- #1
ensabah6
- 695
- 0
Do you think sociology professors are to the left, economics to the right on capitalism?
I do!
I do!
ensabah6 said:Do you think sociology professors are to the left, economics to the right on capitalism?
oldtobor said:Economist have been "studying" economy for years and we are always in the same situations, there is no possible progress in a discipline like economy, it is mostly a gigantic slot machine, a worldwide poker game.
What an inconceivably ignorant post (actually, I'm again not surprised). If you think sociologists aren't credible in the area as economists, then you can tell Dubner & Levitt of Freakonomics to stop calling themselves economists when they are continuously posting sociology. Sociology studies inequality and power - and these two elements have pervasive concurrences with economic structure known as capitalism. While the economists may be concerned with utility, seeing man as homo economicus and being individual reductionists, sociologists have accepted much more ambiguity in social behaviour - it is, after all, studying society. While it may be true that most sociologists believe in socialism, it is because most sociologists believe in equality - most of their time is spent examining power and divisions in society among class, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. And these are structural problems, not individualistic problems. This ties into economic systems because as a social system, it promotes and allows such inequality to occur. What do economists think of inequality? Well they usually subscribe to strucutural-functionalism and individual reductionism; if an individual is poor, it's because "they haven't worked hard enough", or "they need to be better educated", or "lack motivation".Economist said:Now, in general most sociologists believe in socialism, and most economists believe in capitalism. This is definitely just a difference in opinions. However, I would like to point out that economists are the ones who study economic systems (which is what socialism and capitalism are) and therefore are probably more knowledgeable on these issues (in other words, economists are experts on economic systems). I don't think sociologists are as credible in this area as economists.
This is so obviously bull**** because there is no such thing as "mainstream sociology", in contrast to "mainstream economics". Mainstream economics is essentially neoclassical economics (a touch of Keynes here and there) and virtually every economics department in North American universities subscribes to this. Environmental economics, ecological economics are generally ignored; don't even mention "heterodox" schools of thought such as Austrian economics, because they are the "shunned" economists that never get anything published in the top journals in economics. Economics is most certainly much less diverse than sociology, and obvious Mr. Economist here argues otherwise simply because he is one.Now, if someone wants to know whether sociology professors are overall liberal, then yes, because something like 99% of sociologist professors are democrats. In economics it's not that clear cut and there is more diversity of political ideology, probably because there's less group think going on in economics (I know this statement will piss some people off, but in my opinion this is true). The average economist is not a republican, in fact, the average economist is a little bit left of center (they've done surveys on this). Furthermore, there are a good number of economists who do not consider themselves a democrat or republican, but rather an independent because they are libertarians.
You're wrong. Capitalism means economic conservatism (neoliberalism). Capitalists do not support government regulations (such as the environment, etc.) and taxes. It is laissez-faire. This can clearly be put on a spectrum.First off, I reject that capitalism can be put on a spectrum of left and right (liberal and conservative). Most republicans are not really that free-market.
opus said:What an inconceivably ignorant post (actually, I'm again not surprised). If you think sociologists aren't credible in the area as economists, then you can tell Dubner & Levitt of Freakonomics to stop calling themselves economists when they are continuously posting sociology. Sociology studies inequality and power - and these two elements have pervasive concurrences with economic structure known as capitalism. While the economists may be concerned with utility, seeing man as homo economicus and being individual reductionists, sociologists have accepted much more ambiguity in social behaviour - it is, after all, studying society. While it may be true that most sociologists believe in socialism, it is because most sociologists believe in equality - most of their time is spent examining power and divisions in society among class, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. And these are structural problems, not individualistic problems. This ties into economic systems because as a social system, it promotes and allows such inequality to occur. What do economists think of inequality? Well they usually subscribe to strucutural-functionalism and individual reductionism; if an individual is poor, it's because "they haven't worked hard enough", or "they need to be better educated", or "lack motivation".
opus said:So why do they support socialism? It's because sociologists are motivated by equality, and ideas such as why Europe has much higher social mobility than the capitalist systems of the UK and USA.
opus said:This is so obviously bull**** because there is no such thing as "mainstream sociology", in contrast to "mainstream economics". Mainstream economics is essentially neoclassical economics (a touch of Keynes here and there) and virtually every economics department in North American universities subscribes to this. Environmental economics, ecological economics are generally ignored; don't even mention "heterodox" schools of thought such as Austrian economics, because they are the "shunned" economists that never get anything published in the top journals in economics. Economics is most certainly much less diverse than sociology, and obvious Mr. Economist here argues otherwise simply because he is one.
