applied sociology

youtube

CGP Grey makes really cool videos about a variety of topics (ex: European conquerors brought several epidemics to the Americas, why didn’t the reverse happen?).

Here’s one about automation and what/how it will replace in the economy. Bots can do a lot more than you think, including creative endeavors.

Please reblog or like if you're a studyblr. I'm new here, and need people to follow!

My main blog is @darlinghauntmydreams, but I will check you out and follow you for this studyblr! (I’m esp. looking for college/uni students to follow!)

A little about me: I’m a sophomore college student with a major in Applied Psychology and Global Public Health and a minor in Law & Society and American Sign Language.

On Academia Producing Social Justice Bigots

Application of Marxism to the sociological world will always produce prejudiced views. Marxism is the idea that groups must be seen as a collective  and have their place in society defined by their dichotomized collective roles and must be seen at odds with one another. To Marx this meant the oppressed working class rising up against the privileged wealthy class. Is it any wonder that this thinking applied sociologically in our education system has produced the insane racist, sexist SJWs that is has. They like to make up equations and extraneous variables and add them to definitions to explain away the prejudiced nature of their doctrine. But I’ll take a page from them and propose an equation of my own. 

Collectivism + (Irrelevant trait) = prejudiced viewpoint

For example Collectivism + race= racism or collectivism + gender = sexism

The reason for this is that a prejudiced view is based on the belief that members of that group have a necessary inborn characteristic that they share.  So when you combine collectivism with race you get the idea that members of a race should be defined by group labels and treated as though they all share a specific characteristic and place in society…which is the definition of racism. Open up any textbook that includes feminism and you will see the name Karl Marx so it should be no surprise that a gender ideology that relies on his philosophy produces so much anti-male sexism. “I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honourable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.”  - Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor

This is why feminism is inherently sexist, it’s why it has always been sexist and will always be sexist. It’s why feminism should have no place in academia or a civilized society for that matter. It’s also why Marxism is a garbage ideology that should never have been applied to the social world; especially when it even failed to get results when applied to what it was meant to be applied to wealth. 

tbh the issue w/ matpat giving the pope undertale is amusing but not really the most annoying thing about the ordeal, it’s more the fact matpat gets a platform to speak about internet/gamer culture and discrimination for which he is horribly unfit to do so and he’s already a self-important asshole who greatly exaggerates the importance of video games and gamer/internet culture to begin with, and now he’s basically given this opportunity to legitimize his ego stroking and his view of gamers as some kind of underrepresented and hated minority, while claiming this “culture” to be one that is saving humanity or some shit, which are prime examples of /problems/ of gamer culture.

I wish he’d just stuck to standard ass physics problems instead of getting into this pretentious and ill-informed high school level psychology and sociology, applying low-effort thought into hypotheticals based on things he doesn’t understand. A lot of his theories at this point are basic headcanons too but treats them as legitimate because of his huge fucking ego and fan support. Let alone how disgustingly negligent he is to social issues, matpat is just trash at “theory” and has to reach even harder each video just to maintain relevancy. 

I have an odd Adeptus Mechanicus related question. Is it still the Canon that they are mostly focused on rediscovery of STC and Age of Technology and so are kinda unscientific in their quest for knowledge?

I ask because if so I think it could be used as a setup for an interesting contrast and sort of irony. So if the Adeptus Mechanicus cloak themselves in the notion that they scientific. based on the fanon they are seen as the science faction loosely speaking and the fact that they allegedly have the skull of Nikola Telsa then there’s an odd disconnect. Now that’s par for the course in Warhammer 40k, but stay with me a moment. Now the Adepta Sororitas on the other hand are clearly the religious faction, or at least they are representatives, protectors, and leaders of the primary state sanctioned religion in the Warhammer 40k ‘verse. However part of what they do is also linguistics and debate, through the Orders Dialogus, medicine, through the Orders Hospitallier, and to a lesser degree, genetics and a sort of applied sociology through the Orders Famula. 

All that to say I think it would make for a more interesting story to have the Sisterhood be more scientific, in that they use the scientific method and committed to the discovery of knowledge over the rediscovery of STCs, than the Adeptus Mechanicus. It would be interesting to see how people react, if nothing else.

docs.google.com
Seeking Writer(s) for Crash Course Sociology!
If you’re reading this, then you’re a member of the Crash Course community. And now’s your chance to make the community even better! We’re seeking experienced freelance writers to contribute to Crash Course, one of YouTube’s most viewed and trusted sources of educational content. For 2017, we're planning on teaching the world about Sociology, and we can use your help. We need writers! Since you watch Crash Course, you know how we talk to people: with intelligence, clarity, hopefully a little wit, and an abiding sense of wonder about the world and everything in it. Applicants should have an academic background in writing, and demonstrated experience writing about social sciences for a popular, non-academic audience. Your writing must be: --100% bullet-proof and fact-checked accurate; --completely freaking fascinating; --entertaining, by which we mean “witty” more than just “funny”; and --passionate about imparting social science to humanity in a way that is both educational and engaging. If your experience hits these marks, then prove it! Fill out and submit this application by September 30, 2016.

