a few cultural differences

[scottdisco]

Scottdisco: my bad, I did read over that bit. I liked the cartoon as well.

Nomad: Calling Durkheim a random authoritative figure is a bit unfair, although I can see where this is coming from. Still: his suicide studies are certainly a bit dated, but they managed to explain suicidal behavior without recurring to psychological or biological motivations. I believe that's really not to be taken lightly and I'll take his dull texts over any "hard facts" that claim that any deviant behavior has its roots written down somewhere in our DNA at birth. Why people tend to prefer biological over social determination is beyond me, really.

his suicide taxonomies were definitely game changing, tbf.

 

[Mr. Tea]

To be brief, suicide rates (rather than the act itself) is a social construct based upon how suicide is defined, stigma related to the act, the nature of the death, where & when it took place, whether or not the victim had close family members, issues surrounding the person's life etc.

There are plenty of studies that address these issues.

For example, coroners use 'common sense' definitions regarding suicide, so if the victim lived alone, drank a lot etc, the death is much more likely to be classified as a suicide rather than an accident, compared to a seemingly happy family man.

One of the reasons why Scandanavian countries have higher suicide rates than in the UK is that their definition of 'suicide is broader/looser than the one here- you can give the two sets of coroners the same set of case studies and they come out with very different suicide rates.

OK, accepted, but that doesn't imply that you can't draw *some* meaningful conclusions from something like recorded suicide rates. The effects you talk about can't possibly account, for example, for the four-fold difference in the suicides rates of the UK and Japan; even with all the caveats in the world, it's surely safe to say that suicide is more prevalent in Japan than in the UK.

Also, I think it's worth mentioning that there are many kinds of inequality other than the purely economic inequality defined by how much richer a society's rich people are than its poor people. If you're talking about the the inequality between the social status of men and women, Japan is notoriously backwards compared to other developed countries, f'rinstance.

 

[scottdisco]

OK, accepted, but that doesn't imply that you can't draw *some* meaningful conclusions from something like recorded suicide rates. The effects you talk about can't possibly account, for example, for the four-fold difference in the suicides rates of the UK and Japan; even with all the caveats in the world, it's surely safe to say that suicide is more prevalent in Japan than in the UK.

Also, I think it's worth mentioning that there are many kinds of inequality other than the purely economic inequality defined by how much richer a society's rich people are than its poor people. If you're talking about the the inequality between the social status of men and women, Japan is notoriously backwards compared to other developed countries, f'rinstance.

i bolded Tea here purely cuz i wanted to say something that i mentioned on another thread recently.

don't ask me to find the source as i can't but i'm not making this up, i definitely remember reading something once (this was a few years ago, granted, it was a paper or article, quite well researched and broad) that mentioned how the glass ceiling in general (in business, public life etc) for women is higher in the USA than it is in Sweden.

obviously i know which type of state i prefer between those two in a lot of ways, but just saying, as it dovetails neatly w what T mentions in passing here.

 

[nomadthethird]

i bolded Tea here purely cuz i wanted to say something that i mentioned on another thread recently.

don't ask me to find the source as i can't but i'm not making this up, i definitely remember reading something once (this was a few years ago, granted, it was a paper or article, quite well researched and broad) that mentioned how the glass ceiling in general (in business, public life etc) for women is higher in the USA than it is in Sweden.

obviously i know which type of state i prefer between those two in a lot of ways, but just saying, as it dovetails neatly w what T mentions in passing here.

As much as this goes against the grain of a lot of hardcore Marxist thought, things are definitely better for women in most ways in the U.S. compared to a lot of its closest competitors in the world economy. There's absolutely no question in my mind about the fact that the glass ceiling is higher here, and the general level of feminist awareness is more evolved here (in pockets-- you still have your backwards people here, too, of course) than a lot of other places.

The question (totally unrelated to the thread, I know) seems to me to be: how do we take the good things that come with capitalism and get rid of the bad? And no one seems even vaguely able to answer that question. You get two strains of thought: capitalism is all bad, or it's all good. Then there's pragmatism and Obama. But there's nothing interesting going on intellectually anymore, nobody who understands capitalism as an outgrowth of human activity, and part of a world that's always changing, rather than some boogeyman who pulls all the world's strings from behind a curtain.

OOP gets close.

 

[nomadthethird]

OK, accepted, but that doesn't imply that you can't draw *some* meaningful conclusions from something like recorded suicide rates. The effects you talk about can't possibly account, for example, for the four-fold difference in the suicides rates of the UK and Japan; even with all the caveats in the world, it's surely safe to say that suicide is more prevalent in Japan than in the UK.

Also, I think it's worth mentioning that there are many kinds of inequality other than the purely economic inequality defined by how much richer a society's rich people are than its poor people. If you're talking about the the inequality between the social status of men and women, Japan is notoriously backwards compared to other developed countries, f'rinstance.

