The sociology of deviance

The sociology of deviance How important and relevant are Mertons Strain theory and Beckers labelling theory in our understanding of deviance? In this essay I will analyse the importance and relevance of a structional functionalist view of deviance seen through the lens of strain theory and a symbolic interactionalist perspective through the use of labelling theory. Strain Theory attempts to explain why crime is resolute amongst the lower classes who are subjected to the least opportunities for economic achievement (O Connor 2007). It focuses on the positions that individuals occupy in a social system, not on the characteristics of the individual. Labeling theory explains why sustained delinquent behaviour stems from destructive social interactions and encounters (Siegel Welsh 2008). These theories work in harmony as the former theory explains why deviance begins and the latter gives an explanation as to why deviance continues through the lifespan. I will be describing and evaluating these theories to further answer the question of: just how important are these two theories for the understanding deviance? The sociology of deviance is the systematic study of social norm violation that is subject to social sanction according to (Henry 2009 p.1). Deviant behaviour is behaviour that does not follow common perceptions, when people are deviant they do not conform to expectations. It is difficult to give an exact definition of deviance as many major theorists have cast a vast variety of perspectives on what it really is. Some sociologists believe that deviance is the violation of any social rule, whereas other sociologists argue that deviance does not have to be a real behaviour for it to be labelled deviant (Thio, Calhoun Conyers 2008). Downes Rock (2003) state that deviance is everywhere and not only that but it leaves traces everywhere. Theories of deviance are rarely catapulted into political settings to be accepted or rejected in their entirety; rather they trickle in from many sources. The influence of ideas is always changing due to the instability of political circumstances (Downs Rock 2003). The increase in deviance may be due to the fact that people are confused about the correct values and morals to hold. As a result of this ever evolving world there are new variations of deviant behaviour occurring on a daily basis, ranging from minor violations of the law such as not paying a television licence to major deviance like abuse scandals in regard to the Catholic Church. These acts are considered to be deviant as they are acts which the rest of society deems as unacceptable (Tierney 2006). Traditional values such as religious views have been shattered to pieces because of ongoing scandals in the Catholic Church. Individual pursuits drive people; religion has no impact on the expected standards of people in todays materialist driven society, which in turn leads to an increase in deviant behaviours. The Functionalist perspective stems from the work of Durkheim who believed that peoples social roles or functions hold society together (Flynn 2009). In contrast to this is the Symbolic interaction approach where the emphasis is on the way people construct the meaning of others acts (Becker McCall 1990). Durkheim believed that crime is not only functional but it is necessary, it only become dysfunctional if the rates are either too high or too low (Covington 1999). The functionalist analysis of deviance begins with society as a whole; it looks for the source of deviance in the nature of society rather than in the psychological nature of the individual. Durkheim believes society is held together by shared values, and if these values are not constantly reaffirmed through the generations it may signify the collapse of society. One may put forward the argument that shared values are not a fundamental part of society today. It proves difficult to reaffirm values through generations when the family when parents are working long hours. Parental influence over children has declined; due to this children seek values from available sources such as the television or internet, resulting in the promotion of materialistic values which are in turn the norms today. If the community collapsed, and the collective conscience failed the result was a state of anomie (Covington 1999). In essence anomie represents the problems in society caused by social deregulation. Merton developed an anomie theory based on Durkheims earlier work which referred to a deinstitutionalization of norms that happens when there is a disjunction between the importance of cultural goals and institutional means (Featherstone Deflem 2003). Mertons strain theory argues that structures in society may encourage deviance and crime, it is a structural functionalist explanation. Functionalist theories offers the basis for policies that are wide-ranging in their scope (Downes Rock 2003), however Gouldner (1970) believes that Functionalism thinks of systems as mutually interacting variables rather than in terms of cause and effect, thus one may infer that it is impossible to implement policy to stop a particular effect if the cause is not highlighted. Theories of deviance are extremely important as Downes Rock (2003) believe that all theories of deviance have implications for policy making. That said however the ease of implementation of polices may prove difficult. For example doing something about anomie would be far more difficult than tackling vandalism by technical means (Downes Rock p. 317 2003) However, Mertons anomie theory is of great relevance to the