maruyama, causal loops, interaction, and creativity, 2003

International Review of SociologyRevue Internationale de Sociologie, Vol. 13, No. 3, 2003

ISSN 0390-6701 print/1489-9273 online/03/030607-22 2003 University of Rome La SapienzaDOI: 10.1080/0390670032000139557

Causal Loops, Interaction, and Creativity

MAGOROH MARUYAMA

Professor Cunha has given a case study of interactive improvisation amongheterogeneous individuals, and Professor Calori has discussed recent philo-sophical theories regarding interaction among heterogeneous individuals. Iwould like to begin with two cases of interactive invention among heteroge-neous specialists, and discuss the role of causal loops in the creation ofinformation, increase of heterogeneity, and social and biological evolution.Two other important aspects of creativity are: (1) contextual and relationalthinking which characterizes S-type and G-type mindscapes in contrast to theclassificational and prescriptional mentality of H-type mindscapes as well as therandom, capricious or independent approach of I-type mindscapes; (2)perception of the unknown, the unfamiliar, the not-yet-existing, as somethinginteresting, tempting, irresistible, desirable or indispensable, which character-izes G-type mindscapes, instead of perceiving it as something uncomfortable,disturbing or dangerous as H-type and S-type persons do, or seeing it assomething irrelevant, indifferent or uninteresting which I-type persons tendto do.

Some aspects of mindscape types are inborn while other aspects are learned.We do not yet know which aspects, but expect that with further advance ofmagnetic resonance imaging technology, we can gain more understanding ofhow mindscape types develop from infancy to adulthood, and how theycompare across species boundaries.

Examples of Interactive Inventions

The first wristwatch which used a quartz electronic resonant circuit was aproduct of interactive invention by Seiko (Uchihashi, 1982). It defeated Swisswatches in time-keeping accuracy in the Neuchtel competition in 1967. TheSwiss authorities of this traditional annual competition, in which the top prizeshad been won by Swiss watches, panicked. It did not publish the result of the1967 competition, and discontinued the time-honored competition in subse-quent years.

Several years before this event which shocked the wristwatch industry of theworld, Seiko invented a quartz clock. Quartz had been used in radio trans-mitters and receivers because of its characteristics to maintain a stable oscil-lator frequency (wavelength). Oscillators have a circuit called a resonant tankin which electric current swings back and forth at a desired frequency. The

CIRS0390670032000139557.fm Page 607 Monday, October 20, 2003 1:06 PM

608 M. Maruyama

cheap way to make a resonant tank was to combine a capacitor and an inductor.Before the invention of transistors, radios used vacuum tubes which producedheat. Therefore, when radios warmed up, the capacitance (the amount ofelectrons the capacitor can hold) changed and the frequency (wavelength)drifted. But quartz, even though expensive, could be used instead of capacitorsto maintain frequency stability. Seiko incorporated this radio technology in aclock to maintain time accurately. But the first quartz clock still used vacuumtubes which required 300 volts DC. In order to produce this voltage, a trans-former with a heavy magnetic core and a heavy rectifier (to convert alternatingcurrent to direct current) were needed. The first quartz clock was so heavy thatit had to be transported on a pick-up truck.

Seiko wanted to put a quartz resonant circuit in wristwatches by miniatur-izing the components. Seiko used several methods. One method was to cutquartz in a zigzag way to compress into a small space the length needed for thedesired resonance frequency. By combining jewellery cutters with quartzexperts who did not know how to cut quartz in a zigzag way, Seiko could putthe quartz in the wristwatch. At that time the rotating time pointers (the longhand and the short hand) were still used instead of a digital display, and thepointers were driven by an electric motor. Seiko was able to put a motor insidea wristwatch by taking the motor apart and putting the parts between the gearwheels. This was impossible in the Swiss watchmaking system where ready-made components were supplied by subcontracting firms.

Another example of interactive invention (Uchihashi, 1982) was the elimi-nation of derailing problems with high-speed trains in the 1950s. This was doneby combining aircraft technology to eliminate spontaneous resonant vibra-tions. This led to the creation of the bullet train in the 1960s. Traditional trainengineers believed that derailments were caused by crooked rails. But aircraftengineers thought that the trains could fall into a resonant vibration regardlessof how straight the rails were. An example of resonant vibration is the musictuning fork which can vibrate when it is exposed to sounds of a specific pitch.It was decided to conduct experiments with model trains. The railway engi-neers approach was to run small model trains on small model tracks. But theaircraft engineers used the wind-tunnel concept. The model train stayed stilland the rails moved on a large rotating vertical wheel turning around ahorizontal axis. With this system it was easy to measure the swaying of rails. Theexperiments proved that the trains vibrated at specific speeds regardless of howstraight the rails were. If the speed was higher or lower than the resonantspeeds, the trains did not vibrate.

The aircraft engineers in the National Railway Ministry had been recruitedat the end of World War II by a foresightful director of the Ministry. Amongthe aircraft engineers were those who designed the famous zero-fighterairplanes. They had had the bitter experience of seeing the first version of zero-fighters fall apart in mid-air because of spontaneous resonant vibrations, andthey had learned how to eliminate the vibrations.

The practical question is how to combine heterogeneous specialists forinteractive invention. In Japanese firms including Seiko, a prerequisite tocareer advancement is to have been job-rotated many times. Therefore, mostmanagers, who have undergone many job rotations, know a wide range ofspecialists. Therefore, Seiko managers knew whom to combine, and whichtechnologies were useful for the task. But in the case of the bullet train, the


Causal Loops, Interaction, and Creativity 609

director of the Ministry of Railway did not have any experience in aircraftengineering. He knew that during the war the top brains had been recruitedinto the military service which had money for research while the civilianresearch had been impoverished and brain-drained. He also knew that theseengineers would be unemployed because practically all industrial facilities hadbeen destroyed by bombing. He guessed that their brain could be possibly usedfor next-generation trains. It was a calculated gamble. He had a contextualvision of what did not yet exist.

There are several methods to encourage interactive invention. One methodis extensive job rotation. Koike (1978) reported that in some firms the workerswere rotated through as many as 40 jobs. Another possibility is voluntarytemporary assignments to many departments with incentives such as bonuses.Another method is to create mixer opportunities, such as a cafeteria acces-sible from all departments. Most engineers are poor verbal communicators.They communicate better with drawings, graphics and body movements. If afirm depends on written reports as a method of communication, it losesnonverbal communicators. Another method is for engineers and researchersto work from time to time as repairmen, assembly line workers, salesmen, etc.to gain knowledge to make the products easier to repair, maintain or assemble.Another method is for engineers and researchers to make sociological andanthropological observational studies of user habits, and adapt the product tothe habits of the users. For example 20 years ago Japanese cars did not sell wellin Beijing, because they stalled at street intersections. In Beijing, the driversstopped the engine while waiting at red signals to save gasoline. The Japanesecars were designed in such a way that the airconditioning kept running whilethe engine ignition was turned off. The result was a dead battery. But from theusers point of view, the whole car was no good. It took a user habit study tomodify the ignition switch to avoid the problem. For user habit study, contex-tual methodology must be used. The prevalent prescribed checklist approachis not able to discover problems, of which the researcher is unaware, but whichmay be most important.

