Sociology is a liberal movement.

[nicholasair]

Hello. Sociology seemed like the psychology of the group, however I found out it was started as an anti-modernism movement. This means sociology is mutually exclusive with objectivity. In sociology the greater good is the goal. In criminology one who goes against the greater good for personal insterests like transexuals, gays, or white collar busines men, the person is a deviant. Sociology from my experience has made up its mind about capitalism. Capitalism is the cause of any oppression or wrong doing anywhere. There are no facts or cause and effect. One teacher once told my class "if you are against affirmative action you are a racist." When studying sociology I am only reading about opinions of sociologists without seeing any data or graphs to back up the claims. Because this field of study was started by an emotion like any movement it will never be objective. Sociologists mostly have made conclusions about society and no longer want to question anything. Sociologists also claim man made global warming is a scientific fact. On a show called Bullshit wiht Penn and teller a meteorologists gave an interview saying he knew of no metereologists who agreed with the man made global warming theory. Also according to this episode only five percent carbon emiisions are man made. You may say this is just an entertainment show but most of the guests have PHDs or degrees in the related field. How can liberal studies be in a university without conversative studies to balance the subject matter out.

[Reidy]

I'd recommend against a career in sociology in your case.

[Philip Coates]

There are certain sciences which started since the 19th Century which are thus highly infected with collectivist premises (Sociology and to some extent Economics) or anti-reason premises (Psychology wrt Behaviorism and Freudianism). To name three.

But they are legitimate sciences, important areas of human knowledge(sociology studies how men operate in groups, what institutions they build, how they relate and behave -- very legitimate.) All the more reason for rational people to enter those fields and clean out the Augean stables.

[anonrobt]

There are certain sciences which started since the 19th Century which are thus highly infected with collectivist premises (Sociology and to some extent Economics) or anti-reason premises (Psychology wrt Behaviorism and Freudianism). To name three.

But they are legitimate sciences, important areas of human knowledge(sociology studies how men operate in groups, what institutions they build, how they relate and behave -- very legitimate.) All the more reason for rational people to enter those fields and clean out the Augean stables.

Ahh - "The Social Foundations of Aggregate Individuals" perhaps?

[Christopher]

Beware of confusing a branch of study with the motives of perhaps a minority of practitioners. We don't say philosophy is a silly branch of studies just because Communism came out of it... So did Objectivism.

Sociology makes the study of human societies its chief concern, with the basic aim to understand human societies and the forces that have made them what they are. Sociology includes understanding the forces that made Communist Russia... and the United States of America.

The relationship between societies and social values is also intimately related. I have heard that no industrial society has supported slavery, whereas agricultural societies seem to heavily depend on, and therefore condone out of necessity, the use of slaves. Think about the U.S. Civil War.

So all in all, Sociology is a vital branch to understanding how to make a society that can support any given set of values. Sociology studies the environment of humans. Fail to build the right society, and even the most noble values will collapse to the pragmatic necessities of living within such a society.

[Selene]

Sorry about the bolding.

"Sociology, the scientific study of human social behavior. As the study of humans in their collective aspect, sociology is concerned with all group activities: economic, social, political, and religious. Sociologists study such areas as bureaucracy, community, deviant behavior, family, public opinion, social change, social mobility, social stratification, and such specific problems as crime, divorce, child abuse, and substance addiction. Sociology tries to determine the laws governing human behavior in social contexts."

Excellent advice Chris. I like that communism and objectivism came out of philosophy! B)

I detest most sociologists that I have read. Particularly Margaret Mead and the "It takes a village to raise a child" ...what pompous, effete, bullshit, so I kinda sympathize with nicholasair, but great post Chris.

Adam

[Selene]

Folks:

http://www.trinity.edu/~mkearl/index.html

Interesting site for sociology that I just stumbled across - I already found a nice link to a National Election Site under political science.

Adam

[studiodekadent]

First, with respect to economics: yes, neoclassical/marginalist economics (the current paradigm) is influenced by Utilitarianism. But 1) the majority of sincere Utilitarians are individualist (even if I disagree with their underlying moral theory) and 2) one of the founders of marginalist economics was Carl Menger, the founder of the Austrian School.

