How many watmm trolls are paid by their governments to be here?

[usagi]

no :(

[brian trageskin]

fluoride stole my wallet

[chenGOD]

 

What I actually googled was post-hoc statistical analysis sociology because I needed some sources as I'm not at home. Post-hoc analysis refers to looking for patterns not specified a priori. Trust, I understand its context just fine.

 

That's a very narrow definition of sociology, and I believe you would find many sociologists who would argue that sociology's main goal is not predictive at all. Rather it looks for patterns to explain why certain behavior has occurred in a given society.

Once again you fail at debating and sociology. Maybe you're just not as smart as you think you are?

and yet you gave examples of a simple statistical tool that simply has a "post-hoc" in its name as a proof that sociology at large deals with post hoc analysis.

the definition of the goal of sociology that i gave is a very prominent and accepted one, pretty much any sociological theory will aspire to predict something, not just describe something that had already happened. just take any popular sociological big theories and see for yourself: marxism is the most obvious example, bureaucratization and rationalization by weber, functionalism by drukheim and his followers and countless others try to explain how societies (or particular facets of them) work and will work and change in the future.

 

you're making a fool of yourself again by getting into stuff you don't understand in order to score some points against me, i think you better drop this at this stage for your sake.

 

 

OK since I'm at home, and since I have no real time, I will attempt to state this as succinctly as possible.

While sociological study can certainly be used as a predictive tool, its primary function is to analyze past events to try and understand human society.Now I know, you won't take my word for it, so how about someone like Anthony Giddens, who writes that

"Sociology relies on a canon of key ‘classical’ thinkers and some common themes which link contemporary sociology with its roots in the twin revolutions of the revolutions century. Three basic questions are: (a) what is human nature? (b) why is society structured as it is? and © how and why do societies change?" (source)

As a policy tool, sociology does not attempt to predict how society will change in the future, rather it takes outcomes, analyzes them, and attempts to create policy to mitigate what are considered poor outcomes.

 

BTW, for anyone who is interested, I highly recommend Giddens - he is an excellent writer and sociologist, and is very easy to read.

 

 

Marxist predictions in political economy suck donkey balls

 

 

 

I'm high on fluoride

 

[Audioblysk]

 

 

What I actually googled was post-hoc statistical analysis sociology because I needed some sources as I'm not at home. Post-hoc analysis refers to looking for patterns not specified a priori. Trust, I understand its context just fine.

 

That's a very narrow definition of sociology, and I believe you would find many sociologists who would argue that sociology's main goal is not predictive at all. Rather it looks for patterns to explain why certain behavior has occurred in a given society.

Once again you fail at debating and sociology. Maybe you're just not as smart as you think you are?

and yet you gave examples of a simple statistical tool that simply has a "post-hoc" in its name as a proof that sociology at large deals with post hoc analysis.

the definition of the goal of sociology that i gave is a very prominent and accepted one, pretty much any sociological theory will aspire to predict something, not just describe something that had already happened. just take any popular sociological big theories and see for yourself: marxism is the most obvious example, bureaucratization and rationalization by weber, functionalism by drukheim and his followers and countless others try to explain how societies (or particular facets of them) work and will work and change in the future.

 

you're making a fool of yourself again by getting into stuff you don't understand in order to score some points against me, i think you better drop this at this stage for your sake.

 

 

OK since I'm at home, and since I have no real time, I will attempt to state this as succinctly as possible.

While sociological study can certainly be used as a predictive tool, its primary function is to analyze past events to try and understand human society.Now I know, you won't take my word for it, so how about someone like Anthony Giddens, who writes that

"Sociology relies on a canon of key ‘classical’ thinkers and some common themes which link contemporary sociology with its roots in the twin revolutions of the revolutions century. Three basic questions are: (a) what is human nature? (b) why is society structured as it is? and © how and why do societies change?" (source)

As a policy tool, sociology does not attempt to predict how society will change in the future, rather it takes outcomes, analyzes them, and attempts to create policy to mitigate what are considered poor outcomes.

 

BTW, for anyone who is interested, I highly recommend Giddens - he is an excellent writer and sociologist, and is very easy to read.

 

 

Marxist predictions in political economy suck donkey balls

 

 

 

I'm high on fluoride

 

 

[goDel]

 

OK since I'm at home, and since I have no real time, I will attempt to state this as succinctly as possible.