We’re looking for writers for Crash Course Sociology! Think you’re right for the job? Click the link and fill out the doc to apply!

Me- “There is a difference between first-generation college students who come from low socioeconomic backgrounds and those from high socioeconomic backgrounds that have family that happen to lack formal education.”

Faculty- “So what your saying is if LeBron James sent his kids to Reed, they would definitely be in the second category?”

Me- “Yes. Absolutely.”

Faculty- “Wait. Are you the type of Reedie who even knows who LeBron James is?”

Close Encounters of the University Kind (CS OneShot)

Guys I think I have a thing for romance in libraries… This is one of those things where I take a trope and try to turn it on it’s head. Written for @capitaine-odette in celebration of her birth and just general awesomeness. Hope you enjoy this. 

FF.net | AO3

2.7k | G 


College was hard. The classes, the reading, the midterms, the papers; all of it was hard. And for Emma Swan, who had last attended formal school twelve years ago in a prison while pregnant, it felt especially hard. But Emma was no stranger to doing hard things. She had raised Henry on her own, built a life for herself despite her GED and felony record and no matter how hard college was she knew she could handle it. At least that is what she told herself when she was drowning in tests and pulling all-nighters to finish papers. 

As Emma sat in her quiet corner of the massive library and struggled to make sense of her Econ assignment she reminded herself that she “could do this”, over and over like a mantra.

“I believe in you, love.” The deep and distinctly British voice startled her and her highlighter skittered across the page leaving a green trail over the charts she had been trying to decipher. She looked up but the owner of the voice was already disappearing behind a shelf of large leather volumes. All she caught was his black hair, slim build and a whiff of Hugo Boss.

Emma mentally berated herself for talking out loud. It was a bad habit that she had developed when Henry was a baby. She had kept up a constant stream of chatter; talking enough for two people so he wouldn’t be behind in development. One of the reasons she came to the maritime law section was because it was always empty and there was never anyone to hear her mutterings. She had spent all of last semester talking to the air and the thick, lonely books. She hadn’t considered that with her change in schedule it was possible that she would stumble on others in what she had come to consider “her place”.

She looked down at her textbook and the jittery green trail and felt herself get a little angry. The textbook had cost more than her phone and he had made her ruin it all because he wanted to be funny. She gritted her teeth and returned to her book and her assignment. A few minutes later she heard it; humming. A deep male humming coming from somewhere behind her and occasionally accompanied by the loud rustling of paper. She couldn’t see him to give him a death glare but she could hear him and it was disrupting her concentration.

“Seriously. Doesn’t he know this is a library?” she muttered to herself.

She tapped her foot. She tapped her highlighter. She wished she hadn’t forgotten her headphones. She told herself it was a public place and he was free to do what he wanted. But she knew if he was here on Thursday she would need to find a new place to study.

Keep reading

anonymous asked:

if gender did not exist, we could all just do what we wanted. would that not be better? should we not just eliminate gender altogether?

We can all do what we want now.  The issue isn’t doing what we want, the issue is stigma and the associated social consequences.

Erasing gender won’t erase the stigma or associated consequences, but this is especially important when you realize a fundamental fact about social constructs:  once in place, there is no social construct that has ever been abolished or destroyed.

They have been changed, often beyond all recognition, but never destroyed.

Better is questionable and requires a value judgment – keep in mind, folks felt that shoving the Lakota people to a tiny place, then taking their children from them and forcing them to learn and forget their own culture was a good thing. I live in Phoenix, where we have a street named after the Indian School that was used to do the same to the Navajo and Apache and Hopi people.

To accomplish the goal of gender abolition, the same thing has to be done.

Because gender is a deeply structured part of any culture and social milieu, and cannot be altered without altering that culture.

So to do that, you have to destroy other cultures – even when those cultures perceptions and systems of gender are not like ours.

And because it is a social construct – something that is built, in layers, in a person over their lifetime, and because gender is many different things that work together, including gender identity which cannot be readily changed according to all the mountains of science on the matter, the only way to do it would be to completely strip people starting at birth, from all the world’s influences.

So while you can dream about doing it, and talk about how great it would be, and probably even make it seem like it is a great thing in your mind, in fact and in truth, it won’t work, and it is exactly the kind of idea that appeals to the worst of human nature.

Now, if you think that you could accomplish it in any other way, please, feel free to tell me what ways you think it could be accomplished.

But be prepared for me to apply both sociological analysis and critical theory to it.

You cannot scientifically organize or plan a human society from the top down.  It is the attempt to accomplish this feat that virtually defines Progressive thought. There can never be an applied Sociology in anything like the sense  that we have an applied Chemistry or an applied Physics . One of the key reasons for this is because the things that sociology studies cannot be reproduced.  We can reproduce a chunk of metal  or a flask of iodine  in order to experiment upon them.  You cannot reproduce a particular society in all of its infinite complexity in order to experiment upon it. Consequently Sociology is a highly speculative field based upon generalizations and remote inferences   rather than solid empirical evidence. Now there is nothing in general wrong with such a field.  The problem is when this theoretical Sociology becomes “applied Sociology ” and attempts to dictate public policy in the name of “science”..