From Non-loop Thinking to Causally Looped Thinking

The very basic foundation of creative interactive heterogeneity is causallylooped thinking. This way of thinking is very natural to G-type individuals, butalmost impossible for H-type and I-type persons. S-type thinking is causallylooped, but oriented toward change-counteracting rather than change-creating. As mentioned earlier, we still do not know which parts of the mind-scapes are inborn and which parts are learned. Therefore, there remains apossibility that some persons cannot think in causal loops.

There are additional cognitive/cogitative problems. Judging from the reac-tions of the readers of my 1963 paper The second cybernetics, I became awareof two problems. The first was that even though the readers understood thequantitative side of change-amplifying causal loops, most of the readers didnot even notice the more important qualitative side: the necessity, desirabilityand increase of interactive heterogeneity. The second problem was that manyof the readers tried to understand a causal loop by breaking it down into asequence of one-way causal relations. I realized that these two problemsstemmed from epistemological limitations of the readers rather than their lack


610 M. Maruyama

of intelligence because many of them were eminent scientists. Anothercommon misinterpretation was that randomness or caprice is the source ofcreativity. In order to overcome these cognitive/cogitative/epistemologicallimitations, let us review some basics of causal loop processes. Because therehave been many misinterpretations or unawareness of these basics, you mayhave been contaminated by some of the misinterpretations which are quiteprevalent among scientists and scholars. I would like to suggest that you lookthrough the following discussions to discern misinterpretations from correctinterpretations.

Random Processes Versus Interactive Processes

The 19th-century theory of thermodynamics was based on the considerationof independent and random movements of molecules in a gas or randomtransfer of heat and temperature in solid materials. In such processes, it ishighly probable that temperature will become evenly distributed. Consider asand castle that someone had built on a beach. If winds blow randomly, thestructure of the castle decays because the probability of a castle being built byrandom winds is very small. Shannons information theory (Shannon et al.,1949) was based on precisely the same argument: information transmittedthrough telephone lines decays due to random noise or overloading. Thegenius of Shannon consisted in divising methods to incorporate an appro-priate amount of redundancy in the coding system of information in order toreconstruct the original information. His task was to minimize loss of informa-tion. He was not concerned about creation of new information. He did anexcellent job in his task.

But suppose sand grains can interact. Then the process becomes entirelydifferent, and it becomes possible to generate and create new structures. Thekey is interaction, as contrasted to independent and random processes. It isvery simple to say this, but it has not been understood sufficiently, or notunderstood at all, among most of the social scientists of today, even though itwas discussed among some sociologists in the late 1960s (Buckley, 1968).

Let us begin with some examples of interactive processes. Consider thedevelopment of a city on an arable plain which initially was unpopulated orvery thinly populated, where a wave of new settlers arrive. At the beginning,the large plain is entirely homogeneous as to its potentiality for agriculture.Perhaps a group of migrants was passing through it with wagons pulled byhorses. A horse dies or a wheel breaks. The man who cannot go further stopsthere and begins to farm. This is the initial kick of subsequent causal loopprocesses. Since there is a farm already, others are attracted to this locationand join the first man. One of them opens a tool shop. Then this shop becomesthe gathering and socializing place for the farmers. A food stand is establishednext to the tool shop. Gradually a village grows. Increased agricultural activitiesnecessitate development of industry in the village. The workers in the industrybecome consumers of the farm products, and the village grows into a town andeventually becomes a city.

But in those days when there were no highways or trucks, the city could notgrow indefinitely. Each city needed an agricultural hintergrund around it.Thus cities had to be scattered. Each city suppressed growth of another city tooclose to it. The originally homogeneous plain became heterogeneous.



Similarly, in each city, the presence of a shop suppressed the establishment ofanother shop next to it. Nowadays in urbanized cities there are shopping mallswhere similar shops exist side by side. This is because the shoppers use cars orpublic transportation, and it is convenient to do shopping where shops areconcentrated. But in cities where car parking is difficult and people shop onfoot, for example, in New York City or in Paris, shops are scattered, and withintwo or three blocks, and sometimes even within a block, there is a food store.

Interactions can be either attractional or inhibitory, and they generateheterogenization in the plain which was initially homogeneous. But the firstfarmer cannot be credited with the growth of the city and its heterogenization.He was the initial kick. But he did not do the rest. The rest was done byinteractions in causal loops, as will be more fully explained later.

An important point in the interactive morphogenetic processes is that noone or no factor is the prime mover. If a historian should try to find ageographical cause which made one spot a city rather than another spot ona homogeneous plain, he will fail to find it. In our example, the initial kick wasan accident, not a geographic necessity. A sacred law of causality in the classicalphilosophy stated that similar conditions produce similar results. Conse-quently, dissimilar results were attributed to dissimilar conditions.

In the light of causal loop processes, the law of causality is revised to statethat similar conditions may result in dissimilar results due to change-amplifying causal loops, and on the other side of the coin, dissimilar conditionsmay result in similar results due to change-counteracting causal loops, as willbe explained later.

The above is NOT due to probabilism. It occurs in both deterministic andprobabilistic processes. If we include indeterminism, the revision becomes asfollows: a small initial kick, which is within the range of high probability, maydevelop into a change which has low probability in non-loop causality.

In evolutionary processes, there are causal loops of both types: change-amplifying and change-counteracting. For example, moths have predators.The mutants of the moth species which have a more advanced cryptic colora-tion (camouflage) and cryptic behavior than others survive better. On theother hand, those mutants of the predators which have a greater ability thanothers in discovering camouflaged moths survive better. Hence the crypticcoloration and cryptic behavior of the moths improve generation after gener-ation, and the ability of the predators to discover moths also improves gener-ation after generation.

In the male selection among animals, there are two contrasting theories toconsider. The older of the two is the theory of supernormality. For example,herring gull eggs have patterns of black spots. If you place a dummy egg in thenest which has a higher black/white contrast than natural eggs, the incubatingparents prefer the dummy egg to the natural eggs. This is called supernormalresponse. Likewise, in mate selection the female might prefer asupernormal dummy male to natural males. If all females prefer the samesupernormal characteristics in males, then the evolution will favor homogene-ously some supernormal characteristics in males.

The other theory is that females prefer characteristics that are rare or ofminority characteristics (Ehrman, 1972; Ehrman and Probber, 1978;Watanabe and Kawanishi, 1979), particularly among fruit flies. If you take twotypes of males and mix them in varying proportions, the females prefer the


612 M. Maruyama

type which is the minority. If females prefer minority males, then the evolutionwill favor heterogenization within the same species.