While sociological study can certainly be used as a predictive tool, its primary function is to analyze past events to try and understand human society.Now I know, you won't take my word for it, so how about someone like Anthony Giddens, who writes that

"Sociology relies on a canon of key ‘classical’ thinkers and some common themes which link contemporary sociology with its roots in the twin revolutions of the revolutions century. Three basic questions are: (a) what is human nature? (b) why is society structured as it is? and © how and why do societies change?" (source)

As a policy tool, sociology does not attempt to predict how society will change in the future, rather it takes outcomes, analyzes them, and attempts to create policy to mitigate what are considered poor outcomes.

 

BTW, for anyone who is interested, I highly recommend Giddens - he is an excellent writer and sociologist, and is very easy to read.

 

 

Marxist predictions in political economy suck donkey balls

 

 

 

I'm high on fluoride

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure why you want to have this "academic" discussion on why your interpretation of sociology is better than Eugenes (or just that Eugene has got it all wrong?). Not sure what you want to get out of it, as it's pretty obvious the "outcome" is not going to be what you want it to be. Could be because of past results, as it's obvious this has turned into a bash eugene thread so it fits the norm, or something else.

 

But the point is you seem to get stuck in a contradiction because policies are very much "outcome driven" and therefore driven by goals which are in the "future".

 

So, I basically disagree with the point you're trying to make. Add the assumption that sociology is, can be, or should be a fundamental part of political policy making, and you've got yourself a firm fundament for the argument that sociology is responsible for modelling the behaviour of a society for new (possibly) policies. Not to say that sociology is the only science with that responsibility. Economics would be another example, as there would be probably more.

 

You could pretty much tie sociology and economics together when it comes to being "post hoc" or whatever the hell you two are arguing about.

 

Also, could we please drop the eugene bashing? It's pretty tiring. And it this point I think both sides of the argument are equally responsible. So all the ad hominem crap tends to stick to everyone involved, if you know what I mean.

 

 

And I'm covered in shit and fluoride

 

[chenGOD]

goDel - it's pretty simple - Eugene is convinced that he is correct in all matters, primarily because he is gloriously smarter than everyone else.

Policy is outcome driven, yes. But policy creation is often predicated on analyzing data from the past and mitigating poor or undesirable outcomes. In other words, post-hoc analysis.

[goDel]

And that's almost a normal personality trait around here, it seems?

 

So, whenever a predictive model is made (based on patterns in past data, by some data mining algorithm - see how this is going to tie in with the nsa?;D), you'd label it as a result of post-hoc analysis?

[eugene]

But policy creation is often predicated on analyzing data from the past and mitigating poor or undesirable outcomes. In other words, post-hoc analysis.

it doesn't do this kind of analysis as a final goal, like historians, it uses past data to test/or formulate new theories, which have predictive nature by definition, that what defines sociology. you like giddens ? good. what do you think his theory of structuration tries to explain ? in simple words how action and structure shape each other simultaneously. not how they shaped each other in the past (though possible, but he's mainly interested in modern societies) but in present simple, a some sort of generalization that will also apply to the future. that's the tone of pretty much all sociological theories that i can think of. maybe you just don't understand the concept of theory, i dunno, i'm getting tired of this myself.

 

 

also it's funny that you bring giddens, he's like the most obvious example of a sociologist that uses his skills to shape policy for the future (see his "third way" and british labor affiliation)

[Blir]

I bought a piri piri panini from Costa Coffee this morning. It was alright, I've had better paninis but I wouldn't give it a thumbs down.

[delet...]

waits for the penny to drop.

 

Also, I looked up their menu and the don't do a piripiri panini (i mean clearly you bought one, but not according the the reality that their website's menu lives in). Actually everything on their menu looks pretty uninviting.

[xox]

mygod! where's the cat?!

[usagi]

I bought a piri piri panini from Costa Coffee this morning. It was alright, I've had better paninis but I wouldn't give it a thumbs down.

 

you know noothin jon snuh

[chenGOD]

 

But policy creation is often predicated on analyzing data from the past and mitigating poor or undesirable outcomes. In other words, post-hoc analysis.

it doesn't do this kind of analysis as a final goal, like historians, it uses past data to test/or formulate new theories, which have predictive nature by definition, that what defines sociology. you like giddens ? good. what do you think his theory of structuration tries to explain ? in simple words how action and structure shape each other simultaneously. not how they shaped each other in the past (though possible, but he's mainly interested in modern societies) but in present simple, a some sort of generalization that will also apply to the future. that's the tone of pretty much all sociological theories that i can think of. maybe you just don't understand the concept of theory, i dunno, i'm getting tired of this myself.

