ok here goes; i got a question from a student in my sociology 101 group about the importance of classification. i want to know if my response is correct or needs to be added too or if i'm trying to sound smarter than i am. so here it is, question first (d'uh).



The people who influence us in life are from different sociological groups, that are not necessarily the same as we belong too, so how is it that through random influences we can fall “cut and paste” into one particular category? Would we not all be a mixture of all the groups and make one large “grey area?”

My response:

No, because although it seems that singular influences should affect us in the same way it is evident that they do not. As our daily routines differ individually, we can find ourselves in class together and taught by a person from a completely different sociological group and we are influenced accordingly. We can not be categorized into one specific group but more as a part of one group, not a grey area but a cumulative description of expectations. Sociology approaches details on a linear manner and is receptive to the notion of individuality and its amalgamation into a society (the grey area).


Plese help me!!!

The people who influence us in life are from different sociological groups,.....

That's already an invalid assumption, thus anything that comes from using it is likely to be suspect and/or simply fuckin' wrong!

..., so how is it that through random influences we can fall “cut and paste” into one particular category?

We don't all "cut n' paste" in exactly the same way.

We can not be categorized into one specific group but more as a part of one group, not a grey area but a cumulative description of expectations.

Sociologists can't even do that!! I've never seen a sociology study that was ever able to adequately explain any one group of diverse people ...ie, put a label on them, and be anything like accurate.

Look at major cities; The people of, say, New York City can be categorized as living in NYC, but that's about all! NYC is made up of many and varied groups, few of which actually interact in any formative way. That's why you have "Chinatown", "Little Italy", and all of the other diverse groups living SEPERATELY, yet still in NYC. Surely no one on Earth would say that the people of "Chinatown" are the same as those of Manhatten or Queens!

Baron Max

Sociologists can't even do that!! I've never seen a sociology study that was ever able to adequately explain any one group of diverse people ...ie, put a label on them, and be anything like accurate.


so your saying that classifiction is really unimportant in sociology? or that sociology is a farce.


Look at major cities; The people of, say, New York City can be categorized as living in NYC, but that's about all! NYC is made up of many and varied groups, few of which actually interact in any formative way. That's why you have "Chinatown", "Little Italy", and all of the other diverse groups living SEPERATELY, yet still in NYC. Surely no one on Earth would say that the people of "Chinatown" are the same as those of Manhatten or Queens!


They are all from one of the largest citys in the USA
They all have a higher cost of living
They represent one of the most diverse populations in the world

these aren't true?

Chinatown has a large chinese speaking residence
Little italy consumes the most oregano in New york
Most subsections represent their own unity's

Does this mean that the purpose of sociology is not to observe and record group behaviour but rather obtain information of whatever fashion the sociologist chooses to manipulate it into?

so your saying that classifiction is really unimportant in sociology? or that sociology is a farce.

Sociology would do better to study the social interactions of apes and wolves for all the good it does! Yes, sociology is a fuckin' farce ...it's mostly just a "thing" that hoity-toity folks can discuss and pretend that they know something that others don't ...even if it's meaningless drivel.

They are all from one of the largest citys in the USA

That can be said of almost any large city in the US. What does "one of the largest" mean exactly? See? Imprecise drivel, and worse, sociologist will draw conclusions from such meaningless drivel!!

They all have a higher cost of living

All of the people? Some of the people? "Higher"? Compared to what? NYC has some of the poorest people in the world - living in cardboard boxes and eating scraps from garbage cans ...yet, by using the "right" factors, one can make it seem like a city of rich people living in mansions! See? Imprecise drivel, and worse, sociologist will draw conclusions from such meaningless drivel!!

They represent one of the most diverse populations in the world

"One of the..."? What does that mean? How does one measure "one of"? Of course it's "one of" the most diverse, but so are thousands of other cities of the world. To say "one of the most" .....is meaningless without precise definitions and tools of measure. See? Imprecise drivel, and worse, sociologist will draw conclusions from such meaningless drivel!!

Does this mean that the purpose of sociology is not to observe and record group behaviour but rather obtain information of whatever fashion the sociologist chooses to manipulate it into?

The purpose of sociology is a fuckin' farce ...it's mostly just a "thing" that hoity-toity folks can discuss and pretend that they know something that others don't ...even if it's meaningless drivel.