realm of policy as it infers a definite cause and effect statement relating to the disjunction between goals and means (Downes Rock 2003). The main principle of Social Strain Theory is that some social structures exert a definite pressure upon certain persons in society to engage in non-conforming rather than conforming conduct (Thio, Calhoun Conyers 2008 p.33). This is not to say that certain social structures leave the individual with no other choice but to turn to crime, rather inadequate regulation leaves the individual with a different perspective on means to financial gain. I agree that this system is a great source of inequality and subsequent deviance in our society today that the less powerful groups are labelled so negatively and punished severely. Every crime should be treated in the same manner, regardless of whether they are from an underprivileged area or a high flying business person. An impact of cycle of deficient regulation may also be seen in Beckers Labelling theory. This theory was greatly influenced by the symbolic interaction approach as it is people who determine and give meaning to labels. The justice system operates on behalf of powerful groups in society; hence one has to ask the question what behaviours are criminal? The two strands of this theory are a concern to address how a particular behaviour comes to be labelled as deviant and secondly what is the impact of this label. (Becker p.9 1963) states that The deviant is one whom that label has been successfully applied: deviant behaviour is behaviour that people so label. In relation to deviance Labelling theory places the importance on the reaction to behaviour not the behaviour itself (Macionis Plummer 2007). It was this belief that leads Becker to place labels on types of behaviour, but who are the people labelled as deviant in society. To put it simply, labelling theory is concerned with what happens to criminals after they have been labelled, also suggesting that actual crime rates may be heightened by criminal sanctions. Unlike the Functionalist perspective, Symbolic Interaction is concerned with the process that underline social life and consequently the mechanisms by which meanings are given to those processes. It centres on the creativity capacity of humans and their ability to share interactions with others (Walklate 2007). In relation to deviance it is concerned with how certain behaviours come to be understood as deviant. Becker argued that behaviours of less powerful groups for example the poor, or disadvantaged are more likely to be criminalized than those who are privileged such as the white and wealthy. This happens because there is an assumption that crime is a social label along with the creation of law which are made by people in positions of power and enforced on people without power (Hopkins Burke 2002). The judicial system criminalizes less dominant and less powerful member of society, thus Becker argues that some rules may be cynically designed to keep the less powerful in their place (Hopkins Burke p.137 2002). Becker (1963) disagreed with the notion that those who break the law will be labelled as a criminal. He brought our attention to the fact that in many cases the innocent are accused, along with this only some of those who break the law are punished and brought through the system (Hopkins Burke 2002). Becker used a concept developed by Merton called the self fulfilling prophecy which is what labelling theory is most widely known for. When a situation is given a false definition it evokes a new behaviour in the person which as a result makes the false assumption comes through (Hopkins Burke p.142 2002). Becker felt that most criminals were in the first place falsely defined as a criminal, not only are their actions defined by society as deviant, the label is then extended to them as a person (Hopkins Burke 2002). Mertons concept of strain refers to pressure the lower economic classes feel when they try to achieve societys goals of monetary success (Flynn 2009). Merton felt that in society, people were focused on achieving high financial success which although exceptionally productive on one hand, on the other was a direct source of stress and strain for the individual (Cohen 1966). In effect there is a distortion between culturally induced aspirations for economic success and structurally distributed possibilities of achievement. This is in accordance with labeling theory view where the people who commit deviant acts are probably under strain from society to achieve monetary success. An example of this would be in relation to higher education, people without the means or cultural knowledge to aspire to respected professions are more likely to engage in deviant behaviour than those with access to achieving their goals (Flynn 2009). Within labelling theory there are two important concepts, those of primary deviance and secondary deviance. Merton thinks that the sense of strain that men feel is an accumulation of frustration, despair and injustice (Cohen 1966). Structural and Individual strain are the two main types of strain in society that promote deviance and crime. The former refers to the cycle of deficient regulation in society that has a negative impact on how an individual evaluates their needs, means and opportunities (Flynn 2009). The latter concept is defined by OConnor (2007) as frictions and pains experienced by the individual as they look for ways to meet their needs. Primary deviance in labeling theory involves acts committed by someone without a criminal identity such as an underage drinker. This act provokes