Mixing Sociology: Public Policy and Organizational Behavior?

[gilbertrollins]

They do. People can be really disrespectful...

And passive aggressive, I agree. 

 

Just a little public service announcement to everyone who has in the past and presently taken wild offense to a critical tone, and acted with astounded dismay at sharp arguments.  These are common in Professional scholarship.  I'm not quite sure what kind of courses you guys have been taking where people don't get into heated debates, laugh at one another, argue each other down, and so on.  But this type of thing is absolutely common in the academy.  You really ought to get used to people making it more than obvious when they think something is stupid.  And you ought to be concerned if your peers and mentors don't tell you when they think your ideas are stupid -- it's a good sign that they're embarrassed for you or otherwise don't respect your intelligence enough to correct you.  

 

If you're going to study things like race, exploitation, and so on -- it pays to have some control over your ethical and political outrage if you're going to conduct a dispassionate analysis of the issue.  The general culture of intolerance for strong argument on this board is really troubling.  Social science isn't a back-slapping political rally with your ideologically homogenous buddies.

 

I mean, seriously.  This is just ridiculous.  Who are you mentors?  One of my letter writers responded to something I said in class once by laughing and saying it sounded like something that came out of the Sokal postmodern essay generator, in front of 70 people.  I got sharp and clarified my point.  Who edits your papers?  Another one of my letter writers puts comments in my papers that say things like "Do not ever make this mistake again; it's immature prose" and "This section is very good - the rest is pure fluff."  Do you guys get gold stars and teddy bears at the top of your writing?  A friend in the academy will tell you how wrong you are when you discuss a working paper (or an idea in academic internet chat) -- an enemy will wait for you to publish and skewer you then.  And frankly you ought to take it as an honor to stand and deliver your paper and get ripped apart by a room full of bright people.  For Christ's sake, arguing with people should be a way to show someone you want to engage them, persuade them, etc.  

 

This mamby pamby ethic where it's not ok to criticize one another because it might hurt someone's feelings is the death of critical thought.  If you want to see where the tradition of arrogance and derision has gotten completely out of hand -- go take some advanced pure math courses.  Some of those guys are out of control, (e.g. "That is a stupid question; don't ever come to my office and ask me a question again.").  So I sympathize with the position that too much criticism can just supplant constructive discourse.  But holy Christ, I assure you, this board is in no danger of reaching those heights and could use some more scientific curiosity in opposing views.

Edited January 23, 2013 by econosocio

[Tahoma]

Ah, condescension, passive aggression, and pointless bickering. Feels like I'm in academia already.

[gilbertrollins]

Ah, condescension, passive aggression, and pointless bickering. Feels like I'm in academia already.

And as you demonstrate here -- sarcasm too -- something else you see plenty of in professional journal articles, right along with condescension, passive aggression, and bickering.

 

The thing is -- it's not pointless.  Arguing is how we arrive at warranted belief.

[blogstarphd]

I would greatly appreciate it if you could resume your conversations through private messages.

I came onto this board looking for support and advice and would appreciate your most insightful comments. Please stop hijacking this thread.

I'm just reposting to make sure that we can remember the focus of this topic.

[gilbertrollins]

In fairness, Lainie's behavior is a pretty typical maneuver people make in arguments: jabbing at someone aggressively at first, then switching to passive aggression, and running for the moral high-ground by claiming to be a victim (e.g. "I didn't come here to be singled out") in order to avoid engaging any of the counter arguments you've prompted.  This is somewhat similar to the times that in four short months I've been called variously, a bully, a bigot, condescending, and an asshole on the forum.  I think I've been rather patient and dignified here considering the standard of discourse on the board.  

 

Often times in structural social sciences, we are asked to evaluate how our ideologies influence our own theories and preferences, and how we may propagate oppression with our ideas.  Just so.  But I think the real problem here is that -- useful as that analysis is -- it turns into a monster when it serves as an excuse to eviscerate people who express an opinion that one feels represents an oppressive ideology.  This effort turns the fight against ideological tyranny into itself an ideological tyranny.  

 

When you believe that everyone is merely a product of ideological frameworks, and in particular False Consciousness, it degrades your sense that the people you argue with have made responsible assessments of their own ideas.  Put simply -- when you believe the world is full of retarded cattle who need to wake up, and when you believe that the way thus to save the world is to go get a PhD and refine the right messages to scream from the mountaintops, you have virtually no incentive to refrain from hostile personal attacks at those you don't agree with.  

 

Further, that framework implies that the social scientist de facto obtains a privilege on truth.  Pretense of knowledge.  When you believe that you're sticking up for the little guy, and a lone voice who can start a revolution if you just scream loud enough and in the right way, you're likely to cause quite a bit of collateral damage in your ideological war.  People who cause this damage give their discipline a terrible name, because it starts to look a lot more like a religion waging a holy war than a reasoned, scientific inquiry.  Criticize logical positivism's shortfalls (when it's taken to extremes) if you want -- some of the people I've encountered here suffer an abject lack of it. 

