JazzRemington
23rd March 2008, 08:50
I
1.0 The point of the social sciences is to analyze and explain social phenomenon.
1.1 Social phenomenon exist in the world and as such our analysis of it is bound up with the limits of our language.
1.2 However, this is not to say what is outside our ability to talk about doesn’t have an effect on human behavior. It depends how you’re analyzing society and what you’re looking at.
1.2.1 The closer we get to the individual level of society, the more complicated and arbitrary our analysis becomes
1.2.1.1 But still, in our analysis of society the individual is not important.
1.2.1.2 “Society is the sum of the individuals.” One plus one does not equal one-one. Someone of your intelligence and knowledge of human society should know better than that.
1.2.2 Long term, macro-level social phenomenon is more prone to predictability but this type of analysis demands empirical evidence.
1.3 In our studies of social phenomenon, a total analysis is needed. One must study the economic, social, political, historical, and environmental context that a particular phenomenon exists.
1.3.2.1 Whether or not I’m original in this thinking doesn’t concern me. I only feel I should point this out for our friends, the social “scientists,” who should already know this.
1.4 I only wish to study social phenomenon as the hard scientists study their fields: objective, empirical observation.
1.5 Only that which is empirical is worth studying. Everything else is of peripheral interest.
1.5.1 Behavior is empirical and can be observed. Behavior because of idealist notions of emotions or morals or ethics is not observable. “But in my research, my subjects informed me that they would not murder someone because they thought it was wrong.” Perhaps that is the case for only those particular individuals, but how are you certain they won’t also murder someone because it is illegal? “Doesn’t that assume people are naturally a certain way?” Certainly. But doesn’t your statement imply the same thing?
1.5.1.1 “Human nature is selfishness.” Perhaps in some cases it is. If you point to news reports of looting, I would reply that you seem to be confusing behavior with why people behave such a way. The former is empirical while the latter is tricky. Do we mean ‘why’ as in some sort of internal mechanism? “There may be a gene or part of the brain that makes people selfish or altruistic.” Perhaps there is and perhaps there isn’t. I think you’re ignoring the importance of social conditioning on behavior. If selfishness isn’t encouraged, would such behavior happen?
2.0 It is important to use the right tools for the job.
2.1 Class struggle, historical materialism, methodical individualism, symbolic-interactionism, amongst others, are all just tools that are to be used in our studies. Whether or not they explain everything isn’t the issue and shouldn’t be. Saying that they can only demonstrates your ignorance of the nature of tools. Would you use a shoe to drive in a nail? You can but there’s a more efficient way for driving a nail in a piece of wood. You can use something that is designed specifically for driving in nails and nothing else. “But capitalism developed because of the struggle between the landowners and the landless peasants.” Well, that is one way of looking at it. But couldn’t there be anything else that contributed to capitalism’s development?
2.1.1 Symbolic-Interactionism, with all its faults and problems, as an example, is only appropriate for a micro-level analysis of individuals. Whether or not it can be used to study macro-level analysis is beyond my concern for it.
2.1.2 The theory of class struggle can certainly be used to explain why certain laws are passed but what about why certain books are best sellers? “You’re thinking about this the wrong way.” I think you should take your own advice.
2.1.3 “The Marxian analysis of class is outdated because it’s possible for workers to legally own the means of production.” No one is denying that a construction worker usually is required to have his own tools or transportation. But the question is if he has any control over how they are used on the job. It seems in this case his employer has control over them. “His boss doesn’t have any control over how fast the worker can cut wood.” Of course not. But he can fire the worker for not cutting fast enough.
2.2 What good are overly vague statements like “everything is related to sex”? I think it’s better to be specific about certain things because such ambiguity can only lead to confusion about the subject.
2.2.1 “But this particular person raped this woman because he was sexually frustrated because he kept being turned down by other women.” Perhaps you are correct in your assertion. But only in this particular instance and I suspect if you tried to generalize your statement, you will quickly run into problems.
2.3 Just as a hammer is worthless if it isn’t properly built, so too are our tools if they are not properly explained using language.
2.3.1 But at any rate, labels don’t matter. Only the method does.
2.4 Admittedly, you can focus on one factor in society, such as the relationship between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie or how sexuality influences individuals, but such a thing would only lead to the development of our knowledge of those factors and their influences on society.