little reaction from others around us, therefore it does not have any impact on the persons self concept (Macionis Plummer 2007). Secondary deviance develops through peoples actions towards the person committing the deviant act they may be pushed away and stigmatized making the crime worse, it is caused by the criminal label (Hopkins Burke 2002). It evolves from primary deviance being labelled, which is more likely to happen if you are from a less powerful group (Macionis Plummer 2007), thus mirrors Mertons argument about distortion between economic success and possibility of achievement (Flynn 2009). Merton noted that there were five possible responses or adaptations to strain that happen when people are not in a position to legally attain internalised social goals (Hopkins Burke p.107 2002). This is a perfect example of how labels are the cause of further deviant behaviour. Durkheim and Merton are one in believing that strain results in deviant behaviour, however Durkheim felt the main causes of strain were changes in society. Adapting through conformity is a self explanatory explanation whereby people both the cultural gaols of society and the means of achieving them (Burke 2002), this ensures the continuality and stability of society (Thio, Calhoun Conyers 2008), people do not break laws when achieving their means. Retreatism is considered the most uncommon adaptation by Merton, they reject social goals and the means to attain them (Hopkins Burke 2002), their behaviour is not normal and are considered true aliens (Thio, Calhoun Conyers p.37 2008). Ritualism is similar to conforming behaviour; they adhere to rules for their own sake with an emphasis on means of achievement rather than outcome goals (Hopkins Burke 2002). Innovation is a response to the pressure placed on the individual for success. The innovator embarks on novel routes to achieve success due to barriers for them to achieve success by socially approved means. They have the potential to be seen as deviant (Hopkins Burke 2002), as they engage in illegal means to achieve success. The final response is rebellion, whereby people not only reject but also want to change the existing social system and its goals (Hopkins Burke 2002). The very word rebellion connotes negative meaning thus showing the existence of labeling and stigma as used by Merton. People are stereotyped as being incapable of following normal behaviour and the general population treats them differently, resulting in discrimination in employment, and in many other areas of social life The internalization of labels by offenders may very well produce a career in criminality because of the negative reactions they receive (Hopkins Burke 2002). However, in contrast as Merton argued Cohen agreed that the root cause of the original emergence of delinquent behaviour was the economic pursuit of money success (Downes Rock 2003). A lot of labels come about through the stigmatization of a particular behaviour. Stigma is powerful negative label that has the potential to radically change a persons self concept (Macionis Plummer 2007), thus it is an influential force in the field of labelling. Slattery (2003) notes that a stigma can either be ascribed or achieved, you can be born with one or earn one. Similar to this is strain theories focus on negative relations between people, focusing on how the individual is not treated as they would like to be treated (Agnew 2002). Labelling theory has several limitations; firstly because labelling is very relative it does not take into account some behaviour like murder which is condemned virtually everywhere. Consequently it is most useful to apply to less serious behaviours like youth vandalism. Secondly, labelling may be seen in two ways- it could encourage more criminal behaviour of it could curb it because of people do not like to have a stigma attached to them. (Macionis Plummer 2007). Finally another limitation of labelling theory is that it does not tell us what are the root causes of primary deviance so how do these people become deviant in the first place? They cannot be labelled deviant if they have not engaged in that type of behaviour. Both labeling and strain theory emphasize the role society has to play in crime. Deviance is shaped in its transactions with events and people around it. Labelling theorists in particular have occupied themselves with the workings of the social reaction to deviance (Downes Rock 2003). Dissimilar to this is Durkheims perspective of deviance as performing functions that are essential to society through, encouraging social change, promoting social unity by responding to deviance, clarifying moral boundaries and affirming cultural norms and values (Macionis Plummer 2007). Sumner (1994) argued that deviance is not applicable to sociology today. He believes that the sociology of deviance died in 1975. Similarly Miller, Wright and Dannels (2001) claim to find empirical support for it and signify the death of deviance in respect to the world today. However, on the other hand Goode (2002) claims that at a certain stage in its history, the sociology of deviance developed a large number of ideas, concepts, and theories that influenced related fields. These ideas included: stigma which influenced disability and transgender studies, anomie in social theory, labelling in ethnic studies and the sociology of the underdog in queer theory. Regardless of the fact that sociology of deviance did not create these concepts, the field did help project them onto the intellectual map. Goode concludes that The social construction of deviance is once again