3 ms·

While it would have been a better paper if the author collaborated with a sociologist, it would have also be less likely to be taken seriously by the HN for the

While it would have been a better paper if the author collaborated with a sociologist, it would have also be less likely to be taken seriously by the HN for the same class anxieties that its title is founded on.

miningape 1y ago
Excuse us for expecting evidence and intellectual rigour. :D I've taken a number of university Sociology courses and from those experiences I came to the opinion that Sociology's current iteration is really just grievance airing in an academic tone. It doesn't really justify it's own existence outside of being a Buzzfeed for academics. I'm not even talking about slightly more rigorous subjects such as Psychology or Political Science, which modern Sociology uses as a shield for the lack of a feedback mechanism. Don't get me wrong though, I realise this is an opinion formed from my admittedly limited exposure to Sociology (~3 semesters). It could have also been the university I went to particularly leaned on "grievance airing".
- kelseyfrog 1y ago
  My exposure to Sociology and Psychology at university made me understand that HN's resistance to sociology stems from the discomfort of being confronted with uncomfortable truths. It's easier to discount sociology than deal with these truths. I get it. I used to be that way too.
  - miningape 1y ago
    Sure, but what evidence is there of that claim? Do you have any falsifiable/empirical studies you can cite?
    - kelseyfrog 1y ago
      Of course. But my only requirement is that we pre-register what evidence will change your mind. Fair?
      - miningape 1y ago
        The study should tackle these questions in one form or another: 1. What specific, measurable phenomenon would constitute 'discomfort with uncomfortable truths' versus legitimate methodological concerns? 2. How would we distinguish between the two empirically? I'd expect a study or numerical analysis with at least n > 1000, and p < 0.05 - The study will ideally have controls for correlation, indicating strong causation. The study (or cross analyses of it) should also explore alternative explanations, either disproving the alternatives or showing that they have weak(er) significance (also through numerical methods). I'm not sure what kinds of data this result could be derived from, but the methods for getting that data should be cited and common - thus being reproducible. Data could also be collected by examining alternative "inputs" (independent variables: i.e. temperament towards discomfort), or by testing how inducing discomfort leads to resistance to ideas, or something else. I'd expect the research to include, for example, controls where the same individuals evaluate methodologically identical studies from other fields. We'd need to show this 'resistance' is specific to sociology, not general scientific skepticism. That's to say: The study should also show, numerically and repeatably, that there are legitimate correlations between sociological studies inducing discomfort, and that it is not actual methodological concerns. This would include: 1. Validated scales measuring "discomfort" or cognitive dissonance 2. Behavioural indicators of resistance vs. legitimate critique 3. Control groups exposed to equally challenging but methodologically sound research 4. Control groups exposed to less challenging but equally methodologically sound research (to the level of sociology) Also, since we're making a claim about psychology and causation, the study would ideally be conducted by researchers outside of sociology departments to avoid conflicts of interest - preferably cognitive psychologists or neuroscientists using their methodological standards.
        kelseyfrog 1y ago
        Thanks. I understand what happened here. This is a critical discussion paper and you're making the category error of judging it by the rubric of scientific epistemology.
        Hyperboreanal 1y ago
  - hollerith 1y ago
    Is one of those uncomfortable truths the fact that for our society to make substantial sustainable progress will require the dismantling of a vast structure of oppression that current has a firm grip on our society?

miningape 1y ago

Excuse us for expecting evidence and intellectual rigour. :D I've taken a number of university Sociology courses and from those experiences I came to the opinion that Sociology's current iteration is really just grievance airing in an academic tone. It doesn't really justify it's own existence outside of being a Buzzfeed for academics. I'm not even talking about slightly more rigorous subjects such as Psychology or Political Science, which modern Sociology uses as a shield for the lack of a feedback mechanism. Don't get me wrong though, I realise this is an opinion formed from my admittedly limited exposure to Sociology (~3 semesters). It could have also been the university I went to particularly leaned on "grievance airing".

kelseyfrog 1y ago
My exposure to Sociology and Psychology at university made me understand that HN's resistance to sociology stems from the discomfort of being confronted with uncomfortable truths. It's easier to discount sociology than deal with these truths. I get it. I used to be that way too.
- miningape 1y ago
  Sure, but what evidence is there of that claim? Do you have any falsifiable/empirical studies you can cite?
  - kelseyfrog 1y ago
    Of course. But my only requirement is that we pre-register what evidence will change your mind. Fair?
    - miningape 1y ago
      The study should tackle these questions in one form or another: 1. What specific, measurable phenomenon would constitute 'discomfort with uncomfortable truths' versus legitimate methodological concerns? 2. How would we distinguish between the two empirically? I'd expect a study or numerical analysis with at least n > 1000, and p < 0.05 - The study will ideally have controls for correlation, indicating strong causation. The study (or cross analyses of it) should also explore alternative explanations, either disproving the alternatives or showing that they have weak(er) significance (also through numerical methods). I'm not sure what kinds of data this result could be derived from, but the methods for getting that data should be cited and common - thus being reproducible. Data could also be collected by examining alternative "inputs" (independent variables: i.e. temperament towards discomfort), or by testing how inducing discomfort leads to resistance to ideas, or something else. I'd expect the research to include, for example, controls where the same individuals evaluate methodologically identical studies from other fields. We'd need to show this 'resistance' is specific to sociology, not general scientific skepticism. That's to say: The study should also show, numerically and repeatably, that there are legitimate correlations between sociological studies inducing discomfort, and that it is not actual methodological concerns. This would include: 1. Validated scales measuring "discomfort" or cognitive dissonance 2. Behavioural indicators of resistance vs. legitimate critique 3. Control groups exposed to equally challenging but methodologically sound research 4. Control groups exposed to less challenging but equally methodologically sound research (to the level of sociology) Also, since we're making a claim about psychology and causation, the study would ideally be conducted by researchers outside of sociology departments to avoid conflicts of interest - preferably cognitive psychologists or neuroscientists using their methodological standards.
      - kelseyfrog 1y ago
        Thanks. I understand what happened here. This is a critical discussion paper and you're making the category error of judging it by the rubric of scientific epistemology.
        Hyperboreanal 1y ago
- hollerith 1y ago
  Is one of those uncomfortable truths the fact that for our society to make substantial sustainable progress will require the dismantling of a vast structure of oppression that current has a firm grip on our society?