Talk:Social dynamics/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Dealing with mathematics 2 Is there a sociologist in the house? 3 More precise definition 4 Object or method? 5 To be cut or not to be cut 6 Bottom of the article snipped 7 Paragraph snipped 8 Sad 9 Paragraph cut 10 Hard and soft facts 11 More references

[edit] Dealing with mathematics

Hi you!

Good what you write, but you have to see that "social dynamics" is heavily dealing with mathematics, else it wasn´t called "dynamics". We should get this together someway.

Grasso

[edit] Is there a sociologist in the house?

After reading these two articles, my head hurts. Is there a sociologist in the house? --LMS

Sometimes you have to translate sociologese into English. Often what sociologists lack in understanding they make up for in prolixity.

"Social" of course just refers to relationships between people.

"Dynamics" directs our attention to the way those relationships work. As one ethologist put it for his own discipline, "when an ethologist looks at a pond, he doesn't see what's there. He sees what's going on there." A consideration of dynamics is what gives us the difference between "anatomy" and "physiology." Math isn't necessarily involved.

A "situation" usually just means two or more people being face to face, sometimes also called an "encounter." But "situation" is also used in a much broader sense.

"Symbolic interactionism" is a way of interpreting what goes on in a situation according to a school of thought made popular by (but not originated by) G. H. Mead, a philosopher at Chicago.

"Ethnomethodology" is the study of how a person figures out how to get along in the presence of others. (I spilled my soup at the party, so what do I do now, Ma?) I know that's vague but if anybody can translate Harold Garfinkle into a terrestrial language for me I'd be grateful.

These are just some comments intended to be helpful in understanding the article. All the definitions are arguable but the lack of space, etc.

[edit] More precise definition

I do not understand this article. The lead sentence right now is:

• "Social dynamics is the analysis of social systems and behavior."

But isn't "sociology" and "anthropology" the "analysis of social systems and behavior?" A more precise definition, and an explanation that clearly locates "social dynamics" (which sounds more like an object to be analyzed, rather than a method of analysis or model of the what is observed) needs to be located -- is it a discipline, a movement with in a discipline, a theory, and object of investigatiopn, or what? How is it different from/related to other "analyses of social systems and behavior" like structuralism, functionalism, marxism, etc.?

Also, the second paragraph does not mention "social dynamics" but rather "situational dynamics." Okay, should the whole article be retitled "situational dynamics?

Finally, the article mentions someone named Thomas as the developer of this whatever it is theory discipline model, whatever. But as described/defined, it sounds like it was started by William James's pragmatic psychology. How does "situational analysis" differ from the work of the famous anthropologist, Max Gluckman? How does it differ from what sociologists call symbolic-interactionism and ethnomethodology?

In short, I have never heard the term used this way. This fact does not in and of itself invalidate the article. But I think it is fair to expect an article to explain a concept clearly, and situate it, so that someone like me who does not know what it means can understand it. Right now I just don't understand what the article is talking about, SR

[edit] Object or method?

"which sounds more like an object to be analyzed, rather than a method of analysis or model of the what is observed" You are right. This term was used by Marxist and leftist political theorists, I guess in the 60-70´ it became popular again (that was before my time, and I´m German anyway). I don´t know how much work has been done on that, but I think that Larry´s sources and interpretation is slightly off.

Well, there are two links at the bottom of the page that I checked out. One is an article with "social dynamics" in the title and in that context it sounds just like what anyone would think -- two words that are used pretty much as the dictionary defines them to name a particular object. In this light, this encyclopedia article on "social dynamics" seems to be analogous to someone reading an article on "The behavior of Fans at the Superbown" and then writing an encyclopedia article called "The Behavior of Fans" as if this were some special new topic in academia, and everything we know about "fans" really has to do with fans at the Superbowl! This article seems to be making a big deal and broad claims about two words that lots of people use conventionally in a wide range of contexts. It's weird, I think.

The second link refers to work in neuro-psychology called "connectionism" which does sound like a reasonalbe topic for an encyclopedia article, but one that is very diffferent than this one.

The more I look at it, the more I think the article should be cut until it can be completely rewritten. I do not know how to collapse the article into the talk section, but I wish someone who knew how would do it, SR

[edit] To be cut or not to be cut

I would not like it to be cut. See, more and more scientists try to explain this and that by mathematical analysis. Get rid of faculty-special structures and naming conventions, treat it all as signals and transmission lines instead. Traditional faculties often treat applied mathematics and statistical physics with hostility.

However it was good if I had more backing, I know.

>I would not like it to be cut.

