Do you think sociology professors are to the left, economics to the right on capitali

[Economist]

And yes, it is society's fault just as much as it is the individual's fault. Stop asking the same question phrased differently expecting me to concede to neoliberal ideology. To completely punish an individual for social problems is poor. Read Albert Camus' The Stranger.

Actually, I was not trying to rephrase the question, and I would never expect you to see the world as I do. Also, you keep speaking so matter of factly about something that we can't measure, namely how much is each individual responsible for his own life. We're not necessarily talking about punishing an individual for social problems. We are talking about holding individuals accountable for their actions/behavior. You seem to think that these things are greatly out of one's personal control, but I disagree. Furthermore, if you don't think it's appropriate to punish an individual for social problems, then why are you in favor of wealth redistribution which seems to punish one individual for social problems? Is it really the top 1 percents fault that the bottom 10 percent are poor?

I did not say everything is determined by social forces. I am saying that most things that influence a person's life is determined by social forces.

Even this may be too strong of a claim.

It is classical that economists resort to biology and psychology as "evidence" for their ideology, because these are two disciplines that ignore social life and reduce things to the individual. Forget about political science, anthropology, sociology - they're always refuting what them fighten economists are sayin'.

LOL. Actually, I also majored in psychology and they consider anthropology and sociology sister subjects (but not economics). More importantly, in economics we are not using psychology or biology as proof. In economics, most things we study do not depend on the reason people are the way they are. Rather in economics, we take individuals preferences, personalities, etc as given (exogenous). In economics, it doesn't much matter whether humans are attracted to various goods and services for biological reasons, sociological reasons, or some mix of both. Just like it doesn't necessarily matter why people respond to prices, taxes, etc in predictable ways. We just know that they do.

they have different friends, probably watch different shows, listen to different music, are influenced by different things; just because they have the same parents or live in the same house does not mean they live in the same environment. One may be into heavy metal subculture while another is into anime. Socialization comes in all places, forms, times - it's latent.

Ok. Then why did they start listening to different music, hanging out with different people, watching different tv shows, etc. Is it just completely random? If socialization causes everything, then how and why do the earliest of differences occur?

 

[opus]

We are talking about holding individuals accountable for their actions/behavior. You seem to think that these things are greatly out of one's personal control, but I disagree. Furthermore, if you don't think it's appropriate to punish an individual for social problems, then why are you in favor of wealth redistribution which seems to punish one individual for social problems? Is it really the top 1 percents fault that the bottom 10 percent are poor?

Yes, individuals should be accountable for their actions. However, we must be careful to see if it is not completely their fault. If a group of friends encouraged an individual to overdose on a drug, it is not completely the fault of the individual. There are social things at play. However, I realize that society is something much more difficult to hold accountable. For wealth redistribution, you are not "punishing" the individuals, but "punishing" the economic structure. A progressive tax is founded on this principle, that there is a connection between poverty and inequality - which of course, there is. Even in the poorest countries like Saudi Arabia you have princes in BMW's and buying Airbus A380's.

Even this may be too strong of a claim.

It's not. Social Darwinism does not explain the industrial revolution.

LOL. Actually, I also majored in psychology and they consider anthropology and sociology sister subjects (but not economics). More importantly, in economics we are not using psychology or biology as proof. In economics, most things we study do not depend on the reason people are the way they are. Rather in economics, we take individuals preferences, personalities, etc as given (exogenous). In economics, it doesn't much matter whether humans are attracted to various goods and services for biological reasons, sociological reasons, or some mix of both. Just like it doesn't necessarily matter why people respond to prices, taxes, etc in predictable ways. We just know that they do.

Psychology until recently very much rejected anthropology - especially social psychology - because anthropology said that culture influenced a way a person thinks, and that not all human minds think the same way, which early psychology is predicated upon. It wasn't until recently that psychological experiments now involve people all across the world - a typical study will have samples from both America as well as say, Japan. This is because culture influences our mind directly, see here.

However, economics does have an affinity with psychology. There are not many joint major programs between economics and psychology, but the popular view shared between the disciplines are that human minds are generalizable and that they act the same way (i.e. culture makes no difference) - arguably leading to arguments for the self-interested rational actor models. Psychology says "our minds work to protect us", economics says "man works for his own self-interest". Both of these social sciences think human behaviour is predictable because there is a universality about it - that culture and society don't have much to say.

Of course this has changed in psychology - they have learned much from sociology and anthropology, as well as sociology and anthropology learning from psychology.

EDIT: A second note, that "sister subjects" honestly do not matter in the real world. Yes, there are a lot of poli sci/econ joint majors in virtually every university, but if you look at the cross-disciplinary citation indices, you won't see econ journals citing poli sci, or vice-versa. In fact, sociology cites economics more often than poli sci cites economics. But the poli sci/econ relationship is becoming popular again. These traditional "sister discipline" connections emphasize a more holistic generalization and/or tradition, if anything.

Ok. Then why did they start listening to different music, hanging out with different people, watching different tv shows, etc. Is it just completely random? If socialization causes everything, then how and why do the earliest of differences occur?

It's hard to say. Homosexuality has been a good example of the nature/nurture study in twins. I mean if one twin is gay, while the other is not, why could that possibly be? You're asking a question that is different for every person. What matters is that sometimes it doesn't matter when/how they are predisposed to environments that shape their differences, but the bigger picture - that you now have two very different people even though they have the same genes.
EDIT: I did not say that socialization causes everything. I am just saying it causes most. The Bush gene does not make his family conservative, it is the environment in which the Bushes grow up in.

 

[Economist]

The Bush gene does not make his family conservative, it is the environment in which the Bushes grow up in.

Ok got it. Then I guess you won't object to the following, "The war in Iraq is not George W Bush's fault, it's society's fault!"