3.0 The analysis of social phenomenon requires that one reject all prior beliefs about the world.
3.1 Your opinions about what happens in the world don’t concern me. Whether you think the world is a highly regulated society akin to an organism doesn’t matter.
3.1.1“But don’t you think such and such about the world, but don’t provide any evidence to support your thoughts?” Well, if I let my prior beliefs of the world interfere with my analysis I wouldn’t very professional would I?
3.2 This is especially true for our friends who study the actions of individuals as if they were within a void.
3.2.1 Everything that exists in the world exists in a certain context. Without context, everything is meaningless. There is no void in which actions happen.
3.2.1.1 To choose to do something freely and to be coerced to do something depends on context. The focus placed on the individual and his choices by the economists and some sociologists is a laughable and worthless one. Without studying the context of the action, who is to say if it was a free choice or a forced one? “Since you are no longer legally obligated to work for a lord, anything you do is a free choice.” I think you have a very narrow view of coercion.
3.3 “This person behaves this way because he is selfish. He is only saying that he donates to charity because it’s the right thing to do but he really is doing it because of selfish reasons.” It seems to me that you are contorting human behavior to fit your theory. If that’s the case, then what does your theory explain?
3.4 It doesn’t matter if someone wrote about it in some book. Your dogmatic attachment to the literature is what I mock. If your book doesn’t stand up to the research, what good is it?
4.0 There is only the Science of Society.
4.1 The point is to remember that each school cannot stand in isolation without serious problems.
4.1.1 Our friends the economists make this mistake when the claim they study human behavior. That is psychology and some schools within sociology. If that’s the case, then what is so unique about economics?
4.1.1.1 “Economics is the study of the economic man.” Ah, the economic man: bounding between this package of commodities and that one. Such grace and such nobility, in his pursuit of the most benefit from the least expense. I would like to meet this man, the economic man; however, I only hear he exists on paper.
4.1.2 If you claim that your school can contribute greatly to my analysis, but only by borrowing from other schools, I would ask you not to pollute my analysis with your bullshit.
4.2 I’m not saying the study the economic foundation of a given society can’t lead to an understanding of a particular social phenomenon. What I am saying is that your school can only contribute one factor in our understanding of social phenomenon. This is what you don’t seem to understand.
4.3 Society, like history, is very dynamic and is always changing.
4.3.1 “What is today has always been since yesterday.” I don’t think you understand what you yourself are saying. Are you saying that people thousands of years ago went to the local football game to watch their favorite team play? Or are you saying that the relationships people have today have been always in existence?
4.3.1.1 “There has always been rulers and ruled.” That may be true to a large extent, but what good is this vague statement, which denies the large variety of social organizations people have found themselves in?
4.3.2 “The entire history of human society is the history of the struggle between the classes.” Perhaps it is to some extent. But is that all that is went on in history? I think you are oversimplifying things.
4.3.2.1 I could say the same thing about when you make the claim that the “engine” of society is just one thing. Reductionist, anyone?
4.3.2.1.1 But then again, many of these theories study only a particular generic trait of humans (i.e. their drive for gratification) but seem to ignore how such a trait manifests itself in society. Studying the roots of a plant is fine, but it is the part that sprouts up from the ground that we interact with more often.
4.3.3 Yes, even our present state of society can’t survive forever. Whether you chose to believe this or not does not change the fact that such a statement has an historical precedence.
4.4 I enjoy mocking Hobbes and Locke mostly because they base their theories on conditions that they themselves admit to never existing. What good is basing your theories on something that has existed in the world?
4.5 The social sciences would be great, if it weren’t for the social scientists.
4.5.1 “But if you hate the social sciences so much, why do write this?” I only dislike social scientists. The science of society itself is my profession and I only want to make it clear what the “scientists’” problems are so I can move on to more important things.
5.0 The central debate about human behavior should be centered on how both genes and society interact to produce such behavior.
5.1 I’m sure you have your evidence that some behavior is genetic and some behavior is social. This I am not disputing, that people with a certain arrangement of genes and biological organisms are more likely to be gay than those without such things. But can you point to the one factor that makes you straight? If you can’t do that, then how do you know the one thing that makes people gay?
II
But after all this, if you think I’m proposing The One Way of analyzing the world, you really don’t understand a word I’ve said, don’t you?
“Your insights are very groundbreaking.” It doesn’t concern me if they are groundbreaking or not. All of what I’ve said should be common knowledge for everyone. And I would thank you not to patronize me.
