I am currently fomrulating along these lines of theory.
what are your thoughts ?

Collective normality in conjunction with perceived intellect and level of social interaction and standard/quality and or nature of intra Group communication.

My Thesis is
The Standard human model of group dynamics is a pre disposed determinent of intellectual direction, most commonly as an assumed unilateral reality.


What i am curious about is the western culture surrounding the new mentality of people and a potential move toward more sedentary life in general based on the fear model of nurture being manipulated to create social law and order and general social control.
My thought is that it is driving people into a role of information rejection
and instead of using greater ability to formulate and calculate and process data people are infact regressing to less knowledge than previousely with a small set of paradigms with in segragative niche manifestation of technology and associated living.

-Groups, and entrance to them.

Fagging & innitiation rights and acts.
Humilliation
Sexual and physical abuse
Emotional abuse

While there is still organisaions that encoarage thinking and independent thought in some small pockets i am not refering to the exceptions and
those who sit outside the social norm.

Societies are not created and held together by the few.

Geeze Riple, could you please choose a darker color for your font, like maybe black? :) I'm going blind trying to read this.

I don't get how thisthe western culture surrounding the new mentality of people and a potential move toward more sedentary life in general based on the fear model of nurtureis being manipulated to cause thissocial law and order and general social controlwhich then results in thisa role of information rejectionI understand the sentences. I just don't understand how you see a cause-and-effect relationship here.

And your poll needs "None of the Above."

I'm afraid that this is rather acceptable in sociology circles Fraggle. Write down some bullshit and pretend it means something.

Geeze Riple, could you please choose a darker color for your font, like maybe black? :) I'm going blind trying to read this.

I don't get how thisis being manipulated to cause thiswhich then results in thisI understand the sentences. I just don't understand how you see a cause-and-effect relationship here.

And your poll needs "None of the Above."

do you accept or reject the idea that the average person is moulded by media ?

do you accept or reject the idea that the average person is moulded by media ?

Too open question. To what extent? What media? What aspect of the personality? What's the average person?

Too open question. To what extent? What media? What aspect of the personality? What's the average person?

Ha! Yeah, Spurious, and answering those "precise" questions is exactly what sociologist do best! Bullshit, vague questions answered with bullshit, vague answers! And sociologists consider them precise answers. ....LOL!

Baron Max

If it was up to me we would dump all sociologists in a desert and nuke them. But I'm a peaceful guy. I can't imagine what you would like to do with them.

If it was up to me we would dump all sociologists in a desert and nuke them. But I'm a peaceful guy. I can't imagine what you would like to do with them.

Hunt them down like big game animals! The hunters would come out in droves to hunt humans, especially sociologists. :)

Nuking them would only give you one shot and it would be over. Hunting them could be a very pleasant sport for many hunters for years.

Baron Max

hey guys i dont mind jokes and being funny, but you gotta apply atleast a little bit of intellegence to the thread.
do you think sociologists actualy have anything to do with how society is fashioned ?
no ofcoarse not!
Politicians do that, and the big media companies.

the average person
the very fact you do not understand what an "average person" is is a little alarming to me.
who do you think makes up the greatest base of society ?
blue collar workers obviousely.
from officer workers to plumbers and other trades people.
they are the main largest group of society in general.

do you think sociologists actualy have anything to do with how society is fashioned? no ofcoarse not!

Un-fuckin'-fortunately, you're wrong! Those damned sociologists write stupid articles, make stupid statements, which some people and politicians use to justify some of their OWN stupid ideas!!!

the very fact you do not understand what an "average person" is is a little alarming to me.

Which society? What part of the nation? What city? What area of that city? All of those make a major difference in how you define "average person". And that's just exactly the problem that sociologists NEVER do, so each person reading the article or statement has their own idea based on where they live.

Making blanket statements, as sociologists often do, without clearly and definitively stating the demographics pertinent to their statements, is nothing but wrong, wrong, wrong! And remember, it makes it even more wrong when others USE those same statements to justify their own agendas.

Sociologists ain't much use to anyone, and that includes themselves .....except perhaps to have something of interest to discuss over fine wine and a good meal.

Baron Max

Sociologists ain't much use to anyone, and that includes themselves .....except perhaps to have something of interest to discuss over fine wine and a good meal.

Baron Max

i am some-what confused by this comment of yours.
Would you tend to say the same of Psychologists and Psychiatrists also ?

and
just a curious side note,
if you feel you are capable of evaluating information that is produced and then define that as biased information based on a pre disposed agenda of those manipulating it and then publishing it or allowing its release...

would it not be fair to say that the actual information is invalid ?
and thus no real reflection on those who did the original study and or defined established or created the theory that it came from ?

i have developed various theories of my own over the years on sociology psychology and a few other things.
however i know enough about the majority of people in the world that they would not wish any such real information to be disceminated free and to be validated.
They wish to steal and control and make money from such things.

