5 ms·

I have a very close friend pursuing an advanced degree in sociology. They're an excellent student, highly intelligent, from a well-off background having benefit

I have a very close friend pursuing an advanced degree in sociology. They're an excellent student, highly intelligent, from a well-off background having benefitted from extremely good schooling their entire life - yet seem barely capable of critical thinking. They often talk about how research is just "food for thought" and has little use in any endeavor the requires decision making or informing policy and that truth as a concept is "frowned upon". These are paraphrased points this person has made to me on several different occasions. I want to understand their perspective but it's frankly shocking the conversations we have. The farther I've explored what this person believes the more bleak it gets. They argue that all perspectives are valid yet have extremely specific beliefs and perspectives on all sorts of things. These beliefs and perspectives are also exactly in-line with what you'd expect from a sociology department at a major US university. Seeing these topics at least being broached gives me some small amount of hope.

rKarpinski 3y ago
> They often talk about how research is just "food for thought" and has little use in any endeavor the requires decision making or informing policy and that truth as a concept is "frowned upon". Sounds like a reasonable perspective towards sociology research?
- cupcakecommons 3y ago
  There are an inordinate number of people in sociology that undermine truth as a concept to reduce the possibility of ever being incorrect about anything. This is obviously completely anti-scientific. Almost miraculously, many of these people hold extremely specific viewpoints that inherently amount to truth claims. I'm all for "food for thought" research in complex fields where truth claims are tenuous at best - but what I'm referring to isn't that. It's rhetorical strategy to make implicit truth claims then fend off criticism by undermining the concept of truth itself.
maxglute 3y ago
Isn't that the job of universitities... to shape minds. I remember being surprised in undergrand that it took merely 2 semesters for architecture teachers to convert/indoctorinate most students from primarily enjoying traditional/classical designs to being fully being on the post/modern hype. Most people are passive recipients.
- cupcakecommons 3y ago
  I think it's the job of universities to shape minds. Somehow all these universities seems to shape minds into the exact same dysfunctional shape. The seeming uniformity of shape is what's surprising.
  - maxglute 3y ago
    I think it's only natural, politics within department drives conformity/uniformity among faculties that filters down to student bodies. Usually a few "schools of thought" dictate the discussion, then networking between these groups spread ideology amount tertiary elites between generations. IMO same dynamic behind fandom culture, except winner takes all since winner gets to run the classrooms and set broader cultural agendas. Except when the agenda they set clashes with broader culture, people not getting "modern architecture" vs actively against controversial topics being taught in in socialogy is going to manifest in society in different ways.
- boppo1 3y ago
  >from primarily enjoying traditional/classical designs to being fully being on the post/modern hype Can you elaborate on this process? I'm a fairly serious artist, and the more my skills grow, the harder it is to understand po/mo as anything but the emporer's clothes.
  - maxglute 3y ago
    Unstructured writing/rant: This was over 20 years ago, and maybe specific to context of the time, I guess more accurate to say many quickly converted to contemporary architecture (it was era of starchitects/Zaha/BIG/OMA/Gehry/sustainable design, less postmodern but still some). But everyone shifted away from traditional/historic styles. I would say 80% of 1st year class (this was undergrad program) didn't know much all about contemporary/modern/post modern architecture. Most get into architecture due to exposure to classic vernacular/buildings. Step1, get exposed to history/theory classes, learn about non traditional buildings and their theories, and start to "get it". Enough to work with it. Step 2. intro classes to drafting... this was tail end of pen+paper and CAD transition, as in everyone had to learn CAD but you still had to do a few courses on traditional drafting. No one wanted to waste their time drafting classical columns/orders. Like who wants to daw a Corinthian capital by hand. Then came the projects and model building. Step 3. Tight enough deadlines and sleepless nights and no one even considered doing anything but simple modern massing volumes and techtonics. Rendering was "hard", most didn't know vray/max etc. Step 4. Designs with "concepts" gets praised, more discussion. No one's going to turn in a boring