But maybe I should move it some place else? Is an encyclopedia for commonly accepted knowledge only or is it not? Hey, you can easily find scientists of different fields who have contrary opinions and would even negate the other one´s sincerity.

I was not arguing simply to eliminate the article -- I was arguing that it should be cut OR "social dynamics" has to be explained more clearly, and situated. The version I see now is a big improvement on the previous versions. But it still is not sufficiently clear whehter "social dynamics" is something people study, or a method for studying something, or a theory about something people want to or have studied.

It is both. I understand that this spaghetti thinking must be unscrambled. Grasso

In the article link I refered to, and in the first paragraph of this article, it seems like "social dynamics" is on object of study. But this means that there can be ALL SORTS of methods for studying it and theories about it. I would expect the article to go on to say "Different scholars have studied social dynamics in different ways and have developed different models" and hen I would expect a brief discussion of these models and methods (but in its current form the article doesn't do this).

But the article seems to suddenly shift to viewing "social dynamics" as a method or theory. Then I would expect a discussion of how this method or theory is different from those current in other disciplines (but the current article doesn't do this).

The closest the article comes to this is the statement, "As society and culture are things that we are emotionally bound to and have no immediate alternative for, these fields have long lacked methodology and scientific success due to common embarressment, taboos and scientific isolation." Well, I am not sure whether we are more emotionally bound to society than we are to our own bodies, yet biologists and medical doctors have managed to develop a scientific method for studying the human body and most people are fairly satisfied that, within the limitations of any scientific endeavor, they have been pretty successful. So I don't follow the reasoning here. In any event, most psychologists and sociologists would claim that they are scientists, have used the scientific method, and are successful, so I don't know where the phrase "long lacked methodology" comes from. I do know that there are many people who study human society within anthropology and the humanities who explicity reject positivist methods and models, but they do not do so because they are isolated from the scientific community (for example, Franz Boas got a PhD. in physics and did a post-doc in geography before turning to anthropology; this is hardly isolation), or from any taboo or embarasment. So although I can see how this sentence seems to operate as an explanation, it is an illogical explanation unsupported by facts.

Society, say culture, influences the way we think. Now the problem arises from the backpropagation - to think about the way of thinking, to make out why believe in what we believe. Most cultures including ours not only propagate facts and bring delight to our lives but also normate and equalize. Education often uses conditioning; soon after we are born we are forced to believe in the goodness and badness of this and that. REAL sociology and psychology are to tear that apart, and that hurts. Grasso

I agree -- and this was precisely my point, or rather, my point is that this is precisely the popint that many sociologists (e.g. Goffman and Mills), psychoanalysts like Freud, philosophers from Plato to Nietzsche and beyond, critical theorists kile Adorno and Horkheimer, and anthropoloigsts like Malinowski, Boas, Benedict, Mead, and almost all other 20th century anthropoloigsts, have argued. There are a lot of ways to resist or overcome one's own ethnocentrism, indeed, much debate in social theory is over how to do this effectively (and certainly many anthropologists and critical theorists and socieologists have accused one another of doing this ineffectively). But this is hardly an original claim or goal, it is rather very well-established. SR

Another major problem is the (ungrammatical) sentence "If we clinically view on life and societies? they are nothing more than systems of information dealing with genes or culture. If we clinically view on life and societies they are nothing more than systems of information dealing with genes or culture." Well, this is not so new an idea -- the anthropologist Gregory Bateson made a similar point in his book Steps to an Ecology of Mind a long time ago. But more importantly, I am not sure what it means to write "if we clinically view life and society" -- what does "clinically mean? In the US "clinical" means based on the observation of patients -- do you mean to base this model on the observation of "sick" societies? Or does "clinical" just mean "scientific?" Again, many scientists would argue that this is ONE scientific way of looking at society and life, but not the only scientific way. Does "clinical" in this context mean "objective?" Well, it isn't objective at all. It is a very interesting metaphor and perhaps a very productive method, and I wouldn't discourage anyone from doing it. But do not mistake our own models of reality for reality itself. Societies are absolutely NOT "nothing more than systems of information." One can look at societies this way, but societies are MANY other things besides this, in reality. So there are serious NPOV issues with this article.

