterprises being dynamically complex systems“too many, too swit, too intermingled to be caught and pinneddown.”

Te trick lies in not trying to “pin” them down: watch them moveinstead. Prole their change processes, and understand, with Przeworski

and eune’s insight always in mind, that changes among interconnectedsyndromes are important.

Te specic problem is to integrate eectively Berlin’s data-drivencomplex systems realism with systems’ inwardly motivated action styles.Tis should be done or humanly constructed wholes by proling theirchange processes according to socio-psychological natures. Such societalideas-species as biased “change process” are always exhibited—never

hidden—and permit seeing uture action which thererom proceeds.

But this requires ongoing dicult syntheses that one can only learn by doing. Synthetic solutions are not seen in categories, but inintermingling syndromes amid change.

Learning Synchrony and Harmonic Path Dynamics

Every culture, group, society, nation is—in Schopenhauer’s sense—a will, an idea, and a constituted whole who’s normalized set o individualchoices is constructed so that “by the cumulative eect o their action[they] create a path” (Hayek 1952, 71).




Schopenhauer saw the species’ (a natural orm plus its strategy orsurvival) idea-strategy creating their way, and he applied this to humanly

constructed orms, whereas Hayek posits that the cumulative eects o individual actions creates that “way” or “path” which is denitive overtime o that particular social orm. Benedict Anderson and Nietzschethink o societies as imagined communities o ideas, goals, methods,problems, and neighbors. In combination, these perspectives seemrather iteratively reinorcing as a complex systems syndrome view.

All saw constructed/emergent societal wholes as real entities with

known characteristics.

In plainer physical/biological science English, societies are wholes,but since no two things occupy the same space at the same time in thesame way—they diverge. Using business parlance, we say that rms andeconomies develop strategies according to their comparative advantage,by which we mean they want to eciently avoid competition i they can and achieve monopoly i they could. Socio-psychologically and

historically-anthropologically, societies learn over time what works tosolve their problems—given their environment, neighbors, desires anddislikes—and stick to that idea-strategy as a normative and behavioraleature in subsequent actions. We see this developmentally, as Max Weber, Emile Durkheim (1973), and others previously quoted, havesaid, and also emergently as societal paths, as Hayek, Schopenhauer,Berlin, and others noticed.

Path-like thinking, with perspectives o human action based upon‘paths’ that are distinctive to cultures and societies, is not new: it isprobably among the oldest conceptions about complex systems’dynamics involving human aairs going.

Let us, nally, play with these old ideas a little and see what emerges, why, and how.




Using Dynamic Harmonic Perturbations or Emerging Change Forecasting, and Other Advanced Applications

What strikes one over years o doing emerging internationalutures orecasting is how stable in time societal paths and idea-speciesmaniestations are. Any change is obvious.

People simply do not easily change their accustomed ways , nor dothey easily change their ideas about how things are or should be. Tisbasic insight about Te Structure o Scientic Revolutions was presentedby Tomas Kuhn decades ago, where supposedly highly reasoningscientic communities cling to traditional, normal science, ways o doing things, and continue to teach them long ater convincing new evidence renders their positions obsolete (Kuhn 1962). Hayek’s pointabout path ormation and exclusion ts like a glove.

Mancur Olson, in his classic Te Rise and Decline o Nations , placesthis societal immobility and consequent inability to rationally changein response to changed environments within the entrenched intereststhat seek to preserve their prerogatives, even as the ship o state goesdown (Olson 1982).

Arguing two major implications o his views on collective action within society, Olson claims “organization or collective action takesa good deal o time to emerge” (Olson 1982, 39), and that “those

organizations that have secured selective incentives to maintainthemselves will oten survive as organizations even i the collective goodthey once provided is no longer needed” (Olson 1982, 40) such that,“stable societies with unchanged boundaries tend to accumulate morecollusions and organizations or collective action over time” (Olson1982, 41).

Te operational result, which Olson likens to, “wrestlers struggling

over the contents o a china shop” (Olson 1982, 44), is that “members o ‘small’ groups have disproportionate organizational power or collectiveaction, and this disproportion diminishes but does not disappear overtime in stable societies” (Olson 1982, 41).