ass Federal style building without an original "twist". Step 5. Once building science get introduced, it's over, building techniques and materials limit what can realistically be rendered, I mean anythings possible if you put enough effort, but easier to copy+paste sections/building details of a modern wall where control barriers / notation is all figured out. The amazing thing is there isn't a process. Non of the faculty ever said you don't do traditional/historic. It's just something you learned not to do. And ultimately, everyone simply adopted modern architecture styles because it was easy when you need to hand build models and it was what everyone else did, and you need to present design with an novel idea. Wasn't until 4-5 years later in masters / M.arch program, when we got 1st gen 3D printers, laser cutters that people started doing more ornate work. But even then, ornamentation/detail is something reserved for those with both desire, energy and time to pursue. I mean I guess that kind of reflects reality, who has time for ornamentation when there's economical mass produced materials and modern building techniques. I also attribute most architecture students starting off being kind of... hacks. If they had talent (of serious artists) to express whatever they envisioned, they'd be in art/design school doing concept art where imagination is the limit. Most of the good artists I knew went to art school. Architecture students who are also good artists are rare. But most are very mid artists and a few years of long nights, and learning building codes and everyone kind of just naturally settles into modern design because it's easier on the homework deliverables. Just like building in real life. Maybe things are different now, kids grew up using video game engines to design enviroments and have access to 3D printers. I don't follow the space (academia) anymore, I don't know trend thesis projects are being explored. But in many ways, for architecture it doesn't matter, because most are stuck doing contemporary architecture in the office because that's what the general construction workforce is trained for. There's limit to imagination once you introduce the practical side of architecture/building.
xk_id 3y ago
This sounds similar to the phd student in anthropology I had as a friend nearly two decades ago. It’s been the dominant view in social sciences for a long time and it comes out of critical theory [0], which stipulates that truth is a function of power, rather than empirical observation. It was incredibly frustrating when I would mention basic scientific observations to my friend and he would respond with a kind of polite, but detached acknowledgment, as if I told him my preferred flavour of Skittles candy. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory
eli_gottlieb 3y ago
>They often talk about how research is just "food for thought" and has little use in any endeavor the requires decision making or informing policy and that truth as a concept is "frowned upon". If this person really believed any such thing, they would of course never take any form of policy or political action themselves. After all, all those ideas are just for playing with, right? The concept that there exists a truth you could act upon to change things is frowned upon, no?
- cupcakecommons 3y ago
  They do take political action though. They act from the same diluted dialectical materialist frame many highly educated academics in the social sciences tend to act from. When I try to point out that their actions implicate specific truth claims - they seem to reliably misunderstand what I'm saying. They don't see this as contradictory at all as far as I can tell. It's fascinating and I don't know what to make of it. It makes me worry about my own mental health.
  - eli_gottlieb 3y ago
    You should worry more about their mental health.
Balgair 3y ago
It's so strange. Plato specifically rails against this idea of 'relativism' via Socrates, that all ideas are valid interior to that person (Aristotle then goes on to flesh it out more). I'm no philosopher, by any means, but it was my impression that the foundations of western civilization (and maybe others, I need to study them more) are that relativism is a dead end. That we're to try (and usually fail) to find out what is actually true, what the actual facts are. The whole point of academies and universities is to defeat relativist thought, to rail against it. At least, that was my understanding of the philosophical grounds that they were founded under. I'm very likely wrong though!
smokel 3y ago
Seems to be some form of "category mistake" which could be easy to address. There are different contexts in which we can reason about truth. For metaphysics and related philosophical activities it makes sense to doubt any form of truth. To improve a train schedule in a small country, there is little sense in doubting that time exists. Is your friend able to fathom these kinds of ideas?

