Srsly, though, I don't think anyone has a really good explanation for why people arrive at such different places, but it legit could be butterflies and typhoons stuff. Like one house watches football, the other watches, idk, whatever libshit kids cartoons have secret revolutionary messaging. Someone makes friends with a queer person, someone doesn't.
The thing about nature vs nurture is that people always imagine "nature" to be genetic instead of whatever random chemical bullshit happened in the womb while your brain was growing, and "nurture" to be Important Conversations with your parents and teachers instead of that one time you overheard some phrase that you completely misinterpreted because you were five and fully incorporated that misinterpretation into your worldview for years. But the total quantity of random bullshit outweighs the "important" parts by orders of magnitude.
Attention, people of Bikini Bottom! You have been cheated and lied to! The gentle laborer shall no longer suffer from the noxious greed of Mr. Krabs! We will dismantle oppression board by board! We'll saw the foundation of big business in half! Even if it takes an eternity! With your support, we will send the hammer of the people's will crashing through the windows of Mr. Krabs' HOUSE OF SERVITUDE!
almost the same material conditions can still include the guy who works in a supermarket for a living and the guy who became a taxi driver for a living
I think a good point can probably be made here about not mixing different pairs of socks. One thing is talking about class or category, and acknowledge that there's some tendencies here and there. Another is individuals, and individuals are up to their personal history. So the real punchline here is neither (which does not prevent me from having a certain... experience with taxi drivers in particular).
I could see this making any kind of analysis of outcomes from arbitrary cohort extremely complex. This is outside my area of expertise and I'm definitely not a scientist (though I use it constantly). Perhaps I'm looking at this from the wrong perspective? It just seems that for any cohort the amount of variance would be so high that if you were to draw a conclusion from data it could already be wrong.
These would be two distinct yet connected sorts of data. The qualitative and the quantitative. One can disprove or question theories defined by the other, which is one reason why social sciences are in a permanent state of revision. Another reason is because your understanding of society is contingent on the very questions and framing devices you utilize.
Let's say you are investigating the birth of a city from an economic standpoint. Meaning that you wish to know what sort of trade or productive activity jumpstarted those first few cycles of capital accumulation. In the Americas you have cities like Rio de Janeiro which are so new that the documentation goes back to when there were only a few hundred families in the urban center + surrounding hinterland. So you have both the potential to realize patterns and variance, or the quantitative and the qualitative sides of your analysis.
You can look at specific families, what they did for a living, how they did well for themselves, what happened to their estates, what economic role mothers and fathers played, etc. And you can look at all families at once to find patterns. The quantitative analysis might help you make blanket statements such as 'the first and most primary form of capital accumulation for Rio de Janeiro was slavery, specifically the enslavement of native groups as part of allied wars and enslavement campaigns'. But if you go on to make another blanket statement such as, say, 'social mores in the wealthier sectors of colonial society followed a rigid patriarchical structure', then you'll find numerous examples of families where sometimes 3 full generations were outright led by the mothers and wives rather than the fathers and husbands. Sometimes because they appear to just be better at it than the men, sometimes because there were no men.
I'm framing it like this because that's how it works. We write our sociological narratives, and then someone else re-frames things a little differently and comes up with new and interesting inputs. It's not often that we completely disprove old, well supported theories. Rather, we end up refining them as scholars argue forever to the smallest detail.
deleted by creator
Embrace the random bullshit absurdity.
Srsly, though, I don't think anyone has a really good explanation for why people arrive at such different places, but it legit could be butterflies and typhoons stuff. Like one house watches football, the other watches, idk, whatever libshit kids cartoons have secret revolutionary messaging. Someone makes friends with a queer person, someone doesn't.
The thing about nature vs nurture is that people always imagine "nature" to be genetic instead of whatever random chemical bullshit happened in the womb while your brain was growing, and "nurture" to be Important Conversations with your parents and teachers instead of that one time you overheard some phrase that you completely misinterpreted because you were five and fully incorporated that misinterpretation into your worldview for years. But the total quantity of random bullshit outweighs the "important" parts by orders of magnitude.
Word. Well said.
yeah people way overestimate the degree of determinism embodied in DNA.
Gene expression (epigenetics) are half, probably more, of the story.
Allow me to explain to Hexbear the hidden Marxism of Dragon Ball. As you see....
deleted by creator
Yup. IIRC, Toriyama literally based him off a real estate 'developer'
deleted by creator
I think a lot of young artists had their radicalizing moment with the economic crisis of the 80s and 90s in Japan
Based and Saiyanpilled.
deleted by creator
"The Krusty Krab is unfair! Mr. Krabs is in there, standing at the concession, plotting our oppression!"
Attention, people of Bikini Bottom! You have been cheated and lied to! The gentle laborer shall no longer suffer from the noxious greed of Mr. Krabs! We will dismantle oppression board by board! We'll saw the foundation of big business in half! Even if it takes an eternity! With your support, we will send the hammer of the people's will crashing through the windows of Mr. Krabs' HOUSE OF SERVITUDE!
Right. Like just to make myself clear I recognize misanthropy is wrong and I fully condemn it, I just wanted to address that it is there.
For all similar comrades, I implore all of us, me included to recognize and silence the red bazinga that may lurk in many of us.
almost the same material conditions can still include the guy who works in a supermarket for a living and the guy who became a taxi driver for a living
deleted by creator
I think a good point can probably be made here about not mixing different pairs of socks. One thing is talking about class or category, and acknowledge that there's some tendencies here and there. Another is individuals, and individuals are up to their personal history. So the real punchline here is neither (which does not prevent me from having a certain... experience with taxi drivers in particular).
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
These would be two distinct yet connected sorts of data. The qualitative and the quantitative. One can disprove or question theories defined by the other, which is one reason why social sciences are in a permanent state of revision. Another reason is because your understanding of society is contingent on the very questions and framing devices you utilize.
Let's say you are investigating the birth of a city from an economic standpoint. Meaning that you wish to know what sort of trade or productive activity jumpstarted those first few cycles of capital accumulation. In the Americas you have cities like Rio de Janeiro which are so new that the documentation goes back to when there were only a few hundred families in the urban center + surrounding hinterland. So you have both the potential to realize patterns and variance, or the quantitative and the qualitative sides of your analysis.
You can look at specific families, what they did for a living, how they did well for themselves, what happened to their estates, what economic role mothers and fathers played, etc. And you can look at all families at once to find patterns. The quantitative analysis might help you make blanket statements such as 'the first and most primary form of capital accumulation for Rio de Janeiro was slavery, specifically the enslavement of native groups as part of allied wars and enslavement campaigns'. But if you go on to make another blanket statement such as, say, 'social mores in the wealthier sectors of colonial society followed a rigid patriarchical structure', then you'll find numerous examples of families where sometimes 3 full generations were outright led by the mothers and wives rather than the fathers and husbands. Sometimes because they appear to just be better at it than the men, sometimes because there were no men.
I'm framing it like this because that's how it works. We write our sociological narratives, and then someone else re-frames things a little differently and comes up with new and interesting inputs. It's not often that we completely disprove old, well supported theories. Rather, we end up refining them as scholars argue forever to the smallest detail.
deleted by creator