Tus, these societal paths and their harmonics, once slowly established and normalized, persist as stable characteristics o that society.

Tis interest group maintenance mechanism produces the internalsyndromes, to use Przeworski and eune’s language, as stable artiactso any society. Hayek’s path ormation, Schopenhauer’s idea-species,Herder’s national styles, Nietzsche’s systems o “good and evil,” ArnoldBenedict’s “imagined communities,” Buddha’s dependent origination,Conucius’ root, and Berlin’s complex system integration, are all aboutseeing and clariying this. As Maimonides said, “You, however, know how all these subjects are connected together” (Maimonides 1956, 45).

When one grasps this about a society—how its syndromes areconnected together and how they normally change—emerging changeorecasting proceeds within that harmonic range o disputing, not as exactdependence, but as synchrony and probabilistically, to uture choices:“they vary as ar as their nature permits (Maimonides 1956, 116).

I you can do the above, you can do simple emerging international

utures orecasting. Tinking dynamically, where several bias systemsmove holistically with respect to their biases within the conict space,is mere practice or a competent analyst with the necessary acility.

Tere are some advanced considerations it is useul to close with.

In the previous discussions, the issue o societal harmonicperturbation (external and internal) was discussed, as was the notion

o using natural and quasi-experimental iteration as a way to seethe unctioning o internal and external path dynamics within theirharmonic range. Also discussed was the idea that endless iteration,historic and contemporary, is a way to reduce the range o uncertainty regarding the behavior o societal path dynamics: the what-goes-with- what? and the what-changes-to-what-and-how? aspects that permitthinking in terms o distinctive societal dynamic ows.

Due to the interpenetration o acts, relationships, and processesto orm syndromes and the interpenetration o syndromes to producesocietal complex systems with given stable dynamics, it is not necessary to know all the acts any more than it is necessary to see the last nailpounded in house construction to know the coming shape o the




house. One can enter ows anywhere and perceive their syndrome-like relationships as an idea-species and idea-strategy maniested. In

reality, all you need to do is iteratively recognize the idea-species andits change maniestations in normal behavior.

Tis is initially relatively gross, but a societal dynamics-orientedlibrary attending to such things would permit holistically iterativelearning in ways useul to emerging international utures orecasting.Te “thing I use to string them together” (Dawson 1993, 61) is theproled societal change process.

In discussing these matters and the teaching/learning thereo, thisessay, along with the works o many scholars and practitioners quoted, was hostile to the possibility that mathematics and modeling areundamentally useul to emerging utures orecasting. Te issue wasthe contextually nuanced nature o syndromes in dynamic complexadaptive systems as they interact with other bias systems according totheir biases, all operating simultaneously in the world.

Picturing such complex system dynamics in action is similar to watching a biased surer upon a wave, operating simultaneously romhis judgment o the coming actions o other dierently biased surers,and rom his judgment respecting the uture movement o the waveitsel. o orecast and act successully within such a complex system, thesurer must simultaneously consider both. Tey key point is that eachindividual surer operates rom their biased style, and not objectively.

Te second image involved dancers projecting, at every moment intime, the emerging movements o their partners, other couples, and theanticipated tune.

Tis simply seemed too complex, in contextual variations, ormathematics to capture.

In writing this essay, a thought emerged which is presented here aspreliminary; although likely it is correct. It is this:

Nothing useul can be achieved by using mathematical modelsto create societal change proles. Te constituent syndromes, theirrelatively stable change relationships, and the complex systems




dynamic they create, which are cast herein as their harmonics, must bequalitatively understood via holistic complex adaptive systems iteration.

Przeworski and eune were incorrect to think o this in uniorm metricmeasurement terms.

However, once such societal complex systems dynamics andtheir syndrome constituent parts are understood, the stable andinterpenetrated nature o the beast—that is, its holistically stable change processes —where a change in one syndrome causes a change in the whole complex system, ought, i this is reasoned correctly, permit

mathematical specication o the societal harmonic. Te idea is simply speciying known societal limits, minima and maxima within whichthat system operates: the more, the better.