It may feel better for you to see your field as so "diverse" in opinions (Democrats and Republicans, you say?!) but it simply is not true. Just look at the National Economic Council in the Presidency. It's fueled America's neoliberalism since WWII.
opus said:You're wrong. Capitalism means economic conservatism (neoliberalism). Capitalists do not support government regulations (such as the environment, etc.) and taxes. It is laissez-faire. This can clearly be put on a spectrum.
Most Republicans are free-market. Bush may talk about American nationalism on television, but he is passing bills that broaden legal immigration. Republicans may talk about how bad illegal immigration is, but they know that these illegal immigrants are filling in the labour shortage for many corporations. It is not in the interests of Republicans to be protectionist, but it is in their interest to be nationalist. This is why they are schizophrenic on the issue.
opus said:One should never "generalize" a group onto an individual, but it is perfectly human to talk about groups of people. The progressiveness of sociologists is clear when the http://www.asanet.org/cs/root/topnav/press/sociological_association_takes_position_on_conflict_in_iraq do not have a "code of ethics" in contrast to nearly every other professional association in the United States.
By "sociologists believe in equality" do you mean that "sociologists believe people are equal"? If not, please clarify. If so, IMO, that is a mindless feel-good belief typical of the left (lending credence to the OP's point).opus said:While it may be true that most sociologists believe in socialism, it is because most sociologists believe in equality
Agreed - economists are generally more knowledgeable about the market than sociologists are.Economist said:Economics is as much about "society" as Sociology is. Furthermore, many economists are studying inequality, mobility, etc. My point was that when it comes to the debate between capitalism and socialism, it seems to me the economists are more likely to be the experts considering that they seem to study economic systems in more detail than sociologists. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying sociologists have nothing to add, and I'm not saying that sociologists can't talk about economics, just that in my opinion economists are more qualified on the topic.
I disagree. Keynesian economics is closer to socialism than the anarcho-capitalism, and many economists support the former. It would not be inconceivable for an economist to believe in socialism - because after all, it is "political economy" that spun off "economics". (institutionalized)There are economists who are socialists, but it's difficult to understand economics and also be in favor of socialism.
You can't make grand comparative statements between that - this is economic determinism and you are predicating your argument on the economy determining everything, the same thing Marxists do. Education, life expectancy, and wealth have a lot more to do with other things than just economic systems. If that were not the case, then Latin America would be very well off after their experiments in "modernization" and "free-market capitalism". Of course, we all that was a grand catastrophe. Free-market economists tend to ignore this example of economic failure.In my opinion, this has to do with knowing the facts about the education, life expectancy, wealth, etc of individuals in capitalist societies vs individuals in socialist societies (even when you compare with poor members of capitalist societies).
But individuals and corporations having power aren't always good. Even non-radical economists would say that there are certain things better off handled by the government, such as education, public utilities, health care, environmental regulations, etc.. To believe that "all power to the individuals" will make a better place in the world is an anarchist ideology.Furthermore, capitalism is more about decentralised decision making while socialism is more about centralised decision making, and when you study economics you realize that most of the things around us and most of the important discoveries happen through this sort of decentralized process. Furthermore, I know many economists who care about power, which is why they are in favor of capitalism, because they believe it gives individuals more power.
You're completely wrong. OECD figures (conservative organization, btw) show that this is not the case. Here's a second study. It is clear that in America, the American Dream is a myth. One is much more likely to move up the ladder in the democratic socialist countries in Europe.I'm not convinced that this is true, as I've heard some economists and journalists make a strong case that this is a myth. One example is a book by a German journalist titled "Cowboy Capitalism."
Not really.. see belowYou're right that there definitely is a mainstream economics, and I imagine there is probably a mainstream sociology as well.
