"Some of them want to use you, some of them want to get used by you; some of them want to abuse you, some of them want to be abused."? Even those who are trying to stop people from being used, in fact just want to use them themselves?

Is that what it all boils down to? Use or be used?

Yes, as a matter of fact it is. We're all conditioned to be disconnected and wrapped up in our own selfish matters. Individualism is taking over the world with this corporate bastardized concept of a democracy. And as you can see, it leads to a sad end to a capitalistic democracy. And that is a sad state indeed.

Yes, it's use or be used, hunt or be hunted, dog-eat-dog, I'm sorry, you must be new to this planet? :confused:

What do you mean by "works"? Society? Sociology has these things called "theoretical paradigms", which are basically competing theories (you know, since it's not a science and all). That's how the world works--either through conflict, individual interactions, or functionality. Look it up, they all have things wrong with them, and once you accept the conflict position (what you appear to be doing right now), you will have to do the same with most other societal problems. And alluva sudden the schools are built by those filthy capitalists as well!:mad:

/rant

Structural-functionalism ftw

No really, I think you have to integrate various sociological paradigms to account for any and all societies and cultures. Every society isn't the same and within each society there are areas of conflict and areas of cooperation and each of these function on varying levels as well (personal, institutional, structural, etc).

People do what they do for different reasons, but I think most of the time it boils down to fulfilling the expectations of others. That is, what they believe you are.

This covers a lot of details:

http://www.amazon.com/screwing-average-man-David-Hapgood/dp/B0006W84KK

A lot of it is based on information hiding though. So a way to mess with the system is to give away information. Make people better players.

http://www.totse.com/en/politics/economic_documents/economicwargam179613.html

What sense does it make that economists can't figure out planned obsolescence is going on in cars 39 years after the moon landing?

What sense does it make that a capitalist country doesn't make accounting mandatory in high school when double entry accounting is 700 years old? But they MUST have 4 years of English literature. Like that does kids a lot of good.

It looks like school is mostly just another scam.

DT

Structural-functionalism ftw

No really, I think you have to integrate various sociological paradigms to account for any and all societies and cultures. Every society isn't the same and within each society there are areas of conflict and areas of cooperation and each of these function on varying levels as well (personal, institutional, structural, etc).

Sociology is mysticism, plain and simple. It is very close to theology in its important aspects--these theoretical paradigms mostly. No field worth its salt would have "paradigms" that aren't accepted by 2/3s of its practitioners. Imagine if a third of biologists believed in creationism, a third in Lamarck's (proto-evolutionary) theory and a third in Darwinian evolution. Sociology is bullshit; it's not even opinion-based so you can't even place it into the humanities.

EDIT: I can't believe I lived to see the day dt would reference economic wargames again. *tear*

EDIT: I can't believe I lived to see the day dt would reference economic wargames again. *tear*

LOL

How can you separate Sociology from Economics?

By talking about Behavioral Economics aren't economists admitting they are part of the field. The problem is this is getting into human power games so people are lying and hiding information. How can you have a Science with people doing that?

DT

PS - Have you gotten tired of automobile commercials yet?

LOL

How can you separate Sociology from Economics?
By means of abstractions.

By talking about Behavioral Economics aren't economists admitting they are part of the field.
I see BE as closer related to psychology than sociology, really. It's the analysis of human natures and thought processes rather than looking at institutions and telling us why they're there.
The problem is this is getting into human power games so people are lying and hiding information. How can you have a Science with people doing that?
Exactly! This is why I don't hold BE in high esteem either, it's just psychology with consumers. I don't need to tell you what kind of bullshit psychology is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment

DT

PS - Have you gotten tired of automobile commercials yet?

No, I don't view them. I don't watch private television anymore. Still watch public TV though; saw Le Fille du Regiment on PBS yesterday. Meh.

Sociology is mysticism, plain and simple. It is very close to theology in its important aspects--these theoretical paradigms mostly. No field worth its salt would have "paradigms" that aren't accepted by 2/3s of its practitioners. Imagine if a third of biologists believed in creationism, a third in Lamarck's (proto-evolutionary) theory and a third in Darwinian evolution. Sociology is bullshit; it's not even opinion-based so you can't even place it into the humanities.

