Talk:Group (sociology)/History

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] grammar etc

started talk page to continue conversation from group Tedernst | talk 16:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks !! I will start the clean up with the error that occurred in CONTENTS, and then proceed to the undesired bold format in the definition, and so on to the unattractive Notes. I would be pleased for you to call to my attention any area that needs work.68.220.36.16 20:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I had corrected your headings for you with the == notation. That's how the table of contents gets generated. Please change it back. Also, please do not use the < center > tag. That section should be left aligned as with the others. Tedernst | talk 21:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the two suggestions. Never would have discovered either, especially the center tag. I didn't think the == notation was supposed to show up in the article. Does it take a while for the TOC to generate.68.220.36.16 20:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed the headings again, as well as the bulletted and numbered lists. No, it doesn't take time for the table of contents to generate, if you have the headings correct (text begins at least one line below heading, not on the same line). Tedernst | talk 20:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Needs some grammar and clean-up, I only managed to add links through the section "non groups" and only barely touched some of the grammar and formatting. Mark 09:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merger?

In response to the tag concerning merger with the Group( Sociology), I just reviewed that article and was dismayed at the shallowness of the content. This is an important article in its content, which takes an entirely different perspective than traditional Sociology. Sociology has taken a less precise definition of Group as its base and has basically assumed a rationally functioning group. It is true , as discussed in "Group" D& D, that Sociologists did the tremendous amount of work on gangs in the 1920s-1950s but they did not follow this in any thorough discussion of non groups or of the evolutionary roots of a group. There is no Talk section on the Sociogy article, perhaps reflecting a lack of interest, granting that the Talk section of "G" D&D has been mostly about style and format.I may be naive about WP, but I am not naive about this subject matter, and think that this could be a popular site for WP.Should WP be as interested in content as it apparently is in style and format. In general I would oppose merging with the current Sociology article, and think that there may be important reasons for not being in the Sociology Section.208.63.237.229 16:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I continue to have trouble with LOG IN. WP usually promises to send new password, but doesn't follow through.Rather than my original registration as above, I think I am under the 68.220.10.208 account today.68.220.47.4 19:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The account usually depends on what computer/internet service provider you are using. If u log in and get a user name, then you will receive a password. Anytime I forget mine, a new one is sent instantaneously on request. Make sure your email details are correct.--File Éireann 01:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

But to continue the discussion, I have read quite a bit of the material under Sociology, and find some interesting and worthwhile discussions. I could document the differences in perspective, philosophy, and research between Sociology and this article if necessary. But under Sociology there is also a long section entitled Social Psychology which does address in brief comments some of the same material that I tend to. There is even a mention of Muzafer Sherif and the Robber's Cave Study. So if a move is absolutely necessary, I would prefer it be to this section.BUT, the Talk portion of Social Psychology is long and preoccupied with a mildly heated debate about the existence of two disciplines: a sociological social psychology ; and a psychological social psychology. I agree with that debate because without specific references they are referring to the differences in philosophy, perspective, and attitude toward research that I was commenting on as above. I think social psychology should not be classified under Sociology.

I would hate to have this article get involve in that long term debate and be totally buried, so I continue to support an independent existence.68.220.47.4 19:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not - and to what extent - social psych is sociological depends upon the sociological perspective. I don't think I'm going out on a limb when I say that 'symbolic interactionists' and 'methodological individualists' would simply say that social psychology is sociology, full stop. Anyway, disciplinary concerns are the least of mine. I'd agree about merging this article with the "group (sociology)" article, if only because the content on the D&D article is so much better than that at the group (soc) article right now, and the D&D's content deserves to be recognized.

That doesn't mean that the perspective offered here in the D&D article will be the only perspective, though. Other perspectives, ones that lean further into the more stereotypically sociological side of things, might get their own independent sections, depending on whether or not there ends up being a need. Lucidish 23:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your discussion. You make several good points. Who makes the decision? If there is a merger, who does the merging? Or can the "merger" be a deletion and replacement?70.157.180.162 19:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Where did that account number come from? Never heard of it or saw it before. Could it be a response to my request for a new password via e-mail. 70.157.180.162 19:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Mergers are easy. I (or anyone) can do it, and help integrate the two articles, if that's okay with everyone. (You should be able to get more info from the help pages on how to merge articles if you're curious.) There's no formal procedure for making the decision, just a discussion period where people can get their opinions out on the pros and cons.

