Can sociology be saved?

Sorry, California is what it is. If you're set on sociology and can't leave the state, go cheap. Even if you don't receive the best education, at least you ain't gonna pay UC prices for it,

Berkely has produced a handful of decent individuals. Enough that it could be counted on ones hands and feet, but hey.
Now UC Santa Cruz, well, have at it.

Intro to sociology was a fun class. Have to say I couldn't take a lot of too seriously, but fun nonetheless.

Ideology gets in the way of the humanities, not just sociology, even evolutionary biology
You can't argue those sort of things with mathematics and physics

Intro sociology, like all social science and humanities intro classes, is the sales class. That's where the pitch you how fun it is and why you should totally major in it. Selection occurs in the second year, where overwhelming data and dreary lectures serves to ween out casuals. Third and fourth year is great fun tho.

Can't one argue that the average sociology major/student is actually more intelligent than Einstein?

Discovered a ton of elements

No because there's little to none real world application of the social sciences.

It doesn't progress technology or economy, so the only way to get research money is by supporting political narrative. This in turn affects the quality of their research, which at this point is garbage.

Are white babies inherently racist and do they unknowingly perpetuate racist white power structures while having their diapers changed by their Jamaican nannies?

Click here to find out™

So who was actually the last good sociologist?

Nietzsche.

What does sociology need to be saved from? It seems like everyone in this thread has a problem with a liberal bias that they think is unique to sociology. Sociologists should try to separate themselves from ideology and I would agree that almost none do so but most of you are just suggesting an ideological shift from far left to far right.

Purge the Marxists and other revolutionaries.

The problem with revolutionary ideologies is that their followers ascribe themselves legitimacy to lie and cheat for the sake of the utopian future they claim to represent in the present, therefore every single revolutionary sociologian, philosopher and historian cannot be trusted to be honest in his work. In STEM it's less of a problem because you can easily check the objectivity of a claim, but in human sciences, revolutionary mentality is a danger and and it must be fought.

Sociologists don't claim to be objective though, they recognize that no one is objective. Why are empirically backed claims by revolutionaries automatically wrong?

Not without revolution.

The idea of studying societies, how and why they work, is solid and can never die. Fundamentally it has been poisoned by politics and the tribalism that follows it, so long as people loyal to the old tribal way (progressive tribe) of doing things persist and hold power it can never restart properly.

>empirical
>social sciences

l y l

m-muuuhhh scienttiffficc socialism

fuck off

make sociology a safe space for white males. It was the only time the field was a discipline more than in name only.

why do people who know zero about any topic feel the need of dismissing entire scientific fields as useless or entirely wrong
you fking americans believe in creationism ffs

I've always assumed everyone bitched about sociology went to either shit universities or American universities where everything seems to be complete and utter shit if it isn't a crème de la crème university.

Untrue. Like any study, you're supposed to be objective for any work you publish in a proper journal.

It's the reverse in the states. Community colleges teach shit, but so do the prestigious schools.

And you Europeans hype yourselves up on bullshit pseudosciences like terrior where you claim the spirit of your ancestors makes your wine taste better.

>atheistic
>believes in mysticism and fairy tales

No, I don't get it either.

You can't be objective. It's not possible.

american wine is still shit anyway

Maybe not, but you can be objective enough by the standards of a peer reviewed journal.

I love Nietzsche just as much as any other but the Genealogy is not a work of sociology. That is to say, it is not scientific in any sense. It is more so a story, a mythology, like the ones you'll find in some of Plato's dialogues, that reveal truths about the human condition.

Even Foucault's attempt to make it so wasn't all that good, that's why we call the dude a philosopher.
I suppose one could consider the genealogy proto-sociology, for considering the issue very differently than those before him.

Objectivity is not the judgment criteria for peer review in any scientific field. Scientific claims should be judged on empirical evidence and empirical evidence alone.

Objectivity was literally the founding goal of Sociology pushed by the likes of Comte and Durkheim. Then the post modernists came along and ruined everything.

You don't really need to have a philosophical debate about standards of proof, scientific method, reasoning, logic, objectivity and the nature of truth.

The hypocrisy is the main thing here. Judge sociologists by the same standards they set for everyone else and the entire charade will collapse. If someone claims their commie socialist opinion is as indisputable as scientific fact you apply the same reasoning to the divine right of kings. If they claim everything is subjective and open to interpretation you remind them this includes their commie socialist opinions.

Modern sociology has developed a bunch of poorly-supported theories like "implicit bias" or "stereotype threat" which have seeped directly into US public policy.

