What can Sociology do for You? - Try these quick tips and you'll be rolling in Social!

[Autopsy]

I've got a serious problem that's been gnawing at me and I couldn't think of anywhere better to pose it than this forum of distinguished, exceptional individuals.
It goes as follows:

Name one thing that the field of Sociology has contributed to the real world.
with qualifiers of​

1. Genocide doesn't count.
2. The work of Comte doesn't count since the majority of post-Comte Sociology is primed and designed to refute/ignore his point of view.
3. Preferably something done by Critical Sociologists and not Sociology-lite Statisticians since they have dramatically different educations and world-views.

I'll take essentially anything, though, even if it falls a bit within #3. Please.

 

[AnOminous]

I've got a serious problem that's been gnawing at me and I couldn't think of anywhere better to pose it than this forum of distinguished, exceptional individuals.
It goes as follows:

Name one thing that the field of Sociology has contributed to the real world.
with qualifiers of​

1. Genocide doesn't count.
2. The work of Comte doesn't count since the majority of post-Comte Sociology is primed and designed to refute/ignore his point of view.
3. Preferably something done by Critical Sociologists and not Sociology-lite Statisticians since they have dramatically different educations and world-views.

I'll take essentially anything, though, even if it falls a bit within #3. Please.

The statisticians are really the most useful of the lot since they do shit using at least semi-objective facts.

 

[WhatNemesisMeans]

Genocide doesn't count.

Cucks.

 

[Autopsy]

The statisticians are really the most useful of the lot since they do shit using at least semi-objective facts.

Psychiatrists are boots on the ground but Psychologists still do useful things in the background. I'm looking for any parallel in Sociology for the theoretical arm of the field.
The closest thing to a 'positive' I can find in my research is a number of independent think tanks who use and abuse politicians to push weird personal beliefs and that's not super endearing.

 

[Tennis Monkey]

John Dewey and/or the Chicago School generally had an impact on how American liberals responded to the growth of socialism in the early 20th century, culminating in things like the New Deal. You might not like it, but it was a real world impact (and wasn't negative in the sense that something like Marxism ultimately was).

It's always going to be difficult to show that purely theoretical work in the humanities affected something, because there isn't the clear link that there is in science, where experimenters actually set out to test whether theories are true. Politicians don't usually set out to try and prove whether some theory of society is right or wrong. The best you'll get is examples of an intellectual climate being influenced.

 

[AnOminous]

John Dewey and/or the Chicago School generally had an impact on how American liberals responded to the growth of socialism in the early 20th century, culminating in things like the New Deal. You might not like it, but it was a real world impact (and wasn't negative in the sense that something like Marxism ultimately was).

It's always going to be difficult to show that purely theoretical work in the humanities affected something, because there isn't the clear link that there is in science, where experimenters actually set out to test whether theories are true. Politicians don't usually set out to try and prove whether some theory of society is right or wrong. The best you'll get is examples of an intellectual climate being influenced.

Dewey was largely a philosopher, though. Philosophers almost by definition are not promising practical results. That said, pragmatists are more useful than most sociologists.

 

[Gym Leader Elesa]

The problem with sociology (and I would even argue fields like Anthropology, but that's a personal bone to pick) is that they are either so narrow or broadly defined by most people (and institutions) that you could either attribute absolutely everything ever to them or practically nothing. They aren't useful labels, academically or in practice, but individuals claiming both as labels have contributed positively to the sum of human knowledge.

 

[Henry Wyatt]

I read this as Scientology and was ready to open my wallet

 

[Autopsy]

John Dewey and/or the Chicago School generally had an impact on how American liberals responded to the growth of socialism in the early 20th century, culminating in things like the New Deal.
It's always going to be difficult to show that purely theoretical work in the humanities affected something, because there isn't the clear link that there is in science, where experimenters actually set out to test whether theories are true.
[...] The best you'll get is examples of an intellectual climate being influenced.

I was under the impression that Dewey was considered by himself and others to be a Psychologist rather than a Sociologist. It's a pretty important divide since the two address very different relationships (individual & individual and individual & group VS group & group and group & systems), but all the same that's a good path for me to research. I'd also like to note that the 'intellectual climate' currently affects large swathes of certain political blocs, both adherents and reactionaries, which is just a little substantial.
Part of why this question is bothering me so much is that for all intents and purposes Sociology has been an active agent in perpetuating social strife, and it was so effective at its job that it rewrote the entire 20th century's course almost singlehandedly (with just a few guest appearances by people like Freud and Horkheimer). Despite all that influence on recent history, I'm struggling to find any particularly beneficial changes it has informed or made. The very notion of that sets my strawman senses a-tingling, where they tell me that I must surely be missing something super obvious that justifies Sociology's continued existence within the breadth of higher education. Yet, here I am, drawing blanks.