The response to supernormal stimuli may be inborn or culturally con-ditioned. For example, an oystercatcher (Haematopus ostralegus) prefers a largedummy egg and tries to sit on it even though the egg may be as large as thebirds body (Tinbergen, 1953). This response is inborn. On the other hand inHomo sapiens, what is considered supernormal often depends on culture. Forexample in North America, slender female legs are supernormal stimuli, whilein Polynesia obese young girls used to be supernormal stimuli. In order to winin a beauty contest, girls used to sit in a hut and eat as much as possible withoutgoing out. Their body got so heavy that they had to be carried by others to thecontest site.

Another interesting consideration is the relationship between populationsize and mutation rate. S. Wright made this relationship clear (Wright, 1931,1932). When the mutation rate is high as compared with the population size,random matings will produce more inbreeding than interbreeding, and thechange-amplifying effect is predominant. On the other hand when the popu-lation size is large as compared with the mutation rate, random matings willproduce more interbreeding than inbreeding, and the change-counteractingeffect is predominant. The direction of change in a small population with ahigh mutation rate is unpredictable because it depends on the initial kickwhich is random. But once the change starts, it is systematically amplified inthe same direction.

When the mutation rate is neither too high nor too low as compared withthe population size, neither inbreeding nor interbreeding predominates. Theresult is neither change-amplifying nor change-counteracting, but a combina-tion of both which results in random drift. At one time, a random initial kickproduces a change in one direction which is amplified consistently in the samedirection. But soon change-counteracting takes over, and the populationbecomes fixed. After a while, another random initial kick produces a changein a new direction which is amplified consistently, and the process repeats itselfwith unpredictable drifts.

The maximum speed of evolution is found, not in one colony with a highmutation rate and a small population size, but in the interaction betweencolonies which have a moderate mutation rate. When mutations take place toofast, the mutant characteristics may amplify themselves at a speed beyond thepossibility of finding a new environment and new intraspecific and inter-specific ecological conditions which are suitable for the mutant characteristics,and beyond the possibility of allowing other variations of mutants, which havecharacteristics greater in survival value, to develop. The species may becomeextinct or may reach the limit of mutability and become fixed there, or themutant characteristics may become so dominant and homogeneous as tobecome change-counteracting. A moderate mutation rate produces a moreviable and changeable evolution. Moreover, when there are occasionalexchanges of immigrants between colonies, the introduction of a new strain,which has proved to be viable in one colony, has the same effect as producingviable mutants, and tends to favor evolution.

Wrights theory was based on random mutations, without taking into consid-eration systematic social interaction patterns such as females preferences forminority characteristics or supernormal characteristics in males.



In 1960 I published a mathematical theory of creation of new patterns,structures and information under the title Morphogenesis and morphostasis(Maruyama, 1960), and its non-mathematical version with the title The secondcybernetics (Maruyama, 1963a). Even though the latter became immediatelypopular and was cited in more than 230 publications in many disciplines, thereaders understood only its quantitative side but did not even notice its quali-tative side. The readers caught on to the notion of change amplification bycausal loops, but did not notice the other, more important aspect of my theorythat heterogeneity is necessary and desirable, and can be increased by interac-tions in causal loops.

This aspect still remains ignored even today in spite of my numerous publi-cations between 1960 and 2003. There are two main reasons for this persistentinattention: (1) the inbreeding tendencies of theorists and journals becameoblivious of what goes on outside their ingroup interests (Maruyama, 1998a);(2) the Zeitgeist (sociohistorical intellectual environment) has not been ripe(Maruyama, 1998b).

Fortunately the tide may be changing. The harmful effects of peer reviewand referee systems have begun to be openly discussed (Science, 1999; de Vries,2001; Malakoff, 2001). As for the Zeitgeist, dissatisfaction with the past trendsis brewing beneath the surface even though it has not been voiced andarticulated in publications. I hope that this special issue will provide an impetusfor a new Zeitgeist.

But the lack of appreciation of the role of interactive heterogeneity, and ofthe nature of causal loops, still persists tenaciously, and it is useful to sum-marize their basics.

Figure 1 illustrates a causal loop process in a very simplified way with a smallnumber of variables (Maruyama, 1986).

In Figure 1, the arrows indicate the direction from a cause to an effect. +indicates that the changes occur in the same direction, but not necessarilypositively. For example, the + from E to J indicates that an increase in E causesan increase in J, but a decrease in E causes a decrease in J. On the other hand indicates that the changes occur in the opposite direction. For example the from H to J indicates that an increase in H causes a decrease in J, and adecrease in H causes an increase in J. Some arrows form loops. For example,there is a loop from Z to V, V to N, N to X, and X back to Z. In a loop, theinfluence of an element comes back to itself through other elements. A causalloop in which there are an odd number of minus signs is change-counteracting, while a causal loop in which there are an even number of minussigns is change-amplifying. But the time delay may reverse the effects. In Figure1, the w, m and s which follow the plus or minus sign indicate the strengthof the influence: w for weak; m for medium; s for strong. The numberwhich follows the strength sign indicates the delay of the effect in number ofmonths. If eagles eat rabbits, when the number of eagles increases, the numberof rabbits decreases. But if rabbits decrease, eagles have less to eat, andtherefore eagles decrease, which enables rabbits to increase. If there is no timedelay, an equilibrium is established instantly. However, it takes time for rabbitsto increase because it takes time for baby rabbits to grow. The time delay causesan oscillation in the number of rabbits as well as in the number of eagles. Thesum of the delays of all arrows in a loop is called loop delay, or simply delayedfeedback. If the loop delay is 180 out of phase with respect to the oscillation,


614 M. Maruyama

a positive feedback becomes a negative feedback, and a negative feedbackbecomes a positive feedback. Therefore, supposedly change-amplifying loopsmay become change-counteracting, and change-counteracting loops maybecome change-amplifying. This is a qualitative reversal. Another example isa causal loop of economic factors which has a loop delay coinciding with non-economic cycles such as the presidential election year cycle, or El Nio cycle.The result becomes very complex.

Figure 1. Causal loop processes.



Figure 1 serves to illustrate the difference between change-amplifying causalloops and change-counteracting causal loops. The former create new patterns,increase heterogeneity, and raise the level of sophistication of biological, socialand some physical systems, while the latter stabilize and maintain patterns.Logically the former precedes the latter. But for historical reasons the latterwas formulated first as cybernetics ( Josiah Macy Jr. Foundation, 194955)because it originated from the study of error correction in automation, morespecifically for automated anti-aircraft artillery during World War II (Wiener,1949). But Maruyama saw that the former was neglected, and formulated theformer as the second cybernetics (Maruyama, 1963a). Therefore, whatshould have been given a priority but had been neglected came to be calledthe second cybernetics, and when that happened, the cybernetics of the 1940swas re-named the first cybernetics. Today both are combined under thegeneral term cybernetics, which causes some confusion among those who areun-familiar with the history of cybernetics.