1.0 The point of the social sciences is to analyze and explain social phenomenon.
1.1 Social phenomenon exist in the world and as such our analysis of it is bound up with the limits of our language.
1.2 However, this is not to say what is outside our ability to talk about doesn’t have an effect on human behavior. It depends how you’re analyzing society and what you’re looking at.
1.2.1 The closer we get to the individual level of society, the more complicated and arbitrary our analysis becomes
1.2.1.1 But still, in our analysis of society the individual is not important.
1.2.1.2 “Society is the sum of the individuals.” One plus one does not equal one-one. Someone of your intelligence and knowledge of human society should know better than that.
1.2.2 Long term, macro-level social phenomenon is more prone to predictability but this type of analysis demands empirical evidence.
1.3 In our studies of social phenomenon, a total analysis is needed. One must study the economic, social, political, historical, and environmental context that a particular phenomenon exists.
1.3.2.1 Whether or not I’m original in this thinking doesn’t concern me. I only feel I should point this out for our friends, the social “scientists,” who should already know this.
1.4 I only wish to study social phenomenon as the hard scientists study their fields: objective, empirical observation.
1.5 Only that which is empirical is worth studying. Everything else is of peripheral interest.
1.5.1 Behavior is empirical and can be observed. Behavior because of idealist notions of emotions or morals or ethics is not observable. “But in my research, my subjects informed me that they would not murder someone because they thought it was wrong.” Perhaps that is the case for only those particular individuals, but how are you certain they won’t also murder someone because it is illegal? “Doesn’t that assume people are naturally a certain way?” Certainly. But doesn’t your statement imply the same thing?
1.5.1.1 “Human nature is selfishness.” Perhaps in some cases it is. If you point to news reports of looting, I would reply that you seem to be confusing behavior with why people behave such a way. The former is empirical while the latter is tricky. Do we mean ‘why’ as in some sort of internal mechanism? “There may be a gene or part of the brain that makes people selfish or altruistic.” Perhaps there is and perhaps there isn’t. I think you’re ignoring the importance of social conditioning on behavior. If selfishness isn’t encouraged, would such behavior happen?
2.0 It is important to use the right tools for the job.
2.1 Class struggle, historical materialism, methodical individualism, symbolic-interactionism, amongst others, are all just tools that are to be used in our studies. Whether or not they explain everything isn’t the issue and shouldn’t be. Saying that they can only demonstrates your ignorance of the nature of tools. Would you use a shoe to drive in a nail? You can but there’s a more efficient way for driving a nail in a piece of wood. You can use something that is designed specifically for driving in nails and nothing else. “But capitalism developed because of the struggle between the landowners and the landless peasants.” Well, that is one way of looking at it. But couldn’t there be anything else that contributed to capitalism’s development?
2.1.1 Symbolic-Interactionism, with all its faults and problems, as an example, is only appropriate for a micro-level analysis of individuals. Whether or not it can be used to study macro-level analysis is beyond my concern for it.
2.1.2 The theory of class struggle can certainly be used to explain why certain laws are passed but what about why certain books are best sellers? “You’re thinking about this the wrong way.” I think you should take your own advice.
2.1.3 “The Marxian analysis of class is outdated because it’s possible for workers to legally own the means of production.” No one is denying that a construction worker usually is required to have his own tools or transportation. But the question is if he has any control over how they are used on the job. It seems in this case his employer has control over them. “His boss doesn’t have any control over how fast the worker can cut wood.” Of course not. But he can fire the worker for not cutting fast enough.
2.2 What good are overly vague statements like “everything is related to sex”? I think it’s better to be specific about certain things because such ambiguity can only lead to confusion about the subject.
2.2.1 “But this particular person raped this woman because he was sexually frustrated because he kept being turned down by other women.” Perhaps you are correct in your assertion. But only in this particular instance and I suspect if you tried to generalize your statement, you will quickly run into problems.
2.3 Just as a hammer is worthless if it isn’t properly built, so too are our tools if they are not properly explained using language.
2.3.1 But at any rate, labels don’t matter. Only the method does.
2.4 Admittedly, you can focus on one factor in society, such as the relationship between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie or how sexuality influences individuals, but such a thing would only lead to the development of our knowledge of those factors and their influences on society.