 

Anyway I'm not completely in agreement with Jose's generalizations about sociology.  From the not-small volume of sociology I've read in the last three months, it appears there is actually quite a bit of nuance and fair and mature entertainment of interlocutors in it.  I think there is quite a bit of self-selection and adverse-selection bias on this forum.  It's not a representative sample of the discipline.  I've had other board members sympathize with me privately about how intellectually and emotionally immature a group of regulars are here.  I don't have positive evidence, but I don't not see a good deal of people not wanting to socialize where a basic level of criticism is often times unwelcome, and where people toss a lot of ad hominem around when they don't like what other people are saying.  That scenario would of course just leave the choir and the preacher here without a congregation.  Jussayin.

 

It would seem like not offending anyone guarantees the freedom of everyone -- until one realizes that such a situation turns anyone's offense into a weapon, limiting the freedom of everyone.  If you aspire simultaneously to a PhD and social activism, and you want a more tolerant, diverse, and inclusive world -- lead by example.

Edited January 23, 2013 by econosocio

[gilbertrollins]

^First downvote: xdarthveganx.  Who called me a bigot two months ago for suggesting that dumpster diving wasn't anarchy.

[gilbertrollins]

I saw Eigen viewing this thread an hour ago.  He has removed two of LanieB's posts, the first of which started this entire controversy -- note that the first link in Jose's post above no longer points to a particular post anymore, but the second does. 

 

Eigen: did LainieB contact you and protest that my behavior was abusive, requesting to have herself removed from the conversation?  Is that the policy of the board -- alter the course of debates where people aren't using profanity or other hate speech, in order to protect the feelings of people who call board members condescending?

 

Or maybe LainieB used the "hide" option to hide her OP. 

Edited January 23, 2013 by econosocio

[gilbertrollins]

Mind = blown.  Nice find, Jose.  

 

Lol - I gather from his youtube feed that this kid is the guy behind the camera while those guys were doing fire extinguisher throw-ups and attacking other protesters who were chanting "no violence."  He likes video editing software tutorials and posted the 17 year olds trying their best to act like thugs; so it's just an inference.  Turns out, he also likes first person shooter video games (because those aren't a product of capitalist oppression), but he doesn't want the video game community to forget about PC gamers.  He's also into mixed martial arts fighting (the ones where the guys just totally brutalize one another).  He owns a pitbull named Lucy.  He likes straightedge hardcore (a group of kids known for jumping people for, say, smoking cigarettes) like Earth Crisis (great band, have to admit -- though everything after the first album was garbage).  A sample of his youtube commentary erudition: "Hahaha. I feel sorry for you, you posted like this like you somehow got one up on the senator, but you just embarrassed yourself. He totally owned you, you should just quit politics and disappear into a dark hole. You sir, are a joke."

 

What kind of Fight Club fantasy are you living in?  Is your fulfillment of 21st century masculinity-crisis cliches pastiched with political slogans a form of protest, like ironic performance art?  

 

ProTip for you, champ -- black clothes and lemon juice aren't new or revolutionary -- people were doing ineffectual "anarchist" direct action a long time ago.  You know what your behavior does, man?  Turns about 60% of the world off completely to anything remotely similar to whatever philosophies attend to property destruction and misguided youth aggression.  Get a  hold of yourself.  

Edited January 23, 2013 by econosocio

[gilbertrollins]

.

Edited January 23, 2013 by econosocio

[ohgoodness]

Just a helpful pointer to all and everyone. To ignore users - just click your username in the right hand-corner, choose manage ignore pref and then enter the username of said user...

It works like a charm

[amlobo]

Ok, econosocio, I'm sorry, but I have to chime in here.  Someone has to, I suppose, or this is going to snowball further.  It's one thing to pontificate on the "realities" of academic discourse and critical thought.  It's quite another to hold yourself out as a victim of the perceived immaturity of this board, and then turn around and post a personal attack against someone who gave you a downvote.  You say that you have been mislabeled as a bully by members of the board, but the personal attack you made on darthvegan makes you appear exactly that.

 

You have probably been called condescending because you put forth all of these ideas about what the "academy" is or what "sociology" is - and you are entitled to your opinion - but you are no more qualified to do so than any others who frequent the forum.  Just because you know what your experience has been does not make it the "truth."  I attended a top 15 university, full of professors in the forefront of their field and intelligent, passionate students who appreciated a critical discourse.  I often witnessed and was a part of heated academic discussions or critiques.  Though, I would point out that I never once had professors laugh at students for their ideas, though they would point out the fallacies in their arguments and challenge them to defend them with sound reasoning.  I also never saw a classmate bring out another's youtube feed as ammunition.  And, before you say I was a mamby-pamby sociologist or something along those lines, I was not a sociology major - I was political science and history.