I mentioned two cognitive/cogitative problems which are common in themisinterpretation of causal loop processes. The first is that even though thequantitative side of change-amplifying causal loops is easily understood,the necessity, desirability and increase of interactive heterogeneity oftenescape the attention of the readers. The second problem is that many readerstry to understand a causal loop by breaking it down into a sequence of one-way causal relations. Both problems stem from epistemological limitations ofthe readers rather than their lack of intelligence. The preceding discussionshopefully eliminated the first problem. Now I would like to give specificexamples of the second problem.

In order to show concretely how even eminent scientists can get trapped inan epistemological prison sociologically and psychologically, I would like togive two specific examples in electronics. The purpose is not to discuss elec-tronics per se, but to use these examples to illustrate exactly where and howthey get trapped. Instead of jargon, I will use simple words and translatespecialized concepts into what the readers are familiar with such as radios andtennis rackets. Please try to trace the thread of the reasoning of these scientistswhich has misled them into the epistemological trap. The first example is thecircuitry of high fidelity amplifiers, which you find in your radios and televisionsets. The second is the design of photokystron arrays to transmit solar energyto, for example, a laboratory on the night side of the Moon from a stationorbiting around the Moon.

Figure 2 shows a simplified arithmetic calculation of a high fidelity amplifierstage (amplifying unit). In an audio amplifier or a telephone transmissionbooster, there is a tendency to boost one range of sound pitch more thananother, or the amplification factor may change due to temperature fluctua-tions or aging of the transistor or the vacuum tube. One method commonlyused to counteract these tendencies is to subtract a certain percentage of theoutput from the input of the stage. Simplifying the arithmetics to the bareminimum, one may state the relationship as follows:

I = input, U = output, A = amplification factor, B = feedback factor. Thefeedback is taken as voltage with little current and therefore does notaffect the output. Then the relationship is (I BU )A = U, which is the same asU/I = A/(1 + AB) where U/I is called stage gain. If A is 1000 and B is 0.1,then the stage gain is 1000/101 = 9.90990. If A drops to 500, the stage gain is


616 M. Maruyama

500/51 = 9.9039. In other words, the stage gain remains fairly constant whenA varies for different sound pitch or fluctuates with temperature or the age ofthe elements of the stage. This can be calculated because both the feedbackand the amplification are put together in one equation and are solved simul-taneously. If a social or biological scientist, or a philosopher specializing incausality, attempts to understand the relations by breaking down the processas a sequence of one-way causal relations, then he/she gets into a logicalimpossibility: the input is I; and output is 1000 times I; the feedback factor is0.1, making the feedback size (100 times I ). However, subtracting (100 timesI ) from I is a logical impossibility.

The second example involves eminent physicists: Henry Kolm of the Massa-chusetts Institute of Technology who specializes in magnetism; the late G. K.ONeill of Princeton University who was a high energy physics specialist; andJohn Freeman of Rice University who designed photoklystrons. A photoklys-tron converts solar energy into an electromagnetic wave. Radio wave is electro-magnetic wave. The usual AM (amplitude modulation) radio waves are longwaves ranging from 200 to 600 meters. The FM (frequency modulation) radiowaves range from 3 to 4 meters. Short waves range from 10 to 100 meters.Wavelengths shorter than 1 meter are in the microwave range. Photoklystronsoperate in the microwave range. Because the output of each klystron is small,many klystrons must be used in an array.

At a conference at Princeton University in May 1979, I heard John Freemanpresent his design of a klystron array and its advantages over other methodsof energy transmission in outer space. Before the invention of klystrons, theconversion of sunlight into microwaves had to go through several steps. Oneway was to convert sunshine into electricity by means of photovoltaic devicesand use the electricity to run microwave generators and amplifiers. Anotherwas to convert sunlight into heat by means of focusing mirrors and use theheat to turn a turbine or other devices to generate electricity for microwavegenerators and amplifiers. The klystron could bypass these steps. Many klys-trons could be mounted on a plane like a huge tennis racket. This racketwould be positioned like a mirror which received sunshine and sent outmicrowaves. In Freemans initial design, the racket did not face straight to thedirection of the target: he had to add a trigger device to each klystron tomake the collective beam phase-coherent into the oblique direction of trans-mission.

The first thing that occurred to me on hearing all this was the problem of

Figure 2.



mutual induction among klystrons. The klystrons in the array would excite orinhibit one another, synchronize one another or pull one another out of phase,depending on how they are spaced in relation to the wavelength. The easiestand obvious solution that occurred to me immediately was to make use of themutual induction and let the klystrons synchronize themselves by carefullyspacing them in relation to wavelength and the phase shifts. The relationshipbetween the microwave oscillation frequency f per second and the wavelengthw in meters in vacuum is: f times w = 299,792,458. For example, if thefrequency is 300 megahertz, the wavelength is approximately 1 meter. More-over, mutual induction could be used to keep the klystron oscillations at thedesired frequency. Tuning in the microwave range is different from tuning inthe radio frequency range. At radio frequencies where the wavelength is over10 meters (the high end of the shortwave radio range), tuning is accomplishedin a resonant circuit consisting of a coil and a capacitor, or a crystal as we haveseen in the example of the quartz wristwatch. But for microwaves, the wave-lengths are counted in centimeters or in smaller units. The size and the spacingof circuit components have considerable effect on the resonant frequency, andadjustment of these lengths can be used for tuning. Similarly, adjustment of thedistance between klystrons could be used to maintain the desired frequency.

If the klystrons on the tennis racket are synchronized, the resultant beamwill be perpendicular to the surface of the racket. But Freemans presentationin the conference showed a beam angle of 45, which meant that the klystronshad to be phase-shifted by phase-specifying signals. He completely overlookedthe mutual induction effect, which would override the triggers. After hislecture, I mentioned this problem to him. His immediate response, whichreflected his cognitive/cogitative type, was that the klystrons should be insu-lated (shielded against electromagnetic interference) from one another. Hewanted to eliminate mutual induction instead of making use of it. Independ-ently, I asked the same question to ONeill. His answer was the same asFreemans. Then I asked the same question to Kolm and got the same answer.However, Freeman later thought about mutual induction, and when theconference proceedings were published, I saw that he changed his design andused mutual induction. What is important is that the idea of mutual inductionhad not occurred to him naturally, and only after calculations he could see theadvantage of using mutual induction, while in my mind the idea of mutualinduction occurred before any calculation. This indicates differences in cogni-tive/cogitative types.

Fallacy Regarding Innovation and Creativity

It had been widely assumed that creativity was a miracle performance ofisolated geniuses who could overcome all obstacles, and there was nothingother people or social systems could do to help or hinder the geniuses: thebest thing to do was to leave the geniuses alone. The believers of this viewthought erroneously that they had a confirmation in the mathematical theoryof information by Shannon (Shannon and Weaver, 1949), which dealt with lossof information and methods to minimize the loss. Shannon never touchedupon creation of new information. This was not a deficiency on the part ofShannon, because his task was to devise most efficient methods for telephonecommunication.