 

 

also it's funny that you bring giddens, he's like the most obvious example of a sociologist that uses his skills to shape policy for the future (see his "third way" and british labor affiliation)

Nowhere did I say post-hoc analysis was the final goal. Simply that sociology uses plenty of post-hoc.

Did you read the three questions Giddens posed? Where does he discuss prediction? As a basic goal, sociology tries to understand how societies work. The results of that understanding can obviously be used in a variety of ways, including prediction.

 

GoDel:maybe so, but Eugene is mostly the only one putting down others as too stupid to comprehend what he's talking about.

And yes predictive elements can come out of post-hoc analysis.

[Candiru]

I am the one % and I'm on my yacht sipping 50 year old scotch doing lines of fluoride off a hooker's ass because I feel like pretending to be poor. Also republicans

[goDel]

Candiru DiCaprio!

 

[xox]

sociology

[eugene]

 

 

But policy creation is often predicated on analyzing data from the past and mitigating poor or undesirable outcomes. In other words, post-hoc analysis.

it doesn't do this kind of analysis as a final goal, like historians, it uses past data to test/or formulate new theories, which have predictive nature by definition, that what defines sociology. you like giddens ? good. what do you think his theory of structuration tries to explain ? in simple words how action and structure shape each other simultaneously. not how they shaped each other in the past (though possible, but he's mainly interested in modern societies) but in present simple, a some sort of generalization that will also apply to the future. that's the tone of pretty much all sociological theories that i can think of. maybe you just don't understand the concept of theory, i dunno, i'm getting tired of this myself.


also it's funny that you bring giddens, he's like the most obvious example of a sociologist that uses his skills to shape policy for the future (see his "third way" and british labor affiliation)

Nowhere did I say post-hoc analysis was the final goal. Simply that sociology uses plenty of post-hoc.
Did you read the three questions Giddens posed? Where does he discuss prediction? As a basic goal, sociology tries to understand how societies work. The results of that understanding can obviously be used in a variety of ways, including prediction.

GoDel:maybe so, but Eugene is mostly the only one putting down others as too stupid to comprehend what he's talking about.
And yes predictive elements can come out of post-hoc analysis.

 

if so then your original post about it doesn't have any meaning at all because pretty much every analysis is post-hoc in a literal sense, ie "after the fact", and i'm sure that you had that literal definition in mind and not the specific subtest of anova (that you do not comprehend). obviously sociologists do not get their data from the future.

i replied to my understanding of what you meant by "post hoc analysis", as the end itself, not as means to an end ("the end" being a theoretical generalization which will by its nature have a predictive quality), because in my eyes it didn't make sense for you to allude to the overly obvious second understanding of that expression. by your definition (assuming i have it right) i do post-hoc analysis pretty much on a daily basis because i'm currently assisting with a research that uses surveys from the 80's. so i hope you understand that it's absurd for me to claim that sociologists do not rely on data collected "after".

 

giddens' third question is exactly what i'm talking about. the answer to "how and why societies change" are the many sociological theories, and as i said before you can take pretty much any relatively well known theory and see how it tries to explain something that will be necessarily true for the future (and then folks like giddens try to make governments base their policy-making on such theories, to put it simply).

sociology

very telling.

[xox]

**imagines an argue between eugene the psychopath and his partner ** vs

[chenGOD]

You do post-hoc analysis almost daily and you can't tie together the information provided itt to see that the context for mass abuse of mass surveillance exists?

[goDel]

hahaha

 

Well, I guess the data in this thread is biased and not a good representation of the actual real world distribution?

 

 

Anywho....data is biased? or data are biased? second sounds silly, but seem right? whatevs

 

 

edit: just passing by to answer for eug

[eugene]

You do post-hoc analysis almost daily and you can't tie together the information provided itt to see that the context for mass abuse of mass surveillance exists?

maybe that's because i do (whatever it is you call) post hoc analysis daily i can see very clearly that the information to conclude something like that is very nebulous, incomplete and highly politicized ? i can say that abuse is not impossible, but from that to "government is illegally spying after all of their citizens" there's a very long way.

[goDel]

Eugene, you should stop putting piss in your coffee. If there's shit to be pissed about, you should take a leak in the first world problems thread. Did your cat die recently? GF broke up? WTF dude. Please. Lighten up for a sec.

[Guest]

This is redundant.

[xox]

3 hrs without a word of eugene... could be that fluoride finally killed him?

[Guest]

He's getting briefed.