If you have a dynamic IP address, that will explain why your signature shows a different series of numbers. Right now you're posting anonymously: those numbers aren't your account, but the unique series of digits that your computer/ISP have in connecting to the internet. It would be a great idea to get an account, and they're automatic and free: just go to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Userlogin&type=signup and pick a name and password. An e-mail address is optional so it really takes no time at all. Lucidish 20:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I give up on the merger, and will learn how to do it the usual hard way.I would prefer to do the actual editing. Ordinarily that would be good advice about registering, but I have done that twice, and thought I had two account numbers 208.63.244.195 and 68.220.10.208. One of which used to come up. Your idea of an anonymous posting is interesting. I'm in profound suspense to what number comes today.70.157.180.182 21:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting. Maybe registering for the third time will be the charm.70.157.180.182 21:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Merging was not as easy as directions allowed one to expect. But I got it done, losing some of the formatting along the way, but reworking what I knew about was not bad. Now will somebody pay some attention to the content.70.157.180.182 02:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry you're having troubles, but glad to see you got the merger done.

Hrm. Maybe you don't have cookies enabled? If so, then you would have to log in again every new session. Lucidish 02:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

So with the help of a WP administrator, I finally got logged in. Meanwhile I added a definition of reference groups from Sherif to the original article which now acts as a good introduction in the merger.Islandsage 21:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

"A Google search on == ongoing edits/cleanup ==

“small group theory” produced 58,600,000 entries, the vast majority having to do with the use of small groups in the educational process, teaching in small groups with the emphasis on the small number of participants, while common purpose seemed to reside, at least initially, in the teacher." This text was removed because when the more appropriate link is substituted for it, a mere 9,860 hits are found, which I thought would undermine the point that was trying to be made in the paragraph. Lucidish 02:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the editing, combining, and the above explanation. I guess you didn't think that the heading "INTRODUCTION" before the original article was helpful, and I was surprised about changing the notes format.Is there some rationale that I can learn for the difference between numbers and names format.Islandsage 17:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

No prob. All of the material that was previously under "introduction" is now in the proper place for introductions; you don't need to assign intro stuff to a section, it gets placed in the intro automatically so long as it appears prior to a section header.

My reference edit was an on-the-fly decision, more pragmatic than stylistic. Originally in the article there were two bibliographies, and they needed to be merged into a single bibliography (at the bottom). But each of the two biblios had a number scheme starting with 1 up to 8 or so, while adding them together needed a complete change in which references were numbered what.

Admittedly, after I merged the two, I could have kept them as numbered citations within the text itself, and it probably would have looked far better. But by then I had changed the order of sections, which screwed up the order in which each citation appeared. Setting the whole thing straight would've taken more work than I wanted to do.

Long story short: it doesn't really matter which format we use in terms of how you cite things in the text. You can change it back to numbered citations if you want, rather than actual named citations. I just did it because it was the most expedient thing to do at the time.

Another thing: I removed the Alito mention, because it seemed unencyclopedic.

I'll give you a set of helpful links on your talk page that I hope will get you comfortable with any stylistic standards Wiki has. Lucidish 22:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The explanation was helpful. I will probably change them back to numbers when all the dust clears away.I thought that when names were used, the references were supposed to be listed in alphabetical order with dates and name and date in the text.

I have no major objection to the combining of the two articles.Your more objective view may be the better one. I started with the concept about Group not only to give a more precise definition, but to draw attention to what I consider an important topic of Non-Groups. I was a little disappointed at the substitution of " Dispersal of Groups ". The removal of the Roberts/ Alito hearing may have helped the encylopedic tone, but removed a wonderful, timely example of Non-Group behavior. Productive functioning groups may be the source of human progress, but Non-Groups result in most of the failures, and tragedies despite their being necessities on the way to formation of groups as well as the fabric of life in general.Islandsage 22:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I changed the title because I thought it fit the content of the paragraph better. At least, group dispersal does seem to be the content of the first paragraph of that section, where it talks about groups dispersing into dyads, or becoming too top-heavy due to increase in density of population, death of leader, loss of purpose, etc. If that's not the case or I misunderstood then we can change it to something else. Upon re-reading, it seems as though the section could be summarized as "Weakening, dispersal, and threats to groups". But "Non-group" doesn't seem to capture the text in the most effective way.

I guess in the end I don't understand the Alito example in this context, or how it illustrates what's being talked about in the section. Could you say a bit more about what you mean? Lucidish 23:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Although I have been writing and reading on computer screens for fifteen years, I still find it hard to get the integrated meanings of content by a quick reading. It will take me some time to recognize and understand the significance of some of the changes you have made. Let me suggest that you reread "Significance of Group" and the first part of "Territory and Dominance". That is about as good as I can do in explaining the importance of NON_- Groups.

Let's pass up the discussion of the Judicial committee hearing for a moment. I'm not sure that I have been able to convey my point about non-groups.Meanwhile you might apply the individual elements of the definition of group that I propose to the hearings, and tell me what organizational principles were in effect. Islandsage 01:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought I was signed in, and the wrong signature came up. Corrected it.Islandsage 01:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I just don't understand what you mean by a "non-group". Do you mean an individual? Or a social unit that lacks one or more characteristics listed by Sherif (i.e. aggregates, competitors, nation-states)? There's often trouble in defining something by a negative.

I try not to follow American politics too closely. It upsets me. As far as I'm concerned, the American legislature has been dissolved, and its rulers are illegitimate.

