Book 3 - Page 174

"Didja see that?"

Book 3 - Page 174
Comic - Book 3 - Page 174
Recent posts... (See full thread)
coyotenose wrote:


They made an assertion. Assertions don't require citations in response, especially when Google is a thing.

The 2012 studies were not only refuted by social scientists and child welfare groups - see https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vol ... ing-study/ - but was shown to have misused data... quite possibly because Mark Regnerus has religiously-motivated prejudices against equal marriage rights, as can be seen in that link and other places.

The really significant part is that about 80% of Regnerus's subjects don't fit his model. What the data really say is that *children of divorced parents* have worse outcomes.

The 2014 reassessment of the study data did in fact show better outcomes for children of same-sex couples. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-05/c ... ds/5574168 Again, Regnerus misrepresented data.

I wouldn't put much stock in an sociological or psychological studies, particularly any that relate to homosexuality. None of them are very scientific, and the fields have been effectively captured by people with agendas.
Jacinth and Rubies wrote:
Again, I think the weird cosmic flame called Love is involved here... Albert wants to know he has worth specifically to his mother. Vinny, being the level headed and observant unit that he is, has earned Albert's respect in word and deed. But I imagine that Albert still has some (albeit very deeply buried) respect for his mom, simply because there is this innate awe regarding the person who brought you into being at their own will. I recall Jillian felt this with respect to her father (I can't find the update with it though), which is all the more reason why Albert and Jillian ought to have a talk at some point. I don't know if Jillian and Albert will ever manage to at least gain an understanding of each other before things go south, but I hope they will.

Yes, I agree that they have innate psychological need to be loved, but I'm positing that this more or less exists for everybody to one degree or another. It's only in heirs that we see it resembling anything like filial affection. For the Piker, this just may manifest in a particular love for the side or the ruler or to just whoever he happens to befriend in his lifetime.

Tangentially, I flatly deny the thesis that love is any kind of cosmic anything. It is human. It comes with being an ape. And it is a complete fool who mistakes what is natural to us as being innately good or evil. And it is particularly irksome to me because love is the very thing that binds people to hopeless causes, abusive relationships and lizard-brained tribalisms. It's just that people like to move goalposts and say that none of these things is "true love."
DVL wrote:
Jacinth and Rubies wrote:
Again, I think the weird cosmic flame called Love is involved here... Albert wants to know he has worth specifically to his mother. Vinny, being the level headed and observant unit that he is, has earned Albert's respect in word and deed. But I imagine that Albert still has some (albeit very deeply buried) respect for his mom, simply because there is this innate awe regarding the person who brought you into being at their own will. I recall Jillian felt this with respect to her father (I can't find the update with it though), which is all the more reason why Albert and Jillian ought to have a talk at some point. I don't know if Jillian and Albert will ever manage to at least gain an understanding of each other before things go south, but I hope they will.

Yes, I agree that they have innate need to be loved, but I'm positing that this more or less exists for everybody to one degree or another. It's only in heirs that we see it resembling anything like filial affection.

Personally, love isn't anything innately special. It is no worthier or less worthy than hate. Love is precisely why people excuse tribalism and selfishness and it can bind you to truly hopeless causes. And then people like to move goalposts by saying that unhealthy emotions isn't really "true love." Simultaneously, it is possible to feel empathy with somebody and still hate them. There is such a thing as a measured hatred and anger.

I flatly deny the thesis that love is any kind of cosmic anything. It is human. It comes with being an ape. And it is a complete fool who mistakes what is natural to us as being innately good or evil.


To be fair... it is human nature itself that defines good an evil. What we consider evil a fully sapient mountain lion might consider good. One of humanity's biggest lies is the idea that morality is an external force. So in a sense what is natural to humans can be innately good... since our version of good is, itself, innately natural to humans.

That said... it's not magic. And it's possible to rise above human nature and realize that human nature is a self-conflicting mess that often undermines itself. That many times we desire to do things that, given an outsiders perspective on our behavior, we would admit is needlessly destructive. That, even acknowledging the inherently subjective nature of good and evil, it's possible to step back and objectively look at how good a job people are doing at achieving the human definition of good and examine the things that are getting in the way of that.

So yes, you're right. Love causes as much or more harm than any other of our instincts (cause that's what love really is... a set of instincts). And blindly presuming all actions taken in love are inherently good and that if they turn out not to be it must not have been "true love" is purest self delusion and a major source of the people's ills. On that I completely agree.
Count_to_10 wrote:
I wouldn't put much stock in an sociological or psychological studies, particularly any that relate to homosexuality. None of them are very scientific, and the fields have been effectively captured by people with agendas.


In my studies I've found psychological studies to be a decent source of evidence, but not concrete proof one way or another. Entire theories almost went up in smoke a couple years ago when it was discovered that the results of hundreds of psychological tests couldn't be verified by retesting. It is also, as you say, usually a field where tests are run with a result in mind and the researchers want to prove their point.