EDIT: I can't believe I lived to see the day dt would reference economic wargames again. *tear*


I agree to some degree. I mean, obviously sociology is not a science and it is an attempt to categorize and explain things that are far too varied in degrees and levels (personal, societal, etc) for it to make any coherent sense to have one "theory of everything". I really see it as more explaining in advanced terms what is already obvious. Not to mention, every sociology course is a far-left, "the poor are always the ones getting screwed and are angels", type of indoctrination.

Regardless, my only point is that society never "works" in just one way, since it is made up of a whole spectrum of people that have differing motives...unless you are a psychological egoist and then you (as the op may have) tautologically categorize all human actions in terms of selfish behavior.

Sociology is mysticism, plain and simple. It is very close to theology in its important aspects--these theoretical paradigms mostly. No field worth its salt would have "paradigms" that aren't accepted by 2/3s of its practitioners. Imagine if a third of biologists believed in creationism, a third in Lamarck's (proto-evolutionary) theory and a third in Darwinian evolution. Sociology is bullshit; it's not even opinion-based so you can't even place it into the humanities.

EDIT: I can't believe I lived to see the day dt would reference economic wargames again. *tear*

To varying extents, you can say the same for political science, economics and a bunch of other social "sciences" as well.

a long time ago the ideology was that voting would make the world turn. now its $$$ dollars. end of story.

To varying extents, you can say the same for political science, economics and a bunch of other social "sciences" as well.

Exactly. Why the humanities even exist we may never know.

EDIT: Oh yeah, the leftists have to come from somewhere.

economics is NOT psychology with consumers, please take a real economics course before you say that. I've taken economics 101 at my university and from this class, and discussions with my friend, it is pretty clear that economics is more of an offshoot of math than psychology. If you can't see this, you have either no experience with rigorous economics, or you are a psychologist.

economics is NOT psychology with consumers, please take a real economics course before you say that. I've taken economics 101 at my university and from this class, and discussions with my friend, it is pretty clear that economics is more of an offshoot of math than psychology. If you can't see this, you have either no experience with rigorous economics, or you are a psychologist.

BEHAVIORAL economics, you dumbass.

economics is NOT psychology with consumers, please take a real economics course before you say that. I've taken economics 101 at my university and from this class, and discussions with my friend, it is pretty clear that economics is more of an offshoot of math than psychology. If you can't see this, you have either no experience with rigorous economics, or you are a psychologist.

I've taken AP Macroeconomics and the basic stuff covered there seemed grounded in math. However, read some political commentary and you'll see leftists quoting Keynesian economists to rationalize heavy government spending and right-wingers quoting supply-siders to rationalize big tax cuts. As nshanin said, there is no across the board consensus, it seems that high level economic theory is not testable the same way scientific theories are.

I never said it was a science, in fact, I don't really feel it is very scientific at all. It is just an interesting offshoot of math, with the occasional application that holds in the real world.

I agree to some degree. I mean, obviously sociology is not a science and it is an attempt to categorize and explain things that are far too varied in degrees and levels (personal, societal, etc) for it to make any coherent sense to have one "theory of everything". I really see it as more explaining in advanced terms what is already obvious. Not to mention, every sociology course is a far-left, "the poor are always the ones getting screwed and are angels", type of indoctrination.

Regardless, my only point is that society never "works" in just one way, since it is made up of a whole spectrum of people that have differing motives...unless you are a psychological egoist and then you (as the op may have) tautologically categorize all human actions in terms of selfish behavior.

Except there are more conservative abstracts of sociology, including, but not limited to, sociobiology, structuralism, and functionalism. And a lot of times, it doesn't have advanced terms for the obvious, because it finds things that are contrary to that. And even if it didn't, there is more meaning to the explanations behind them. The reason that there are so many competing for dominance is that humans are inherently difficult to understand and observe on an individual level, let alone on a grand scale. And even if you think it's obvious, in order to know it and reference it as fact, you need to have observed it and look for causes and whatnot. But that's way off topic, back to the one at hand...