I don't even know if I'd accept that argument, because you could come up with a mathematical model that would correct for the disparity in interpretation by coroners. Quite easily. And I'd be surprised if someone hasn't already done this who does comparative studies of suicide in different countries. A real epidemiologist, that is...

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

Why people tend to prefer biological over social determination is beyond me, really.

b/c the hard sciences produce more reliable data, point blank. I don't think that's much in dispute. which, however, isn't to denigrate the social sciences, or any specific social scientists, including Durkheim.

To be brief, suicide rates (rather than the act itself) is a social construct based upon how...

that's pretty much true of all social constructs, though. like nomad, I have a hard time believing someone with appropriate training couldn't construct a model to account for all those factors.

how do we take the good things that come with capitalism and get rid of the bad?

it's an impossible question. it's also what most people, including policy makers - depending on which parts they see as "good" and "bad" - have been trying to do for hundreds (possibly thousands, depending on what you define capitalism as) of years. capitalism to me is a bit like the NFL draft - every year teams take measurements & watch tape & interview players, and every year analysts & pundits make predictions, but ultimately it's almost entirely a crapshoot in which no one, despite what they may claim otherwise, has any idea of what's actually going to happen. at least in the NFL you can go back 5 years later and assess whether the draft was good - whereas economists are still arguing over what caused the Great Depression and what ended it & so on...

 

[nomadthethird]

it's an impossible question. it's also what most people, including policy makers - depending on which parts they see as "good" and "bad" - have been trying to do for hundreds (possibly thousands, depending on what you define capitalism as) of years. capitalism to me is a bit like the NFL draft - every year teams take measurements & watch tape & interview players, and every year analysts & pundits make predictions, but ultimately it's almost entirely a crapshoot in which no one, despite what they may claim otherwise, has any idea of what's actually going to happen. at least in the NFL you can go back 5 years later and assess whether the draft was good - whereas economists are still arguing over what caused the Great Depression and what ended it & so on...

Yeah, I realize that it's a pretty vacuous question... it's basically like asking, how do you make everything in the world favorable by x definition, while getting rid of everything unfavorable by same?

As hazy as that line of inquiry seems, I do think, however, that it wouldn't be tough to tightly regulate trade in ways and redistribute wealth in ways that would make things better for more people. It's just that politics gets in the way of actually doing this, 10 times out of 10.

Politics as it's traditionally conceived often strikes me as an utterly worthless way of going about trying to change things for the better. But that's hardly an earthshattering insight...

That oil spill is just another sign of the fact that there's probably little point in trying. I want to volunteer to clean up when I get a chance--probably not until next winter break...

 

[gyto]

b/c the hard sciences produce more reliable data, point blank. I don't think that's much in dispute.

The 'hard' sciences may produce results that are perceived as unequivocal truths but are inherently framed by social contexts. Who posed the research questions? for what purposes, based on what assumptions? don't get me wrong im not against scientific evidence based policy making but it always has to be taken with a pinch of salt.
e.g http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_programme

I don't even know if I'd accept that argument, because you could come up with a mathematical model that would correct for the disparity in interpretation by coroners. Quite easily.

Really? can a model account for the various normative and cognitive disparities in the interpretation of "suicide" as a concept across cultures (that you don't know about)? of course ('suicide') is a social construct, which has loads of baggage attached to it, different baggage in different cultures (that change over time). Hegemonic arrogance?

how do we take the good things that come with capitalism and get rid of the bad? And no one seems even vaguely able to answer that question. You get two strains of thought: capitalism is all bad, or it's all good.

How about performativity and behavioural economics (could be a good start)? e.g [URL="http://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/fsfmwp/123.html[/URL]

 

[nomadthethird]

The stupid, it burns. Did I say anything about "science-based policy"? Errr, no.

And how is social research somehow *above* contingency, while science isn't?

Give me a break.


Math and science should be required courses for everyone. The world is a few steps from slipping into a new dark age and people are most of them none the wiser.

 

[nomadthethird]

Really? can a model account for the various normative and cognitive disparities in the interpretation of "suicide" as a concept across cultures?

Yes it can.

A mathematical model can *recreate the conditions of the universe around the time of the big bang*, for crying out loud. I think it can handle some margin-of-error tightening.

 

[gyto]

Yes it can.

A mathematical model can *recreate the conditions of the universe around the time of the big bang*, for crying out loud. I think it can handle some margin-of-error tightening.

i think it's your certainty that frightens me

 

[massrock]

As hazy as that line of inquiry seems, I do think, however, that it wouldn't be tough to tightly regulate trade in ways and redistribute wealth in ways that would make things better for more people. It's just that politics gets in the way of actually doing this, 10 times out of 10.

Politics as it's traditionally conceived often strikes me as an utterly worthless way of going about trying to change things for the better. But that's hardly an earthshattering insight...

I agree, no-one expects things to be perfect, just a bit better - it can't be that hard. Regulate trade, fairer taxation... You can still have 'capitalism', just not so heavily rigged. Which would actually make it a truer capitalism with the possibility of more actual capitalists.