 

I am not saying we all have to be friends and sit in a circle holding hands, singing Kumbaya.  Though, I would hope we can tolerate each other to some extent since we will be colleagues in the future.  What I am saying, however, is that we can engage in critical discourse on this board in a respectful way without personal attacks and condescension.  I agree that things get boring if no one is challenging others to examine their beliefs and pointing out the fallacies in their arguments.  I'm an attorney, so it is basically my job to criticize others' arguments and undermine their assumptions; criticism and confrontation don't faze me.  The difference is, after a day in court arguing with my opponent, we can go out for a beer together.

 

So, by all means, please continue to challenge others on this board to defend and question their positions; healthy academic discourse is greatly appreciated.  But, stay away from the personal attacks, yeah?  

 

Now, in a perhaps futile attempt to guide this thread back on topic... Northwestern's Kellogg offers a PhD in Management and Organization and Sociology, which may be of interest to the original poster.  http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/Programs/DoctoralProgram/Programs/ManagementOrganizationSociology.aspx

[Darth.Vegan]

How these two haven't been banned yet is beyond me.

 

On another note, I could just hide both users posts, but when I get called out in a thread I didn't even post in, I wanna know about it. 

Edited January 23, 2013 by xdarthveganx

[AaronM]

[Eigen]

Temporary Lock while we assess what to do with this.

[fuzzylogician]

Unlocking this thread. I hope yesterday's madness is over. The other thread will stay locked, for now.

[currentgrad]

People from the top programs read these threads, mind numbingly dumb as they can get. It's not hard to figure out who you are when we read your applications. Keep that in mind, especially if you are just applying and think you have a clue what you are talking about (in other words, stop the broad sweeping generalizations about the discipline because it's going to affect your top 5 program admission).

[flying_squirrel]

Seconding what currentgrad said above.. I used gradcafe under a different username when I was going through the application process and now am attending a top 10 soc program. I don't know what got into people yesterday, but multiple students from my program were emailing around links so people could check out "the craziness." As I was familiar with gradcafe I was rather shocked and dismayed.  Anything rude, conceited, or ignorant is going to be noticed guys. And for anyone with an interest, believe me it is NOT difficult to figure our who yall are. And if it doesn't effect your admission decision it WILL effect the kind of reception you get at a program. So please get ahold of yourselves and do not post anything you wouldn't sign your name to and forward to an admissions committee. The internet is really not that anonymous. 

[FertMigMort]

People from the top programs read these threads, mind numbingly dumb as they can get. It's not hard to figure out who you are when we read your applications. Keep that in mind, especially if you are just applying and think you have a clue what you are talking about (in other words, stop the broad sweeping generalizations about the discipline because it's going to affect your top 5 program admission).

 

 

Seconding what currentgrad said above.. I used gradcafe under a different username when I was going through the application process and now am attending a top 10 soc program. I don't know what got into people yesterday, but multiple students from my program were emailing around links so people could check out "the craziness." As I was familiar with gradcafe I was rather shocked and dismayed.  Anything rude, conceited, or ignorant is going to be noticed guys. And for anyone with an interest, believe me it is NOT difficult to figure our who yall are. And if it doesn't effect your admission decision it WILL effect the kind of reception you get at a program. So please get ahold of yourselves and do not post anything you wouldn't sign your name to and forward to an admissions committee. The internet is really not that anonymous. 

 

Thirded. I've been saying this since day 1. Please think before you hit the post button guys.

[FertMigMort]

Hi all,

 

 

I will be applying for my PhD this year in Sociology to top 15 schools, though I need your best advice as this problem has been concerning me for many months.

 

 

I would like to combine Sociology with another field for personal, but primarily, career reasons (academia is my top choice but one day I can see myself without it). Sociology is often combined with Public Policy, though often Organizational Behaviour.

 

 

I have a very strong interest in the public sector (I’m a politics junkie, enjoy reading policy reports time-to-time, and have been involved in community my whole life). I have a little interest in business, though tends to focus on business processes such as strategic thinking and organizational behavior; I don’t really like the “business culture” of networking etc.

 

 

Problem: My personality and skill-set is strongly geared towards business (more variety; forward-thinking; excellent communicator and charismatic; I cannot sit in front of a computer the whole day doing ‘policy’ and struggle in bureaucracies), though my interests are towards public sector. At the heart of the issue, I am a people-person that is a macro-level, deep thinker.

 

 

Is there a way of combining Public Policy and Organizational Behavior in Sociology? Are there programs that tend to be more interdisciplinary? (I have interests in Social Psychology and Political Science, particularly Political Philosophy).

 

 

Thanks!

 

I would check out Cornell in addition to the school's others have mentioned. I wish you luck in your Ph.d. studies!