618 M. Maruyama

My mathematical theory of morphogenesis (Maruyama, 1960) demon-strated that interaction among heterogeneous elements can genuinely createnew information, not just a new combination of old information, and the waythe amount of information can increase, whereas in Shannons theory thenonredundant information, which is different from making copies of the sameinformation, cannot increase. The reason for this difference is that my theorywas based on interaction, while Shannons theory was centered around arandom process such as noise. This difference is similar to the differencebetween the 19th-century thermodynamics based on random movements ofmolecules and the 20th-century nonequilibrium thermodynamics based oninteraction.

Shannons mathematical formula for the amount of information was exactlythe same as that of thermodynamic entropy, except that Shannon chose toreverse the positive and negative signs. The thermodynamic entropy wasdefined to be maximum at the most random state. But Shannon wanted todefine the amount of information to be minimum at the most random state.Many intellectuals misinterpret this reversal and erroneously believe that thereis a conversion between information and energy. This is completely incorrect.Let us keep in mind the following straight: (1) There is no conversion betweenthermodynamic entropy and energy: the first law of thermodynamics is conser-vation of energy (not entropy), and the second law is increase of entropy; thesetwo laws are independent, i.e. entropy can change without changing energy;in an isolated system (i.e. without energy input from or energy output tooutside), energy is conserved but entropy can decrease or increase (Maru-yama, 1963a, pp. 250256): consider, for example, the condensation theory inastronomy, in which uneven distribution of matter increases, i.e. distributionof matter becomes less random. (2) There is no conversion between informa-tion and energy; (3) There is no conversion between information and thermo-dynamic entropy.

Let us illustrate how interactions between heterogeneous elements cangenerate complex patterns. Figure 3 gives an example. It shows that: (1)simple rules of interaction can generate complex patterns; (2) it takes moreinformation to describe the finished pattern than to describe the rules ofinteraction, when the amount of information is computed according toShannons mathematics. In other words, the amount of nonredundant infor-mation increases, which means that new information is created. The rules ofinteraction in this case are as follows: imagine that four types of tissues, green,red, yellow and blue, grow to fill the squares in the following way: (1) The sizeof each cell of the tissues is one square; (2) Each cell reproduces cells in twodirections next to it; (3) At the beginning, each tissue is two-cells long, or two-squares long; (4) Within one unit time, the four tissues grow in the followingsequence: green first, red second, yellow third, and blue last; (5) The fourtissues begin in the squares marked 1; in the second time unit, they grow intosquares marked 2; and the process continues in subsequent time units; (6) Nocells die; (7) Both ends of a tissue grow by reproducing one cell per unit timein a vacant contiguous square; (8) If there are more than one vacant contig-uous square at either end, the direction of growth is determined by thefollowing preferential order: (8a) If, along the straight line defined by themost recent growth (growth in the most recent time unit), there exist lessthan or equal to three cells of the same color (but may be of different tissues)



consecutively, the preferred direction is along the same straight line; (8b) Ifthat direction is blocked by a tissue of the same type as the growing tissue,make a left turn. If that is impossible, make a right turn. If that is alsoimpossible, stop growth; (8c) If the straight line direction is blocked by a

Figure 3.


620 M. Maruyama

tissue of a different type, make a right turn. If that is impossible, make a leftturn. If that is also impossible, stop growth; (9) If, along the straight linedefined by the most recent growth, there are more than or equal to four cellsof the same type continuously; (9a) make a left turn if possible; (9b) If leftturn is impossible, make a right turn; (9c) If right turn is also impossible, stopgrowth even if the straight line direction is vacant.

All these rules in words may sound complicated. But if you play them on thevideo screen instead of using words, they are simple. Even children can playthem as a game. And children are likely to invent more games using similarrules.

Such games show that simple rules of interactions can generate complexpatterns, and that it takes more information to describe the finished patternthan to describe the interaction rules, which means that the amount of nonre-dundant information increases. In other words, new information is created,which is impossible without interaction among heterogeneous elements.

Contextual Methodology

Cunha et al. paper incorporates many elements of contextual methodology.Contextual methodology differs from quantitative methodology and qualita-tive methodology in the sense that it does not and should not prescribe fixedsteps to follow. Contextual methodology opens a way to perceive, record,conceptualize, and explore unexpected and unforeseen situations and rela-tions. It is more demanding and rigorous than quantitative and qualitativemethodologies, but it is not and should not be rigid. It requires researchers todevelop abilities to do the following. Some of the following may resembleethnomethodology and grounded-theory approach, but go much beyondthem.

(1) To immerse themselves in the situation with eyes and ears open andperceive what is happening without categorizing it into preconceivedcategorization. This requirement exists also in ethnomethodology andgrounded-theory approach, but the researchers are required to pay atten-tion to additional aspects as follows.

(2) To develop the ability to record (memorize and write down as soon asthe observation is over) many aspects of what is happening simultane-ously. Use diagrams to indicate simultaneity of many aspects. Theresearchers are required to pay attention to aspects beyond ethno-methodology and grounded-theory approach.

(3) To develop the ability to distinguish factual observation and interpreta-tion by making parallel entry of observations and interpretations: (a) todevelop the ability to register into memory the quantitative details (forexample, instead of The room was bright, register into memory Thesize of the window was 2 meters by 3.5 meters; instead of he washesitant, record into memory he was silent for 5 seconds); (b) todevelop the ability to consider several possible interpretations of oneobserved fact.

(4) To record into memory nonverbal communication and nonverbal inter-actions, which will serve in the analysis of the following.

(5) To be perceptive of behaviors such as pretending not to understand.



(6) To develop sensitivity to relevance dissonance and subsequent counterex-ploitation. When the purpose of research is perceived as irrelevant to theresearched persons (examples: Native Americans perceived anthropolo-gists purpose as gaining academic degrees, funds; prison inmates consid-ered sociologists and criminologists purposes as writing books,becoming famous), then the researched persons strategy is to counter-exploit the researchers (Maruyama, 1978b) to obtain some benefit bymanipulating the researchers.

(7) To develop sensitivity to criticality dissonance. When the researchedperson is aware that the researcher is unaware of the danger of informa-tion-giving, the former may disguise the information for the purpose ofself-protection, not necessarily for deception (Maruyama, 1978b).

(8) To develop the skill to perceive the layers of covert purposes and inten-tions (Maruyama, 1963b).

(9) To develop ability to detect behavior or statements which are designedto please the interviewer (researcher) or to get rid of the interviewer assoon as possible.

(10) To be aware of socially learned and conditioned correct or acceptableanswers which are not frank expressions.