We can, in theory, enter anywhere.

Knowing the nature o the deer, and its goals, needs, and orientationto the environment, we can pick up the track anywhere and project the

emerging behavior o the deer.

Building measurements o patterned societal change processes—noto acts and o categories—permits illumination o coming change, whether internal or external, because when one syndrome changes, thecomplex system itsel changes. In short, you can immediately notice thepattern change mathematically even as you cannot know its complexreasons and uture emergence path. Tis seems mathematically treatable

in the sense o measuring normal system stasis—but not comingchange. Most o the models o complex adaptive societal systems aremuch more accurate when nothing undamental is changing, precisely because o the interpenetrated syndrome dynamics during change.

Once you perceive a systemic change, you are back to qualitativeemerging change process assessment, but in theory, stable societalharmonics ought to be subject to useul calibration. Te changes in

process are too nuanced and embedded in complex societal norms totreat as mere mathematical artiact.

Tis does nothing or modeling the emerging uture, per se, but itdoes scream out about when the beast is undamentally changing and when you can and cannot saely rely on the beast to behave.




Te second broad area or potentially useul mathematicaltreatment—that is, treatment that interacts with qualitative judgments

about emerging international trends—involves timing change issues.

Tis has been an intractable problem, where, even when the emergingchange pattern, its style, and the sequence o change are accurately orecast, the orecast o when the change will occur, the timing, is oten wrong. In philosophic terms, the ripening is apparent, but we do notknow when the ruit thereo will all. Kurzweil (2005, 3) made thispoint even or technology change orecasting, which is—like stock

market orecasting—easier to accomplish than utures orecastinginvolving multiple whole societies.

It seems quite probable that qualitative knowledge o emergingchange can useully be interaced with mathematical modelingtechniques to better inorm uture orecasts. Indeed, mathematical andtechnology enhanced orecasts may be most useul in addressing thetiming o uture change issue.

Nevertheless, we end as we began, with the comment that all majorclassic learning and analysis traditions—rom whatever culture—haveenolded a holistic complex systems view o human aairs and o emerging trends orecasting involving them, wherein broad learning was a preamble to success. Only one post-Enlightenment tradition(really, two major streams thereo) has ocused on mathematics andmodeling o complex systems human aairs as a potential solution setor utures orecasting. Tat chimera has ailed.

Te above is, as we came to understand it, the necessary teachingand learning path or producing analysts capable o doing emerginginternational uture’s orecasting. It is neither easy to achieve nor easy to maintain—one is constantly iterating to speciy emerging patterns.Tat is the game. Tere is no simple solution to understanding humancomplex systems dynamics under conditions o change. All is change within change.

“When the Master was standing by a stream, he said: ‘Tings thatgo past are like this, aren’t they? For they do not set aside day or night’”(Dawson 1993, 33).



r eferences

Ali, Ahmed, rans. 1993. Al Qur’ãn. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Anderson, Benedict. 1991. Imagined Communities: Refections on the Origins and Spread o Nationalism. New York: Verso.

Associated Press (AP). “Universities Conront Honesty Gap: Loan scandals,udged resumes widespread cheating raise red ags.” May 19th, 2007. http://msnbc.com/id/18758947.

Ayittey, George. 1992. Arica Betrayed . New York: St Martin’s Press.

Bender, Tomas. 2006. A Nation Among Nations; America’s Place in World History . New York: Hill and Wang.

Berlin, Isaiah. 1992. Hardy, Henry, Editor. Te Crooked imber o Humanity:Chapters in the History o Ideas. New York: Vintage Books.

Berlin, Isaiah. 1997. Henry Hardy, Editor. Te Sense o Reality: Studies in Ideas and Teir History . New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. pp. 1-39.

Berlin, Isaiah. 1998. Hardy, Henry and Roger Hausheer, Editors. Te Proper Study o Mankind: An Anthology o Essays . New York: Farrar, Straus andGiroux.

Berner, Brad. 2006. Jihad: Bin Laden in his Own Words–Declarations,Interviews, and Speeches. BookSurge, LLC.