No, because history in school is inaccurate and white washed to the point where it’s truly ridiculous.

So, first things first, nobody in question here specified “American history”, they just said “pick up a history book”. But naturally paranormal-blacktivity automatically assumed that by “history” the person she is responding to must have meant “American history”. She clearly cannot be referring to international history, because she doesn’t know how international history is taught in schools outside of America. But of course, she assumes that, wherever it is taught, whichever book it might be in, it’s “white-washed”.

And you can’t use a Webster dictionary definition to describe years of institutionalized racism and systematic oppression and the connection to white privilege/white supremacy, HONESTLY have some critical thinking skills.

The funny thing about linguistics is words can mean more than one thing. That’s actually the reason the dictionary (and thesauruses) exist: to provide meanings and alternate interpretations of definitions. You’ll note that Pat Bidol, the woman who coined the power+prejudice definition, actually respects this fact when she lays out the groundwork for the definition in her book:


Because she both lists the original definition of racism, and says “added” and not “replaced” when describing her sociological definition. Bidol clearly understands that linguistics allow for words to have more than one meaning, and that her definition is a stipulation. And again, stipulations don’t replace normal definitions. They just provide added context. This is something she obviously should understand because she is both a sociologist and a critical race theorist. 

But that brings us to this modern problem where people like paranormal-blacktivity want to ignore both linguistics and stipulations in favour of policing people’s language with pseudo-intellectualism.

No, American sociology doesn’t apply everywhere though it does heavily influence the lives of PoC everywhere. There’s a derogatory term for black people in every language and in any country darker people are treated much worse and in some cases are hardly treated like people but I mean ok, #goawf I guess lmao

Emphasis mine. The amount of both arrogance and ignorance that goes into a statement like that if absolutely astronomical. American sociology “influences the lives of PoC everywhere”? That’s an impossible thing to postulate when American sociology is based on a strictly American context. The only way you can actually think that is if you also believe literally every part of the world is an extension of the United States. Which again, is navel-gazing and American-centric.

paranormal-blacktivity is only showing her complete lack of understanding of the concepts she is using when she tries to explain why she is right.

anonymous asked:

What do you you think the amis would be studying in modern au? Back then there weren't many options so they were all in law or medicine but what do you think they would want to study now that there are so many choices? I think Joly would still choose medicine, Grantaire would do art history, and Jehan would be in creative writing. Combeferre would be one of those people who's always going back to school to study something new. No idea about the rest.

I was born ready for that question because I had to decide who was studying what for Forget me Not:

  • Enjolras: Poly Sci
  • Combeferre: Medecine. It was close call between that and biology engineering
  • Courfeyrac: INFO COM (Info and Communication), hopefully to become a journalist
  • Grantaire: Art at les Beaux Arts de Paris
  • Joly: Medecine
  • Bossuet: Law, especially Humanitarian Law
  • Jehan: Philosophy or the French version of Creative Writing but I don’t know if we have that speciality yet
  • Feuilly: Economic and Social Sciences, especially Geopolitics
  • Bahorel: Seriously… Baz could be studying a lot of stuff. Either Law but resenting it with every part of his soul, physiotherapy, culinary school, sports degree to be a gym teacher, Poly Sci…
  • Marius: Law, especially Law applied to political institutions
  • Eponine: Sociology, specialised in Gender and Sexuality studies
  • Cosette: I’m torn between textile designer, fashion, archeology and psychology
  • Musichetta: Went to Law school, graduated with honours and got her own flower shop because that was her true calling
Applied physics is called chemistry, applied chemistry is called biology, and applied biology is called sociology. Each is more complex, vague, and unpredictable than the last.
—  unknown

Let’s make this clear:

Science has a lot of terminology that only applies in the field.

Science has a lot of terminology that mean something different when not talking about that particular science.

Each field of science has its own special terms.

If you try and apply the in-field science definition outside of the field…

You will look absolutely ridiculous.

Sociology is a science. It is the scientific study of of human interactions and societies.

Terms in Sociology are applied to whole societies.

Racism, when used by some sociologists, means the acts of an entire society (AKA institutional racism). Not even every professor in the field of sociology believes in this as the definition of word.

But outside of the science field. Racism can be individual.

Anyone can be racist against any race.

Outside of sociology, Racism is the belief that humans are separated into races and that some races are inherently more superior or inferior than others and/or the hatred, dislike, dehumanization, or mistreatment of a person(s) by another person(s) on the basis of race.

Is institutional racism more damaging to people and society than individual racism? Yes.

Does this mean individual racism should be ignored? No.

But if you are going to fight against institutional racism, you should not allow individual racism to grow. That is like not treating an infection because you are doing chemotherapy.