Sociologists use mathematics and statistics all the time, albeit the professional sociologists journals tend to be much more diverse in methodologies. While your points are valid, I don't think non-mainstream economists are very well respected at all. Economics has tended to be extremely mathematical on the premise of models stemming from one particular ideology. If your ideological foundations change, you have to make entire new models. Rational choice theory would have be thrown out. Economists do not want that, and it is not surprising why there is a "mainstream economics". There's really not a "mainstream sociology". There may be "mainstream" journals in the sense that those are the top publications, but nothing to warrant entries on wikipedia and embedded into a discipline like economics.However, some of what you've said above is false. Most economic departments have environmental economists on staff, and in fact many graduate students at schools all over the US specialize in this field. Furthermore, many Austrian economists are well respected by mainstream economists. Rothbard, Von Mises, Hayek, Mario Rizzo, and in fact F.A. Hayek even won the Nobel Prize in Economics. Obviously I maybe biased (I challenge anyone to name me a person who isn't), but I honestly do believe Economics is a more diverse field. Using political ideology was only a proxy, as an example to back up my claim. Furthermore, economists seem to be more interested in rigourously modeling and testing their theories and hypotheses (which is why mathematics and statistics is heavily relied on by modern economists).
If Republicans are no capitalists and support free (Republicans are therefore "liberal"?), then I don't know what you're on. I guess you would vote for Ron Paul.Again, we just disagree on this issue. It seems to me most people want to say that republicans are capitalists and about free-markets when in fact they aren't. I wish Republicans where really about free-markets (and just freedom in general) because then I'd have a party to vote for. Many people have pointed out that Republicans are in favor of many subsidies (example, farm subsidies), limiting free-trade (probably not as bad as the Democrats but still), and Republicans spend lots of government money too (which is something no free-marketer would do).
Yes, sociologists should have standard codes of ethics. We do social research that is sensitive, and are put in a position of power. It is recognizing that there is power (whether formal or informal in the sense of contextual relationship or academic research). Many sociologists have criticized the ASA for making the Iraq statement, saying it's not their place as scientific researchers to "have opinions" on the world (i.e. normative judgments). Others disagree. It is something that goes into the sociology of sociology (its philosophical roots and reflexivity).Economist said:I wanted to ask you some questions. First, do you think that sociologists (among others) should have a standard code of ethics? Isn't it kind of strange that a sociology organization takes a position on the conflict in Iraq? I mean, I can only imagine how other sociologists would react to a sociologist who said, "You know what. I like George Dub, and I agree with the Iraq War."
Sociologists study society, and part of society are its institutions. And these institutions carry norms that affect people - they tell us how to act, how to think, how to perceive; they tell us what is right, what is wrong, and what is desirable. Sociology is most definitely a science - and it doesn't matter if people will have "different feelings/opinions", because the majority of the time, they don't. Western culture will always be individualistic, it's embedded into institution such as law (like property laws) and government (liberal democracy). It is the job of social scientists to study these institutions and explain why these regularities are occurring. It is the same way economists study markets, and market behaviour. Sociologists study society and social behaviour.Also, you mentioned in the other post that sociologists "care" about equality and mobility. However, I don't understand how these are scientific in nature. What I mean by this, is that these things are value driven, and different people will have different feelings/opinions about them.
So too does sociology, political science, anthropology, and practically every social science. All researchers are aware of the normative/positive divide.A social science is supposed to deal in facts, and understand the way in which the world actually operates. In economics, we make a distinction between Normative Science and Positive Science.
It's misguiding to think that we should always just focus on the "positive" side of science and be "value-free". During the growth of sociology, especially in the Chicago school (same thing with economics), academia was very much an "ivory tower" concerned with studying the problems of society, as a neutral observer of the world. We are just scientists to study the world, right?For example, a positive question/hypothesis is this: "Does the minimum wage increase unemployment? And if so, does it mainly increase unemployment for low skilled workers?" A normative question is this: "Should we have a minimum wage or not?" The difference is that positive questions have an actual answer, the minimum wage either does or doesn't have an effect on employment, but normative questions on the other hand can never be scientific because you're asking what ought to be.
