Crisis. According to Lewis Bornhaim, crisis is a situation where the totality of circumstances which were earlier quite acceptable, all of a sudden, due to the emergence of some new factor, becomes absolutely unacceptable, at that it’s almost inessential, whether the new factor is political, economic or scientific: death of a national hero, price fluctuations, new technological discovery; any circumstance may serve impetus for further events (“the butterfly effect”: the butterfly’s wing at the right place and time may cause a hurricane). A well-known scientist Alfred Pokran devoted a special work to crises (“Culture, crises and changes”) and arrived at interesting conclusions. First, he notes that any crisis arises long before it factually comes on the scene. For example, Einstein has published fundamentals of relativity theory in 1905-1915, i.e. forty years before his works have ultimately led to the beginning of a new epoch and emergence of crisis. Pokran also notes that every crisis implies the involvement of a great number of individuals and characters, all of them being unique: “It is difficult to imagine Alexander the Great in front of Rubicon or Eisenhower in the field of Waterloo; it is just as difficult to imagine Darwin writing a letter to Roosevelt about potential dangers associated with nuclear bomb. Crisis is the sum of blunders, confusions and intuitive flashes of inspiration, a totality of observed and unobserved factors (which in systemic analysis is called a “bifurcation point”), an unstable condition of a system that may result in a number of outcomes: recovery of stable level, transition to other steady equilibrium state characterized by new energy-and-informational level, or leap to a higher unstable level. At a bifurcation point a nonlinear system becomes very sensitive to small influences or fluctuations: indefinitely small influences may cause indefinitely wide variation of the condition of the system and its dynamics. Originality of any crisis hides its striking similarity with other crises. The unique feature of one and all /most and least/ crises is the possibility of prevision thereof in retrospect and irreversibility of solutions; characteristic frequencies of control processes sharply increase (a time trouble condition, shortage of time).

Power. Power is any possibility, whatever it is based on, to realize one’s own will in the given social relations, even notwithstanding counteraction. The power is also characterized as steady ability of achievement of the goals set with the support of other people. The concept of power is “sociologically amorphous”, i.e. the exercise of power does not imply the presence of any special human qualities (strength, intellect, beauty, etc.) or any special circumstances (confrontation, conflict, etc.). Any possible qualities and circumstances can serve for realization of will. These may include direct violence or threats, prestige or charm, any peculiarities of situation or institutional status, etc. An individual having a lot of money, holding senior position or being simply more charming person, the one who is able to use better than others the circumstances that turned up - that person, as a rule, would be the one having more power. For characterization of dictatorial/imperious capacity the concept of supremacy/domination is also used. Domination/supremacy implies the probability that the command of certain content will induce obedience in those to whom it is addressed. Domination/supremacy is a stronger notion than power. Domination is legitimate and institutionalized power, i.e. it is such a power which invokes the will to subordinate and fulfill the orders and instructions and which, at that, exists in a sustainable format accepted both by those dominating and dependent. With regard to the latter it is conventional to talk about domination structures. Such legitimate and institutionalized power is the state power. It is very important to distinguish the power from domination. For example, the person who is taken a hostage is under the authority of gunmen, but one can not say that they dominate over him/her. They force the hostage to obey by direct physical violence. But he/she does not want to obey and does not agree to recognize their right to dominate over him/her.

Elite. Elite is a group of individuals standing high in the ranks of power or prestige, which, thanks to their socially significant qualities (origin, wealth, some achievements), hold the highest positions in various spheres or sectors of public life. The influence of these people is so great that they affect not only the processes inside the spheres or sectors to which they belong, but also the social life as a whole. There are three basic classes of elite: authoritative/power-holding, valuе-associated and functional. Authoritative/power-holding elites are more or less closed groups having specific qualities, and “imperious” privileges. These are the “ruling classes” - political, military or bureaucratic. Value-associated elites are creative groups exerting special influence on the setup of minds and opinions of the broad mass. They are philosophers, scientific-research expert community, intelligentsia in the widest sense of this word. Functional elites are influential groups which in the course of competition stand out from the crowd in different spheres or sectors of society and undertake important functions in the society. These are rather open groups, accession to which requires the presence of certain achievements, for example holding managerial positions.