Sociology is quite like polls ...one can sample small segments of the population, select the samples as they choose to show/prove almost any-fuckin'-thing they want to show/prove. Imprecise drivel, and worse, sociologist will draw conclusions from such meaningless drivel!!

Sociology is the imprecise collection of imprecise data to put into imprecise tables and calculations so as to draw imprecise conclusions that are meaningless to anyone except sociologist - and usually only to the ones doing the study!!!

Baron Max

Hehe...

I feel I have to agree with the Baron again.

Hehe...

I feel I have to agree with the Baron again.

Oh, shit!!!! In that case, I change my fuckin' mind!!! I must have been fuckin' wrong, .......really, really wrong! ....LOL!

Baron Max

Sociologists can't even do that!! I've never seen a sociology study that was ever able to adequately explain any one group of diverse people ...ie, put a label on them, and be anything like accurate.


thank you for confirming my suspicion, i was leaning towrads this conclusion myself.
but, now, for the sake of my education, would a sociologist read my response as accurate portrayel as to what they claim to be able to do. "a cumulative description of expectations".

Here is a revised version:

Q:The people who influence us in life are from different sociological groups, that are not necessarily the same as we belong too, so how is it that through random influences we can fall “cut and paste” into one particular category? Would we not all be a mixture of all the groups and make one large “grey area?”

A:No, because although it seems that singular influences should affect us in the same way it is evident that they do not. As our daily routines differ individually, we can find ourselves in class together and taught by a person from a completely different sociological group and we are influenced accordingly. We can not be categorized into one specific group but more as a part of one group, not a grey area but a cumulative description of expectations. One can then use these groups to form a probability of further expectations. The more data that is gathered, and the more classifications that are applied, the more probable the expectations become. Again the accuracy of these conclusions can never be absolute but can help to paint a portrayal of a society. Sociology approaches details on a linear manner and is receptive to the notion of individuality and its amalgamation into a society (the grey area).

Sociologists are people who got through college by taking only the easy psychology courses, only the easy anthropology courses, and staying awake in their statistics class. We used to joke about them being the exact opposite of chemical engineers, who had to take all the hardest chemistry classes and all the hardest engineering classes.

I have found somewhere in one of C.S. Lewis's books, that there is no such science as sociology... :p

I have found somewhere in one of C.S. Lewis's books, that there is no such science as sociology... :p
so its an art i spose
makes sense really, its your minds interpretation of what you are seeing, and of course thats never the same.
who is this CS lewis. what does she study

He's a religious philosopher (Lewis is known for his work on medieval literature, Christian apologetics and fiction) and I'm not quite serious. But his position is explainable, maybe sociology has too many common areas with other sciences like history, psychology, anthropology and so on and so forth. (I can't find the page right now, but his book, in which he offends sociology, is "That Hideous Strength (1946)").

Sociology is the imprecise collection of imprecise data to put into imprecise tables and calculations so as to draw imprecise conclusions that are meaningless to anyone except sociologist - and usually only to the ones doing the study!!!

Baron Max

You actually couldn't be more right. Sociology was invented some 150 years ago with a political agenda in mind. To put forward the idea that the human being was a blank slate.

They (and the psychologists) levered the topic of human behaviour away from the biologists and clouded it with false methodology and dogmas that couldn't be touched. You can still find people that get upset if you say that human behaviour is largely dictated by their genetic makeup, that is the basic behaviour. Nobody starts clean. If we would we wouldn't be human.

see for instance this wiki quote to see what kind of fascists we are dealing with:

Sociobiology is a relatively new field to branch from both the sociology and biology disciplines. Although the field once rapidly gained acceptance, it has remained highly controversial as it attempts to find ways in which social behavior and structures can be explained by evolutionary and biological processes. Sociobiologists are often criticized for depending too greatly on the effects of genes in defining behavior. Sociobiologists often respond, however, by citing a complex relationship between nature and nurture. In this regard, sociobiology is closely related to physical anthropology, zoology, evolutionary psychology, human behavioral ecology, and dual inheritance theory. Nonetheless, for most in the discipline, its ideas are unacceptable.

That's right. A whole science is based on religion of the human brain as a blank slate. It's not even open for discussion.

Could a human mind be more of a blank sponge then?

Could a human mind be more of a blank sponge then?

Is it?