3.0 The analysis of social phenomenon requires that one reject all prior beliefs about the world.
3.1 Your opinions about what happens in the world don’t concern me. Whether you think the world is a highly regulated society akin to an organism doesn’t matter.
3.1.1“But don’t you think such and such about the world, but don’t provide any evidence to support your thoughts?” Well, if I let my prior beliefs of the world interfere with my analysis I wouldn’t very professional would I?
3.2 This is especially true for our friends who study the actions of individuals as if they were within a void.
3.2.1 Everything that exists in the world exists in a certain context. Without context, everything is meaningless. There is no void in which actions happen.
3.2.1.1 To choose to do something freely and to be coerced to do something depends on context. The focus placed on the individual and his choices by the economists and some sociologists is a laughable and worthless one. Without studying the context of the action, who is to say if it was a free choice or a forced one? “Since you are no longer legally obligated to work for a lord, anything you do is a free choice.” I think you have a very narrow view of coercion.
3.3 “This person behaves this way because he is selfish. He is only saying that he donates to charity because it’s the right thing to do but he really is doing it because of selfish reasons.” It seems to me that you are contorting human behavior to fit your theory. If that’s the case, then what does your theory explain?
3.4 It doesn’t matter if someone wrote about it in some book. Your dogmatic attachment to the literature is what I mock. If your book doesn’t stand up to the research, what good is it?
4.0 There is only the Science of Society.
4.1 The point is to remember that each school cannot stand in isolation without serious problems.
4.1.1 Our friends the economists make this mistake when the claim they study human behavior. That is psychology and some schools within sociology. If that’s the case, then what is so unique about economics?
4.1.1.1 “Economics is the study of the economic man.” Ah, the economic man: bounding between this package of commodities and that one. Such grace and such nobility, in his pursuit of the most benefit from the least expense. I would like to meet this man, the economic man; however, I only hear he exists on paper.
4.1.2 If you claim that your school can contribute greatly to my analysis, but only by borrowing from other schools, I would ask you not to pollute my analysis with your bullshit.
4.2 I’m not saying the study the economic foundation of a given society can’t lead to an understanding of a particular social phenomenon. What I am saying is that your school can only contribute one factor in our understanding of social phenomenon. This is what you don’t seem to understand.
4.3 Society, like history, is very dynamic and is always changing.
4.3.1 “What is today has always been since yesterday.” I don’t think you understand what you yourself are saying. Are you saying that people thousands of years ago went to the local football game to watch their favorite team play? Or are you saying that the relationships people have today have been always in existence?
4.3.1.1 “There has always been rulers and ruled.” That may be true to a large extent, but what good is this vague statement, which denies the large variety of social organizations people have found themselves in?
4.3.2 “The entire history of human society is the history of the struggle between the classes.” Perhaps it is to some extent. But is that all that is went on in history? I think you are oversimplifying things.
4.3.2.1 I could say the same thing about when you make the claim that the “engine” of society is just one thing. Reductionist, anyone?
4.3.2.1.1 But then again, many of these theories study only a particular generic trait of humans (i.e. their drive for gratification) but seem to ignore how such a trait manifests itself in society. Studying the roots of a plant is fine, but it is the part that sprouts up from the ground that we interact with more often.
4.3.3 Yes, even our present state of society can’t survive forever. Whether you chose to believe this or not does not change the fact that such a statement has an historical precedence.
4.4 I enjoy mocking Hobbes and Locke mostly because they base their theories on conditions that they themselves admit to never existing. What good is basing your theories on something that has existed in the world?
4.5 The social sciences would be great, if it weren’t for the social scientists.
4.5.1 “But if you hate the social sciences so much, why do write this?” I only dislike social scientists. The science of society itself is my profession and I only want to make it clear what the “scientists’” problems are so I can move on to more important things.
5.0 The central debate about human behavior should be centered on how both genes and society interact to produce such behavior.
5.1 I’m sure you have your evidence that some behavior is genetic and some behavior is social. This I am not disputing, that people with a certain arrangement of genes and biological organisms are more likely to be gay than those without such things. But can you point to the one factor that makes you straight? If you can’t do that, then how do you know the one thing that makes people gay?
II
But after all this, if you think I’m proposing The One Way of analyzing the world, you really don’t understand a word I’ve said, don’t you?
“Your insights are very groundbreaking.” It doesn’t concern me if they are groundbreaking or not. All of what I’ve said should be common knowledge for everyone. And I would thank you not to patronize me.