Sociology...I just hate sociology. Maybe the professors at my university were just so terrible they forever turned me away from the field (and they were AWFUL) but it just feels like a pointless subject to study. Feel free to defend yourselves, sociologists.
Belrodes wrote:
Count_to_10 wrote:
I wouldn't put much stock in an sociological or psychological studies, particularly any that relate to homosexuality. None of them are very scientific, and the fields have been effectively captured by people with agendas.


In my studies I've found psychological studies to be a decent source of evidence, but not concrete proof one way or another. Entire theories almost went up in smoke a couple years ago when it was discovered that the results of hundreds of psychological tests couldn't be verified by retesting. It is also, as you say, usually a field where tests are run with a result in mind and the researchers want to prove their point.

Sociology...I just hate sociology. Maybe the professors at my university were just so terrible they forever turned me away from the field (and they were AWFUL) but it just feels like a pointless subject to study. Feel free to defend yourselves, sociologists.


Well, I'm no sociologist. Tech nerd by trade. But I would argue that it's sociology that gives us separation of church and state... separation of powers... the concept of rights... the idea that political power flows from the people... the value of a free press... the idea that slavery is wrong... etc. Even the concept of crime and punishment itself is ultimately a result of the sociological question "what happens when deviant behavior remains unrestricted?" (and no I'm not saying something being against the law makes it deviant)

Sociology is really just the modern word for trying to find a better way for people to interact. Something humans have been trying to do for as long as civilization has been a thing. Sure some people study sociology in a purely academic manner... but even those people sometimes have a revelation capable of changing how we structure our societies.

I think the problem might be that sociology usually isn't called sociology when it's being put into practice. Every debate about gay marriage, every argument about the gun control, every article about police oversight... no matter what side of the debate you fall on you're debating the sociological implications of each option.

And I'd say such things have a great deal of value... despite how much the water gets muddied and how difficult it is to develop concrete evidence in such an arena. And if the debates themselves have value... then any attempt to clean up that muddy water and get at practical truths for answering the questions involved also has value.
Jacinth and Rubies wrote:
DVL wrote:

.It's simpler to say that there is a bit of a correlation-causation fallacy here.

The social norm is two-parent households. These conventions are somewhat arbitrary, but it is a functional convention nonetheless. But absent the socially accepted norm, there just isn't the cultural capital or support network outside of is deemed acceptable. Most our laws, customs and prejudices are going to favor the nuclear family.

Just because the single parent is often impoverished and has trouble raising a child alone doesn't mean they have to be. But as it stands, you have a lot more honor in society if you only work as part of an accepted team of husband-wife, more or less.


I thought the reason single parents struggle is because they have to be both breadwinner and caregiver (kids need food, clothing and shelter as well as time bonding with their parents), and there just aren't enough hours in one day for one person to do both well (or perhaps even at all) - it's far easier if you have at least one person to help share the load. All the accounts I have read about single parents is that they are run off their feet trying their best to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads, and are often just too tired or just unable (due to work) to devote the time needed to their kids, much as they often want to. And even if they'd like to find someone to share the load, that would mean taking time they already don't have to try and find someone in the dating world, which would take even more time away from their kids. Being a single parent is really tough work.

It's also why family units have tended to be the norm (and still are in large parts of the world) - aunties, uncles, grandparents, older siblings and cousins, even neighbours all help to raise kids, especially if one or both parents get ill or die. The nuclear family is a relatively recent development in and of itself (the homesteading families of the West might have pioneered the technique). In general, children seem to thrive best when raised and given sufficient attention in a community that cares for them.

I'd say there is lot to be said for having extra pair of hands to help raising a kid.
But it does not actually say nothing about needing two parents.
The extra pair could just as easily come from a sibling, a neighbor, aunt or uncle, nanny, some person at daycare center... (edit- or just from older kids, after certain age, each child will be less of a burden as you shift some of that work to older children)

That said, even two parent households are known to mess up spectacularily, especially with todays two income households.

One thing people should pe especially vary of in studies about non standard family units, is that being non standard can easily lead to ostracism, which will mess up most kids, and adults.
So seeing kids from non standard family units having issues, is not in itself evidence of anything, at best, it's correlation until some causal link can be established.
JadedDragoon wrote:
Belrodes wrote:
Count_to_10 wrote:
I wouldn't put much stock in an sociological or psychological studies, particularly any that relate to homosexuality. None of them are very scientific, and the fields have been effectively captured by people with agendas.


In my studies I've found psychological studies to be a decent source of evidence, but not concrete proof one way or another. Entire theories almost went up in smoke a couple years ago when it was discovered that the results of hundreds of psychological tests couldn't be verified by retesting. It is also, as you say, usually a field where tests are run with a result in mind and the researchers want to prove their point.