 

[opus]

Ok got it. Then I guess you won't object to the following, "The war in Iraq is not George W Bush's fault, it's society's fault!"

Yes, it is. America voted for the man. America raised the man. He is a puppet of neoconservative circles and anyone who doesn't see the war behind closed doors (yes, a reference to the documentary) is just as narrow-sighted as the liberals that grow around blaming everything on Bush.

 

[Economist]

Yes, it is. America voted for the man. America raised the man. He is a puppet of neoconservative circles and anyone who doesn't see the war behind closed doors (yes, a reference to the documentary) is just as narrow-sighted as the liberals that grow around blaming everything on Bush.

I know. Especially considering that George W Bush is the liberals (and the rest of society's) fault. So liberals are just as much to blame about the war on terrorism, no child left behind, tax cuts to the rich, etc. When will they quit blaming George W Bush? Opus would you please slap some sense into these people and tell them (including you sociology professors) that it is their fault?

 

[opus]

I know. Especially considering that George W Bush is the liberals (and the rest of society's) fault. So liberals are just as much to blame about the war on terrorism, no child left behind, tax cuts to the rich, etc. When will they quit blaming George W Bush? Opus would you please slap some sense into these people and tell them (including you sociology professors) that it is their fault?

What the **** are you talking about? If a man murders a man, is it the victim's fault because he was "at the wrong place at the wrong time"? You might as well blame the Iraq War on the British for creating Iraq in the first place. Your reasoning is faulty, and your attempt at a pithy rebuttal says little to nothing.

 

[Economist]

What the **** are you talking about? If a man murders a man, is it the victim's fault because he was "at the wrong place at the wrong time"? You might as well blame the Iraq War on the British for creating Iraq in the first place. Your reasoning is faulty, and your attempt at a pithy rebuttal says little to nothing.

Wait? Weren't you the one who said that the hypothetical person who committed assualt, it wasn't mainly his fault? And that instead it was just as much societ'ys fault? I assume you'd feel the same way about a murdered? I also assumed you'd feel the same way bout George W?

 

[opus]

Wait? Weren't you the one who said that the hypothetical person who committed assualt, it wasn't mainly his fault? And that instead it was just as much societ'ys fault? I assume you'd feel the same way about a murdered? I also assumed you'd feel the same way bout George W?

You're confusing context with determinism. Yes, society is in some ways responsible for Bush's neoconservative ideology given his upbringing, and his neoconservative policies given the influence of Washington circles. But you must take it with a grain of salt, in the sense that you can only "blame" so much. Bush's failures are not a one-man show, he has circles of friends in high places. Instead of blaming groups like PNAC for failure, liberals are just as narrow-sighted and ignorant as their conservative counterparts of blaming this all on the host of Bush. Why are there neoconservative social groups such as PNAC? Well that is another debate all together. The gist is that Bush is not a bubble, he moves in and out of Washington. He does not write his foreign policy exclusively, so to blame everything on him would be incredibly inefficient.

I used my example of a man murdering another man because you're being overly deterministic of social structures and ignoring human agency (sarcastically?). If there was an isolated premeditated murder, nobody is to blame but the murderer himself. However, if you the man he killed raped his wife, then that's a whole other issue. The same reason why if a starving man steals a loaf of bread is different from a CEO embezzling millions of dollars.

If you prosecute a man of a racist neighbourhood for a hate crime, will racism go away? I'm afraid not. But you saying that liberals should blame themselves for "causing" Bush is akin to saying that blacks brought racism on themselves for being black.

 

[Economist]

But you must take it with a grain of salt, in the sense that you can only "blame" so much.

Agreed. Which was my whole point.

Similarly, in regards to the hypothetical person who committed assualt, I would say that you can only blame so much on society. Overwellimgly, it was his actions, decision, and most importantly fault.

 

[opus]

Yes, I agree. But the problem is that at times, often the faults of society go unaddressed. Ultimately it means that many crimes continue to be committed, and society continues trying to jail the offenders without really solving the problem.

 

[tjfloyd]

Well, I will say as a sociologist that I am very conservative. Yes, I do believe we should be more socialist, but I have my own philosophies and beliefs as to what should be and what should not be. I see where you're getting at, though.. it would make sense that economists would be more conservative, because that gives them something to study.. if we were socialist, then there wouldn't be too much for the economist to study.. on the other hand, a goal of sociology to study society and especially Socioeconomic Status and class conflict.. so that we can reach a social equality.. so, in essence, both are conflicting disciplines..

 

[talk2glenn]

Do you think sociology professors are to the left, economics to the right on capitalism?

I do!

Generally speaking, University economics department are considered "right-leaning", while sociology departments are considered "left-leaning".

That said, the discipline of economics tries very hard to differentiate between normative (policy) and positive (theory) questions. We try not to make specific policy reccomendations, but instead quantify the costs and benefits of given proposals. I would also add that Krugman appears largely discredited in academic economics. He hasn't published anything in years, and is no longer seriously cited; this guy is just a pundit with an economic background, at this point.

Prescott is one of the more respected and actively working academic economists, and I think he would generally be considered more conservative (economically). The book Freakonomics is another great example; it captures the thinking of most mainstream economists on social issues (which would be considered popularly libertarian, I think). We place tremendous value in the models, which imply that an ideal social planner can do no better than a competitive marketplace given a social problem (be it the distribution of scarce wheat or a more traditionally social question, like those addressed in Freakonomics). Since social planners tend to fall far from the ideal (much further than most markets from the competitive ideal) empirically, economists tends to lean naturally towards the free market.

 

[Forestman]

My best friend used to teach anthropology and sociology at a community college. He has his Ph.D in anthropology. Anyway when it comes to social values he is very liberal, but when it comes to economics he is a moderate.