There are a couple ways you can look at it; people are inherently selfish, because they are animals, and animals want to survive, thrive, and beyond that, have offspring, like almost every other living thing. They fear death like everything(but hydras, maybe) does, and living a luxorious lifestyle, having a family, and all those things make it easier to accept death, or ignore it's possibility. In this view, people who show compassion to others are either insane or looking for an advantage by having power over someone else.

You can also look at it a though there are groups of people who are genuinely good and giving (this doesn't mean they're charitable because of a God, some pantheon of Gods, dharmas or whatever else) to others because they are empathetic, and the small number of people who are less motivated are more noticeable because of their deviance, but because of their prosperity they are sometimes idolized depending on the society.
The more egalitarian the society, the less idolization is placed on selfish action and manipulative abilities.

And please be aware that the "leftists" that are running around screaming the world is ending because of Bush and global warming and claim that poor people are only the innocents and all that crap are generally social workers that may have taken a course in sociology and maybe paid attention one day, or are activists. Sociology is for the observation and study of human groups, and only advises public policy in rare cases, it's mostly for academics. If people want to use the research, then they are welcome to, but it shouldn't be the primary goal of research. And maybe we could do more experimentation, but since there are so many restrictions, it's no wonder it's still a fledgling science....

unless you live in a perfect quid pro quo system, I'm sad to say that's kinda how the world works. Unless you're rich, powerful and famous.

unless you live in a perfect quid pro quo system, I'm sad to say that's kinda how the world works. Unless you're rich, powerful and famous.

And how do you think you become rich, powerful and famous? :P

Is that what it all boils down to? Use or be used?

Only if that is your choice. This dog eat dog worldview is typical of someone in a stage one or stage two consciousness (there are seven).

We create our own reality. In my reality, the universe is benign, and my own interests are best served if I do unto others as I would have them do unto me.

economics is NOT psychology with consumers, please take a real economics course before you say that. I've taken economics 101 at my university and from this class, and discussions with my friend, it is pretty clear that economics is more of an offshoot of math than psychology. If you can't see this, you have either no experience with rigorous economics, or you are a psychologist.

ROFLMAO

The problem with school is figuring out the important information that they leave out.

In a few days it will be the 39th anniversary of the moon landing. John Kenneth Galbraith was talking about the planned obsolescence of automobiles 10 years before the moon landing. Economists are technological morons. The laws of physics don't change style from year to year and human beings don't change shape. This changing of automobiles is mostly psychological BULLSHIT.

But when do economists that know so much MATH talk about how much consumers lose on DEPRECIATION of those cars every year? They never say a damn thing. Economics depends on consumers being dumber than economists.

GlobaLIES1 (http://booksliterature.com/showpost.php?p=721&postcount=10)

GlobaLIES2 (http://booksliterature.com/showpost.php?p=722&postcount=11)

"All warfare is based on deception." - Sun Tzu

DT

PS - I took Economics 101 at an engineering school. They never said anything about planned obsolescence at the school. Face facts, it creates jobs for engineers to redesign stuff year after year even if it is just useless variations. It wasn't until years later that I noticed that the BAD MATH of the economics profession allowed the depreciation of that junk to disappear into space.

that is a song, a good one at that, marilyn manson does a decent cover too

Yes, as a matter of fact it is. We're all conditioned to be disconnected and wrapped up in our own selfish matters. Individualism is taking over the world with this corporate bastardized concept of a democracy. And as you can see, it leads to a sad end to a capitalistic democracy. And that is a sad state indeed.

true that

What is the defining quality of being human, laziness, or fear?

Love isn't, love is a property of the universe itself, it is like the Tao.

What is the defining quality of being human, laziness, or fear?

Love isn't, love is a property of the universe itself, it is like the Tao.

Do you think you can take over the universe and improve it? I do not think it can be done. The universe is sacred. You cannot improve it. If you try to change it you will ruin it.

--favorite line

You're right! The 'way the world works' can be boiled down to an Annie Lennox pop lyric from the mid-80's!!!