Sociology Textbook
Mar. 30th, 2021 10:33 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rubyya My sociology textbook is not helpful. It's assuming I know nothing about society. There is a learning objective in it that says, "Provide examples of how Americans may not be as “free” as they think." I'm not a professional, but I'm pretty sure I can explain how poverty traps families and how societal norms constrict people. Then we get this quote, "We vote in secret so that our choice of a candidate is made freely and without fear of punishment. That is all true, but it is also possible to guess the candidate for whom any one individual will vote if enough is known about the individual." Or you could just look for the party they are associated with? If they're not registered as an individual, you can guess they'll vote for their candidate. This textbook feels like it was written for someone who doesn't understand society at all.
So far I quite like the debunking motif, which is basically the idea that sociology looks for the inconvenient and unconventional truths in society, like racism. Apparently there's a nicer name for social inequality called Vertical Social Structure. That makes it sound all neat and tidy, when it's really not. Sometimes you gotta use the dirty word when referring to society. At first I was dubious of personal vs. public problems, but when actually explained I quite like them. Personal problems are ones that can be attributed to a person, and the example they gave is unemployment. When the problem is small, only a few people unemployed, that can be ascribed as their fault. But when it's millions of people it's the publics problem, because there are many people who can and do want to work. It wasn't the people's fault there wasn't work available, it was the public as a whole's fault. I am now getting examples showing identical twins, and now I feel the need to throw the Psych textbook at this one. Because there's a scary amount of genetics that decide our personality. Do approve of the textbook saying crime is mostly societies fault and not the individuals though. Willian Ryan pointed out Americans blame the victims instead of the system and oh my gosh. How the heck do I get the guy to talk to all those idiots who believe poverty and stuff is a personal failing?
I really don't like Conflict Theory. I feel like it makes a lot of assumptions about people and conflicts, that aren't always the case. Rational Choice Theory aka Utilitarism actually sounds like it could be a sound theory based on the base, but it also needs a lot of work to understand how humans work. All these theories kind of assume humans are predictable, and most of the time they are, but big change comes when something unpredictable happens. Oh did it just try to talk to me about Lord of The Flies? Heck no. That was a sucky book that is one of the least realistic books I have ever seen. That is not how kids act. One guy is trying to explain how no social norms leads to more suicide. He's a bit of a crackpot. Less social norms is what we need. Though we should keep the don't act like a jerk bits. And he just tried to say that because Catholic's doctrine specifically condemns suicide that explains why Protestants have a higher suicide rate. If someone is gonna die, I really don't think they're afraid of the consequences. This Functionalist theory compares society to our body, and unless your body is constantly breaking, doesn't work with itself, and is never truly working, I don't think it is, though now that I say that I do know someone who's like that. Oh, apparently Carl Marx wanted the fall of capitalism. Pretty good goal to have. The more I read the more good ideas Marx has about capitalism and what it's doing to American society. The textbook almost just said propaganda that the American system is just is what's keeping the working class from revolting. At least, I hope that's what it was trying to say, because it's true.
And chapter thankfully done. Now I get to watch Crash Course which I absolutely hate. Way too bloody fast for me.
Then this paragraph is just statistics. I don't understand what is being proven here! "To illustrate this point, consider the 2008 presidential election between Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain. Suppose a room is filled with 100 randomly selected voters from that election. Nothing is known about them except that they were between 18 and 24 years of age when they voted. Because exit poll data found that Obama won 66% of the vote from people in this age group (http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/ExitPolls), a prediction that each of these 100 individuals voted for Obama would be correct about 66 times and incorrect only 34 times. Someone betting $1 on each prediction would come out $32 ahead ($66 – $34 = $32), even though the only thing known about the people in the room is their age. " Oh gosh. The textbook is going on to say that Americans are free but also restrained because of this data and no? They're not? The data exists *because* the people voted that way, not because people voted that way due to the data. Just asked me why I don't face the back of an elevator while riding it. Because then I couldn't see the door open and floor number? That's a societal norm because it's coinvent to be able to see which floor it is, not because everyone else is doing it. I feel like by taking Sociology and Psychology at the same time, I'm just breaking everything. Only a chapter in and we've already gotten to the statistic that men succeed in more suicides than women though woman are more depressed due to the fact men are more likely to use firearms. Fun facts.
So far I quite like the debunking motif, which is basically the idea that sociology looks for the inconvenient and unconventional truths in society, like racism. Apparently there's a nicer name for social inequality called Vertical Social Structure. That makes it sound all neat and tidy, when it's really not. Sometimes you gotta use the dirty word when referring to society. At first I was dubious of personal vs. public problems, but when actually explained I quite like them. Personal problems are ones that can be attributed to a person, and the example they gave is unemployment. When the problem is small, only a few people unemployed, that can be ascribed as their fault. But when it's millions of people it's the publics problem, because there are many people who can and do want to work. It wasn't the people's fault there wasn't work available, it was the public as a whole's fault. I am now getting examples showing identical twins, and now I feel the need to throw the Psych textbook at this one. Because there's a scary amount of genetics that decide our personality. Do approve of the textbook saying crime is mostly societies fault and not the individuals though. Willian Ryan pointed out Americans blame the victims instead of the system and oh my gosh. How the heck do I get the guy to talk to all those idiots who believe poverty and stuff is a personal failing?
I really don't like Conflict Theory. I feel like it makes a lot of assumptions about people and conflicts, that aren't always the case. Rational Choice Theory aka Utilitarism actually sounds like it could be a sound theory based on the base, but it also needs a lot of work to understand how humans work. All these theories kind of assume humans are predictable, and most of the time they are, but big change comes when something unpredictable happens. Oh did it just try to talk to me about Lord of The Flies? Heck no. That was a sucky book that is one of the least realistic books I have ever seen. That is not how kids act. One guy is trying to explain how no social norms leads to more suicide. He's a bit of a crackpot. Less social norms is what we need. Though we should keep the don't act like a jerk bits. And he just tried to say that because Catholic's doctrine specifically condemns suicide that explains why Protestants have a higher suicide rate. If someone is gonna die, I really don't think they're afraid of the consequences. This Functionalist theory compares society to our body, and unless your body is constantly breaking, doesn't work with itself, and is never truly working, I don't think it is, though now that I say that I do know someone who's like that. Oh, apparently Carl Marx wanted the fall of capitalism. Pretty good goal to have. The more I read the more good ideas Marx has about capitalism and what it's doing to American society. The textbook almost just said propaganda that the American system is just is what's keeping the working class from revolting. At least, I hope that's what it was trying to say, because it's true.
And chapter thankfully done. Now I get to watch Crash Course which I absolutely hate. Way too bloody fast for me.