I will agree, many schools of economics have incorrect assumptions. That doesn't invalidate the field. And if someone endorses our conclusions from different premises, I don't think we should hate them or consider them enemies. We should make our differences clear, but give credit where credit is due. Kant's intellectual successors (Fichte and Hegel especially) gave much support to collectivism, but Robert Nozick was a Kantian as well.

Now, as for Sociology, I have some important evidence as to its collectivist basis: It was founded by Auguste Comte. Comte coined the term "altruism" and used the term in the same way that Rand did. And he supported altruism. He also advocated the abolition of psychology because it was too individualist!

Comte is the most evil ethicist in history and I agree that as such, Sociology tends to be infected with his premises.

But the study of society can easily be conducted via methodologically individualist means. See Mises and Hayek's work, or Dopfer and Potts' "The General Theory of Economic Evolution," or the synthesis I'm outlining in my masters thesis (which will be uploaded to this site in the near future).

[Robert Campbell]

Sociology is a legitimate discipline with a legitimate subject matter. It's the study of society.

Because the term "sociology" was coined by Auguste Comte, and another founder of modern sociology was Karl Marx, there have been plenty of sociologists with collectivist premises.

But let's not forget that the third founder of modern sociology was Herbert Spencer. Or that the subtitle of Mises' Socialism is... An Economic and Sociological Study.

Robert Campbell

PS. In American university culture (I don't know what the norms are elsewhere), sociology professors are expected to be politically engagé (usually, on behalf of Leftist or welfare-state causes) whereas psychology departments are more likely to discourage overt expressions of political opinion in the classroom. At Clemson, sociology professors often include Left-wing political cartoons on flyers advertisting their courses. No one in the Psych Department does that.

[nicholasair]

how can I learn from a liberal professor and stay objective? I have a hard time speaking up in class.

[DavidMcK]

You aren't required to convert your class or professor to a better point of view. Just make your questions sincere and to the point, or quietly learn. I think that the greatest thing you can do is make yourself learn, you can't make other people learn when they don't want to. As for learning in a class that seems opposed to what you believe in, do what Ayn Rand did...she treated Marxism as an opportunity to identify what their errors were...Objectivism was born from the womb of Marxism.

[Selene]

You aren't required to convert your class or professor to a better point of view. Just make your questions sincere and to the point, or quietly learn. I think that the greatest thing you can do is make yourself learn, you can't make other people learn when they don't want to. As for learning in a class that seems opposed to what you believe in, do what Ayn Rand did...she treated Marxism as an opportunity to identify what their errors were...Objectivism was born from the womb of Marxism.

Well put!

Great advice. Know your potential enemy better than he knows himself.

nicholasair:

Out of curiosity, what year are you in at school?

Is it a primarily State or Private school?

In the US or outside the US?

Adam

[studiodekadent]

how can I learn from a liberal professor and stay objective? I have a hard time speaking up in class.

I was once in your position.

First, remember that most people aren't entirely corrupt. What he says might have some elements of the truth. Just make sure you take what he says with a grain of salt.

Second, always ask yourself what the underlying assumptions are. Check his methodology.

Third, make sure you keep learning about Objectivism, and try to do so from third parties. You have to grasp Objectivist technical epistemology (I know its boring but it is quite literally the key to the entire system). Not only that but you have to grasp it in ACADEMIC TERMS. Don't intellectually ghettoize yourself by reading nothing but Rand or scholarship in Rand's own terms. Try to translate Randian concepts into the language used by most contemporary philosophers. Build bridges. Read Carolyn Ray's doctoral dissertation, particularly Chapter 3. Also, read St. Andre's work on Rand and Abelard (both are freely avalaible online). If you want a summary with references I can send you my masters thesis if you'd like.

Fourth, respect academic etiquitte, ESPECIALLY what is called the "principle of charity." Don't go morally condemning things all the time. Look at the propositions seriously and assume the proposer is simply honestly mistaken. If you do not do this, they will dismiss you as a hack and a Randroid. If, on the other hand, you dispassionately look at the ideas, noting your disagreements without moral invective, you'll find they are MUCH more receptive to what you have to say.