Bright, imothy. 2007. Analysis Roundtable: “Analytic Successes and

Applicability to URW.” Presented at the Unrestricted Warare Symposium, Te Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, Kaskiako Center, 20March 2007.

Bauman, Michael. 2007. Director o the U.S. Army’s RADOC AnalysisCenter, “Te Achilles’ Heel o Analysts.” Presented at the Unrestricted WarareSymposium, Te Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory,Kaskiako Center, 20 March 2007.

Boehm, Christopher. 1984. Blood Revenge: Te Enactment and Management o Confict in Montenegro and Other ribal Societies . Philadelphia: University o Pennsylvania Press.

Benedict, Ruth. 1989. Te Chrysanthemum and the Sword: Patterns o Japanese Culture . Boston; Houghton Mifin Company.




Billington. James. 1970. Te Icon and the Axe–An Interpretive History o Russian Culture. New York: Vintage books.

Bodhi, Bhikkhu. 2005. In the Buddha’s Words: An Anthology o Discourses romthe Pali Canon. Boston: Wisdom Publications.

Burtt, E. A., Editor. 1982. Te eachings o the Compassionate Buddha: Early Discourses, the Dhammapada, and Later Basic Writings . New York: PenguinBooks.

Bynner, Witter, rans.1980. Te Way o Lie: According to Lao zu. New York:

A Perigee Book.Callahan, David. 2004. Te Cheating culture: Why More Americans are Doing Wrong to Get Ahead . Orlando: A Harvest Book.

Cameron, Rondo, and Larry Neal. 2003. A Concise Economic History o the World rom Paleolithic imes to the Present. Oxord: Oxord University Press.

Cohen, Patricia. In Economics Departments, A Growing Will to Debate Fundamental Assumptions. New York imes, July 11th, 2007: A17.

Cohler, Anne, Basia Miller, and Harold Stone, Eds. 2004. Montesquieu; the Spirit o the Laws. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Czinkota, Michael, Ilkka Ronkainen, and Michael Moett. 2003. International Business . Mason, Ohio: Tomson South-Western.

Dawson, Raymond. 1993. Conucius– Te Analects . Oxord: Oxord University Press.

Davies, Norman. 1991. Heart o Europe–A Short History o Poland. Oxord:Oxord University Press.

Denma ranslation Group. 2002. Te Art o War: Sun zu. Boston: Shambhala.Classics.

Drucker, Peter. “Management’s New Paradigms.” Forbes . October 5th, 1998:152-162.

Durkheim, Emile. 1973. Robert N. Bellah, Editor. On Morality and Society. Chicago: Te University o Chicago Press.

Easwaran, Eknath, rans. 1985. Te Bhagavad Gita. omales, Caliornia:Nilgiri Press.




Economist. “Doing business in Arica: Dierent Skills required.” July 2nd,2005: 61.

———. “Economics ocus: Signiying nothing? oo many economists misusestatistics.” January 31st, 2004: 76.

———. “Economics ocus: What the World Bank Knows…and what it only thinks it knows.” January 13th, 2007: 67.

———. “Te uture o globalisation,” July 29th-August 4th 2007.

———. “Misleading Misalignments.” June 23rd, 2007: 86.

———. “Rich man, poor man – the winners and losers rom globalization.” January 20th-26th 2007.

Fialka, John. 1997. War by Other Means: Economic Espionage in America. New York: W. W. Norton.

Flora, Peter and Arnold Heidenheimer, Eds. 1984. Te Development o Welare States in Europe and America. London: ransaction Books.

Fram, Alan and revor ompson, “U.S. Optimism Dips Near Record Low.”Te East Valley ribune , (AP), May 21, 2007: A6.

Fuerbringer, Jonathan. “A Science ruly Dismal at Prediction.” Te New York imes , February 23rd, 1999.

Hauser, Marc. (2006) Moral Minds - How Nature Designed our Universal Sense o Right and Wrong , New York: HarperCollins Publishers.

Havel, Vaclav. 1990. Paul Wilson, rans. Disturbing the Peace. New York:Vintage Books.

