|
On November 14 2009 17:42 Descent wrote:
^ 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.
Said it better than i could have myself.
|
the so-called social norm is what people appear to be. everybody holds some aspects outside of this "social norm" therefore feel the need to cover it up. in some case people act the complete opposite in different quarters
I don't think you can come up with some kind of all-encompassing theory without it being just a narrow snapshot from one particular angle and point in time that you possess. what is the norm today may not be in a decade or two.
I tried to do the same thing for another subject, and I've since realized that. people's prerogatives drive their perspective, combined with the social climate of the time, and the continuous evolution can create almost limitless variations.
you can't make it work cus you're just 1 variation out of the many. no one person can be everything to everybody. maybe that's the idea of god. in which case it certainly doesn't exist here in earth
|
On November 14 2009 18:16 .risingdragoon wrote:
the so-called social norm is what people appear to be. everybody holds some aspects outside of this "social norm" therefore feel the need to cover it up. in some case people act the complete opposite in different quarters
I don't think you can come up with some kind of all-encompassing theory without it being just a narrow snapshot from one particular angle and point in time that you possess. what is the norm today may not be in a decade or two.
I tried to do the same thing for another subject, and I've since realized that. people's prerogatives drive their perspective, combined with the social climate of the time, and the continuous evolution can create almost limitless variations.
you can't make it work cus you're just 1 variation out of the many. no one person can be everything to everybody. maybe that's the idea of god. in which case it certainly doesn't exist here in earth
I don't even know what you're talking about, and you don't either. It just seems like random gibberish. You do realize that despite vast differences in time and location, we're able to deduce a lot about societies and how they acted based purely on how predictable we are?
|
you're the one that's not getting it
it's all theory, that's why I left sociology behind. I was even told that by a very respected professor: "yea, it's all theory. everything that we teach." tons of it makes sense, but it makes sense in a classroom, it may or may not in real life
your so-called deductions aren't the truth, they're just projections like the weather report. any meteorologist worth his salt will tell you the same damn thing - it ain't real, it's only based on what we do know.
and it's *accepted* not excepted
|
On November 14 2009 18:27 .risingdragoon wrote:
you're the one that's not getting it
it's all theory, that's why I left sociology behind. I was even told that by a very respected professor: "yea, it's all theory. everything that we teach." tons of it makes sense, but it makes sense in a classroom, it may or may not in real life
your so-called deductions aren't the truth, they're just projections like the weather report. any meteorologist worth his salt will tell you the same damn thing - it ain't real, it's only based on what we do know.
and it's *accepted* not excepted
it just seems like you're stringing together random words. What does that have to do with my theory? I must be permanently brain damaged or something, or else you're just very bad at getting to the point.
|
You will only find a 'norm' if you investigate in few traits. The more the traits, the lesser amount of people fit in a combined-all-traits-norm
|
okay then, let's get away from the macro level, and get down to the details
give me an example of a subculture "thousands of years ago" and compare it to one of today's, and tell me why you think they have the same type of people genetically. and what type of gene does this?
easiest way to prove something is to just test it.
I've been trying to tell you categorization doesn't exist, and so have others. people are many things at the same time and change through out our lifetime. even so, categories like subculture is not static that somehow if you have a "gene" you'll be in it forever.
|
On November 14 2009 19:20 .risingdragoon wrote:
okay then, let's get away from the macro level, and get down to the details
give me an example of a subculture "thousands of years ago" and compare it to one of today's, and tell me why you think they have the same type of people genetically. and what type of gene does this?
easiest way to prove something is to just test it.
Thank you for entirely ignoring the fact that i said the idea of a "gene" wasn't solid at all. I'm positing that there is some sort of PHYSICAL METHOD BY WHICH PSYCHOLOGICAL TRAITS ARE DETERMINED, DISREGARDING MENTAL ILLNESS.
Also, thank you for entirely missing the idea of how these groups work in the first place. People who are PSYCHOLOGICALLY SIMILIAR i.e. they ACT THE SAME would gravitate toward a subculture in which these people all ACTED SIMILIAR. How is this hard to understand? If Person A, living 1500 years ago, was accepted by a social group for his traits, then we could say he had entirely baseless "Allele 001" which makes him have the tendencies which would cause him to gravitate toward other people with Allele 001. Person B is born in the modern era, and he also posseses Allele 001. He will gravitate towards of people with this allele as well, however the group isn't at all necessarily similiar to the group that Person A gravitated toward.
|
lol i'm done
apparently your definition of a category is just "likemindedness" while ignoring everything else.
|
On November 14 2009 19:42 .risingdragoon wrote:
lol i'm done
apparently your definition of a category is just "likemindedness" while ignoring everything else.
