3 ms·

Energy is also well defined - for any particular case you'll be able to write down a precise formula defining it. For example, a system of colliding particles h

Energy is also well defined - for any particular case you'll be able to write down a precise formula defining it. For example, a system of colliding particles has E=sum(p^2/2m) (p is momentum, m is mass). If you want to make a claim that one system has more energy than another, testing that claim will be easy - just apply the formula. If you wanted me to take it seriously, you should have applied the power formula to figure out whether influencing college admissions officers > influencing police - all you did was scoff. I assert that your use of the word "power" is pointless. It transmits no information about the world, much like how you use privilege. Why do you insist on engaging in long discussions advocating the use of words that mean merely "any probabilistic cause of social outcomes"?

rmxt 12y ago
Information can most certainly be conveyed outside the use of precise formulas, lest you think that entire fields of human endeavor are bunk (merely "long discussions"): art; music; aspects of philosophy, anthropology and sociology; etc. Nonetheless, I would posit that a number of quantifiable metrics contribute to pron's definition of power (the ability to bend others to your will), such as net worth, yearly earnings, spending patterns, education levels, employment statistics, and social network models, especially when these are considered over time. These "long discussions" that you show disdain for are attempting to introduce a semantic base on which "well defined" terms can be further developed and evaluated in light of new social experiences (e.g., the latest claims of * -ism in SV). pron has set out an extended metaphor, say, which is akin to describing how one would perform an oil drop experiment. That is the opposite of "resistance". Your assertion that "power" and "privilege" are semantically empty is completely without grounding. Just because the metaphoric equivalent of "applying the power formula" has been left as an exercise to the reader, does not mean that the terms of the equation are void of meaning.
pron 12y ago
Power is also well defined (I have provided a definition which is not "any probabilistic cause of social outcomes") and in cases like this -- easy to measure. You may assert the last forty years of research are pointless. That it's definition applies in many cases (though not all -- an earthquake leveling a city isn't directly related to power) does not make it any less useful (just like energy is always involved in any interaction of particles). If you apply the definition, you will see that influencing college admissions officers << influencing police in this case. The fact that intractable interactions lend themselves less easily to formulations (let alone closed expressions) does not take away their reality or invalidate the model. Much of the work in applied mathematics (non-linear equations) is qualitative, as well. I think it is you who are resisting to admit that the past decades of research have taught us a lot about how society works.
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  If your definition is not simply equivalent to social outcomes, there should be an experiment that can potentially measure power absent social outcomes. If so, what is it? I.e., suppose a group has good outcomes but low power or vice versa. How can I find out?
  - pron 12y ago
    You can't measure power without its effects just like you can't measure energy (at the very least, it will have to affect your measurement device), but you can often tell whether the effect was due to power or not. Sometimes -- like with the case of potential energy -- you might be able to deduce its existence once you've learned how it works for a while. But, you can often see powerful people fail (say, a billionaire dies in a plane crash, or loses all his money when the market crashes), and powerless people thrive (a homeless man wins the lottery). But power, like force in physics, is the main thing driving human interaction. It is certainly the only mechanism of any interesting social dynamics, but it is not trivial, as power -- like energy -- takes many forms. So, to me, your question sounds a bit like, "how do we know when the planets in the solar system move by gravity, and when they move by something else?", to which the answer is that the planets almost always move by gravity, except very rarely, when, say, hit by a particularly large asteroid; how doe we know when that happens? We look. Same here, if a group has good outcomes and low power and vice versa -- while very rare (as power is at the core of the mechanism), you can either study the case carefully (which is what historians do), or compare it with power's known outcomes to see if it's one of those flukes. But, you'll say, I can isolate gravity and test it in a lab to make sure I'm certain this is how the planets move. Well, experiments like that are harder in the social sciences, but they are done quite regularly. Two very famous experiments in power are the Milgram experiment (testing authority power) and the Stanford prison experiment (testing authority power as well as its effect on those who have it). Many dictator games are experiments in other forms of power. Besides, I don't see what exactly you're driving at. Thousands of studies have uncovered some mechanisms at the very core of human society. The mechanisms behave similarly enough to warrant a name (kinetic energy, potential energy etc.), and that concept seems to be at the heart of what drives most of society. Not only that, it induces a quantifiable (if sometimes only roughly, or even in theory) property. That mechanism, along with its quantifiable trait is called power. It was found to be roughly "the ability to bend others to your will", and has produced interesting, useful models (qualitative -- not quantitative). You want to give it another name? Fine, call it X. But 100 years ago we did not know about X as much as we do now. If you want to identify X with something that you think has been known for a long time -- you'll be wrong; if you want to identify X with something you think is still a complete mystery -- you'll be wrong again. You want to argue with scientists about the names they choose and then quote someone who says arguing about names is futile -- great. What is it that you're saying? The concept of power conveys a lot of knowledge that has been gathered over decades. Your responses seem to be like those of someone who's just heard of energy, and says, "If energy is what moving things possess, why not just call it speed? Oh, a ball at the top of the hill also has energy, why not just call it height? Oh, fire has energy too? So energy is everywhere, and if it's everywhere then it doesn't mean anything!" Either that someone decides to learn basic physics, or decides to stay ignorant. But if he decides to stay ignorant, I think you would agree it would be foolish of him to continue arguing.