Hayek, F. A., 1979. Te Counter-Revolution o Science: Studies in the Abuse o Reason. Indianapolis: Liberty Press.

Himmelarb, Gertrude. 2004. Te Roads to Modernity: Te British, French,and American Enlightenments . New York: Alred A. Knop.

Hill, Charles. 2003. International Business: Competing in the Global Marketplace (4th edition). New York: McGraw-Hill Companies.

Holland, Muhtar, rans. 1979. al-Ghazali: On Te Duties o Brotherhood . Woodstock, New York: Te Overland Press.




Illachinsky, Andy. Analysis Roundtable: “Analytic Successes and Applicability to URW.” Presented at the Unrestricted Warare Symposium, Te Johns

Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, Kaskiako Center, on 20March 2007.

Isaacson, Walter. 2007. Einstein: His Lie and Universe . New York: Simon &Schuster.

Jutikkala, Eino and Kauko Pirinen. 1988. Paul Sjöblom, rans. A History o Finland. New York: Dorset Press.

Kann, Robert. 1974. A History o the Hapsburg Empire 1526-1918. Berkeley:University o Caliornia Press.

Katzenstein, Peter. (1985) Small States in World Markets–Industrial Policy inEurope . Cornell: Cornell University Press.

Kaviratna, Harischandra, rans. 1989. Dhammapada: Wisdom o Buddha.Pasadena, Caliornia: Teosophical University Press.

Kennan, George. 1993. Around the Cragged Hill: A Personal and Political Philosophy. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

Kirk, Russell. 1978. John Randolph o Roanoke: A Study in AmericanPolitics. Indianapolis: Liberty Press.

———.1987. Te Conservative Mind rom Burke to Eliot . Chicago: Regnery Books.

Kuhn, Tomas. 1970. Te Structure o Scientic Revolutions . Chicago:University o Chicago Press.

Kurzweil, Ray. 2006. Te Singularity is Near: When Humans ranscend Biology .London: Penguin Books.

Lach, Donald and Edwin Van Kley. 1993. Asia in the Making o Europe.Chicago: University o Chicago Press.

Levine, Victor. November 11th, 2002. Correspondence.

Maimonides, Moses. 1956. M. Friedländer, rans. Te Guide or the Perplexed. New York; Dover Publications.

Maine, Sir Henry. 1890. Ancient Law; Its Connection with the Early History o Society and Its Relation to Modern Ideas . London: John Murray.




Mascaro, Juan, rans. 1965. Te Upanishads . New York: Penguin Press.

———. 1984. Te Bhagavad Gita. New York: Penguin Press.

McMahon, Darrin. 2001. Enemies o the Enlightenment: Te French Counter-Enlightenment and the Making o Modernity. Oxord: Oxord University Press.

McMahon, John. 1991. Te Metaphysics–Aristotle. Bualo, New York:Prometheus Books.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. 1966. Walter Kauman, rans. Beyond Good and Evil:Prelude to a Philosophy o the Future . New York: Vintage Books.

Olson, Mancur. 1982. Te Rise and Decline o Nations. New Haven: YaleUniversity Press.

Pilkey, Orrin, and Linda Pilkey-Jarvis. 2007. Useless Arithmetic: Why Environmental Scientists Can’t Predict the Future. New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press.

Pope, Alexander. 1985. Frank Brady, Editor. An Essay on Man. Indianapolis:Bobbs-Merrill Educational Publishing: 3.

Przeworski, Adam and Henry uene. 1982. Te Logic o Comparative Social Inquiry . Malabar, Florida: Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company.

Rabb, Teodore. 2006. Te Last Days o the Renaissance and the March to Modernity. New York: Basic Books.

Schaufer, Alan. April 17, 2003. “Legally Speaking: Military lawyers atthe war ront.” King5 News: originally ound on the King5 News, Legally Speaking webpage (http://www.king5.com/localnews/legallyspeaking), butno longer available online.

Schiller, Frederic. 1855. Re. A. J. W. Morrison, rans. History o the Revolt o the Netherlands; rial and Execution o Counts Egmont and Horn; and Te Siege o Antwerp. New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers.