All I know about Alito is that he frequently gave legalistic non-answers (i.e., said that Bush is "not above the law" as a dodge to a question about the Commander-in-chief clause); was threatened by a filibuster by Kerry and Kennedy (which didn't work due to new laws); was the replacement candidate for Harriet Miers, a Bush cabinet official who had no experience doing anything; may or may not support Roe-Wade; and was ultimately approved as a Justice. I don't know anything specific about the procedures or how well they've been followed, so it's hard for me to understand how this is an exemplar of group behavior, and in what respect. Lucidish 04:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Right!! Forget the Alito thing for the present. If I did not make the Non- group stuff clear, either you,I,or both of us have a problem.Did you reread carefully the sections I suggested. I will reread Sociology and Social Psychology and try to figure out why we are having this issue , like two trains passing in the night. This was the basic issue of making two separate articles. Were you a major contributor to the Sociology article, the Social Psychology article, or just the SP talk. Dominance and territory are two distinct concepts for me. They are the heart of the discussion of non-groups. Maybe there is a better term, but I don't think "dispersal of group" does it. Not all social behavior of humans reachs the organization stage of group to be dispersed.Islandsage 16:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I did find your User page, read OUTLOOK, UNIVERSAL PRAGMATICS, AND UP:TALK. Left a note for you on your USER:TALK or maybe OUTLOOK.68.220.6.2 22:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I was the dominant contributor to the SP article up until recently. I did re-read those sections, but the phrase "non-group" only appears once. I'm sorry if I've missed something, but I did try to find it and just don't know what you mean. Could you just clarify what a "non-group" is for me so I can get on the same page? Lucidish 01:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

After reading your philosophy from the USER page, I am amazed that you did such a good job of editing and combining the two articles. Habermas to Dewey. Can there be two more polarized philosophies? I don't think I can understand Habermas, but you said clearly in Outlook that you do not take direct observation seriously. Everything about Dewey's transactions and about these two papers is about the necessity and use of direct observation and its presentation in language (probably not universal pragmatics). Did you read TRANSACTIONS.

By the way, NON-GROUPS was one of the headings that you left out. Maybe non-groups is not the best concept to debate.How do you conceptualize all the stuff that goes on between people when there is not a group? Do you think that Sociology has all the concepts and words that it needs to describe what people do socially in two-ses and three-ses? Seems as if I remember that sociologists are not too satisfied with a basic concept of "social relations".Islandsage 19:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I can't take credit for the fine work that's been done on the Universal Pragmatics page, if that's what you're referring to. While I created much of the framework, and acted as editor for subsequent edits, it was another user who really provided much of the excellent exposition you see there.

Habermas is a tough read, and I can't claim to be fluent in his work. But one insight that I gleaned from his essay on UP which I use in everyday life is really easy to grasp: his explanation of the goals of communication (which are to utter something, to utter something understandable, to be understood, and to reach a mutual understanding). When discussing fragile issues with someone, it is easy to get drawn into insults and sophistry when you forget the underlying purpose of a conversation in the first place, which is (at minimum) to not be misunderstood. It's also important to understand that these communicative goals are not just etiquette, but a portion of the basis of reason itself, specifically when it comes to informal logic.

I presume when you say that I 'don't take direct observation seriously' you're referring to my comment about how appearances are ajustified. What I mean to say is that, just by going on appearances alone, we only get half a proposition: "The blob which I hold before my eyes which I call a 'hand'" is a subject which lacks a predicate, and nothing true can be said unless there is both a subject and predicate. We don't say, for instance, "Truck" is true or false, because that makes no sense (in the indicative mood, anyway). We have to say "The truck is blue" or something before we can judge truth or falsity. The long and the short of it is, direct observation is a necessary condition for all knowledge, but direct observation alone can't even make any sense of the idea of "truth" or "falsity" (assuming that some sense can be made of those ideas in some other way).

I think most folks will just refer to non-group interactions as "interactions", but if there is another term of art that could be used here instead of that, then that's fine too. Lucidish 01:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

"Transactions" doesn't link anywhere except a disambig page, so I can't read it. Lucidish 01:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I thought you could link to a section of an article. The proper link, I guess, is to JOHN DEWEY and then to the section on Transactions.But nevermind, you explained your remark about direct observation.

You indicated your problem with non-groups, and to some extent I am also not satisfied with the term. But your reference to "interactions" as the term to describe those social behaviors that are not up to the organization as a real group is pretty limp, almost as uninformative as social relations. Did you miss the point of all my discussion of territory and dominance? Please say it isn't so.

I made a few changes yesterday in the article, removing "anthropocentrism", changing Identification to Recognition, and inserting "Recognition of Dominance" as a heading. There may have been some other minor changes in language that I can't remember.Islandsage 17:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The above time is wrong, and still wrong. Thought I had corrected it in Preferences.Islandsage 17:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC) Islandsage 17:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)