Fifth, try using positive outreach rather than negative outreach. By negative outreach, I mean saying "this is wrong because..." By "positive outreach" I mean looking for areas of AGREEMENT between Objectivism and what you study. For instance, let's take Foucault's concept of "Power-Knowledge" (a favorite of Postmodernists). This is simply the idea that certain popular conceptions of things are manipulated for political reasons. Rand argued that the conflation of "altruism" and "morality" (i.e. an instance of the frozen abstraction fallacy) was perpetrated by people that wanted to advance their collectivist ideology to get power over others. Thus, Rand and Foucault both accept that popular conceptions can be manipulated for a political reason. Here's another example: Classical Liberalism (libertarianism) does not fit on the left-right spectrum. The concept has been intellectually obliterated in popular discourse, which is why its hard for classical liberals to explain what they are all about. Power-Knowledge.

I got a distinction in my Social Ethics course, which was taught by a Foucauldian feminist, by arguing AGAINST the idea that men are collectively responsible for rape, using an Objectivist argument for individualist feminism. I appealled to a similarity. "Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand" is a brilliant source here.

Don't consider the above 'orders.' I'm simply trying to give you some practical advice. Apply them as you see fit. They worked for me, and I didn't have to sacrifice any principles at all.

[nicholasair]

Hi. I go to a public university in utah. I am at the start of my senior year. I tried arguing with a political sociology teacher in favor of capitalism but he just said capitalism would have working in the past but today only socialism is fair.

You aren't required to convert your class or professor to a better point of view. Just make your questions sincere and to the point, or quietly learn. I think that the greatest thing you can do is make yourself learn, you can't make other people learn when they don't want to. As for learning in a class that seems opposed to what you believe in, do what Ayn Rand did...she treated Marxism as an opportunity to identify what their errors were...Objectivism was born from the womb of Marxism.

Well put!

Great advice. Know your potential enemy better than he knows himself.

nicholasair:

Out of curiosity, what year are you in at school?

Is it a primarily State or Private school?

In the US or outside the US?

Adam

[Brant Gaede]

Grit our teeth and get your degree. Your prof isn't going to change no matter what you say. At the end of the year give him a copy of Atlas Shrugged and head out the door: hardback if you think he's salvageable; paperback if you just want to give him the finger.

--Brant

Hi. I go to a public university in utah. I am at the start of my senior year. I tried arguing with a political sociology teacher in favor of capitalism but he just said capitalism would have working in the past but today only socialism is fair.

You aren't required to convert your class or professor to a better point of view. Just make your questions sincere and to the point, or quietly learn. I think that the greatest thing you can do is make yourself learn, you can't make other people learn when they don't want to. As for learning in a class that seems opposed to what you believe in, do what Ayn Rand did...she treated Marxism as an opportunity to identify what their errors were...Objectivism was born from the womb of Marxism.

Well put!

Great advice. Know your potential enemy better than he knows himself.

nicholasair:

Out of curiosity, what year are you in at school?

Is it a primarily State or Private school?

In the US or outside the US?

Adam

Edited August 3, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Selene]

Hi. I go to a public university in utah. I am at the start of my senior year. I tried arguing with a political sociology teacher in favor of capitalism but he just said capitalism would have working in the past but today only socialism is fair.

You aren't required to convert your class or professor to a better point of view. Just make your questions sincere and to the point, or quietly learn. I think that the greatest thing you can do is make yourself learn, you can't make other people learn when they don't want to. As for learning in a class that seems opposed to what you believe in, do what Ayn Rand did...she treated Marxism as an opportunity to identify what their errors were...Objectivism was born from the womb of Marxism.

Well put!

Great advice. Know your potential enemy better than he knows himself.

nicholasair:

Out of curiosity, what year are you in at school?

Is it a primarily State or Private school?

In the US or outside the US?

Adam

OK. Excellent. I would like you to start a journal in a word file. If you wish to discuss it with me just e-mail me on OL and I will provide you with my info. I would like to make teachers who are openly biased part of a broader "class action type" suit. After you graduate then they cannot penalize you.

