You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Social Science’ category.
Category Archive
Michael Kimmel – On Gender and Privilege
February 24, 2015 in Social Science | Tags: Gender, Privilege, Sociology | by The Arbourist | 2 comments
I’m reading Kimmel’s book GuyLand and I shudder to think of what I would be if I had engaged in the sort of crap that constitutes the typical male maturation process.
Share this:
On Blame – A Barrier to Accountability
February 10, 2015 in Social Science | Tags: Blame, Brene Brown, RSA Animate | by The Arbourist | 2 comments
Let’s just add this to the list of things to be mindful of when dealing with the important and not so important people in our lives. How often does it happen to you? Does it happen to you?
In hindsight, I can see that sometimes I do this and really, as the video says, it just isn’t very helpful.
Share this:
RSA Animate – The ABC’s of Persuasion
January 21, 2015 in Social Science | Tags: ABC's of Persuasion, RSA Animate, Sociology | by The Arbourist | Comments closed
We have not featured an RSA animate here at DWR like forever, so here we go a quick hit in the qualities of persuasion you should have.
Share this:
Logic: How to PWN an argument, without getting the RPOJ
January 12, 2015 in Atheism, Education, Feminism, Gender Issues, Quackery, Religion, Science, Social Science | Tags: argument, pedantry, RPOJ, Snark | by The Intransigent One | 2 comments
If you want to take down somebody else’s argument, a certain familiarity with the nature of intellectual or philosophical (as opposed to playground) argument is required, so that you can construct your own counter-argument. In an intellectual argument, the person putting forth an argument sets out a number of premises (statements of facts), which, when you add them together, at best makes it impossible for their conclusion to be false (deductive argument), or at least makes it much more likely that their conclusion is true (inductive argument).
If you want to show that somebody’s argument is wrongity wrong, there are two, and only two, tactics allowed:
- Show that at least one of the premises of the argument is untrue.
- Show that even if the premises of the argument are true, the conclusion does not follow logically and/or inductively.
Tactic #1 requires good research skills, including the ability to find good sources, and the consideration to provide links and references so that others can evaluate those sources. Research does not include saying, “Well it’s never happened to me, and nobody whose opinion I consider valid has every described anything like this to me, therefore the person recounting their experience must be mistaken.”
Tactic #2 requires an understanding of formal logic and logical fallacies, as well as an understanding of inductive reasoning, for example, the scientific method and statistical inference. Be sure you know what a Straw Man argument is, both so you don’t make one, and so you don’t go calling somebody else’s argument a straw man incorrectly. Be familiar with Ad Hominem and Ad Hominem Tu Quoque fallacies, and again, refrain from using them, and don’t go accusing others of using them, unless you actually know what they are. Understand that correlation does not equal causation, but that scientific research can still draw meaningful conclusions even if not all of it can meet the gold standard of perfectly-designed, randomly-assigned, double-blinded, longitudinal, etc etc etc experiments.
I know, I know… that’s a lot to ask of somebody who just wants to assert that their knee-jerk, market-wisdom-based, common-sense, status-quo-supporting opinion is Truth. Especially since going through the work of checking facts and reading the research may prove you wrong, and then what do you do.
Share this:
Social Maps of Cities – David Troy
December 15, 2014 in Social Science | Tags: Maps, Sociology | by The Arbourist | Comments closed
Interesting vid from TED about the social composition of cities. I would have liked David to get into a little more detail about the methodology used to create his pretty maps.
Share this:
Capitalism – “Breaking” Cultural Norms (Ochobo) by Reinforcing Them.
August 13, 2014 in Social Science | Tags: Capitalism Winning to Fail yet again, Cultural Norms, Japan, Liberation Wrapper, Ochobo, Sociological Images, Sociology | by The Arbourist | 8 comments
From Sociological Images Micheal Lozano –
[…] Japanese fast-food has found a way to bypass the cultural stigmas that impede their profits. One food chain noticed many women would not buy their biggest-sized burgers. The culprit was ochobo, a Japanese custom that prevents women from opening their mouth widely in public. Small mouths are considered beautiful and opening them widely is considered “ugly” and “rude.” The restaurant concluded that it would get into the business of “freeing women from the spell of ‘ochobo.’”

Face Veil, so liberating! much burger! noms tasty!
Of course, the irony is that the burger chain’s “solution” isn’t actually liberating women. By hiding the deviation behind a paper mask, it is actually reinforcing Ochobo. After all, the social reality remains — it is not acceptable for Japanese women to display an open mouth in public.
Share this:
How to Influence Teenagers and other People too.