Hahahahaha... Don't hate the player man hate the game. Just because you're a fat loser who pissed up $50,000 on a sociology degree doesn't mean you need to hate on the users of pol who invest wisely in worthwhile degrees as well as spend their spare time getting fit.
Believe me it'll get worse as you get older when you watch our incomes sore and you're still trying to get a gig in academia. Making more ludicrous statements just to secure a grant.
I am literally lmaoing at your life.

m8
Even just observe this thread. Applications of, what I'd say is very basic, critique to sociology and you're confronted with responses like
>yeeeeeh .... nah you don't understand because you're not in sociology
>it's just "differences" in opinion
It's a joke of a degree and should be treated as such. You could easily pick apart the juicy bits and shove into psychology, where you're studying humans as a collective.
But they don't. They're losers.

>Even just observe this thread.
This thread shouldn't be used to indicate anything.

It's how we understand the way the world works. Sociology is enormously important in driving domestic policy creation. Without sociology, legislators are just giving their best guess and hoping things work out.

Well it should. And not just this thread, past threads. Any reasonable level of scepticism is always met with
>haha yeh go back to /pol/
This is also a very real and observable phenomena in the real world.

>Well it should.
Then extrapolating from this sample I can prove that literally everybody is a fucking retard.

>it's how we understand the way the world works
You don't need a degree in sociology to understand how the world works user lol
Politicians that are in touch with the general public, and not out playing a round of golf is what we do need.

>implicit bias
what is wrong with implicit bias

>just observe this thread
Which parts?

Did you ever see our former leader Moot speak in public? He was really well spoken and his thoughts on the concepts behind a totally anonymous where information is treated as equal will "really make you think"
In short, people are more honest when there's no way of physical retaliation or the have the ability to form relationships (username, post appraisals, voting systems, direct messaging)
So the thoughts on Sociology are better here than anywhere else. And given that a lot of the coherent posts match up with the observable reality of how fucking shit sociology actually is, I'd definitely take something away from the conversation here.

Skills necessary to be elected are hugely different from skills necessary to write proper policy. Why legislators generally conceive policy, the hard work of writing laws is done by professionals -- lawyers, sociologists, and economists.

It makes me question my own views and assumptions

Non-falsifiable, defined in circular terms ("we think you're 'biased' because you our tests designed to find 'bias' say you're biased; by the way we get to define 'bias' however we want...), and used as a cudgel against ideological opponents.

Seriously; try and find a coherent definition of "bias" in all the implicit bias literature. Which, in any case, is currently getting BTFO by the replication crisis anyway.

Do you mean a coherent definition of bias, or implicit bias?

"Implicit bias" relies on an interpretation of "bias" that is necessarily different from outright blatant discrimination, which makes things incredibly fuzzy.

The definition of "bias" used for implicit bias "tests" turns into a variety of just-so stories depending on the testing methodology.

Why is the general definition of bias not applicable in the matter of implicit bias?

>(((sociology)))

Because they are two different things

Well, what's the definition of the former and the latter?

Simmel.

Any proofs that implicit bias isn't just a novelty effect?

Who is this in response to?

The ongoing autism about it in this thread, in general I mean.

An imp bias test I took a few years ago was some lame complex reaction time test with a lot of niggergraphs and niggergrams interspersed between conventional stimuli

Seemed super stupid and I'm not sure if it's easy or sensible to look at these experiments objectively, then seamlessly jump from data to complex sociological notions of racial hierarchy and held beliefs or biases

Why is racial profiling even irrational in the first place? Poor urban blacks actually are more likely to display antisocial behavior, have lower SES, etc etc. It's a fucking weak-rule-of-law honor culture infested with gang violence, inductive reasoning isn't transcendentally true, oy gevalt how unfair, I wish I could see every nog's mind psyche essence and judge them like I were their God

An implicit bias test would of course be a bit incomprehensible to someone with an explicit bias, wouldn't it?

It's dead Jim.

Facts are facts. I'm a schizoid weirdo, so I actually don't bother with presumptions and judgements with ethnic minorities unless doing so is especially suitable (e.g. group of clearly hostile looking adolescents eyeing my shit).

Either way, social behavior operates through inductive reasoning. Imagining a person to even have a personal character or a character of sorts is itself profiling. You can't avoid it, you can't cast social judgements based in virtue or moral scruples in a way that relates to the person without judging them exclusively by correlation. It isn't necessarily irrational to further social cognition from individuals to groups, given how shit like employment, certification, anything involving big mean institutions, they all abstract who you are, they don't concern themselves with subtleties or your being in itself

You can. It's called common core.

And in the case of implicit bias, what are the facts?