(11) To develop ability to detect sub-understanding by dimension reduction.(12) To imagine many possibilities and alternatives which may at first appear

crazy.(13) To develop scenarios (future histories) based on unexpected social

changes, technological inventions, political changes, etc., using causalloop diagrams which include unexpected and unforeseen elements.

(14) To develop other abilities that are not mentioned above.

The most important requirement is No. 14. In the established quantitativeand qualitative methodologies, steps are prescribed and concepts are cat-egorized. On the other hand in the contextual methodology, the processes andresults vary depending on the abilities of the researcher. In quantitative andqualitative methodologies, the output of the researcher is judged, evaluated,scored or rated. But in contextual methodology, the output is appreciated in

Table 1.

Requirement Anthropologists Psychoanalysts/therapists

1 Proficient Proficient2 Proficient May not be thorough3 Proficient May not be thorough4 Fair Proficient5 Poor Excellent6 Very poor Excellent7 Very poor Excellent8 Fair Excellent9 Poor Excellent

10 Poor to fair Excellent11 Fair Depends. Often poor12 Fair Fair13 Very poor Fair14 Fair Depends


622 M. Maruyama

terms of the originality, sophistication and insights. In this sense, contextualmethodology resembles art, and in fact a good artist is a good conceptualmethodologist.

Anthropologists, psychoanalysts and psychotherapists are proficient in manyof the requirements listed above. Even though there are many exceptions,Table 1 can apply in most cases.

Policy Implications

Multi-layer reorientations throughout social, biological and psychologicalsciences have profound implications in education, human resources develop-ment and management, selection of job applicants, training of employees,mental health counseling and therapy, community development, urban plan-ning, immigration, and other social regulatory and incentive-creating systems.

Let us first discuss educational policy which affects all individuals. At thepresent in most countries, education methods based on H-type principlesprevail. Children are taught to think by classifying things, fitting things intothe hierarchy of categories, subcategories and supercategories. Textbooks arewritten to be read in a fixed sequence from Chapter 1, Chapter 2 to Chaptern. Other methods are used in limited education systems such as the Montessorischool, which are available only to wealthy and intellectual families. Anotherdrawback of H-type education is that it relies heavily on verbal learning.Already in the 1950s Grey Walter (1953) pointed out that only about 30% ofthe individuals in England were verbal thinkers, another one-third were pic-torial thinkers, and the rest were either bimodal or nonpictorial nonverbalthinkers. The proponents of verbal thinking had two arguments to supportverbal methods: (1) they said that verbal thinking is more abstract and there-fore superior to pictorial thinking; (2) they said that all thinking can beconverted to verbal communication. Both of their arguments were incorrect.

Computer graphics has elevated the level of sophistication of pictorialcommunication much above that of verbal communication. From the point ofview of the mathematical theory of information, picture-coded systems haveseveral advantages over verbal systems: (a) the amount of information whichone pictorial page can contain is much larger than that of one page of writtentext; (b) pictorial input into the brain is simultaneous, but verbal input issequential; (c) if a relation shown in a picture has to be translated into verbalstatements, the complex relations must be broken down to segments andcoded into verbal statements. The recipient must reconstruct the relationsfrom the statements. Much distortion occurs in the encoding and decoding.Suppose you have to describe someones face over the telephone, and thelistener has to reconstruct the face from your statements. The reconstructedface will be very inaccurate.

The argument that verbal thinking is more abstract is incorrect. Even theword abstract has a pictorial origin in ab + trahere in Latin which meansto pull away. Very abstract concepts can be graphically coded, as shown inFigure 4 (Maruyama, 1986, 1994a).

To explain nonverbal thinking to verbal thinkers is as impossible as toexplain color to congenitally blind persons, or to explain music to congenitallydeaf persons. Verbal thinkers standard argument is: Explain nonverbalthinking to me! When someone begins to explain nonverbal thinking, the



verbal thinkers say You see, you are using words. Therefore all thinking isverbal. This type of argument is a tautology, neither a logical inference nor ascientific statement.

Figure 4.


624 M. Maruyama

I am a nonverbal thinker, but I speak and write French, German, Swedish,Danish, Japanese, and read Chinese and Norwegian. The fact that I am anonverbal thinker facilitates my use of several languages. While verbal thinkerstranslate their thoughts from one language to another in their brain, I expressmy nonverbal thoughts directly into any of these languages, without the needto translate between languages.

There are alternatives to the H-type categorizing, hierarchical and sequen-tial learning. An example is on-the-job training which is practiced in secondaryeducation in Germany, and in business firms in Japan. In on-the-job training,one must learn contextually and situationally without isolating things intocategories. And in on-the-job training, many things happen simultaneouslywithout a predetermined sequence.

S-type and G-type individuals learn much more efficiently through pictorialcommunication and on-the-job training. Education policies must be revised tomake these alternative methods of learning available to children and to allowchildren to choose the methods depending on their mindscape types.

In some countries there are unofficial methods of learning which supple-ment school education. For example, children in Japan can go to videocenters, which charge a few dollars for 30 minutes for the use of a video cassetteplayer but provide an unlimited number of cassettes free (Maruyama, 1985,1994a). Many children accelerate the playback speed in order to save money,and they can view several tapes in 30 minutes, each of which takes 6090minutes at the normal speed. The children can remember almost all the detailsof the stories. An important aspect of this viewing activity is that the childreninteract with the machine, accelerating and slowing down depending on whatis happening in the story. This active interaction distinguishes their videoviewing from passive television watching.

Another unofficial supplementary method in Japan is the use of comichistory and science books. The illustrations use the technique of comics, butthe contents are accurately detailed and educational. These manga books areavailable for both children and serous adults. The pictures contain minutedetails that cannot be conveyed verbally, and the comic technique emphasizesthe important aspects of the actions which take place in the story, includingfacial expressions and body postures. An example is the adult manga series onShogun Iyeyasu by Koodansha which depicts the intricate details of the politi-cal intrigues. One page of such manga contains infinitely more informationthan one page of verbal writing. I use these books as reference books, whichare far superior to the Encyclopaedia Britannica in many respects.

These unofficial supplementary methods can be used in classrooms if theeducational policies are revised to enable schools to do so. Such changes areuseful not only in countries where school systems are run on established rulesand regulations, but also in countries where school systems are yet to becreated.

Mental health policy, and psychological counseling and therapy policy mustbe revised. In the past, adaptation to sociocultural milieu and formation of egoidentity were two of the most frequent aims of counseling and therapy. Mal-adjusted individuals had to become well-adjusted or well-adapted. Confused,drifting, aimless or weak egos (Erikson, 1956) had to be strengthened. Thesetwo aims had an implicit assumption of homogenism in common. First, socio-cultural adaptation implied the desirability of sociocultural homogeneity.



Second, ego identity was sought to make the individual coherent, consistentand resistant to swaying influences: in other words, to be homogeneous.