controversial, relevant, central to our lives, and fundamental to our understanding of todays world (Goode 2002). I must agree with this statement as not a day goes by without some type of crime or deviant behaviour brought to our attention. Cohen (1966) believes that rules in everyday life provide a blueprint for every human gesture; consequently every rule then creates potentiality for deviance. However, as mentioned previously- are we really all aware of societal norms and values? I believe that society today has failed to provide a blueprint or clear rules for people to live by, hence leading to the unprecedented rates of crime and social deviance. Strain theory and labelling theory do not pay much attention to psychological factors involved in deviant behaviour, this is a limitation to both I feel. I would question the generalizability of strain theory as it emphasises the focus of materialism for society today. However, much crime is committed by people who simply want to get by in life, to survive. They feel they have no other option but to commit crime to put food on the table. Crime may not necessarily be about reaching the top in society, it may just be about getting by. Labeling theory is a lot more individual in its focus; it is more concerned with peoples reactions when placed in a designated role by society. References Miller, J, M., Wright, A., Dannels, D. (2001) Is Deviance Dead? The Decline of a Sociological Research Specialization. The American Sociologist, Volume 32: 43-59. Sumner, C. (1994). The Sociology of Deviance: An Obituary. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Downes, D. Rock, P. (4th Ed.) (2003). Understanding Deviance. New York: Oxford University Press. Henry, S. (2009). Short Introductions: Social Deviance. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Goode, E (2002). Does the death of the sociology of deviance claim make sense? The American Sociologist. Volume 33: 107-118. Thio, A., Calhoun, T., C., Conyers, A. (5th Ed.) (2008) Readings in Deviant Behaviour. United States of America: Pearson International, Inc. Cohen, A., K. (1966). Deviance and Control. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc. OConnor, T. (2007). Strain theories of crime. Megalinks in Criminal Justice. Retrieved March 19, 2010. Available at: http://www.apsu.edu/oconnort/crim/crimtheory11.htm Gouldner, A. (1970) The Coming Crisis in Western Sociology. New York: London. Covington, P. (1999) Deviance: Functionalist explanations. The Functionalist Explanation of Crime. Retrieved 22nd March, 2010. Available at: http://www.sociology.org.uk/pcfcri95.pdf. Hopkins Burke, R (2002) An Introduction to Criminological Theory. Canada: Willan Publishing. Tierney, J. (2nd Ed) (2002). Criminology: Theory and context. England: Pearson Education Limited. Macionis J, J. Plummer, K. (4th Ed) (2007) Sociology: Global Introduction. England: Pearson Education limited Walklate, S. (4th Ed) (2007). Understanding Criminology. England: Open University Press. Becker, H. (1963). The Outsiders. New York: Free Press. Slattery, M (2003). Key Ideas in Sociology .United Kingdom: Nelson Thornes Limited Agnew, R (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology. Volume 30, Issue 1, p.47-87 Siegel, L, J., Welsh B., C. (2008) (10th Ed. Juvenile Delinquency: Theory, Practice, and Law. USA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

A Running Sunday :: Personal Narrative Writing

A Running Sunday "Are you listening, Jaehee Hwang?" A tall skinny lady walked towards me. This was the fifth time she had told me to hush up. "I'll have to ask you to leave if you are not reverent." Sister Jung always made me feel like a sinner. I knew she was right. She was the primary teacher; she was always right. As soon as she turned around, I began to giggle with Ji Young again, "hee hee look at Sister Jung, she stands so straight like one of those British guards with big puffy hats and red uniform hee hee." Sister Jung swooshed around, placed her index finger on her lips, and looked straight at me. She had long, straight black hair, without a single strand out of place. She wore an ironed white blouse and a knee length jean skirt with two rose imprints on it. I hated it when I knew I had to listen to her. After church, I raced my brother to the parking lot, and I jumped into the car. From a block away from our house, my dad turned his head to the backseat while both of his hands were on the steering wheel. "Jaehee, are you listening?" "Just drive honey." Now my mom turned her head and fixed her eyes on mine. "How many times do we have to tell you? Listen to Sister Jung, she is a wonderful primary teacher and " "You're the bishop's daughter I know, Mom, I know I have to be good and blah, blah, blah." "Jaehee Hwang! Ugh! Don't you ever get sick of hearing your name?" When my father reached the garage I said, "No. I think it sounds beautiful." I gave my mom a big smile and hopped out of the car. I rushed into the house. Ring! Ring! Ring! I took three big leaps into the kitchen. "Hello?" "Jaehee! You have to come to my house! I have a big surprise!" "Okay wait. Mooommm! Can I pleaasee go to Ji Young's house?" "If you promise to be reverent every Sunday." "I promise." "I don't want to hear any more troubles from you, young lady, so keep out of mess." "I promise." "Jaehee I'm serious. Don't go wild." I rolled my eyes and raced out the door. I ran for two blocks until I reached Ji Young's house. When I got to her front lawn, my eyes widen and I jumped up and down. "I can't believe it!" Ji Young was feeding seeds to a flock of chickens.