*facepalm*
|
The cool thing about sociology is that you never have to prove any theory, just gotta make them seem somewhat plausible.
|
Oh god, I could write a huge ass response to this. I think it's more of an sociological issue.
And btw, subcultures aren't governed by genes per se. Gene expressions develop over a longer period of time than most subcultures exist. I think there is a problem with appointing too much biologism to the issue instead of seeing the human system of thought that created discourse.
Our brains have definately evolved beyong typical gene expressions in terms of thinking outside the box and imagining a great amount of stuff. Also the fact that we actually know of genes/memes and their expressions makes us able to overcome their theoretical limitations. The brain has evolved faster than our genes imo, especially the last 200 years or so. While genes still define what traits get to live in, they don't rule over thoughts directly and subcultures don't necessarily have to be a straight up product of genes.
I encountered similar reasoning in Dawkins "The god delusion" as well and while he is right about alot of stuff obviously I think he should look into sociology more. He is too biologically oriented.
OP, I don't mean to smite you but your reasoning is a bit ridiculous and centuries old. You mention "normal social activity" and fact is it's just based on a socially constructed norm regarding what's "normal". Also you can't scientifically tell that people are "normal" by doing tests or whatever. You should know that there aren't really any tests for example anxiety and depression. But wait are those "normal" conditions?
Where do you draw the line for "normal"?
Normality is a discourse, and for further reading I definately suggest "Madness and civilization" by Michel Foucault. It discusses mental illness and how "normality" has developed through history.
|
On November 14 2009 20:05 Navane wrote:
The cool thing about sociology is that you never have to prove any theory, just gotta make them seem somewhat plausible.
Define "proving" a theory?
Alot of sociological theories are based on obviously very theoretical ideas and reasoning and most of them are quite elaborate. Just because you can't measure something in a laboratory setting, doesn't mean it's not true.
Would you also say the same about philosophy? Or Antropology? How about theoretical physicists who talk about multiverses and what not?
|
On November 14 2009 19:37 ghermination wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2009 19:20 .risingdragoon wrote:
okay then, let's get away from the macro level, and get down to the details
give me an example of a subculture "thousands of years ago" and compare it to one of today's, and tell me why you think they have the same type of people genetically. and what type of gene does this?
easiest way to prove something is to just test it. Thank you for entirely ignoring the fact that i said the idea of a "gene" wasn't solid at all. I'm positing that there is some sort of PHYSICAL METHOD BY WHICH PSYCHOLOGICAL TRAITS ARE DETERMINED, DISREGARDING MENTAL ILLNESS. Also, thank you for entirely missing the idea of how these groups work in the first place. People who are PSYCHOLOGICALLY SIMILIAR i.e. they ACT THE SAME would gravitate toward a subculture in which these people all ACTED SIMILIAR. How is this hard to understand? If Person A, living 1500 years ago, was accepted by a social group for his traits, then we could say he had entirely baseless "Allele 001" which makes him have the tendencies which would cause him to gravitate toward other people with Allele 001. Person B is born in the modern era, and he also posseses Allele 001. He will gravitate towards of people with this allele as well, however the group isn't at all necessarily similiar to the group that Person A gravitated toward.
Mind your manners, sir.
You are btw totally oversimplyfying it and being too biological about it. Like I stated above
|
Belgium8305 Posts
so twins should always belong to the same subculture according to you
i'm not even sure why this is a debate when clearly your hypothesis doesn't make sense. it's the classic nature vs nurture debate with you stating it's 100% nature, i don't think any respectable scientist in this day and age would ever agree with you
|
+ Show Spoiler +On November 14 2009 15:07 ghermination wrote:
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 [ACCEPTED].
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?
Excepted -> Accepted
Also: SC subculture will probably translate to SC2 subculture.
And yes, people who like similar things will gravitate towards each other and create said subculture, and since genetics play a part in the things that you like and dislike it can be a very real factor in deciding which subculture one would actively participate in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
