3 ms·

This is error. People are starved for novelty and contact with talent. Rather than try to storm this particular upper-bourgeois shrine to "dead shit", fail, t

This is error. People are starved for novelty and contact with talent. Rather than try to storm this particular upper-bourgeois shrine to "dead shit", fail, then get upset about it, why not make something new, or share the gift with some place that needs it? With these people, that's inconceivable! The answer is always public subsidy. That way, lower-bougies get a fair and equal opportunity to let their shit roll downhill, and land on the same people who subsidized them--the same way they see "justice" in getting a bunch of plumbers and mechanics to pay off their student loans for sociology degrees.

graycat 7y ago
Sociology degrees don't have to be so bad: Trying to make the field a science, especially a heavily statistical science, is a wide open field with some grant money available. But for both the statistics and the science, have to do good, original work. E.g., my wife got her Ph.D. in such mathematical sociology with professors Rossi and Coleman, each a President of the American Sociology Association: They were trying to be good at both the statistics and science, but there was plenty of room to do better than they did. More broadly making some of sociology -- the scientific study of groups of people -- a solid science could have important good consequences for major parts of society plus at times some nice money made in business, especially advertising and social computing. Warning: First understand some good science, best of all, physics, especially mathematical and theoretical physics. Then get one heck of a good background in probability theory, based on measure theory, and mathematical statistics, enough to do good original work in mathematical statistics. Then attack sociology and do VERY WELL formulating new theories to test and inventing NEW and powerful statistical means to test the theories.
- jstewartmobile 7y ago
  Just like we've made economics into a heavily statistical "science", yet one half of economists are never in agreement with the other. Once free human beings and their choices are in the mix, the combinatorics are astronomical and largely beyond science. Then the whole enterprise degrades to the cataloging of noise. edit: This part is even worse: "nice money made in business, especially advertising and social computing" So now we're using the recently cataloged noise-envelope to help corporations extract even more money from the plebes who subsidized the cataloging in the first place?
  - graycat 7y ago
    Just because the economists have been 99 44/100% unsuccessful making their field a meaningful science does not mean that sociology can't make progress as a science. I DID outline some of how might try to do that; I DID see what my wife, Rossi, and Coleman did. I didn't say it would be easy, but I believe it CAN be done. One of the best reasons for science is the subsequent applied science, and one of the best uses for applied science is making money.
sudosteph 7y ago
The sad thing to me, is that the author is from rural NC - a place that has a history and culture of music made for and by people of backgrounds similar to hers. Bluegrass and folk music still have an audience (see the success of Greensboro-based Carolina Chocolate Drops), but not a ton of prestige, and sadly it's not something I've ever seen taught in public schools. I don't blame the author for her choice to pursue classical, she didn't know there were options. But not only has the author sacrificed her own talent and well-being to a class of people who would view her community with disdain - she denied her own culture of new talent and life that could have been sorely needed.

graycat 7y ago

Sociology degrees don't have to be so bad: Trying to make the field a science, especially a heavily statistical science, is a wide open field with some grant money available. But for both the statistics and the science, have to do good, original work. E.g., my wife got her Ph.D. in such mathematical sociology with professors Rossi and Coleman, each a President of the American Sociology Association: They were trying to be good at both the statistics and science, but there was plenty of room to do better than they did. More broadly making some of sociology -- the scientific study of groups of people -- a solid science could have important good consequences for major parts of society plus at times some nice money made in business, especially advertising and social computing. Warning: First understand some good science, best of all, physics, especially mathematical and theoretical physics. Then get one heck of a good background in probability theory, based on measure theory, and mathematical statistics, enough to do good original work in mathematical statistics. Then attack sociology and do VERY WELL formulating new theories to test and inventing NEW and powerful statistical means to test the theories.

jstewartmobile 7y ago
Just like we've made economics into a heavily statistical "science", yet one half of economists are never in agreement with the other. Once free human beings and their choices are in the mix, the combinatorics are astronomical and largely beyond science. Then the whole enterprise degrades to the cataloging of noise. edit: This part is even worse: "nice money made in business, especially advertising and social computing" So now we're using the recently cataloged noise-envelope to help corporations extract even more money from the plebes who subsidized the cataloging in the first place?
- graycat 7y ago
  Just because the economists have been 99 44/100% unsuccessful making their field a meaningful science does not mean that sociology can't make progress as a science. I DID outline some of how might try to do that; I DID see what my wife, Rossi, and Coleman did. I didn't say it would be easy, but I believe it CAN be done. One of the best reasons for science is the subsequent applied science, and one of the best uses for applied science is making money.

sudosteph 7y ago

The sad thing to me, is that the author is from rural NC - a place that has a history and culture of music made for and by people of backgrounds similar to hers. Bluegrass and folk music still have an audience (see the success of Greensboro-based Carolina Chocolate Drops), but not a ton of prestige, and sadly it's not something I've ever seen taught in public schools. I don't blame the author for her choice to pursue classical, she didn't know there were options. But not only has the author sacrificed her own talent and well-being to a class of people who would view her community with disdain - she denied her own culture of new talent and life that could have been sorely needed.