Cheat Sheet Finance Essay

One year ago, you purchased 1,200 shares of Berry, Mayell, and Wheeler (BMW) stock for $21.20 per share. You have received dividend payments equal to $0.60 per share. Today, you sold all of your shares for $22.20 per share. What is your total return (dollar and percent) on this investment? (4 points) [pic] Castella, Norwood, and Ngoc (CNN) stock had returns of 8%, -2%, 4%, and 16% over the past four years. What are the mean and standard deviation of this stock for the past four years? (6 points) The long term inflation rate average was 3.2% and you invested in long term corporate bonds over the same period which earned 6.1%. What was the average risk premium you earned? (3 points)[pic] Use the following information to answer questions 11 and 12. You purchased one of Fan, Igli, Sherrill, Harper, Evans, and Rashid (FISHER) Corp’s 8% coupon bonds one year ago for $1,028.50. These bonds make annual payments and mature six years for now. Suppose you decide to sell your bond today, when the required return on the bond is 7%. The inflation rate was 4.8% over the past year. What would be your total (i.e., nominal) rate of return on the investment? (7 points) To find the return on the coupon bond, you first need to find the price today. The bond now has six years to maturity, so the price today is: [pic] You received the coupon payments on the bond, so the nominal return was: [pic] What would be your real rate of return on the investment? (4 points) And using the Fisher equation to find the real return, we get [pic] Return and Risk: Statistics and CAPM (various points each) If the covariance of Caroline and Oberkrom (CO) Inc. stock with Van, Aleksandra, and Richter (VAR) Co. stock is0.0065, then what is the covariance of VAR Co. stock with CO Inc. stock? (3 points) Answer: -0.0065 Suppose the risk-free rate is 6.3% and the market risk premium is 8.5%. The market portfolio has a variance of 0.0498. Blagg, Elizabeth, Tendler, and April (BETA) Portfolio has a correlation coefficient with the market of 0.45 and a variance of 0.1783. According to the CAPM, what is the expected return on BETA Portfolio? (8 points) First, you need to find the standard deviation of the market and the portfolio, which are: [pic] [pic] Now, you can use the equation for beta to find the beta of the portfolio, which is:[pic]; or [pic] [pic] [pic] Assume that you are interested in acquiring the exclusive rights to market a new product. You estimate that it will cost you $500 million upfront. You also believe that the product will generate an NPV of -$165. You expect to operate without serious competition for the next five years. Use the following inputs to the Black-Scholes options pricing model: S, the current PV of the project’s E(CFs): $335 million ÏÆ'2, the variance of the project’s E(CFs):0.422 = 0.1764 X, the initial investment in the project:$500 million T, the period of exclusive rights to the project:5 years t, the number of years delayed:1 – 5 years rf, the 5-year risk-free rate:5% DY, the cost to delay [pic]:0.20

How Solar Flares Work and the Risks They Pose

A sudden flash of brightness on the Suns surface is called a solar flare. If the effect is seen on a star besides the Sun, the phenomenon is called a stellar flare. A stellar or solar flare releases a vast amount of energy, typically on the order of  1 Ãâ€" 1025  joules, over a broad spectrum of wavelengths and particles. This amount of energy is comparable to the explosion of 1 billion megatons of TNT or ten million volcanic eruptions. In addition to light, a solar flare may eject atoms, electrons, and ions into space in what is called a coronal mass ejection. When particles are released by the Sun, they are able to reach Earth within a day or two. Fortunately, the mass may be ejected outward in any direction, so the Earth isnt always affected. Unfortunately, scientists arent able to forecast flares, only give a warning when one has occurred. The most powerful solar flare was the first one that was observed. The event occurred on September 1, 1859, and is called the Solar Storm of 1859 or the Carrington Event. It was reported independently by astronomer Richard Carrington and Richard Hodgson. This flare was visible to the naked eye, set telegraph systems aflame, and produced auroras all the way down to Hawaii and Cuba. While scientists at the time didnt have the ability to measure the strength of the solar flare, modern scientists were able to reconstruct the event based on nitrate and the isotope beryllium-10 produced from the radiation. Essentially, evidence of the flare was preserved in ice in Greenland. How  a Solar Flare Works Like planets, stars consists of multiple layers. In the case of a solar flare, all layers of the Suns atmosphere are affected. In other words, energy is released from the photosphere, chromosphere, and corona. Flares tend to occur near sunspots, which are regions of intense magnetic fields. These fields link the atmosphere of the Sun to its interior. Flares are believed to result from a process called magnetic reconnection, when loops of magnetic force break apart, rejoin  and release energy. When magnetic energy is suddenly released by the corona (suddenly meaning over a matter