Virtually any policy ever made is "normative". It's foolish to think that there's a distinct "positive" and a distinct "normative". What is generally the case, is that people already have a "normative" in mind and their "positive" research is to prove their biases. There's nothing wrong with this, but it's basically how human knowledge is developed - through inquiry. People will inquire about things of interest to them, especially in the social sciences. Even if their inquiry is "dispassionate" and "objective", the way an experiment or study is modeled reflects ontological and epistemological biases. Economists may be generally concerned with "positive" questions, i.e. "what is", but the whole foundation on "what is" is theoretical. What is the marketplace? How do people make decisions?Now, I think positive science can help people make normative decisions, but one still must separate the two. For example, there are economists who agree with minimum wage legislation even though they think it increases unemployment, because they think the gains to the winners offset the losses to the losers. Economists aren't generally expected to share the same values, and in economics we mainly concern ourselves with studying positive questions. This doesn't mean we always know how to study postive questions/hypotheses, but the point is that it's what we are primarily concerned with. I don't know if the same is true of sociology?
Sociologists tend to believe in equality and that people are equal*. The differences between two people are mostly due to their social upbringing and environment. Blacks are not genetically less intelligent than whites; it is because they have been subjugated under the institution of race or other cultural factors. Likewise with poorer people becoming less intelligent. In the same way, rich people are not "inherently better" than poor people, from genes or something.DaleSpam said:By "sociologists believe in equality" do you mean that "sociologists believe people are equal"? If not, please clarify. If so, IMO, that is a mindless feel-good belief typical of the left (lending credence to the OP's point).
Take any two people and compare them on any scale, strength, intelligence, experience, initiative, you will see that they are clearly not equal. One of the reasons that capitalism works so well, despite all the constant mindless whining about unequality, is that it recognizes that people have unequal economic value and it easily and naturally tends to put greater control of capital in the hands of people that have greater economic value.
opus said:It is conservative and individualistic to believe that poor people are poor "because they haven't worked hard enough", or that "they're stupid", or "lazy", etc. Or that men are "inherently" violent and that women are "essentially" gentle (pseudo-evolutionary psychology). It ignores all the social factors that work in the world, and instead blames it on their individual self for things "beyond control".
Individual reductionism is conservative. It is the only way to refute a sociological claim. Do you think it is by random chance that if you circle the poorest neighbourhoods in any urban Western city, that you also have circled the neighbourhoods with the highest crime? It is no random variation (which is what neoliberal individualism presupposes - that we are all "atomistic"). The way conservatives refute this "positive" social fact of crime is by saying that it is not that poverty is correlated with petty crime (which it is, undoubtedly - like cancer with smoking), but by saying that these "criminals" are "deviants" and "psychopaths", reducing a social phenomenon to the non-social individual. Why are sociologists "liberal"? It's because normatively, many of them would support social policy that would attack the root causes of crime, such as poverty, that is clearly established in academic research. Of course, such programs take taxpayer money, which neoliberals do not support, so the only way to "refute" such "liberal" social policies is by labeling the criminals as "deviants", and that the law should be "harder" on criminals, punish them more, etc., to get rid of crime - this is contrary to criminological research.Economist said:You wrote so much that I don't have time to respond right now, hopefully I can do so later.
I hate when people make those statements. Obviously things are not completely within ones control, nor are things completely out of ones control. So what we're really trying to understand is the degree to which most things are either within ones control or not. Which turns out to be an empirical question. It may generally be the case that people who wind up poor are generally people who haven't worked as hard as the people who became rich. And to say that one is "conservative" for such a view is silly.
I don't see the connection between your example of doctors being paid with anything you just said. Doctors are doctors, sociologists do not deny doctors the ability to set their own salaries. Sociologists are concerned with class conflict, such as "the race to the bottom" with corporations and labour wages, or doctors abusing their professional privileges by taking free corporate lunches (big topic in medical sociology) with the biomedical industries.Furthermore, it is not always about whether one is naturally gifted, worked really hard, etc. For example, if I need open heart surgery, I want to go to a good doctor, and personally I could care less about the reason he is a good doctor (genetics, hard work, etc), because the point is I need him, and since he is the one with the skills, and since I believe individuals should own the fruits of their labor, he should be allowed to charge me for his services. And my understanding is that most modern sociologists have embraced the fact that human beings are influenced by both biological aspect and social aspects.
