I'm going for two birds with one email (and mixing a metaphor).  
  
>Peter Stillman said:  
>I have nothing against studying the "vast spontaneous order." (Well, I probably   
>do, because *I*, unlike Diana, think it has been vastly over-studied, to the >exclusion
of other forms of ordering at work in the economy.)
  
I think we do have a predisposition to be more impressed by decentralized   
systems than hierarchical ones.  A marching band that spells out the school's   
name is not that interesting since we know the individuals have practiced and   
practiced under the direct control of the band director.    
  
A flock of geese flying in a V is much more interesting than the marching band   
because there's no head goose.  The spontaneous order, the pattern that is the   
V, is, as Smith said, "an end which was no part of his intention."  You have to admit that
figuring out why there is a pattern without top-down control is a mighty appealing
question. Plus, add to that the fact that many people will deny that a decentralized
system could work at all, while others will confuse any
decentralized system as automatically generating a pattern and you've got grist   
for the mill for pretty much 'til the end of time.    
  
Switching to my second contribution in this email, I would suggest the geese   
example and the whole chaos literature as another source for Diana Weinert's   
research.  In particular, take a look at James Gleick's _Chaos: The Making of a   
New Science_.  He offers several examples of decentralized, non-linear dynamical   
systems (such as the heart and eye) that you may find interesting.    
  
So, call it the invisible hand, spontaneous order, or self-organization -- I   
think we are always going to be interested in it.   
  
Humberto Barreto