March 13, 2014 in Education, Social Science | Tags: Educational Strats, Paraphrasing, People, Problem Solving, Psychology | by The Arbourist | Comments closed
Working in behavioural education means that much of this stuff is old hat for me, but sometimes isn’t as common knowledge as I think it is for others, so lets review some the tricksy-hobbit ways P-sychologists work their magic. We’ll pick up midway though the article:
I asked Dahl what he does with his children when he wants to influence them.
His answer? He uses techniques from a clinical method called “motivational interviewing.” Motivational interviewing has proven effective in motivating behavior change in teens in difficult arenas, like drug and alcohol abuse, disordered eating, and risky sexual behavior. Dahl’s advice was to learn to use it as a parent for the more mundane areas where we’d like to see growth in our children, so that if we need it for a bigger problem we know what we are doing. Here are five motivational interviewing techniques that decrease kids’ resistance to our influence:
(1) Express empathy. Kids and teens are much more likely to listen to us if they feel understood. Resist the urge to give advice or to “finger-wag”—two things that tend to create defensiveness and resistance to our great ideas. Instead, reflect back to adolescents their position on things.
This is hard, you need to practice to make it sound like you are actually meaning what you say and listening to their point of view, even if the other person is most decidedly full of shit. The neat thing is that sometimes through careful listening and empathy you determine that you’re the one full of it, and can change your position.
(2) Ask open-ended questions to understand their position. We want to encourage our teens to share with us their innermost motivations. To do this, we can phrase our questions non-judgmentally in ways that will prompt the adolescent to elaborate. Even if we are giving kids a choice about what to talk about (“Do you want to talk about what it is like when you lose your temper at school, or do you want to talk about what makes it difficult for you to eat a healthy lunch?”) Dahl recommends that we always also throw in a super-open-ended question like, “…or maybe there is something else you would rather discuss? What do you think?”
Roundabout and redundant? I’d like you to reflect on your thinking processes when you get angry or defensive – is going straight for the problem always the best solution?
(3) Reflect what they are saying, not what we wish they were saying. This can be a simple restatement:
Adolescent: You say that I have to do all these things to make the team, but I think I’ll make the team even if I don’t jump through those hoops.
Parent: You’re not sure all this work is necessary.Or, you can reflect what they mean but use different words:
Adolescent: I’m not an alcoholic!
Parent: That label really doesn’t fit you.Or, try reflecting what they are feeling:
Adolescent: I’m not an alcoholic!
Parent: It really makes you angry when you think you are being labeled in that way.Finally, try amplifying or exaggerating—without sarcasm!—what they are saying if the adolescent clearly expresses some ambivalence about their resistance to your influence:
Adolescent: I’m really not sure that I need help or treatment to deal with this.
Parent: Your life is really fine right now, just the way it is.
Let’s face the facts gentle readers, communication is hard and often inaccurate even at the best of times. Throw in a hot button issue or three and you have the recipe for a bevy of misunderstanding and usually a shouting match. Reflecting, paraphrasing and mirroring provide the time and brainspace for both parties to understand what they are actually saying and the motivations behind them.
(4) Show them their inconsistencies—gently. One thing that we can reflect back to our teens, using the above strategies, are their conflicting motivations—the inconsistencies between what they say their goals or beliefs are, and their current behavior.
What to say, then, to that teen who wants to join the garage band, but has not been practicing regularly or learning the music? First, ask her permission to tell her what you see.
If she says she’s willing to listen to your perspective, gently point out the discrepancy between what she says she wants and what she’s doing to make that happen in a non-judgemental, factual way: “You really want to join Jack’s band, but before they’ll let you audition, you need to learn all the songs on their playlist. You haven’t started learning those songs yet. It seems like the play is taking up a lot of the time that you might spend practicing, and that when you get home from play practice, you just want to chill out in your room instead of practicing more or starting your homework.”
Do you like playing with hand grenades? Then this is the step for you. What counts most is your relationship with the person in question, you know how they are, how they will react – “ish” – so go slow and careful for the best results.
(5) Support their autonomy and emphasize their personal choice and control. Teens are most likely to change when they recognize the problem themselves, and when they are optimistic about their ability to solve the problem. We can help by expressing our confidence in their abilities, and by emphasizing that we can’t change them—that the choice about whether or not to change is the adolescent’s alone. Dahl recommends saying something like this: “Whether or not you make any changes in your activities or your behavior is entirely up to you. I definitely would not want you to feel pressured to do anything against your will.”
All of these techniques take practice.
Not always applicable, but setting yourself up on their team, supporting their goals and aspirations as oppossed to telling them they are the express train to WrongVille, can sometimes win the day for both of you.



Your opinions…