Group. Collective administrative actions differ from those individual in a variety of parameters. Thus, the group is more productive in generation of the most efficient and well-grounded ideas, comprehensive evaluation of one or other decisions or their projects, achievement of individual and team objectives. The basic drawback of the team decision-making is that it is more inclined to undertake higher risk. This phenomenon is explained in different ways: conformist pressure which manifests itself in that some team members do not dare express their opinions that vary from those stated before, especially the opinions of team leaders and the majority of team members, and criticize them; a feeling of reappraisal, overestimation of their possibilities which develops during intensive group communication (overrated feeling of “us” that weakens the perception of risk); mutual “contagion of courage”. This effect arises in group communications; in case of widespread notion (usually erroneous) that in group decisions responsibility rests with many people and the share of personal responsibility is rather insignificant (group failures are usually less evident/appreciable and are not perceived as sharply as individual’s failures); influence of leaders, especially formal heads whose vision of their main functions consists in indispensable inculcation of optimism and confidence in the achievement of the purpose. The symptoms of the “group thinking” and group pressure as a whole are: illusion of invulnerability of the group. Group members are inclined to overestimation of correctness of their actions and quite often perceive risky decisions optimistically; unbounded belief in moral righteousness of group actions. Group members are convinced of moral irreproachability of their collective behavior and uselessness of critical evaluations by independent observers (“the collective is always right”); screening of disagreeable or unwanted information. Data out of keeping with the group opinions are not taken into consideration and cautions are not taken into account either. Resulting from it is ignoring off necessary changes; negative stereotypification of the outsiders. The purposes, opinions and achievements of associations external in relation to the given group tendentiously treated as weak, hostile, suspicious, etc. Quite often “narrow departmental interests /localistic tendencies/” and “clannishness” and self-censorship arise thereupon. Separate group members because of fears of disturbance of the group harmony abstain from expression of alternative points of view and their own interests; illusion of constant unanimity. Because of self-censorship and perception of silence as a sign of consent external consensus is achieved very quickly without comprehensive discussion and approval when making decisions on the problems. In this situation internal dissatisfaction is being accumulated which may further lead to conflict which may arise because of formal insignificant ground; social (group) pressure on those who disagree. The requirement of conformist behavior, as a rule, leads to intolerance with respect to critical, disloyal (from the view point of the group) statements and actions and to “gag” the bearers thereof; restriction or reduction of possibilities of the outsiders’ participation in the formation of collective opinion and decision-making. Separate group members seek not to give the chance of participation in the group affairs to the people who do not belong to it, as they apprehend that it (including the information coming from them) will break the unity of the group.

Rational-universal method of decision-making implies an unambiguous definition of the substance of a problem and ways of its solution. Its basic advantage consists in that when realized it allows complete and radical solving the problem or a preset task. Branch method implies taking partial decisions directed towards the improvement of situation, rather than complete solution of a problem (for example, under conditions of insufficient clarity of a problem, ways and means of its solution, in the absence of full information on the situation, given the lack of possibility to foresee all the consequences of the radical solution, under the pressure of the influential forces inducing to compromises, the possibility of rise of sharp conflicts with unclear outcome, etc.). Mixed (mixed-scanning) method implies rational analysis of the problem and singling out of its main, key component which is attached a paramount importance and to which rational-universal method is applied. Other elements of the problem are solved gradually by making acceptable partial decisions that allows to focus efforts and resources on the key areas and at the same time have complete control over other elements of the situation, thus providing its stability.

Selection/choice mechanism. The optimal selection mechanism may be considered the consensus-based system in which each participant of decision-making votes not for one, but for all options (preferably more than two) and ranges the list of options in the order of his/her own preferences. Thus, if four possible options are offered the participant of decision-making (the voter) defines a place of each of them. The first place is given 4 points, the second, third and forth are given 3, 2 and 1 points, respectively. After voting the points given too each option (the candidacy/nominee) are summed up and selected option is determined based on the quantity thereof. If sums of scores for any options are found equal, repeated voting is held only for these options.

Networks. Network is determined as spatial, constantly changing dynamical system consisting of elements identical in terms of some parameters: actors (figures), activity and resources (key for this type of a network), connected among themselves by communication flows. The network structure is the description of boundaries of interrelations between the elements and position of elements in the network. The actors, activity and resources are connected with each other across the entire structure of network. The actors develop and maintain relations with each other. Various kinds of activity are also connected among themselves by relations, which may be called a network. Resources are consolidated among themselves by the same structure of network, and moreover, all the three networks are closely interconnected and represent a global network. Actors, activity and resources form the system in which heterogeneous (diverse) needs coalesce with heterogeneous offers. In that way they are functionally connected with each other. Even in case of destruction of considerable part of network, the functions of the latter as a system will not be harmed, as they will pass to other cells of the network (partially their resources as well). In an ideal network there is no uniform control (coordinating) centre, there is only “floating” centre (centers) functioning at each specific moment and its functions may be usually performed by any cell of the network.

So, we have examined separate aspects of stimulation of scientific thinking. All the studied materials require the development of skills for their practical application. See in addition: Alvin Toffler “Shock of the Future”, “Metamorphoses of Power”, “The Third Wave”. Francis Fukuyama. Our Posthuman Future. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 2002. 272 pp.), “The End of History and the Last Human”. (Samuel Huntington). "Think tanks" Paul Dickson, 1971.