That is exactly the classical neoliberal argument - that it is because there is "too little" capitalism, and that poverty, suffering, etc. is caused by market regulations - and hence we need to get rid of regulations to make it easier for corporations and private businesses to thrive. Guess what? Latin America tried that in the 1970's, and it was a disaster. The result of their experiment with capitalism is that they now have the most unequal society in the world in terms of income. Why do you think dictatorships became so popular in Latin America? Because the economy was a disaster after capitalism and so individuals stepped in like Hitler (or rather, Pinochet) promising to bring a better place. Of course that was a lie, but that is besides the point. Read this article on how agricultural subsidies helped Malawi (which is about Africa, nonetheless) escape famine by ignoring the neoliberal impetus of the World Bank and IMF.In my opinion, poor people in the US often have a hard time moving up in the world due to a lack of capitalism. Public education is a great example. It seems that most public school systems are based on a lot of those sociological ideas you mentioned earlier such as equality and mobility. Is it also impossible that redistributional efforts (such as welfare) have acutally hurt poor people more than they've helped? Also, maybe telling unfortunate individuals that most things in life are out of their control actually perpetuates the situation by leading to unhelpful sociological "values"?
In science, when one posits a theory and facts contradicting that theory are presented then the theory must either be modified to fit the facts or rejected outright. Fact: people are unequal. This has nothing whatsoever to do with racism, bigotry, background, etc. Even two identical twins raised together are generally unequal, particularly in terms of key economic attributes such as productivity.opus said:Sociology is most definitely a science ... Sociologists tend to believe in equality and that people are equal*.
DaleSpam said:Economists are probably to the right of sociologists, but at least they don't try to mess with social freedoms.
You have got to be kidding. Can you possibly be this self-deluded? Is Paris Hilton equally productive to Bill Gates? Is George Bush equally intelligent to Stephen Hawking? Is it only "a social construction" that makes Hawking smarter than Bush and Gates more productive than Paris?opus said:People are diverse, not unequal.
opus said:It's because normatively, many of them would support social policy that would attack the root causes of crime, such as poverty, that is clearly established in academic research. Of course, such programs take taxpayer money, which neoliberals do not support, so the only way to "refute" such "liberal" social policies is by labeling the criminals as "deviants", and that the law should be "harder" on criminals, punish them more, etc., to get rid of crime - this is contrary to criminological research.
opus said:If a person couldn't go to university because he couldn't afford it, is it because it was "his fault" and that he should "try harder"?
Well guess what, I can find you a mountain of criminology papers, yes, the social scientists that focus on crime, showing you that tougher penalties do not efficiently alleviate crime.Economist said:Sociologists are not the only ones who study crime. Ever heard of the Economics of Crime? Well, there are many economists who study crime. My understanding is that their research has shown that stricter penalties on crime can have a huge impact on decreasing the amount of crime (even in the short run). This pisses sociologists off, because these policies come from a fundamental view that even criminals act somewhat rationally and self interested. Besides, it's not only about the criminals. Many other law abiding poor people live in the same communities, and I doubt they care much about the root causes of crime. Rather they just want crime to decrease so they can walk the streets at night, and so their children can have the best chance at succeeding. Addressing the root causes of crime from a sociological point of view may not work very well, particularly in the short run.
This is a terrible example, and is akin to "society done it to me!" defenses used in order to criticize sociology. Society is just as responsible as the individual. But to blame a child for being poor, going to a bad public school, and thus committing assault?Let me ask you this. Let's say a child was born into a bad environment, such as having a single parent and living in the poorest areas of the US, where he then goes to a bad public school, and later in life he goes to jail on assualt. His bad environment led (at least in part) to his bad outcome, so I'm guessing you would say it is not his fault. Does that mean it is his mothers fault for having a child she couldn't raise in a good environment? Does that mean it is his mothers fault for not giving him up for adoption? Is it his teachers' fault for not educating him better? Is it my fault? Is it no ones fault? And if it is no ones fault, then why should we necessarily expect others to correct his life (especially considering that others probably couldn't help him even if they tried).
You are confused on what "social construction" is. George Bush is different from Stephen Hawking because, sociologists would argue, they were raised differently, and in completely different environments.DaleSpam said:You have got to be kidding. Can you possibly be this self-deluded? Is Paris Hilton equally productive to Bill Gates? Is George Bush equally intelligent to Stephen Hawking? Is it only "a social construction" that makes Hawking smarter than Bush and Gates more productive than Paris?