If you deny that societies and genes only exist because they are information structures, you must also deny that our bodies consist of atoms. I admit that everything is layered, so on a certain layer we can absolutly ignore information theory but simply listen to good music or the like. Grasso

your assertion is a non-sequitor. Be that as it may, I find the view of societies and genes as information structures very interesting and compelling. I merely point out that ti is folly to assume that because this is a useful way for us to conceive of such things, that therefore this is "really" how they are. SR

If you or others want to keep working on it, fine -- don't cut it! But it still needs a lot of work! SR

[edit] Bottom of the article snipped

I snipped the bottom of the article. In case you want to reuse it, that´s it:

• Social dynamics originated in the social sciences. Social psychology at its simplest definitive level may be what writers at Trinity University define as involving "the ways in which both social and mental processes determine action." [1]

• Situational dynamics is more complex. It may have started with W. I. Thomas' (1928) definition of a situation "If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences." (pp. 571-2)

• The Dictionary of Terms and Terminology of Sociology defines a definition of a situation as: "The determination of status and roles relevant in a social situation." [2]

• Professor Conway of Texas A&M University has another definition. He uses many modern theories to amend Mr. Thomas' earlier work: "If you define a situation as real, it is real to you in its consequences. However, your definition of a situation may be influenced by how others perceive the same situation." (1980) [Del Mar College, Corpus Christi, Texas Lecture]

• This is the basis upon which social dynamics functions. Situations determine action based on complex social, biological and psychological processes. Stanley Milgram, Leon Festinger, and others have spent their careers studying these interactions. Now a host of other theorists in many disciplines have joined them.

For further reading:

• COGNITIVE DISSONANCE IN POST-SOVIET RUSSIANS. MIRONENKO, Irina A.; Humanitarian University of TU, St. Petersburg, Russia.
• Mermaids and Ethics: The Role of Women in Organisations. Eva E Tsahuridu. Edith Cowan University, Faculty of Business & Public Management Pearson Street, Churchlands, Western Australia 6018
• THE JOURNAL OF JAPANESE STUDIES Abstract Takeyuki Tsuda The Stigma of Ethnic Difference: The Structure of Prejudice and "Discrimination" toward Japan's New Immigrant Minority, Volume 24, Number 2 (Summer 1998)
• Jill Harries, Law and Empire in Late Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Pp. ix, 235. ISBN 0-521-41087-8 Reviewed by Charles Pazdernik, Emory University] [Drs. Thomas Petee and Janice Wittekind of Auburn University presented a talk called, "Mass Murder in America: Copycat Effects and Other Situational Dynamics."]
• Scientifically Dissecting Violence Canela-Cacho, MacCoun Are Part of an International, Interdisciplinary Consortium to Develop Theories on Violence by Fernando Quintero. Copyright 1996, The Regents of the University of California. Produced and maintained by the Office of Public Affairs at UC Berkely.
• CRIME PROFILES The Anatomy of Dangerous Persons, Places, and Situations Second Edition Terance D. Miethe, University of Nevada, Las Vegas Richard C. McCorkle, University of Nevada, Las Vegas ISBN: 1-891487-54-X]

References:

W.I Thomas and D.S. Thomas. (1928). The Child in America: Behavior Problems and Programs. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

[W.I. Thomas, The Unadjusted Girl . Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1923.]

External links

• www.propaganda101.com/cognitiv.htm

[edit] Paragraph snipped

I snipped this paragraph

• As society and culture are things that we are emotionally bound to and have no immediate alternative for, these fields have long lacked methodology and scientific success due to common embarressment, taboos and scientific isolation. Some people want to bring new life into that field by appling mathematics to sociology: If we clinically view on life and societies they are nothing more than systems of information dealing with genes or culture. Therefore we can try to describe them by signals modified by transmission functions. Some examples follow.

I agree that there is a need for, and a value to, an explanation of how this stuff developed, that also locates it in the context of other work. But the preceding paragraph doesn't work. I made a comment in the talk section a week or two ago to explain why, just look up the page a bit, SR

[edit] Sad

I find that sad. If I was a native English speaker I would try to get it right. I think that the current state of sociology and anthropology a shame, it´s heavily crippled by "common embarrasment and taboos", people feel ashamed of naked minds and therefore keep on crippling themselves and their children. I understand that an encyclopedia may be not the right place for promoting new ideas, but Wikipedia is a place where analytic minds hang around, I guess I felt challenged.

find what sad? That I snipped it, or that I am inviting improvement? I personally do not feel qualified to work on it because I do not know what "social dynamic theory" in the sense of this article is. I certainly would like to learn and am open to learning more.

it is grand to promote new ideas, but to be effective this must be done clearly. Also, one should be able to promote new ideas without recklessly criticizing older ideas. Sociology, anthropology, and other fields like history, comparative literature, philosophy, and psychology all have their limitations and weaknesses. If there is some new theory that proposes a new contribution to the study of social life, it is quite right that it detail problems with other approaches. But to say that sociology and anthropology are crippled by people who feel ashamed by common embarrasment and taboos is extraordinarily vague and just doesn't ring true to me. You think Taussig and Clifford and Harraway and Daniels are crippled by some embarasment over social taboos? Please provide evidence because far from it, I see them as breaking common taboos and challenging people to think critically and creatively (and this is obviously a very partial selection of current scholars).