With the rise of ethnic minority movements in North America in the 1960s,social heterogeneity became recognized and legitimated, but at the same timethese movements led to ingroup homogenization, ingroup conformity andingroup self-stereotyping in the name of ethnic identity. From the theoreticalpoint of view, constructionism in psychology and symbolic interactionism insociology were congruent with the self-homogenization and self-stereotypingin each ethnic group.

The dichotomous logic, which characterizes H-type mindscapes, erectedartificial barriers as well as unnecessary psychological dilemma and self-depreciation in individuals who felt compelled to consider themselves as a partof the ethnic consciousness movement. For example in the 1960s in NorthAmerica, the third-generation Japanese Americans and Japanese Canadians(grandchildren of immigrants from Japan) tried to feel Japanese, but werecaught in the following logic: I am not American (or Canadian). I am notJapanese. Therefore I am nothing (Maruyama, 1976). This logic was alsosupported by the fact that their parents, who were the second-generationJapanese Americans or Japanese Canadians, and who tried to assimilate intothe North American society, had lost their Japanese tradition, and had nothingto hand down to the third-generation Japanese Americans or Japanese Can-adians in terms of Japanese tradition.

Black Americans of the same time period suffered from a similar problem.They tried to find their roots in Africa. Some of them went to Africa in searchof their cultural origins. But Africans in Africa who maintained their traditionsconsidered these Black Americans as too uncultured and too uncivilized.

In more recent years, new types of individual and social processes haveemerged, and are proving to be healthier than the old principles of sociocul-tural adaptation and homogeneous ego identity. The two new processes are:self-heterogenization without geographic displacement; and cross-culturalmigration to select a sociocultural milieu compatible with ones own mind-scape type (Maruyama, 1999a). Young people began to design individuallyunique ego identity by combining elements, including foreign elements, whichare compatible with their own mindscape types. This is not a random combi-nation. It is a careful composition based on ones own mindscape type. It isalso different from following a fad or fashion, even though such trends stillexist. Self-heterogenization is not self-decomposition. It is creation of acoherent pattern compatible with ones mindscape type.

Cultural milieu selection is a voluntary geographic displacement to an en-vironment compatible with ones own mindscape type. Even though in eachculture there are individuals of all mindscape types, one of the types maybecome powerful for historical or political reasons, and make the environmentuncomfortable for individuals of non-powerful types. Cultural milieu selectionis migration of a new kind.

In the past, migration has usually been explained in terms of economics andlabor supply and demand. However, there have been other causes of migra-tion, for example, religious or political oppression. But cultural milieu selec-tion received little attention. In 1959 Maruyama wrote a paper (Maruyama,1959) on the fact that some Danes found Sweden a better cultural milieumatch to their mindscape types than Denmark, while some Swedes found


626 M. Maruyama

Denmark a better cultural milieu match to their mindscape types. In 1982Maruyama conducted in-depth interviews of factory workers in Sweden, andfound individuals who migrated for cultural milieu selection (Maruyama,1994a).

This leads to a reconsideration of immigration policy. Until now, individualsof needed skills have been given priority in obtaining temporary or permanentimmigration visas. Political refugees were also given priority. Cultural milieuselection was not a criterion of priority. It may be difficult to establish legalcriteria at the level of immigration authorities. But if a visa is issued on thebasis of invitation by a business firm or an organization, then the firm or theorganization can consider the mindscape match in the selection of applicants.

If urban planning and architectural design involve immigrant populations,then they should consider the fact that mindscape types are transcultural,heterogeneous and interactive, and make their plans and designs accordingly,instead of stereotyping each immigrant group.

Conclusion

This monograph presented new perspectives, new conceptual orientations,new findings, new methodologies, and new policies, all of which include andaffect sociology, and relate sociology to other disciplines. Such may be thefunction of new sociology. We thank Professor Vianello for having provided uswith the opportunity to publish this monograph.

References

Adorno, T. W. and Sanford, N. (1950) The Authoritarian Personality, New York, Harper.Bacon, E. N. (1967) Design of Cities, New York, Viking Press.Bergson, H. (1896) Matire et Mmoire, Paris.Buckley, W. (1968) Modern Systems Research for the Behavioral Scientist, Chicago, Aldine (Subse-quently Aldine was acquired by Walter de Gruyter.)Camara, S. (1975) The concept of heterogeneity and change among the Mandenka, Techno-logical Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 7, pp. 273284.De Vries, J. (2001) Peer review: the holy cow of science, in Frederiksson, E. H. (ed.), A Centuryof Science Publishing, Amsterdam, IOS Press, pp. 231244.Diesing, P. (1971) Patterns of Discovery in the Social Sciences, Chicago, Aldine Atherton.Dyk, W. (1964) Son of Old Man Hat, Lincoln, University of Nebraska Press.Ehrman, L. (1972) Rare male advantages and sexual isolation in Drosophila immigrans, BehavioralGenetics, Vol. 2, pp. 7983.Ehrman, L. and Probber, J. (1978) Rare Drosophila males, American Scientist, Vol. 66, pp. 216222.Enserink, M. (2001) Peer review and quality: a dubious connection?, Science, Vol. 293, pp. 21872188.Erikson, E. H. (1956) The problem of ego identity, Journal of American Psychoanalytic Association,Vol. 4, pp. 58121.Harvey, O. J. (1966) Experience, Structure and Adaptability, New York, Springer-Verlag.Holden, C. (2001) How the brain understands music, Science, Vol. 292, p. 623.Josiah Macy Jr. Foundation (194955) Proceedings of the Conferences on Cybernetics, New York, JosiahMacy Jr. Foundation.King, J. E. and Figueredo, A. J. (1997) The five-factor model plus dominance in chimpanzeepersonality, Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 31, pp. 257271.Kluckhohn, C. (1949) The philosophy of Navajo Indians, in Northrop, F. S. C. (ed.), IdeologicalDifferences and World Order, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press.Koike, K. (1978) Japanese workers in large firms, Keizai Kagaku, Vol. 26, pp. 137.