Schopenhauer, Arthur. 1969. E. F. J. Payne, rans. Te World as Will and Representation, Volumes I and II. New York: Dover Publications, Inc.

Scott, James. 1985. Weapons o the Weak – Everyday Forms o Peasant Resistance .New Haven: Yale University Press.




Smith, Adam. 1982. Raphael and Mace, Editors. Te Teory o Moral Sentiments . Indianapolis: Liberty Press.

Smith II, Henry. 1988. Hokusai: One Hundred Views o Mt. Fuji. New York:George Braziller, Inc., Publishers.

Tomson, J. A. K., rans. 1983. Te Ethics o Aristotle: Te NicomacheanEthics . New York: Penguin Books.

oynbee, Arnold. 1946. A Study o History . London; Oxord University Press.

oynbee, Arnold. 1956. A Historian’s Approach to Religion. London: OxordUniversity Press.

United States Military Academy/Combating errorism Center. 2007 National Security Strategy Essay Contest, publication.

Weisman, Steven. Cracks in the Foundations : Tree Institutions’ Roles in achanging Global Economy Questioned . New York imes, May 23rd, 2007:C1.

Wells, Peter. 1999. Te Barbarian Speaks: How the Conquered Peoples Shaped Roman Europe. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Werther, Guntram. 2007, [orthcoming]. Proling International Change Processes: Introducing a Holistically Integrated and Socio-Psychologically Grounded Approach to Emerging rends Prediction. in a Proteus ManagementGroup book on complex systems analysis. Originally presented at the Proteus

Conerence o Analyzing Complex National Security Challenges, 22-24 August 2006, at Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania.

———. 2006a. Integrated Learning as a Necessary Ground o Integrated Security Solutions. Presented to the 3rd Biennial Conerence on Integrated Security,IUS-Canada, at the Lord Elgin Hotel, Ottawa, Canada, rom 29 Septemberto 1 October 2006.

———. 2006b. Integrated analysis as Foundation or Integrated Security:

Why the House Cannot Stand. Presented to the 3rd Biennial Conerence onIntegrated Security, IUS-Canada, at the Lord Elgin Hotel, Ottawa, Canada,rom 29 September to 1 October 2006.




———. 2001. Building an “Analysis Age” or Competitive Intelligence in the wenty-First Century. Competitive Intelligence Review , Vol. 12, No. 1 (First

Quarter 2001): pp. 41-47.

———. 2000a. Proling ‘Change Processes’ as a Strategic Analysis ool. Competitive Intelligence Magazine : Vol. 3, No. 1 (January-March 2000): pp.19-22.

———. 2000b. Beyond the Blocking ree: Improving Perormance in Future-Oriented Analysis. Competitive Intelligence Magazine: Vol. 3, No. 4 (October-December 2000): pp. 40 – 44.

———. 1999. Te Crisis o Business Intelligence: On the Necessity o raining Reorm. Tunderbird International Business Review : Vol. 41, No. 3: 287-290.

———. 1998. Te Problem with Precision: three tendencies to avoid i your aimis eective strategic analysis. Competitive Intelligence Magazine: Vol. 1, No. 2,

July-September 1998: 24-26.

———. 1997. Doing Business in the New World Disorder: assessing,

understanding, and eectively responding to the challenges o social and political instability within emerging markets . Competitive Intelligence Review: Vol. 8,No. 4: 12-18.

———. 1992. Sel Determination in Western Democracies; aboriginal politics in a comparative perspective. Westport: Greenwood Press.

Wilson, Edward. 1998. Consilience: Te Unity o Knowledge . New York: Alred A. Knop.

Windrem, Robert. “What’s New or al-Queda 3.0? Experts say terrororganization is morphing, waiting or opportunity.” http://www.msnbc.com/id/18817546

Wood, Gordon. 2006. Revolutionary Characters–What Made the Founders Dierent. New York: Te Penguin Press.

World Publishing Company. 1962. Te Holy Bible Revised Standard Version.

New York.

US Army: werther-holistic-analysis

Documents

Transcript of US Army: werther-holistic-analysis