People are unequal, particularly in terms of their contribution to the economy.
opus said:This is a terrible example, and is akin to "society done it to me!" defenses used in order to criticize sociology. Society is just as responsible as the individual. But to blame a child for being poor, going to a bad public school, and thus committing assault?
opus said:You've got a be a fool to think it's completely the individual's fault! Society is as much to blame! Neoliberals like to ignore the latter, and completely place the responsibility on the former. Takes the tax burden off of needing to create new public policy. You think it's by somehow "random variation" that mass killers generally belong to subcultures and/or low income classes? It's cultural and societal - these are important factors in determining an individual.
opus said:You are confused on what "social construction" is. George Bush is different from Stephen Hawking because, sociologists would argue, they were raised differently, and in completely different environments.
opus said:Where they grew up, how they grew up, what values their parents taught them, who their friends were, what movies they watched, and all aspects of social life determines who they are more so than "what genes they carry". If Bush and Hawking grew up completely the same way (that is, they grew up as the same person) but with the same genes, you could bet that they would be close, if not identical people! The fact of the matter is that genetics has little to determining who a person is.
opus said:Yes, there are naturally gifted people. Yes, there are autistic people. No one is discrediting that. But genes has little, if any effect, on a person's social life. You are completely misguided in your conservative logic and guilty of individual reductionism.
I am getting emotional because this is rudimentary basic knowledge that is covered in sociology 101. Perhaps if I have the dignity to take economics 100 and 101, then you should do the same.Economist said:I love how you're throwing out emotional and personal attacks when I was just trying to have a real discussion with you. Again, I never said it is completely the individual's fault. All I said, was that it's probably more his fault then anyone elses. I also asked you personally, if it is other peoples' fault? I also would like to hear you explain the variation among individuals from similar communities/environments, such as drug adicts and criminals from good families and rich upbringings, as well as those who grow up in crime ridden poor environments and broken homes who go to Harvard.
You really think it's unlikely that genetics helps explain peoples social life? You don't think that any characteristics that influence peoples social life could be linked to genetics? Personality, humor, intelligence, etc don't have much to do with biology in your opinion?
You are correct. Economists tend to ignore the latter and generalize humanity as self-interested rational actors - homo economicus. You are guilty of the same.I've heard sociologists claim that it is a result of both genetics and social factors. I've also heard them say that it is often difficult to separate the two, so you can't always know which is more correct.
Twins, same household, fairly different = "nurture" perspective - they have different friends, probably watch different shows, listen to different music, are influenced by different things; just because they have the same parents or live in the same house does not mean they live in the same environment. One may be into heavy metal subculture while another is into anime. Socialization comes in all places, forms, times - it's latent.What's your take on twins that grow up in the same household that wind up fairly different? Or on twins that grow up in very different environments, yet wind up fairly similar?
That's funny. "Don't blame Bush, it's society's fault." I think that is the first time I have heard a Liberal say anything like that.opus said:George Bush is different from Stephen Hawking because, sociologists would argue, they were raised differently, and in completely different environments.
I find it amusing that you spend the bulk of your posts not even remotely responding to what I have written. You are so intent on telling me I am wrong in believing inequalities are strictly genetic that you failed to notice that I never once made that claim. You seem to be arguing against some imaginary "neoliberal conservative individual reductionist" in your head, because you certainly are not arguing against me.opus said:Where they grew up, how they grew up, what values their parents taught them, who their friends were, what movies they watched, and all aspects of social life determines who they are more so than "what genes they carry". If Bush and Hawking grew up completely the same way (that is, they grew up as the same person) but with the same genes, you could bet that they would be close, if not identical people! The fact of the matter is that genetics has little to determining who a person is.
Yes, there are naturally gifted people. Yes, there are autistic people. No one is discrediting that. But genes has little, if any effect, on a person's social life. You are completely misguided in your conservative logic and guilty of individual reductionism.
I have been very clear with what I mean by inequality.opus said:You're going to have to define inequality
DaleSpam said:Is Paris Hilton equally productive to Bill Gates? Is George Bush equally intelligent to Stephen Hawking? ... People are unequal, particularly in terms of their contribution to the economy.
DaleSpam said:people are unequal. This has nothing whatsoever to do with racism, bigotry, background, etc. Even two identical twins raised together are generally unequal, particularly in terms of key economic attributes such as productivity.