Klsch, S., Frederici, T. C. and Schrger, E. (1999) Brain indices of music processing, Journalof Cognitive Neuroscience, Vol. 12, pp. 520541.Kurzon, G. (2001) Peer review critic gets NIH rejects, Science, Vol. 294, pp. 12551257.Malakoff, D. (2001) See Kurzon (2001).Maruyama, M. (1959) Critique de quelques ides trs rpandues au sujet des rapport entre laculture et la sant mentale, Revue de Psychologie des Peuples, Vol. 14, pp. 273276.Maruyama, M. (1960) Morphogenesis and morphostasis, Methodos (Italy), Vol. 12, pp. 251296.Maruyama, M. (1961) Communicational epistemology, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science,Vol. 11, pp. 319327; Vol. 12, pp. 5262; Vol. 12, pp. 117131.Maruyama, M. (1962) Awareness and unawareness of misunderstandings, Methodos (Italy), Vol.17, pp. 481485.Maruyama, M. (1963a) The second cybernetics: deviation-amplifying mutual causal processes,American Scientist, Vol. 51, pp. 164179; pp. 250256.Maruyama, M. (1963b) Basic elements in misunderstandings, Dialectica (Switzerland), Vol. 17,pp. 7892; Vol. 17, pp. 99110.Maruyama, M. (1967) The Navajo philosophy: an esthetic ethic of mutuality, Mental Hygiene,Vol. 51, pp. 242249.Maruyama, M. (1973a) Human futuristics and urban planning, Journal of American Institute ofPlanners, Vol. 39, pp. 346357.Maruyama, M. (1973b) Cultural, social and psychological considerations in the planning ofpublic works, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 5, pp. 135143.Maruyama, M. (1974a) Hierarchists, individualists and mutualists: three paradigms amongplanners, Futures, Vol. 6, pp. 103113.Maruyama, M. (1974b) Paradigmatology and its application to cross-disciplinary communica-tion, Cybernetica, Vol. 17, pp. 136156; pp. 237281.Maruyama, M. (1976) Diversities in the development of ethnic identification among the third-generation Japanese Americans, Sociologia Internationalis, Vol. 14, pp. 221243.Maruyama, M. (1977) Heterogenistics: an epistemological restructuring of biological and socialsciences, Acta Biotheoretica, Vol. 26, pp. 120136.Maruyama, M. (1978a) Heterogenistics and morphogenetics: toward a new concept of thescientific, Theory and Society, Vol. 5, pp. 7596.Maruyama, M. (1979) Transepistemological understanding, in Hinshaw, R. (ed.), Currents inAnthropology (Sol Tax Festschrift), den Haag, Mouton.Maruyama, M. (1989b) Endogenous research and polyocular anthropology, in Holloman, R.and Arutiunov, S. (eds), Perspectives on Ethnicity, den Haag, Mouton.Maruyama, M. (1980) Mindscapes and science theories, Current Anthropology, Vol. 21, pp. 589599.Maruyama, M. (1981) Denkmuster: Metaprinzipien der Umweltgestaltung, Garten und Land-schaft, October, pp. 806815.Maruyama, M. (1982) Mindscapes, management, business policy and public policy, Academy ofManagement Review, Vol. 7, pp. 612619.Maruyama, M. (1984) Alternative concepts of management: insights from Asia and Africa, AsiaPacific Journal of Management, Vol. 1, pp. 100111.Maruyama, M. (1985) Mindscapes: how to understand specific situations in multiculturalmanagement, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Vol. 2, pp. 125149.Maruyama, M. (1986) Toward picture-coded information systems, Futures, Vol. 18, pp. 450452.Maruyama, M. (1989a) Epistemological sources of new business problems, Human SystemsManagement, Vol. 8, pp. 7180.Maruyama, M. (1989b) Morphogenetic teaching in international business, Journal of Teachingin International Business, Vol. 1, pp. 7793.Maruyama, M. (1989c) Practical steps for interactive inventions, Technology Analysis and StrategicManagement, Vol. 1, pp. 423430.Maruyama, M. (1990a) International proactive marketing, Marketing Research, June, pp. 3648.Maruyama, M. (1990b) Organizational structure, training, and selection of outer space crewmembers, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 37, pp. 203212.Maruyama, M. (1991) Disciplinary contents requirement: academic non-tariff barrier in inter-disciplinary communication, Human Systems Management, Vol. 10, p. 155.Maruyama, M. (1992a) Changing dimensions in international business, Academy of ManagementExecutive, Vol. 6, pp. 8896.Maruyama, M. (1992b) Entropy, beauty and eumorphy, Cybernetica, Vol. 35, pp. 195206.


628 M. Maruyama

Maruyama, M. (1992c) Anti-monopoly law to prevent dominance by one theory in academicdepartments, Human Systems Management, Vol. 11, pp. 219220.Maruyama, M. (1993) Mindscapes, individuals and cultures in management, Journal of Manage-ment Inquiry, Vol. 2, pp. 140155.Maruyama, M. (1994a) Mindscapes in Management, Aldershot, Dartmouth.Maruyama, M. (1994b) Psychological tests for epistemological heterogeneity across cultures,Communication and Cognition, Vol. 27, pp. 377396.Maruyama, M. (1995) Individual epistemological heterogeneity across cultures, Cybernetica, Vol.37, pp. 215249.Maruyama, M. (1997) Beyond post-modernism, Cybernetica, Vol. 40, pp. 169178.Maruyama, M. (1998a) Academic concept inbreeding, failure of interbreeding, and its remedyby outbreeding, Human Systems Management, Vol. 17, pp. 8991.Maruyama, M. (1998b) Zeitgeist, experiential or intellectual anchorability, and popularizationby metaphorization, Human Systems Management, Vol. 17, pp. 297301.Maruyama, M. (1999a) Self-heterogenization and cultural milieu selection, in Pedersen, P.(ed.), Multiculturalism as a Fourth Force, Philadelphia, Brenner/Mazel.Maruyama, M. (1999b) Heterogram analysis, Human Systems Management, Vol. 18, pp. 5360.Maruyama, M. (2001) Individual types: subcultural or transcultural?, General Psychologist, Vol.36, pp. 6467.Pribram, K. (1949) Conflicting Patterns of Thought, Washington, American University Press.Rokeach, M. (1960) The Open and Closed Mind, New York, Basic Books.Science (1999) 5 November, pp. 10741075.Shannon, C. and Weaver, W. (1949) Mathematical Theory of Communication, Urbana, University ofIllinois Press.Spemann, H. (1938) Embryonic Development and Induction, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press.Tange, K. (1972) Katsura, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press.Tange, K. and Kawazoe, N. (1965) Ise, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.Tedlock, B. and Tedlock, D. (2000) Anomalies in recent AA history, Anthropology News, April,pp. 1314.Tinbergen, J. (1937) An Econometric Approach to Business Cycle Problems, Paris.Tinbergen, N. (1953) The Herring Gulls World, London, Collins.Uchihashi, K. (1982) Takumino Jidai, Tokyo, Koodansha.Walter, G. (1953) The Living Brain, New York.Watanabe, T. and Kawanishi, M. (1979) Mating preference and the direction of evolution inDrosophila, Science, Vol. 205, pp. 906907.Weiss, A., King, J. E. and Figueredo, A. J. (2000) The heritability of personality factors inchimpanzees, Behavior Genetics, Vol. 30, pp. 213221.Wiener, N. (1949) Interpolation, Extrapolation and Smoothing of Stationary Time Series with EngineeringApplications, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.Wright, S. (1931) Evolution in Mendelian population, Genetics, Vol. 16, pp. 97159.Wright, S. (1932) Roles of mutation, Proceedings of the 6th International Congress of Genetics, Vol.1, pp. 356366.Zeki, S. (2001) Artistic creativity and the brain, Science, Vol. 293, p. 51.


maruyama, causal loops, interaction, and creativity, 2003

Documents