rKarpinski 3y ago

cupcakecommons 3y ago
There are an inordinate number of people in sociology that undermine truth as a concept to reduce the possibility of ever being incorrect about anything. This is obviously completely anti-scientific. Almost miraculously, many of these people hold extremely specific viewpoints that inherently amount to truth claims. I'm all for "food for thought" research in complex fields where truth claims are tenuous at best - but what I'm referring to isn't that. It's rhetorical strategy to make implicit truth claims then fend off criticism by undermining the concept of truth itself.

maxglute 3y ago

Isn't that the job of universitities... to shape minds. I remember being surprised in undergrand that it took merely 2 semesters for architecture teachers to convert/indoctorinate most students from primarily enjoying traditional/classical designs to being fully being on the post/modern hype. Most people are passive recipients.

cupcakecommons 3y ago
I think it's the job of universities to shape minds. Somehow all these universities seems to shape minds into the exact same dysfunctional shape. The seeming uniformity of shape is what's surprising.
- maxglute 3y ago
  I think it's only natural, politics within department drives conformity/uniformity among faculties that filters down to student bodies. Usually a few "schools of thought" dictate the discussion, then networking between these groups spread ideology amount tertiary elites between generations. IMO same dynamic behind fandom culture, except winner takes all since winner gets to run the classrooms and set broader cultural agendas. Except when the agenda they set clashes with broader culture, people not getting "modern architecture" vs actively against controversial topics being taught in in socialogy is going to manifest in society in different ways.
boppo1 3y ago
>from primarily enjoying traditional/classical designs to being fully being on the post/modern hype Can you elaborate on this process? I'm a fairly serious artist, and the more my skills grow, the harder it is to understand po/mo as anything but the emporer's clothes.
- maxglute 3y ago
  Unstructured writing/rant: This was over 20 years ago, and maybe specific to context of the time, I guess more accurate to say many quickly converted to contemporary architecture (it was era of starchitects/Zaha/BIG/OMA/Gehry/sustainable design, less postmodern but still some). But everyone shifted away from traditional/historic styles. I would say 80% of 1st year class (this was undergrad program) didn't know much all about contemporary/modern/post modern architecture. Most get into architecture due to exposure to classic vernacular/buildings. Step1, get exposed to history/theory classes, learn about non traditional buildings and their theories, and start to "get it". Enough to work with it. Step 2. intro classes to drafting... this was tail end of pen+paper and CAD transition, as in everyone had to learn CAD but you still had to do a few courses on traditional drafting. No one wanted to waste their time drafting classical columns/orders. Like who wants to daw a Corinthian capital by hand. Then came the projects and model building. Step 3. Tight enough deadlines and sleepless nights and no one even considered doing anything but simple modern massing volumes and techtonics. Rendering was "hard", most didn't know vray/max etc. Step 4. Designs with "concepts" gets praised, more discussion. No one's going to turn in a boring ass Federal style building without an original "twist". Step 5. Once building science get introduced, it's over, building techniques and materials limit what can realistically be rendered, I mean anythings possible if you put enough effort, but easier to copy+paste sections/building details of a modern wall where control barriers / notation is all figured out. The amazing thing is there isn't a process. Non of the faculty ever said you don't do traditional/historic. It's just something you learned not to do. And ultimately, everyone simply adopted modern architecture styles because it was easy when you need to hand build models and it was what everyone else did, and you need to present design with an novel idea. Wasn't until 4-5 years later in masters / M.arch program, when we got 1st gen 3D printers, laser cutters that people started doing more ornate work. But even then, ornamentation/detail is something reserved for those with both desire, energy and time to pursue. I mean I guess that kind of reflects reality, who has time for ornamentation when there's economical mass produced materials and modern building techniques. I also attribute most architecture students starting off being kind of... hacks. If they had talent (of serious artists) to express whatever they envisioned, they'd be in art/design school doing concept art where imagination is the limit. Most of the good artists I knew went to art school. Architecture students who are also good artists are rare. But most are very mid artists and a few years of long nights, and learning building codes and everyone kind of just naturally settles into modern design because it's easier on the homework deliverables. Just like building in real life. Maybe things are different now, kids grew up using video game engines to design enviroments and have access to 3D printers. I don't follow the space (academia) anymore, I don't know trend thesis projects are being explored. But in many ways, for architecture it doesn't matter, because most are stuck doing contemporary architecture in the office because that's what the general construction workforce is trained for. There's limit to imagination once you introduce the practical side of architecture/building.

xk_id 3y ago

This sounds similar to the phd student in anthropology I had as a friend nearly two decades ago. It’s been the dominant view in social sciences for a long time and it comes out of critical theory [0], which stipulates that truth is a function of power, rather than empirical observation. It was incredibly frustrating when I would mention basic scientific observations to my friend and he would respond with a kind of polite, but detached acknowledgment, as if I told him my preferred flavour of Skittles candy. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory

eli_gottlieb 3y ago

>They often talk about how research is just "food for thought" and has little use in any endeavor the requires decision making or informing policy and that truth as a concept is "frowned upon". If this person really believed any such thing, they would of course never take any form of policy or political action themselves. After all, all those ideas are just for playing with, right? The concept that there exists a truth you could act upon to change things is frowned upon, no?

cupcakecommons 3y ago
They do take political action though. They act from the same diluted dialectical materialist frame many highly educated academics in the social sciences tend to act from. When I try to point out that their actions implicate specific truth claims - they seem to reliably misunderstand what I'm saying. They don't see this as contradictory at all as far as I can tell. It's fascinating and I don't know what to make of it. It makes me worry about my own mental health.
- eli_gottlieb 3y ago
  You should worry more about their mental health.

Balgair 3y ago

It's so strange. Plato specifically rails against this idea of 'relativism' via Socrates, that all ideas are valid interior to that person (Aristotle then goes on to flesh it out more). I'm no philosopher, by any means, but it was my impression that the foundations of western civilization (and maybe others, I need to study them more) are that relativism is a dead end. That we're to try (and usually fail) to find out what is actually true, what the actual facts are. The whole point of academies and universities is to defeat relativist thought, to rail against it. At least, that was my understanding of the philosophical grounds that they were founded under. I'm very likely wrong though!

smokel 3y ago

Seems to be some form of "category mistake" which could be easy to address. There are different contexts in which we can reason about truth. For metaphysics and related philosophical activities it makes sense to doubt any form of truth. To improve a train schedule in a small country, there is little sense in doubting that time exists. Is your friend able to fathom these kinds of ideas?