WHY?
would you base an evaluation of a science by the value of those soo corrupted who abuse it ?

that is purely illogical in my opinion.
much like suggesting right wing poeple support social welfare systems,
they do not!
never have never will they only say so to buy votes when needed but all their policies target the removal of it, with out fail while giving contracts to freinds who can steal millions of tax dollars off the government system then say the cost is massive ETC...

where is your "Reason" and where is your "Logic".
Obviousely as you make the point about normal, normal in africa (for a teen ager) is an aids infected person, it would be justafied to say the average african is infected with HIV.
it may be politicaly incorrect to say so and upset many african americans but the reality of the statistics is there to suport a statistical value and is completely devoid of racial bias.
it is only those with their own baggage and psychological issues and hidden agendas to promote that seize such things to suggest it may be invalid or racialy discriminatorally insightful, or proof of this or proof of that, as it is a infection statistic not a social intellect statistic(keep in mind the new holiday camps for kids which teach extreemist hate in a christian frame in the usa they are a growing trend and will defy civil rights in a certain amount of time as a simple idiological principal while trying to remove the rights of other people[a synopsis in motion one might suggest]).

yes i err in assuming many share my lack of racism and lack of biggotry
but then im not about to go backwards in intellectual discusion just to pander to disfunction people.

hence a bench mark must be established for discusion for discusion to begin and to be maintained as a productive modallity.

hence general person, average person, most common type of person
ETC...

and
i do not include countrys that are governed by religous law,
soo in general i am refering to western cultures and the odd asian country.

and
when one frames those who build and maintain a society, does one include the people who do not live and contribute to the local economy ?
hence a set of basic principals that must be considered as normal
socio-economic devisions MUST be within that factor as that 5% that own 95% of the world and its resources are not normal and far from average.
one can also use marketing idiology of target market analysis also.

the very fact i have to get into this level of explanation is rather frustrating and somewhat backward in nature to the discusion.
and
is as far backwards as i will go.

People have to step up rather than everyone else step down just so they dont feel soo lazzy and ignorent.

my statistics may be sensationalised to some degree if one is going to not consider any one country as a figure.
that aside the number is alarming and all credit to bono and bill and others for making some effort where the corrupt governments of africa will not.

http://www.avert.org/worlstatinfo.htm

one must attain a fairly high level of knowledge to be able to have a general idea of how things run in general.
most peope nbever come close to this level of intellect.

Soo for people to make generalisations on human sciences they need to be fairly well educated in it, and...
when it comes to mental health science many people are biased and very condescending toward the entire premis of psychology in general.

...

Un-fuckin'-fortunately, you're wrong! Those damned sociologists write stupid articles, make stupid statements, which some people and politicians use to justify some of their OWN stupid ideas!!!



Which society? What part of the nation? What city? What area of that city? All of those make a major difference in how you define "average person". And that's just exactly the problem that sociologists NEVER do, so each person reading the article or statement has their own idea based on where they live.

Making blanket statements, as sociologists often do, without clearly and definitively stating the demographics pertinent to their statements, is nothing but wrong, wrong, wrong! And remember, it makes it even more wrong when others USE those same statements to justify their own agendas.

Sociologists ain't much use to anyone, and that includes themselves .....except perhaps to have something of interest to discuss over fine wine and a good meal.

Baron Max

I agree once again.

:)

hence a bench mark must be established for discusion for discusion to begin and to be maintained as a productive modallity.

haha...what a shit sentence.

haha...what a shit sentence.

your not the monkey in that picture are you.

dont try and troll my thread into a bucket of crap.
iether enter the debate properly or fuck off.
or i will chase you down with admin for as long as it takes to have you banned.

yeah right.

so tell us what that sentence means?

you can't.


[COLOR=DarkSlateBlue]I am currently fomrulating along these lines of theory.
what are your thoughts ?

don't use colours.


Collective normality
Sociology babble. Try formulating it in a meaningful manner. I know it is difficult to write something that can actually understood by someone, but try. Maybe you will actually manage to say something interesting. Collective normality actually doesn't mean anything in the real world. In the field of biology you could write 'collective signalling' and it not mean anything either. It's a scapegoat. Write something indetermined so you do not have to think. When you do not explain your ideas you end up with ideas that know no level of criticism. Self-criticism is the first step in intellectual thought. And you failed it utterly.

in conjunction with perceived intellect
perceived intellect?


and level of social interaction
perceived intellect and social interaction are somehow very natural terms to be used together?

and standard/quality and or nature of intra Group communication.

Only one advice for you. Drop all that pseudo intellectual babble and try writing something that actually reflects reality.

You could have written this kind of crap with a computer program like the post modernism essay generator.

Everything you write is absolutely devoid of any self-criticism.

From now on I will consider it my duty to follow you around the forum and expose your bullshit.

Thanks for threatening me. It does have consequences.

If you cannot even make a coherent title you are a failure as an academic. It's the unwritten law.

the very fact you do not understand what an "average person" is is a little alarming to me.
who do you think makes up the greatest base of society ?
blue collar workers obviousely.
from officer workers to plumbers and other trades people.
they are the main largest group of society in general.


hello Mr Intellectual. I advice you to start doing some research before writing down anything. I find it alarming you assume that there is the average person and illustrate this by writing down something that is incorrect.

An office worker would be a white collar worker.

It seems that you should learn how to crawl before you start jumping to conclusions.

So the simple fact is that you blame other people that they do not know what the average person is but you cannot define the average person yourself.

It's a simple question I ask you.

Define 'average person'.

Is there an option for the null hypothesis, or are you sociologists not fond of statistical rigor?