Don't think it's 'politics' as such that's in the way, depending on what you take that to mean, but good old entrenched interests driving policy.

 

[nomadthethird]

I agree, no-one expects things to be perfect, just a bit better - it can't be that hard. Regulate trade, fairer taxation... You can still have 'capitalism', just not so heavily rigged. Which would actually make it a truer capitalism with the possibility of more actual capitalists.

Don't think it's 'politics' as such that's in the way, depending on what you take that to mean, but good old entrenched interests driving policy.

Yeah, I think a lot of Marxists forget that rudimentary markets existed for thousands of years, and nothing like the problems associated with industrialization existed along with them.

I'm not so sure it's capitalism alone and itself that is the biggest problem in the world.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

The 'hard' sciences may produce results that are perceived as unequivocal truths but are inherently framed by social contexts....

oh deliver us from pomo relativist silliness...isn't this a horse that's been absolutely beaten to death tho? it all seems so 90s. anyway, yes, we're all aware of the social constructs in & the influence of social factors on scientific research & so on. the hard sciences still produce more reliable data. notice "more reliable" as a qualifier, rather than "perfect" (tho, depending on the field, one might say "far more reliable"). also, all the issues you bring up also apply to the social sciences, but hundredfold.

and no, it's not much of a stretch to imagine a model that could account for cultural differences. it's called operationalizing variables.

 

[Numbers]

also, all the issues you bring up also apply to the social sciences, but hundredfold.

True, but good social theory can account for its contigency, not only acknowledge it, but locate its theory entirely within that contingency in order to explain its own function as a social theory. Sure, hard sciences can discover this paradox as well, however mostly without ever being able to overcome it.

Constructivism is a dead horse when in hands of lazy theorists, they just claim all is constructed without asking why or how these constructs realize.

it's called operationalizing variables.

Yes and it constructs very specific realities.

 

[gyto]

oh deliver us from pomo relativist silliness

but I'm not a grad student in relativism, or any social science... is this what you were assuming?

and no, it's not much of a stretch to imagine a model that could account for cultural differences. it's called operationalizing variables.

Lol, yes in order to "operationalise" someone has to weight the variables accordingly, who gets to do that? the computer model? how do you gather such data?

plus do either you or nomad have any first hand experience of what a 'cultural difference' might entail? I suspect, by the way you are banging on, that you are mono-cultural.:slanted:

 

[Mr. Tea]

I suspect, by the way you are banging on, that you are mono-cultural.:slanted:

Haha, what? And you divide your time between being a systems analyst and being a peasant farmer in India, or something?

Also, could you tell me where I can do a graduate course in "relativism"? Is that special or general relativism?

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

True, but good social theory can account for its contigency, not only acknowledge it, but locate its theory entirely within that contingency in order to explain its own function as a social theory.

translation: 99% of social theory ("good" & otherwise) can get its own head completely up its arse, in order to produce navelgazing introspection that drives obscure academic careers but little else. not that it's an either/or question - which you guys seem unable to grasp - but I'll (mostly) stick with the hard sciences. even with our terrible "inability" to discover paradoxes . which, anyway, is untrue, as...

Yes and it constructsvery specific realities.

a key part of research - in any science - is identifying problems and either accounting for them or, if that's impossible, adding qualifiers when you discuss your data. that function does take different roles in the social v. hard sciences, but it exists in both. also, I don't know what the hell you're smiling about. you're not being coy, you just sound foolish.

let's be clear. if you want to talk about deconstruction in terms of the politics of science - what gets funded, the overall flow of scientific research - then fine. but when I induce expression of a protein, or collide two atoms together, I can measure the outcome and the results of the experiment will be totally independent of whatever social reality is being constructed. what I choose to do with those results is a different matter, but metainfluence cannot transcend thermodynamics etc

 

[Mr. Tea]

Great post padraig, couldn't have put it better myself.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

but I'm not a grad student in relativism, or any social science... is this what you were assuming?

no, you sound like somebody who read a Derrida book or two, had his mind blown, & is now trying to spread the metagospel to the rest of us. a grad student would be much more erudite. the xkcd link is just a funny, rather telling webcomic about the general inanity of pomo deconstruction/relativism.

Lol, yes in order to "operationalise" someone has to weight the variables accordingly, who gets to do that?

ffs, you make estimates. educated guesses. no research is perfect - when you publish one thing you need to include is a discussion of all possible flaws in your research, mainly as a preemptive defense against possible criticisms. if you have any experience at all with any kind of research - which I highly doubt - you will know this.

plus do either you or nomad have any first hand experience of what a 'cultural difference' might entail? I suspect, by the way you are banging on, that you are mono-cultural.:slanted:

"mono-cultural", is that the best you can do? [sneers and adjusts monocle] as it happens I do know a thing or two about cultural differences - though of course we can't all be exalted experts in the field like yourself - and the one thing that generally never helps actual cross-cultural discourse is pomo waffling about cultural differences. mono-cultural, jesus christ...