|
My entire life i've been interested in society as a whole. How people act and feel at the macro level, and also how we can predict things by looking at past actions. I'm currently an Anthropology major (there are other places i could be that are more interested in people at the macro level but i love this field)
I've developed and refined a theory over a long period of time that i would like to discuss.
To look at this well, we should first define two things:
1. Within every society there is a norm, or "status quo". These are people who are generally socially excepted.
2. Within every society there are also the abnormal.
2a. A portion of these abnormal people will always possess a scientifically quantifiable mental condition which makes their normal social activity impossible.
2b. A larger portion however, will be abnormal for no
quantifiable reason. Generally these reasons cannot be defined
So what is a subculture?
I see a subculture as a group of people who think, feel, and act distinctly from other equally defined groups. Although they can be blurry at the edges, generally you can tell one from the next if you know what to look for.
These groups can exist either within or outside of a societal norm.
Now, for the important part.
I believe the development of subcultures is defined entirely genetically. For example, if you have imaginary gene a6t1, your social tendencies will move you towards a subculture full of people with the same
quantifiable genetic difference, not your experiences in development (although they too matter)
So, what do you guys think about this? Obviously it would be insanely hard to prove, but I believe because (and here's the clincher)
Throughout history, while the differences among the subcultures themselves may be vast, the people defined to be inside of them are the same.
Basically what i'm saying is that thousands of years ago, The people who are now members of a subculture, would be together in another subculture, despite the fact that it may be different superficially.
The one problem with this theory is quite simple. People are different. Even if this theoretical genetic "personality determiner" does exist, everyone within a subculture doesn't act the same. However, rather like different sized pieces of ore, the ones who are even roughly alike eachother will come together over time.
So what do you guys think of this? I've never really put the whole idea together in writing, but i'm planning on finding some way to use it in the future. Anyone care to disprove this theory?
 
|
Now that's just pure speculation
|
Throughout history, while the differences among the subcultures themselves may be vast, the people defined to be inside of them are the same.
Basically what i'm saying is that thousands of years ago, The people who are now members of a subculture, would be together in another subculture, despite the fact that it may be different superficially.
Could you elaborate on this?
|
|
|
On November 14 2009 15:17 village_idiot wrote:
Now that's just pure speculation
|
Can you also please elaborate on the bit about the influences of experiences during development? I think that that part needs to be clarified, as you say the main defining characteristic is supposed to be a commonly shared gene, yet the experiences also "matter." In what way is what I'm curious about.
To rest: I think OP is trying to extend to the currently-unquantifiable examples of abnormal groups some degree of quantification, in which case it can be said that all examples of abnormality can be scientifically quantified.
|
On November 14 2009 16:14 Descent wrote:
Can you also please elaborate on the bit about the influences of experiences during development? I think that that part needs to be clarified, as you say the main defining characteristic is supposed to be a commonly shared gene, yet the experiences also "matter." In what way is what I'm curious about.
For example, relatively large differences in personality that are caused by living conditions (for example, feudal japanese being entirely unafraid of death, Islam zealots etc), but still aren't capable of fundamentally changing a person.
Also, the idea of a "gene" is really vague, basically just that there is some defining characteristic which 1. differs among individuals and 2. can be proven to exist.
Looking at it like blood typed would be the wrong analogy. The right way to look at it would be more like tissue types. Just like the differing types of human bodies, there are different predetermined methods of the way people will act.
On November 14 2009 15:48 KingPants wrote:Show nested quote +Throughout history, while the differences among the subcultures themselves may be vast, the people defined to be inside of them are the same.
Basically what i'm saying is that thousands of years ago, The people who are now members of a subculture, would be together in another subculture, despite the fact that it may be different superficially. Could you elaborate on this?
For example, if someone was a "Juggalo" nowadays, a thousand years ago they would have been in a subculture that supported at least a similiar personality among all of its members.
|
That's a bit of a broad generalization, don't you think? I don't really see any sort of detailed refinement here...
To get it straight: people who belong to a subculture have an inherent genetic difference that causes them to gravitate towards people with similar genetic differences. As a result, people who have belonged to a subculture in the past would still belong to subcultures today, though the subcultures themselves would be different.
I think you're being stating the obvious here. People are social animals and will tend to gravitate towards others that are similar to them out of a survival instinct. Those that are different are rejected by the larger culture, but then they turn to look for others who are more accepting in order to survive.
|
Um.
Ok.
First of all, you're misappropriating the term subculture. You're talking about ethnicity I believe.
As far as subculture goes, there is no way you could argue the subcultures have remained the same considering certain subcultures (punk, goth, etc) have emerged only recently.
Okay, done clarifying subculture misappropriation.
Now, if you're talking about ethnicity, you run into a number of problems.
First of all, it's already been shown that there are borders between ethnicities that define who is in one ethnicity and who is in another.
These borders are either bright or blurred, and can be shifted or crossed. Without taking the time to explain all of these concepts, I'll just say that it's been discussed ad infinitum and the result has been that evidence has been shown that people continuously dispose of and create new definitions of and distinctions between ethnicities when it suits them.
As far as your theory, it seems weird but you've in a roundabout way defined race...
I mean, summed up, the distinctions of race is defined as: A social construct of class or categorization based on observable physiological differences or characteristics.
You're pretty much saying that social groups we see are a result of genetic differences and people are intrinsically linked because of them. Seems pretty similar to me to the definition of race.
|
I like thinking about this stuff, in fact if you aren't thinking about things like this in college you aren't using your time effectively. However, I think making a theory is a little overboard for a few reasons.
1. As with any theory you make, you have to ask if it can be tested, which I doubt it could be. feel this way because of the indeterminacy of sample size and ridiculous task of creating and controlling variables.