A group of Randian who I was part of when I went to college were also in the Goldwater organization. In our freshman Pol. Sci. 1 class, the full professoress declared that she hoped their were no Goldwater people in the class because she hated him, fascist, warmonger...boring, we know the drill.

However, she did not expect myself and my co-leader of our little nest of Randians stood up and declared a walkout. Well amazingly, we had a friend in the administration who was a teacher of Philosophy and a Jesuit trained Catholic who worked with us and we forced the marxist bastards to provide us with our own section of pol. sci. 1.

I have received "D's" from really sick leftist teachers because I was always out spoken.

Either way you decide, you can learn a lot and should learn from anyone. Just do your best to see their spin and check and re check and check again. Trust, but verify! Love that man.

Adam

[nicholasair]

A journal is a good idea. What do you want me to write in it? Do you want me to put teachers names in it?

nick

Hi. I go to a public university in utah. I am at the start of my senior year. I tried arguing with a political sociology teacher in favor of capitalism but he just said capitalism would have working in the past but today only socialism is fair.

You aren't required to convert your class or professor to a better point of view. Just make your questions sincere and to the point, or quietly learn. I think that the greatest thing you can do is make yourself learn, you can't make other people learn when they don't want to. As for learning in a class that seems opposed to what you believe in, do what Ayn Rand did...she treated Marxism as an opportunity to identify what their errors were...Objectivism was born from the womb of Marxism.

Well put!

Great advice. Know your potential enemy better than he knows himself.

nicholasair:

Out of curiosity, what year are you in at school?

Is it a primarily State or Private school?

In the US or outside the US?

Adam

OK. Excellent. I would like you to start a journal in a word file. If you wish to discuss it with me just e-mail me on OL and I will provide you with my info. I would like to make teachers who are openly biased part of a broader "class action type" suit. After you graduate then they cannot penalize you.

A group of Randian who I was part of when I went to college were also in the Goldwater organization. In our freshman Pol. Sci. 1 class, the full professoress declared that she hoped their were no Goldwater people in the class because she hated him, fascist, warmonger...boring, we know the drill.

However, she did not expect myself and my co-leader of our little nest of Randians stood up and declared a walkout. Well amazingly, we had a friend in the administration who was a teacher of Philosophy and a Jesuit trained Catholic who worked with us and we forced the marxist bastards to provide us with our own section of pol. sci. 1.

I have received "D's" from really sick leftist teachers because I was always out spoken.

Either way you decide, you can learn a lot and should learn from anyone. Just do your best to see their spin and check and re check and check again. Trust, but verify! Love that man.

Adam

[nicholasair]

In a class entitled gender, race, and ethnicity under the sociology department I learned from Dr. Goodman. This was at the University of Utah. During one class she stated “if you are against affirmative action you are a racist.”

In another class my political sociology teacher Professor Bro said socialism is more fair than capitalism. I wonder what his definition of fair is.

Most teachers use the term exploitation when regarding capitalism. What is the teachers definition of exploitation. Is a women working in a factory gaining independence and the capitol needed to stand on her own feet exploitiation. Who is being exploited and by who?

In a social problems class a teacher said something similar to man made global warming has been proved. One student tried to make a point of some scientists who still are questioning the claim. Student made comments under their breath about him. This teacher just went on to the next comment from a pro man made global warming student without acknowledging the individual’s point. At the same time I saw little to no actual data about global warming. This environment is in no way the questioning and objective classroom I experienced in biology.

A journal is a good idea. What do you want me to write in it? Do you want me to put teachers names in it?

nick

Hi. I go to a public university in utah. I am at the start of my senior year. I tried arguing with a political sociology teacher in favor of capitalism but he just said capitalism would have working in the past but today only socialism is fair.

You aren't required to convert your class or professor to a better point of view. Just make your questions sincere and to the point, or quietly learn. I think that the greatest thing you can do is make yourself learn, you can't make other people learn when they don't want to. As for learning in a class that seems opposed to what you believe in, do what Ayn Rand did...she treated Marxism as an opportunity to identify what their errors were...Objectivism was born from the womb of Marxism.

Well put!

Great advice. Know your potential enemy better than he knows himself.

nicholasair:

Out of curiosity, what year are you in at school?

Is it a primarily State or Private school?