of minutes), light and particles are accelerated into space. The source of the released matter appears to be material from the unconnected helical magnetic field, however, scientists havent completely worked out how flares work and why there are sometimes more released particles than the amount within a coronal loop. Plasma in the affected area reaches temperatures in the order of tens of million Kelvin, wh ich is nearly as hot as the Suns core. The electrons, protons, and ions are accelerated by the intense energy to nearly the speed of light. Electromagnetic radiation covers the entire spectrum, from gamma rays to radio waves. The energy released in the visible part of the spectrum makes some solar flares observable to the naked eye, but most of the energy is outside the visible range, so flares are observed using scientific instrumentation. Whether or not a solar flare is accompanied by a coronal mass ejection is not readily predictable. Solar flares may also release a flare spray, which involves an ejection of material that is faster than a solar prominence. Particles released from a flare spray may attain a velocity of 20 to 200 kilometers per second (kps). To put this into perspective, the speed of light is 299.7 kps! How Often Do Solar Flares Occur? Smaller solar flares occur more often than large ones. The frequency of any flare occurring depends on the activity of the Sun. Following the 11-year solar cycle, there may be several flares per day during an active part of the cycle, compared with fewer than one per week during a quiet phase. During peak activity, there may be 20 flares a day and over 100 per week. How Solar Flares Are Classified An earlier method of solar flare classification was based on the intensity of  the  HÃŽ ±Ã‚  line of the solar spectrum. The modern classification system categorizes flares according to their peak flux of 100 to 800 picometer X-rays, as observed by the GOES spacecraft that orbit the Earth. Classification Peak Flux (Watts per square meter) A 10−7 B 10−7 – 10−6 C 10−6 – 10−5 M 10−5 – 10−4 X 10−4 Each category is further ranked on a linear scale, such that an X2 flare is twice as potent as an X1 flare. Ordinary Risks From Solar Flares Solar flares produce what is called solar weather on Earth. The solar wind impacts the magnetosphere of the Earth, producing aurora borealis and australis, and presenting a radiation risk to satellites, spacecraft, and astronauts. Most of the risk is to objects in low Earth orbit, but coronal mass ejections from solar flares can knock out power systems on Earth and completely disable satellites. If satellites did come down,  cell phones and GPS systems would be without service. The ultraviolet light and x-rays released by a flare disrupt long-range radio and likely increase the risk of sunburn and cancer. Could a Solar Flare Destroy the Earth? In a word: yes. While the planet itself would survive an encounter with a superflare, the atmosphere could be bombarded with radiation and all life could be obliterated. Scientists have observed the release of superflares from other stars up to 10,000 times more powerful than a typical solar flare. While most of these flares occur in stars that have more powerful magnetic fields than our Sun, about 10% of the time the star is comparable to or weaker than the Sun. From studying tree rings, researchers believe Earth has experienced two small superflares— one in 773 C.E. and another in 993 C.E. Its possible we can expect a superflare about once a millennium. The chance of an extinction level superflare is unknown. Even normal flares can have devastating consequences. NASA revealed Earth narrowly missed a catastrophic solar flare on July 23, 2012. If the flare had occurred just a week earlier, when it was pointed directly at us, society would have been knocked back to the Dark Ages. The intense radiation would have disabled electrical grids, communication, and GPS on a global scale. How likely is such an event in the future? Physicist Pete Rile calculates the odds of a disruptive solar flare is 12% per 10 years. How to Predict Solar Flares At present, scientists cannot predict a solar flare with any degree of accuracy. However, high sunspot activity is associated with an increased chance of flare production. Observation of sunspots, particularly the type called delta spots, is used to calculate the probability of a flare occurring and how strong it will be. If a strong flare (M or X class) is predicted, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) issues a forecast/warning. Usually, the warning allows for 1-2 days of preparation. If a solar flare and coronal mass ejection occur, the severity of the flares impact on Earth depends on the type of particles released and how directly the flare faces the Earth. Sources Big Sunspot 1520 Releases X1.4 Class Flare With Earth-Directed CME. NASA. July 12, 2012.Description of a Singular Appearance seen in the Sun on September 1, 1859, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, v20, pp13, 1859.Karoff, Christoffer. Observational evidence for enhanced magnetic activity of superflare stars. Nature Communications volume 7, Mads Faurschou Knudsen, Peter De Cat, et al., Article number: 11058, March 24, 2016.