2. We as humans have specific adaptations to understand all these social conventions in really weird intuitive ways. (An interesting thing to do is spend one whole day thinking about exactly why you're doing everything you do, and why the things you see are happening). Our understanding of "social norms" or abnormalities exists on a conscious and unconscious levels and on social and personal levels.
I can dig the whole "gene attraction," but I think this stuff is better left for discussion, and not in the world of theories.
[/academia-related answer]
Good stuff to think about, thanks for posting.
|
Hong Kong20321 Posts
so i have metal head genes?? :D
|
Well, the only difference being you're saying race -causes- the social categorization and class distinctions, while social theory currently says that race is just a social creation used to distinguish one group as better than another, otherwise why do it.
Ethnicity covers all the cultural need for classification, and even then it's pretty much exclusively used to discriminate against people.
|
On November 14 2009 16:19 ghermination wrote: Show nested quote +On November 14 2009 15:48 KingPants wrote:Throughout history, while the differences among the subcultures themselves may be vast, the people defined to be inside of them are the same.
Basically what i'm saying is that thousands of years ago, The people who are now members of a subculture, would be together in another subculture, despite the fact that it may be different superficially. Could you elaborate on this? For example, if someone was a "Juggalo" nowadays, a thousand years ago they would have been in a subculture that supported at least a similiar personality among all of its members.
And to clarify, you believe in your theory because of this?
|
On November 14 2009 15:07 ghermination wrote:
So what do you guys think of this? I've never really put the whole idea together in writing, but i'm planning on finding some way to use it in the future. Anyone care to disprove this theory?
No because it is not a theory, it is a hypothesis and the burden of proof lies on you.
I'm sure you already know that but it bothers me how frequently the term theory is misused and the burden of proof misunderstood.
It will only be a theory once you have identified genes that are commonly present in certain subcultures but rare in the mainstream population.
|
On November 14 2009 16:29 AwarE-- wrote:
Um.
Ok.
First of all, you're misappropriating the term subculture. You're talking about ethnicity I believe.
As far as subculture goes, there is no way you could argue the subcultures have remained the same considering certain subcultures (punk, goth, etc) have emerged only recently.
Okay, done clarifying subculture misappropriation.
Now, if you're talking about ethnicity, you run into a number of problems.
First of all, it's already been shown that there are borders between ethnicities that define who is in one ethnicity and who is in another.
These borders are either bright or blurred, and can be shifted or crossed. Without taking the time to explain all of these concepts, I'll just say that it's been discussed ad infinitum and the result has been that evidence has been shown that people continuously dispose of and create new definitions of and distinctions between ethnicities when it suits them.
As far as your theory, it seems weird but you've in a roundabout way defined race...
I mean, summed up, the distinctions of race is defined as: A social construct of class or categorization based on observable physiological differences or characteristics.
You're pretty much saying that social groups we see are a result of genetic differences and people are intrinsically linked because of them. Seems pretty similar to me to the definition of race.
You've completely missed my point. For example, look at the culture of america. Within this there are SUBCULTURES (the punk movement is also a good example) which aren't at all defined by RACE or ETHNICITY (i've seen plenty of black punk rockers).
Not only that, but do you REALLY think that i believe that people have been emo, goth etc for that long? The idea is that individual people with similiar characteristics (as for as personality goes) gravitated towards groups. These groups don't even have to be related.
For example, if my friend happens to be stubborn, ignorant, annoying, and reckless, he might become a "gangsta" today. People who have the same characteristics as him might have been a member of a completely different type of group (Roman legionaries? I don't know)
|
Those characteristics you're talking about are not genetic or physiological. They are social perceptions of mannerisms.
People have tried to link behavioral traits to genetics for a long time (mostly trying to prove that certain minorities were violent in nature due to their origins) and it's never panned out.
Your theory isn't new, and it's not very sound.
|
Also you should be very careful how you go about wording and writing this.
It sounds very similar to ativism and the vein of thought that led to the creation of ideas like eugenics. Attempting to assign the blame for behavioral traits to groups of people based on genetics and not social factors inherently purports that some people are genetically disposed to be criminals, or genetically disposed to be sexual deviants, etc.
It's been done before, and it's been exposed before.
|
Your main reason for believing your theory is that you believe that if you sent a member of a subculture back in time they would join a subculture that has some similarity(I'm not sure what sort of similarity you have in mind). Could you first of all explain what evidence leads you to believe that and then explain how that belief, if true, would support your theory of it being tied to genetics. I would like to understand what your theory is, please explain these connections.
|
Why are you so favouring of nature as opposed to nurture? You think people are born a certain way and it's already determinable from that point what subculture they will end up in? I don't believe in free will but i definitely believe that the choices people make are effected by the choices of other people around them, by what happens to them during their life experience. Why do you seem to assume that this is virtually a non-issue? What's the evidence to support this part of your theory?
I'm saying people of the same genetic pre-disposition, even if people have those in the first place in general, would probably only be more likely to join certain sub-cultures, and who knows by how much?
|
^ I don't think that adequately refutes the OP. The notion that choices based on interactions with other people isn't a non-issue, and a solution for the OP might be that all individuals with the particular "gene" would each react due to their genetic predisposition to those interactions in a similar way, hence the subculture grouping. For instance, those with a predisposition towards a certain illness will to some degree have to interact with medical professionals in order to get treatment, and this will affect their experiences. In this case, it isn't a non-issue in dismissing nurture, but that the two correlate. For the OP, nature is what affects nurture more strongly than the other way around. I do agree with the sentiment of your last question.
However, OP mentioned that "gene" isn't meant in a strict and conventional sense, so I don't really know if that is correct.
My apologies if I misinterpreted your post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