No one person needs to take on the burden of writing an effective Wikipedia article. As I said, I know enough about this only to recognize certain problems. But if "social dynamics" really is a general movement in the study of human sociability and societies (and not just one person's conceit), I am sure that there will be other wikipedians who can help develop this article. I would certainly look forward to that, SR

[edit] Paragraph cut

I cut this:

• As technologies are incredibly powerful, in the global range today and in the social range already throughout history of civilization, any person who deems the world not just as a cruel experiment but a place for happiness (forgive this naive word) will admit that technology must become controlled.

because any sentence that includes this phrase "any person ... will admit" is editorializing and argumentative, and inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. Many people would not admit this; an article could explore the different arguments dispassionately (NPOV) but otherwise this claim is both false and unnecessary. Describe what "Social Dynamics" is and how it is used; do not make incredibly broad rhetorical claims, SR

I also cut this:

In effect, sociology is neither pure natural sciences nor pure humanities. It is a close relative of psychology. So it is handicapped by the fact that the researcher is to understand the ways of own mind, is to rip into pieces himself and the bounds to his fellow man. Common embarressment and stall is likely to appear, hence sociology and psychology have changed the world far less than natural sciences have. As all social structures including media are part of the research topic and don´t like to get stripped to the bones, bold sociologists have become relegated into politics.

because it is innacurate and argumentative. Sociology never claimed to be natural science or a humanity; it is a social science (as is psychology). But so what? This is not an article on sociology. And the fact that sociology is a social rather than natural science is irrelevant. Has sociology changed the world less than the natural sciences? Maybe, maybe not. How do you measure this? And what does it mean, that bold sociologists have been relegated to politics? Is this a good or a bad thing?

The article claims to be about something called "social dynamics," although the article still seems more like pseudoscience than anything else to me. Be that as it may, it would be a stronger article if it were clear about what "social dynamics" is and avoided making false and meaningless claims about other topics. SR

[edit] Hard and soft facts

Sociology and psychology deal with ratings, with subjectivity, as man lives for some purpose and does feel. Sociology and psychology are supposed to provide objective findings in order to serve subjective needs. Of course different people have more or less different goals and feelings, this must be and has often be discussed, as cultures found upon such least common denominators.

Encyclopedias don´t deal solely with "hard facts", really not, they deal with culture very much, at least this is the view we have about them in Germany. If you don´t like it then cut it altogether, that was at least frank and open. I guess I must back it up by references to Adorno, Derendorf, Nietsche, Hegel etc. unless you stop cutting.

I am not sure how you are opposing "hard facts" and "culture." Nor am I claiming that Encyclopedias should deal only with "hard facts," whatever that means. Indeed, I think it would be useful for this article to discuss the role of "social dynamics" in sociology and psychology, or the differences between these three approaches (if they are three distinct approaches). I simply insist on three things:

1) the article not be polemical -- it report on areas of agreement, report on areas of disagreement, and give an account of disagreements without taking sides

2) it be clear

3) it be accurate

I cut the section on sociology and psychology because it seemed polemical (see NPOV policy), and because it was unclear and inaccurate. SR

[edit] More references

Now? I know, I must give more references, please be patient!

okay, but it is not just a matter of more references -- it is important to explain why some people ewould be critical of social dynamic theory, and prefer other sociological or psychological theories, without suggesting that the reason is that these people are lazy, scared or stupid. You think sociologists sit on the fence? You think Goffman, Garfinkle, and Giddens are sitting on some fence? Many do not think so -- take them seriously! Any of those who admit to striding the experimental and behavioral sciences, with the humanities, many do not see this as an obstacle to understanding but as a vital precondition. You do not have to agree with them, but take them seriously! How do you know they are wrong when they are so sure they are right? SR

Also, I am sorely tempted to cut this sentence:

that means that its amplitude error is small and its frequency bandwidth is high

but I suspect it is important to the contributors to this peice and I want to invite them to rewrite it so it makes sense.

In this phrase, amplitude and frequency bandwidth are metaphors, so this is poetry but not science. For this article to make sense, you must explain: amplitude of what, and how is such amplitude measures? Frequency bandwidth of what, and how is it measured? What kind of data do you need to collect to discover the amplitude and frequency bandwidth? Are these things readily quantifiable? What do these quantities mean (and how do you know they mean that)? In short, you need to operationalize these terms or all you have is pseudoscience. SR