 

[Positron]

I haven't taken many courses on Sociology, and what I've taken were mostly Medical Sociology, so I have no definite say on this matter, but I think Durkheim's Anomie is a useful concept that, if quantified, can generate predictions and useful researches on mental health and criminology.

Outside "useful" things (i.e. we're talking about social philosophy now), I'm in love with Ivan Illich's concept of cultural iatrogenesis -- in essence, the promise of modern medicine has stripped us of our cultural defenses against the inevitability of illness, aging and death. Old cultures have moral or theological explanations or justification of these, and these explanations have helped people to come to terms with the vicissitudes of life. Then came modern Medicine, who sees these as mere breakdown of the human machine, to be fixed if possible. By promising a fix for everything, modern Medicine tells us illnesses, aging, and death are avoidable. But no, we still cannot avoid these, and by pretending we could we are all the more ill-prepared for them. When I first read Illich I thought he was bumbfuck insane; it was only much later when I realize how right he was.

 

[ICametoLurk]

I've got a serious problem that's been gnawing at me and I couldn't think of anywhere better to pose it than this forum of distinguished, exceptional individuals.
It goes as follows:

Name one thing that the field of Sociology has contributed to the real world.
with qualifiers of​

1. Genocide doesn't count.
2. The work of Comte doesn't count since the majority of post-Comte Sociology is primed and designed to refute/ignore his point of view.
3. Preferably something done by Critical Sociologists and not Sociology-lite Statisticians since they have dramatically different educations and world-views.

I'll take essentially anything, though, even if it falls a bit within #3. Please.

 

[WW 635]

I read this as Scientology and was ready to open my wallet

I also thought this was a thread on scientology and came to read about thetans.

Now that I'm here, I'd like to say that sociology isn't a real science. Neither is anthropology. Psychology, you guys are kinda ok. Just make sure you're incorporating some sort of biological associations in your shit. Let's be honest, behavioural studies are boring garbage these days. You're just asspatting each other's hypotheses. Also self report testing is sketch af. Get with the times or get ready to be replaced by something more tangible and relevant, psychology.

 

[Lackadaisy]

I also thought this was a thread on scientology and came to read about thetans.

Now that I'm here, I'd like to say that sociology isn't a real science. Neither is anthropology. Psychology, you guys are kinda ok. Just make sure you're incorporating some sort of biological associations in your shit. Let's be honest, behavioural studies are boring garbage these days. You're just asspatting each other's hypotheses. Also self report testing is sketch af. Get with the times or get ready to be replaced by something more tangible and relevant, psychology.

Biological anthropology is cool, like forensic science and archeological digs or whatever.

 

[WW 635]

Biological anthropology is cool, like forensic science and archeological digs or whatever.

Ye, those are cool.

 

[millais]

Any kind of sociology is good for boosting GPA with an easy blow-off course you can sleep your way through

 

[autista]

If people wanted to (or even could, since this would be very un-PC in most departments today*), they could use sociology and sociological theory to attempt to explain phenomenons such as Tumblr/SJW "culture" in general (regarding gender, race, pretty much everything) and its real-life manifestations/impact or even the Farms itself (if we treated the Farms as a social group). Sadly, a bunch of people today think that sociology means "being a professional SJW" (the "being a professional SJW" disciplines are anything with "studies" in them that doesn't refer to a specific geographic area of the world, e.g. gender/womens/sexuality/queer/ethnic/race/American/African American/Chicano/Chican@/Chicanx/"Xicanx" lol) so a bunch of its potential is ignored.

*However, sociology is far from being the worst of the social sciences in this regard, that award goes to anthropology (socio-cultural) or communication studies (I think the quant people/statisticians balance it out a lot, or at least make it less susceptible to pomo bullshit)

 

[Positron]

I also thought this was a thread on scientology and came to read about thetans.

Now that I'm here, I'd like to say that sociology isn't a real science. Neither is anthropology. Psychology, you guys are kinda ok. Just make sure you're incorporating some sort of biological associations in your shit. Let's be honest, behavioural studies are boring garbage these days. You're just asspatting each other's hypotheses. Also self report testing is sketch af. Get with the times or get ready to be replaced by something more tangible and relevant, psychology.

