|
Home
Doors
Essays2007
Essays2008
Essays2009
Essays2010
Wisdom
Gallery
Links
Bios
Contact
|
..:: Anomalies ::..
By
Alan Schneider
An anomaly is a statistical
inconsistency in an otherwise consistent field of observation.
Anomalies are frequently troubling to the conscious mind – i.e. the
ego – and stand in conflict with its need to make order of the
sensory events in the environment. We tend not to like these challenges
to our reason, yet the world is filled with them. It is only the
statistically consistent action of the “laws” of physics and chemistry
upon the senses and the body that enables us to perceive any
manifestation of the order that may be present amid the apparent
background chaos of the universe.
The “field of observation” referred to in the preceding
paragraph frequently takes the form of the well-known bell-shaped
normal curve, a graphic mode of data portrayal that is generally
classified using the concepts of mean, median, and mode.
These are the three measures of central tendency in statistics,
and give an initial, overall picture of what is present in the
observational data set. The mean is the average value of all the data
values added together and then divided by the number of entries present
in the survey. The median is the value in the center of the data set
when the entries are numerically arranged in sequential order. And the
mode is the most frequently occurring value among the data. In addition,
the concept of standard deviations from the mean is used to
classify the spread of data across the normal curve. The mean value is
understood to fall somewhere in the center of the curve, at or near the
peak of the bell shape, and there are three standard deviations to the
right and left of this point, determined by calculating the interaction
of the combined spread of the data values. Using standard statistical
data evaluation procedures, it can be demonstrated that any set of data
of sufficient size will “normalize”, or tend to assume the shape of the
normal curve, eventually.
One more statistical concept needs to be mentioned in this discussion –
the outlier. The outlier is any datum that lies at or beyond the
third standard deviation from the mean in either direction along the
normal curve. Outliers are statistical anomalies that do not conform to
the general trends present in the data set, and most statistical
methodology advises dropping them from the analyses used, since they
will invariably skew, or – in this case of the term –
misrepresent the implications of the data.
Inasmuch as human culture and society tend to be well-represented by the
normal curve – at least in terms of socioeconomic behavior – the value
of statistical procedures, including the disregarding of outliers, is
clear. The more measurements that are taken, the less significant the
anomalies appear to be, and the more justified we seem to be from the
ego’s logical perspective in disregarding them.
At issue here are the long-term implications of the outlier occurrence
in the data taken. In the case of physical measurements of physical
data, this may be of little real consequence. A series of measurements
of ambient temperature in a room taken at different periods during the
day that includes one or two periods when the range has one or more
burners on at high temperature out of perhaps forty-eight measurements
taken in a twenty-four hour period will show some skewing, represented
by the range temperature outliers present, and these can probably be
disregarded in the data as not being truly representative of the true
mean temperature variation present during the time period, with the
proviso that the measurements were not thermal-lode significant (e.g.
air conditioning measurements). In measurements of social systems and
social behavior patterns, the implication of outlier phenomena can be
very much more significant. It can be argued that the outliers in social
systems are the deterministic strange attractors that decide outcomes
for the entire system at critical points in history.
Hermann Hesse expressed this supposition very succinctly in his novel
entitled Steppenwolf. His observation was that the flagrant
banality of European middle and upper middle class society in the period
in which he was writing was inherently incapable of sustaining itself
over the long term as a result of its own vapidity. This bland, vapid
culture could only be sustained by continuous injections of novelty and
creativity that Hesse identified as customarily originating with the
social outliers of the time – the Bohemian, avant-garde artists,
musicians, writers, and political activists – whom he referred to as the
Steppenwolves – a symbolic reference to the wild wolves of the Russian
Steppes. These beings remained free and vital in their consciousness,
and gave that vitality to the culture around them through their social
activities and contributions, even though these “gifts” were frequently
not initially well-received by the general population. There is an
unreasoned resistance to change within human nature that tends to stifle
all that is new on the first pass. Perhaps this is a survival
characteristic that serves to buffer experience until that which is
harmful can be identified and excluded, but the initial response seems
to be to repress everything without regard to potential
benefits.