rmxt 12y ago

Information can most certainly be conveyed outside the use of precise formulas, lest you think that entire fields of human endeavor are bunk (merely "long discussions"): art; music; aspects of philosophy, anthropology and sociology; etc. Nonetheless, I would posit that a number of quantifiable metrics contribute to pron's definition of power (the ability to bend others to your will), such as net worth, yearly earnings, spending patterns, education levels, employment statistics, and social network models, especially when these are considered over time. These "long discussions" that you show disdain for are attempting to introduce a semantic base on which "well defined" terms can be further developed and evaluated in light of new social experiences (e.g., the latest claims of * -ism in SV). pron has set out an extended metaphor, say, which is akin to describing how one would perform an oil drop experiment. That is the opposite of "resistance". Your assertion that "power" and "privilege" are semantically empty is completely without grounding. Just because the metaphoric equivalent of "applying the power formula" has been left as an exercise to the reader, does not mean that the terms of the equation are void of meaning.

pron 12y ago

Power is also well defined (I have provided a definition which is not "any probabilistic cause of social outcomes") and in cases like this -- easy to measure. You may assert the last forty years of research are pointless. That it's definition applies in many cases (though not all -- an earthquake leveling a city isn't directly related to power) does not make it any less useful (just like energy is always involved in any interaction of particles). If you apply the definition, you will see that influencing college admissions officers << influencing police in this case. The fact that intractable interactions lend themselves less easily to formulations (let alone closed expressions) does not take away their reality or invalidate the model. Much of the work in applied mathematics (non-linear equations) is qualitative, as well. I think it is you who are resisting to admit that the past decades of research have taught us a lot about how society works.

yummyfajitas 12y ago
If your definition is not simply equivalent to social outcomes, there should be an experiment that can potentially measure power absent social outcomes. If so, what is it? I.e., suppose a group has good outcomes but low power or vice versa. How can I find out?
- pron 12y ago
  You can't measure power without its effects just like you can't measure energy (at the very least, it will have to affect your measurement device), but you can often tell whether the effect was due to power or not. Sometimes -- like with the case of potential energy -- you might be able to deduce its existence once you've learned how it works for a while. But, you can often see powerful people fail (say, a billionaire dies in a plane crash, or loses all his money when the market crashes), and powerless people thrive (a homeless man wins the lottery). But power, like force in physics, is the main thing driving human interaction. It is certainly the only mechanism of any interesting social dynamics, but it is not trivial, as power -- like energy -- takes many forms. So, to me, your question sounds a bit like, "how do we know when the planets in the solar system move by gravity, and when they move by something else?", to which the answer is that the planets almost always move by gravity, except very rarely, when, say, hit by a particularly large asteroid; how doe we know when that happens? We look. Same here, if a group has good outcomes and low power and vice versa -- while very rare (as power is at the core of the mechanism), you can either study the case carefully (which is what historians do), or compare it with power's known outcomes to see if it's one of those flukes. But, you'll say, I can isolate gravity and test it in a lab to make sure I'm certain this is how the planets move. Well, experiments like that are harder in the social sciences, but they are done quite regularly. Two very famous experiments in power are the Milgram experiment (testing authority power) and the Stanford prison experiment (testing authority power as well as its effect on those who have it). Many dictator games are experiments in other forms of power. Besides, I don't see what exactly you're driving at. Thousands of studies have uncovered some mechanisms at the very core of human society. The mechanisms behave similarly enough to warrant a name (kinetic energy, potential energy etc.), and that concept seems to be at the heart of what drives most of society. Not only that, it induces a quantifiable (if sometimes only roughly, or even in theory) property. That mechanism, along with its quantifiable trait is called power. It was found to be roughly "the ability to bend others to your will", and has produced interesting, useful models (qualitative -- not quantitative). You want to give it another name? Fine, call it X. But 100 years ago we did not know about X as much as we do now. If you want to identify X with something that you think has been known for a long time -- you'll be wrong; if you want to identify X with something you think is still a complete mystery -- you'll be wrong again. You want to argue with scientists about the names they choose and then quote someone who says arguing about names is futile -- great. What is it that you're saying? The concept of power conveys a lot of knowledge that has been gathered over decades. Your responses seem to be like those of someone who's just heard of energy, and says, "If energy is what moving things possess, why not just call it speed? Oh, a ball at the top of the hill also has energy, why not just call it height? Oh, fire has energy too? So energy is everywhere, and if it's everywhere then it doesn't mean anything!" Either that someone decides to learn basic physics, or decides to stay ignorant. But if he decides to stay ignorant, I think you would agree it would be foolish of him to continue arguing.