Implicit bias isn't theoretically interesting, and to think it is, you have to assume a politically progressive narrative or some other perspective that would be totally frazzled and guffawed at the notion of there being concrete and important group profiling that is deeply inhered to our casual assumptions and reasoning processes

Group profiling is probably super useful and something more atic than contrived or foisted upon us by society and that should be the first assumption to be challenged, not to challenge what is obvious to everyone else outside of your socio-bubble

I would go even beyond that - I don't think "implicit bias" tests can reliably establish anything that could credibly be called "bias" to begin with.

Where is the evidence that delayed reactions in clicking on faces leads to specific real-life non-lab conduct? It's all a big messy chain of inferences.

And yet, it is presented as though it is "science."

>communist core
It's trash.

I don't really see how sociology can be separated from Marxism, which is why I think it should be removed from universities because it isn't an academic discipline it's an ideological institute.

>Implicit bias isn't theoretically interesting
Is that a fact?

As for the rest, so your gripe with implicit bias is that it disagrees with your particular racial politics?
Is that also a form of facticity?

What is so strange about sociology that does not involve rigourous application of historical materialism?

That's the point though. Sociology rarely doesn't include historical materialism.

I can find no mention of it in the works of Emile Durkheim. Could you point out where it is?

All you're proving to me by that statement is that sociology has degenerated as a discipline.

Literally nobody read neither Durkheim nor Comte in my sociology department at university. It was all a structuralist/post-structuralist circlejerk.

And you are intimately involved with the reading lists of your colleagues?

No, I'm not. But it's pretty obvious that mentioning anyone other than Walter Benjamin or Herbert Marcuse in those circles was passé.

But I thought the department was a "structuralist/post-structuralist circlejerk". Odd reading list for that lot, innit?

What is your point?

That benjamin and marcuse are neither structuralists nor post-structuralists. I am even less understanding of the character of this sociology department.

I get that. But I don't get what this has to do with my original post in this thread.

Are you saying that Marxism isn't exceptionally well endorsed in sociology departments?

I think it is. And I think it's a bad idea. It's like having actual fascists in law enforcement.

No more than anthropology or philosophy, or even east asian studies.
Which, let me tell ya, isn't that much by my reckoning. perhaps you ought to define "well endorsed"?

>anthropology or philosophy, or even east asian studies.

You sure about that? So why does universities in the U.S have such a huge problem with all these "intersectional" people from several discplines(Critical theorists etc), condemning free speech and spreading revolutionary ideas among students?

What are these "intersectional" people? What are their disciplines? What is a critical theorist? And what are the revolutionary ideas in question?

You don't know what critical theory is, and you don't know what intersectionality is?

Well, then we're done here, because I'm not going to spend a lot of time educating you. It takes 5 minutes to have a gander on Wikipedia.

I think I have an idea what they are. The better question is: do you?
After all, you're the guy that thinks marcuse is a post-structuralist.

Are you done? I get that you want to project your phallus through the internet, but it's boring me.

I was unaware that asking for answers for from folks who imagine themselves informed was a form of masculation. Is this a research topic of yours?

>I was unaware that asking for answers for from folks who imagine themselves informed was a form of masculation

That's not what you're doing. You're constantly trying to shift the topic to my being misspoken as some kind of illustration that I shouldn't have an opinion on this topic at all, which is a clever rhetorical device.

I don't care whether Walter Benjamin or Marcuse are post-structuralists. And I don't care whether or not I was wrong about that.

What I do care about however, is whether having people who are beyond repair ideologically, employed as teachers at a university teaching the next generation of world leaders and government officials.

is a good idea or not*

>I don't care whether Walter Benjamin or Marcuse are post-structuralists. And I don't care whether or not I was wrong about that.
And yet I am to trust you on matters of sociology departments.
>What I do care about however, is whether having people who are beyond repair ideologically, employed as teachers at a university teaching the next generation of world leaders and government officials.
And who are these people?

>And who are these people?

Have you been paying attention at all what's going on the last few years?

I imagine I have. Therefore, you'll have to explain this thread I missed.

don't waste your time, he's doing what every leftist babby does when they get angry on the Internet, the Socratic method

You know, a person asking questions isn't particularly noteworthy when their questions are answered adequately.
Really now, what do you have against questions being asked?

nytimes.com/2016/08/07/education/edlife/fire-first-amendment-on-campus-free-speech.html

Literally the first article when I googled American universities and free speech.

Next time I won't do your own job for you.

>makes claims
>bristles at the idea of having to research them
So what was your major, exactly?

As for the article, I suppose it is therefore your supposition that the unnamed students who've got a bone to pick with folks like Raymond Kelly are marxists? or post strucuralists? or something to that effect? However, I don't see such present in this article.