I don't think "biological association" exists for most social phenomena. To say so is to undersell the concept of "social construct" -- the very things that sociology seeks to investigate. Things like money, political parties, and workplace dynamics are not reducible to biology, and yet absolutely real and is affecting our lives. These are all valid areas of study despite the fact that you cannot bring biology into the equation.

And even, for the sake of argument, if you can explain behavior and psychology solely on their biological roots, it is not necessarily the best route to go. You have to respect the "level of explanation" in science, which I envisage as a mental and theoretical "zoom lens" that best brings a relevant phenomenon into focus. Too much attachment to the supposed "roots" may cost you the big picture. To give an example in hard science: Chemistry is absolutely reducible to quantum mechanics (and a small part of quantum mechanics at that, the part dealing with electromagnetism), but you don't see the departments of Chemistry all over the world closing doors -- because, thanks to their theoretical focus on a level above quantum mechanics, they are in a better position to investigate phenomena relevant to their discipline.

All these said, the way sociology to redeem itself is not to root itself into natural science, but to emulate the method of enquiry that is de rigueur in natural science -- hypothesis generation and observational confirmation. Theories should live or die by their ability to generate predictions that can be confirmed or refuted. A theory such as "when people in a society share fewer common beliefs, the rates of juvenile delinquency and suicide go up" is amenable to real-life studies and, if corroborated by such studies, may then be used to predict the future. Compare this with a theory such as "gender is fluid and is not delimited by supposed 'maleness' and 'femaleness'".

 

[Autopsy]

All these said, the way sociology to redeem itself is not to root itself into natural science, but to emulate the method of enquiry that is de rigueur in natural science -- hypothesis generation and observational confirmation. Theories should live or die by their ability to generate predictions that can be confirmed or refuted.

I'd just like to say that if Sociology became more predictive rather than the active agent of change it was historically, most of my current objections and concerns would be dealt with quite tidily. It'd certainly mark a serious departure from the old, removing the need for the field to proffer up some past success.

 

[WW 635]

I don't think "biological association" exists for most social phenomena. To say so is to undersell the concept of "social construct" -- the very things that sociology seeks to investigate. Things like money, political parties, and workplace dynamics are not reducible to biology, and yet absolutely real and is affecting our lives. These are all valid areas of study despite the fact that you cannot bring biology into the equation.

And even, for the sake of argument, if you can explain behavior and psychology solely on their biological roots, it is not necessarily the best route to go. You have to respect the "level of explanation" in science, which I envisage as a mental and theoretical "zoom lens" that best brings a relevant phenomenon into focus. Too much attachment to the supposed "roots" may cost you the big picture. To give an example in hard science: Chemistry is absolutely reducible to quantum mechanics (and a small part of quantum mechanics at that, the part dealing with electromagnetism), but you don't see the departments of Chemistry all over the world closing doors -- because, thanks to their theoretical focus on a level above quantum mechanics, they are in a better position to investigate phenomena relevant to their discipline.

All these said, the way sociology to redeem itself is not to root itself into natural science, but to emulate the method of enquiry that is de rigueur in natural science -- hypothesis generation and observational confirmation. Theories should live or die by their ability to generate predictions that can be confirmed or refuted. A theory such as "when people in a society share fewer common beliefs, the rates of juvenile delinquency and suicide go up" is amenable to real-life studies and, if corroborated by such studies, may then be used to predict the future. Compare this with a theory such as "gender is fluid and is not delimited by supposed 'maleness' and 'femaleness'".

Part of the problem with social science is the way studies are conducted via "hypothesis generation and observational confirmation". Real scientists shouldn't be trying to confirm their own biases. It's instead when a hypothesis is tested and retested in an effort to disprove it that it becomes a theory after holding up. Much of social science is not trying to disprove anything but instead confirm their own preconceived ideas and biases. The lack of allowance for the publishing of replication studies and null results confounds this problem.

Everything an animal does has a biological basis. We can observe behaviour but then speculating about it without consideration for biological underpinnings is doing the social science field à great injustice. Even psychology largely incorporates brain mechanisms in to its research now (via EEG, MRI, fnairs, etc) or at least considers biological mechanisms from animal studies when it wants to be taken seriously. Developmental psychology, for instance, has to consider the rapid changes in the brain and massive increase in sex hormones during adolescence when designing, conducting and explaining the results of a study on teenagers. And sociology is incapable of this?

 

[WW 635]

I'd just like to say that if Sociology became more predictive rather than the active agent of change it was historically, most of my current objections and concerns would be dealt with quite tidily. It'd certainly mark a serious departure from the old, removing the need for the field to proffer up some past success.

There's only one way to settle this. You want to get together later and TP the Sociology Department lawn with me?