Sociology...I just hate sociology. Maybe the professors at my university were just so terrible they forever turned me away from the field (and they were AWFUL) but it just feels like a pointless subject to study. Feel free to defend yourselves, sociologists.


Well, I'm no sociologist. Tech nerd by trade. But I would argue that it's sociology that gives us separation of church and state... separation of powers... the concept of rights... the idea that political power flows from the people... the value of a free press... the idea that slavery is wrong... etc. Even the concept of crime and punishment itself is ultimately a result of the sociological question "what happens when deviant behavior remains unrestricted?" (and no I'm not saying something being against the law makes it deviant)

Sociology is really just the modern word for trying to find a better way for people to interact. Something humans have been trying to do for as long as civilization has been a thing. Sure some people study sociology in a purely academic manner... but even those people sometimes have a revelation capable of changing how we structure our societies.

I think the problem might be that sociology usually isn't called sociology when it's being put into practice. Every debate about gay marriage, every argument about the gun control, every article about police oversight... no matter what side of the debate you fall on you're debating the sociological implications of each option.

And I'd say such things have a great deal of value... despite how much the water gets muddied and how difficult it is to develop concrete evidence in such an arena. And if the debates themselves have value... then any attempt to clean up that muddy water and get at practical truths for answering the questions involved also has value.


Actually, most of your first examples are principles of political philosophy, not sociology. The separation of powers is not sociology, but for example understanding why some group of people vote less than other is. However, overlooking my nitpicking, I do agree that sociology is a vast and important field with very practical applications. If there are problems within the discipline, they probably stem from the ones practicing it rather than from the core of the discipline itself.
Wait, thread...

..no thread...

...what are you doing, thread?


STAHP


:)
Tiax wrote:
Wait, thread...

..no thread...

...what are you doing, thread?


STAHP

:)


I never, and I mean never, so much as read the threads or even post in the forums... And the first time I do it's to watch angry people who know nothing about social sciences eviscerate each other for holding different view points on social sciences while trying to use social sciences to try to discern motive and intent.

Image
JadedDragoon wrote:
Belrodes wrote:
Count_to_10 wrote:
I wouldn't put much stock in an sociological or psychological studies, particularly any that relate to homosexuality. None of them are very scientific, and the fields have been effectively captured by people with agendas.


In my studies I've found psychological studies to be a decent source of evidence, but not concrete proof one way or another. Entire theories almost went up in smoke a couple years ago when it was discovered that the results of hundreds of psychological tests couldn't be verified by retesting. It is also, as you say, usually a field where tests are run with a result in mind and the researchers want to prove their point.

Sociology...I just hate sociology. Maybe the professors at my university were just so terrible they forever turned me away from the field (and they were AWFUL) but it just feels like a pointless subject to study. Feel free to defend yourselves, sociologists.


Well, I'm no sociologist. Tech nerd by trade. But I would argue that it's sociology that gives us separation of church and state... separation of powers... the concept of rights... the idea that political power flows from the people... the value of a free press... the idea that slavery is wrong... etc. Even the concept of crime and punishment itself is ultimately a result of the sociological question "what happens when deviant behavior remains unrestricted?" (and no I'm not saying something being against the law makes it deviant)

Sociology is really just the modern word for trying to find a better way for people to interact. Something humans have been trying to do for as long as civilization has been a thing. Sure some people study sociology in a purely academic manner... but even those people sometimes have a revelation capable of changing how we structure our societies.

I think the problem might be that sociology usually isn't called sociology when it's being put into practice. Every debate about gay marriage, every argument about the gun control, every article about police oversight... no matter what side of the debate you fall on you're debating the sociological implications of each option.

And I'd say such things have a great deal of value... despite how much the water gets muddied and how difficult it is to develop concrete evidence in such an arena. And if the debates themselves have value... then any attempt to clean up that muddy water and get at practical truths for answering the questions involved also has value.


It's the difference between being a literary critic and an author though. Or a philosopher or somebody who thinks philosophy is important and neat. I've seen authors make fun of literary criticism.

And I don't think any of the stuff about separation of church and state and so on was what most people would call sociology, though such things could be the object of study. Most of that stuff tended to be political philosophy of people who looked at their times and went, "Hey, this is kinda crap and isn't working. Maybe this other thing would work better." That isn't a formal scientific process necessarily.

And you can do some experiments you can do with Kibbutzes and, say, gender norms. But such things aren't as easy as bacterial cultures in a petri dish. And invariably, any such studies will be blocked by interested parties. Just look at gun control in America. There just isn't the funding the CDC needs to do it right.

I'd bet that there is a snowball's chance in hell to get any real funding for studying gay parents in controlled conditions and that, even if it happened, people will willingly distort such findings or push them into irrelevancy if there is a political will to do it. It's exactly the same thing big tobacco or oil will do to control the public debate.