There also appears to be a dialectic
at work in the process of social change and revitalization. Jung has
noted that a sinusoidal pulsation can be seen in the processes of
history in which that which is new is initially (and frequently
violently) rejected by the existing social order, which has become
stagnant. As the novelty is considered by the human elements of that
society, it is subjected to a purging process that eventually produces a
refined version of the novelty, one more generally acceptable. This
version eventually comes to be accepted as normative, revitalizing the
social system for some period of time, until the system again becomes
stagnant, and another novelty emerges and is introduced, again to
considerable resistance – and the process continues as described above.
G. F. W. Hegel has summed this up as the Dialectic of change –
thesis, antithesis, and synthesis – the thesis here is the existing
social order, the antithesis is the social novelty, and the synthesis is
the resultant higher order of truth that represents the combination of
the first two. In this way, the progressive social evolution of human
history is observed and explained through one theory of change –
a great philosophical advantage over many competing, fragmented
theories.
Communication Theory has identified several mechanisms of change as
well. The social filter theory identifies specific individuals or
groups that serve to introduce novelty into existing social systems.
These may run the gamut from established organizations to radical
factions, and may utilize any of a variety of legal and extra-legal
means to communicate the proposed agenda of change to the general
society. The social deficit theory maintains that change results
from implied deficits in the existing social matrix that essentially
call for corrective modification. The random interaction theory
states that change simply occurs automatically in the context of normal,
ongoing communication processes. All of these theories are correct as
far as they go, and all are still analytical. The great strength
of the Hegelian Dialectic resides in its essence as a simple, acausal
observation of the general mechanism of transition without regard to the
underlying social factors that may be at work, essentially treating
causation as something existing in the realm of the strange attractor.
Again, theoretical simplicity is desirable both in science and
philosophy, and the Dialectic has well-withstood the test of time.
Hesse’s theory of the Steppenwolves is obviously one that
conforms to the social filter model. Anyone who questions the validity
of this model need only consider the evolution of jazz music. This
musical form originally evolved from so-called Dixieland music peculiar
to the area around New Orleans, arguably around the turn of the last
century. Jazz was initially thought by traditional American society of
the period to be yet another version of the seductive, debauched
Dixieland expression – morally depraved as was its forbearer. Yet the
instrumental refinement of this new form added to the original Dixieland
strains produced a new a stimulating music unheard before. As the
musical Steppenwolves of the period adopted the new music, it became a
more refined art form, and was gradually accepted as such by the general
culture. One can see the same thing occurring to the as yet still
condemned Rap music today, even though the majority of the
musicians are determined to maintain the status of Rap as socially
outcast and unacceptable. It should be noted here that there is always
an element of any society or culture that will insist on rejecting any
and all novelty as morally and socially degenerate by definition. The
Mennonites, Amish, and other socially reclusive organizations come to
mind here, and, in a free society, they must be given their due. Yet,
very few individuals would choose to live such austere existences in the
absence of intrinsic acculturation – in other words, having been born
and raised that way. As Rap becomes more common place, something which
even I regard with a grimace, it will undoubtedly also become
more acceptable, and this will call forth another new form in its place.
So the outliers and anomalies are the sources of most or all of the
vitality in any culture, and cultures which reject and repress these
influences are seen to pass away into history’s annals eventually, while
those who understand the crucial role fulfilled by them and make
provision for their disturbance of social norms tend to adapt and change
successfully to new environmental conditions and requirements. In the
whole of history and existence, the only constant is change,
driven on by an endlessly evolving complex of strange attractors, none
of which is directly observable, and all of which are decisive in
their impact on social systems. The world today is challenged as never
before by a phalanx of enormous challenges that will require more
novelty than at any time in history to provide the needed solutions.
And, predictably, many of the existing social orders are resisting the
transitions required for survival with violent, dogged determination, as
the established institutions and individuals currently enjoying
privileged status within them react with hate, fear, and repression to
the specter of change. Perhaps there comes a point in the evolution of
entire species when adaptation to and through change must be
generally accepted and supported for the sake of ongoing survival. I
believe we have reached this point in today’s world, and are standing at
the brink of a decision to survive and prosper, or deny, repress, and
pass out of existence. My personal choice has been made for adaptation,
survival, and prosperity. What is yours?
- With Love, Alan -
(CR2008, Alan Schneider)
Return to Top
|