In the US or outside the US?

Adam

OK. Excellent. I would like you to start a journal in a word file. If you wish to discuss it with me just e-mail me on OL and I will provide you with my info. I would like to make teachers who are openly biased part of a broader "class action type" suit. After you graduate then they cannot penalize you.

A group of Randian who I was part of when I went to college were also in the Goldwater organization. In our freshman Pol. Sci. 1 class, the full professoress declared that she hoped their were no Goldwater people in the class because she hated him, fascist, warmonger...boring, we know the drill.

However, she did not expect myself and my co-leader of our little nest of Randians stood up and declared a walkout. Well amazingly, we had a friend in the administration who was a teacher of Philosophy and a Jesuit trained Catholic who worked with us and we forced the marxist bastards to provide us with our own section of pol. sci. 1.

I have received "D's" from really sick leftist teachers because I was always out spoken.

Either way you decide, you can learn a lot and should learn from anyone. Just do your best to see their spin and check and re check and check again. Trust, but verify! Love that man.

Adam

[Christopher]

I have found the best way to deal with professors is to be conscious of the natural desire for social hierarchy, the desire to trust authorities completely, and the desire to associate self-image with one's environment.

These are difficult, and I'm the first to sympathize. Human emotions seem to naturally drive most people to perceive hierarchy, to want to trust experts, and to identify with our social place. Unfortunately, these emotional drives are what give status to professors, enabling such professors to override our own beliefs. It's difficult to scuttle our own desire for an expert/authority figure to trust. But eventually we need to be our own expert, and to place trust in those we believe in, not those whom some groups of society have given authority to.

If a professor says something you don't agree with, challenge him! Don't be aggressive, don't be rude, disparaging, or anything that could be perceived as an attack. Just question him, be polite, state your beliefs and that you see room to disagree. Several times in my own academic pursuits, I would have a professor say something I didn't agree with (one said: there is no free will!), and without even raising my hand I would hear myself say : that's rediculous! Then I would become self-aware, blush a little, but still go on and defend my belief. I didn't attack the professor... that would be inappropriate. Rather, I openly vocalized my disagreement. Several students would later tell me they really respected that I would stand up to professors. Such students themselves were honest enough to tell me that they sometimes fall under the spell that the professor knows all, but that my challenges sometimes helped them realize the professor was only giving opinions in many cases.

Best

Chris

[studiodekadent]

Most teachers use the term exploitation when regarding capitalism. What is the teachers definition of exploitation. Is a women working in a factory gaining independence and the capitol needed to stand on her own feet exploitiation. Who is being exploited and by who?

They're using either the Marxist theory of exploitation (which is based on the idea that an item's market value is "created" by the labor used to produce the product, as opposed to the correct position that the exchange value of goods is ultimately a product of people's evaluations of said good), OR they are arguing that employer-employee relationships are inherently exploitative as the employer is 'using' the employee as a means to an end, and/or 'commodifying' the employee, i.e. treating him as something less than human.

[Robert Campbell]

Nick,

There's no harm in asking Professor Bro what his criteria for fairness are. It's not as though everyone's are the same...

Or in asking any professor who goes on about exploitation to explicate that term.

Or in asking a professor who claims that AGW is established fact, so let's throttle down industrial civilization right now, what he or she considers conclusive evidence of AGW.

As far as getting further into Objectivism, studiodekadent's advice is excellent. For instance, Rand was aware of the political manipulation of concepts, and critiqued a number of different instances of it, so (much as it would freak them out in Irvine) there is common ground with Foucault.

Robert Campbell

[Philip Coates]

Good point, studiodekadent, about two different senses of the term 'exploitation'. I had been carelessly assuming the Marxist or economic one only, since that is the one I was taught.

[anonrobt]

Where may I find this Carolyn Ray doctoral dissertation - seem unable to locate it online...

[Robert Campbell]

Right here...

http://enlightenment.supersaturated.com/essays/text/carolynray/diss/index.html

Enjoy!

Robert Campbell

[anonrobt]

Right here...

http://enlightenment.supersaturated.com/essays/text/carolynray/diss/index.html

Enjoy!

Robert Campbell

Thanks........