I have been consistent in using the term to mean that people are unequal in terms of any and all variables which have to do with their value to the economy.DaleSpam said:Take any two people and compare them on any scale, strength, intelligence, experience, initiative, you will see that they are clearly not equal. One of the reasons that capitalism works so well, despite all the constant mindless whining about unequality, is that it recognizes that people have unequal economic value and it easily and naturally tends to put greater control of capital in the hands of people that have greater economic value.
opus said:And yes, it is society's fault just as much as it is the individual's fault. Stop asking the same question phrased differently expecting me to concede to neoliberal ideology. To completely punish an individual for social problems is poor. Read Albert Camus' The Stranger.
opus said:I did not say everything is determined by social forces. I am saying that most things that influence a person's life is determined by social forces.
opus said:It is classical that economists resort to biology and psychology as "evidence" for their ideology, because these are two disciplines that ignore social life and reduce things to the individual. Forget about political science, anthropology, sociology - they're always refuting what them fighten economists are sayin'.
opus said:they have different friends, probably watch different shows, listen to different music, are influenced by different things; just because they have the same parents or live in the same house does not mean they live in the same environment. One may be into heavy metal subculture while another is into anime. Socialization comes in all places, forms, times - it's latent.
Yes, individuals should be accountable for their actions. However, we must be careful to see if it is not completely their fault. If a group of friends encouraged an individual to overdose on a drug, it is not completely the fault of the individual. There are social things at play. However, I realize that society is something much more difficult to hold accountable. For wealth redistribution, you are not "punishing" the individuals, but "punishing" the economic structure. A progressive tax is founded on this principle, that there is a connection between poverty and inequality - which of course, there is. Even in the poorest countries like Saudi Arabia you have princes in BMW's and buying Airbus A380's.Economist said:We are talking about holding individuals accountable for their actions/behavior. You seem to think that these things are greatly out of one's personal control, but I disagree. Furthermore, if you don't think it's appropriate to punish an individual for social problems, then why are you in favor of wealth redistribution which seems to punish one individual for social problems? Is it really the top 1 percents fault that the bottom 10 percent are poor?
It's not. Social Darwinism does not explain the industrial revolution.Even this may be too strong of a claim.
Psychology until recently very much rejected anthropology - especially social psychology - because anthropology said that culture influenced a way a person thinks, and that not all human minds think the same way, which early psychology is predicated upon. It wasn't until recently that psychological experiments now involve people all across the world - a typical study will have samples from both America as well as say, Japan. This is because culture influences our mind directly, see here.LOL. Actually, I also majored in psychology and they consider anthropology and sociology sister subjects (but not economics). More importantly, in economics we are not using psychology or biology as proof. In economics, most things we study do not depend on the reason people are the way they are. Rather in economics, we take individuals preferences, personalities, etc as given (exogenous). In economics, it doesn't much matter whether humans are attracted to various goods and services for biological reasons, sociological reasons, or some mix of both. Just like it doesn't necessarily matter why people respond to prices, taxes, etc in predictable ways. We just know that they do.
It's hard to say. Homosexuality has been a good example of the nature/nurture study in twins. I mean if one twin is gay, while the other is not, why could that possibly be? You're asking a question that is different for every person. What matters is that sometimes it doesn't matter when/how they are predisposed to environments that shape their differences, but the bigger picture - that you now have two very different people even though they have the same genes.Ok. Then why did they start listening to different music, hanging out with different people, watching different tv shows, etc. Is it just completely random? If socialization causes everything, then how and why do the earliest of differences occur?
opus said:The Bush gene does not make his family conservative, it is the environment in which the Bushes grow up in.
Yes, it is. America voted for the man. America raised the man. He is a puppet of neoconservative circles and anyone who doesn't see the war behind closed doors (yes, a reference to the documentary) is just as narrow-sighted as the liberals that grow around blaming everything on Bush.Economist said:Ok got it. Then I guess you won't object to the following, "The war in Iraq is not George W Bush's fault, it's society's fault!"
opus said:Yes, it is. America voted for the man. America raised the man. He is a puppet of neoconservative circles and anyone who doesn't see the war behind closed doors (yes, a reference to the documentary) is just as narrow-sighted as the liberals that grow around blaming everything on Bush.