How Society Works

"Seven Principles for Effective Activism

2007-08-06T21:25:00.000-04:00

Sure, there are a few other things you need to know if you want to be an effective activist! These seven principles are also goo dthings to keep in mind when you plan a campaign or think about what changes need to be made.

1. Targeted innovation – focus on social and technological innovations that attack the root of a problem, not just one or more symptoms.

2. Empirical approach – Use data, systematic observations, and formal analytical tools to understand the current situation and the impacts of your own efforts. Don’t let terms like “empirical” and “formal” disturb you; the concepts aren’t hard to apply.

3. Leverage – Look for ways to attack a social problem that will give the best results for your resources.

4. Formalism – Use a system to structure and explore challenges, create evaluation criteria for ideas, generate ideas, evaluate ideas, decide what to do, and monitor results. Again, this is not as complicated as it might seem.

5. Marketing Mindset – Think of yourself as being in sales or advertising, with your services or ideas being “sold” to benefit people.

6. Design Thinking – Consider how your idea fits with the culture, economic situation, physical infrastructure, available technology, and the political climate.

7. Values Thinking – Your idea must fit with prevailing values, lifestyles, beliefs, and attitudes; the closer the fit, the greater the odds of success.

Role Playing Games

2007-01-07T10:41:00.000-05:00

Dungeons and Dragons, Vampire: The Masquerade, and other games that have players act out the adventures of fictional characters are all sinister tools of the devil that produce maladusted, sociopathic, Godless young adults. Right? Maybe not. Still, some people fear that fantasy role playing games (FRPGs) are bad for young people and thus FRPGs are a bad thing for society. We can respond to this fact in one of three ways:

We can point out that we, or people we know, were big FRPG fans and they turned out just fine. (Conversely, we can repeat an anecdote about a Dungeons and Dragons fan who commited suicide.)

We can investigate the social and psychological consequences using real research methods.

We can invesittgate the character of FRPG fans to see if they really differ from the population at large in some particular way, such as a quantitative measure of social adjustment.

(Graduate students who are looking for an area to research can feel free to use that second idea!)

We can take a couple of sociological lessons from the existence of FRPGs. Anything that is strange in any sense is likely to attract negative attention from people. When a game becomes associated with things like black magic, drug abuse, suicide, (God help them!) heavy metal music, or (Gasp!) athiesm that game naturally becomes a special cause for concern among parents, preachers, and ... who knows. Maybe manufacturers of conventional like Monopoly secretly fan the flames of suspicion to protect their games' market share. Hmm, is that a conspiacy theory?

Never mind the conspiracy theory for now. I'm supposed to be blogging about the sociological lessons we can learn from thinking about FRPGs. When thinking sociologically about something we want to think about the social impacts. I already noted some of the real or imagined negative impacts of FRPGs. But what about the positive impacts? Are there any positive, sociological impacts? A few possibilities do suggest themselves:

1. Cushy Jobs Grow - More people are working in management, marketing, and creative jobs thanks to the opportunities created by FRPGs.

2. Social Skills - People need to interact effectively with others to get ahead in this world. Not a profound thought, but one you probably never associated with sitting around and pretending to be a wizards, warriors, and such. Could FRPGs provide, for some young people, a way to hone their social skills? What if thousands of young people aren't going to get this sort of practice without their weekly FRPG sessions?

3. Mental Development - The rules of FRPGs are complicated. Coordinating our efforts with other people takes mental effort. Imagining all sorts of far-out things takes mental effort. Might FRPGs contribute to players' intellectual development. Might these people, collectively, be able to contribute a little more to society than would be the case had they taken up other hobbies?

So, next time you think about Dungeons and Dragons fans try not to think bad things!

(Disclaimer: The author is still a big fan of FRPGs and science fiction RPGs too.)

Powered by Qumana

Saddam Hussein: Good Bye and Good Riddance

2006-12-29T19:33:00.000-05:00

By the time you read this short post Hussein will probably be dead. What is the broader social meaning of the execution? That's the question of the moment.

You may think that his execution is of no importance to you at all. Maybe the execution is only significant as a topic of weekend gossip. Naturally, conservatives (some at least) and radical leftists (some at least) are happy to see him hanged. Those conservatives and radicals have different reasons for being happy, don't they? Well, even if the details may differ the reason is really ideology. Radical leftists and conservatives have different ideas about how the world works and how it ought to work. Yet, both groups can find reasons for doing away with a (formerly) powerful bad guy. Conservatives and radical leftists hate dictators, but probably for different reasons.

The death of Hussein can create or reinforce social bonds in Iraq. Saddam haters can join together in thanking Allah that Hussein is finally dead. Supporters of Hussein will probably get a morale boost from his death, and then they'll make more trouble for regular Iraqis.

Then there is the question of justice. Is justice really served by this execution? I don't know. I do know that this execution can build faith in the emerging social order in Iraq. After all, the justice system worked, the executive branch of government went along, the peoples' sense of justice is reinforced. In a fractured nation like Iraq seeing the justice system working properly can be a big morale boost.

Powered by Qumana

Christmas and Culture

2006-12-16T11:19:00.000-05:00

Why is Christmas such a big deal? Santa Claus? Holiday shopping? What are the cultural and economic functions of Christams? Does Christmas have a political function as well? (Sidenote: Politics is not government; politics is about a process for acquiring and exercising power over decisions that affect a society.)

Why is Christmas such a big deal? Because people make it a big deal? Because Jesus was born on or about December 25? Was the pursuit of power by Christians involved, maybe? Well, there is no doubt that early Christmas celebrations were...well, nonexistent. The earliest Christians didn't have anything like Christmas. Christians created a holiday that could overshadow/replace the older pagan celebrations of the winter solstice. Later, the Christmas tree was introduced, and this was also a Pagan invention that Christians coopted to make their religion more appealing.

OK, so historians or expert users of Google may take issue with my account, but the basic fact remains: Christmas evolved out of Christian attempts to replace Paganism with Christianity. Jesus never told people to celebrate his birthday by giving gifts. The Christmas tree has nothing to do with the origins of Christianity either. I mean Christianity was born in an area that, I presume, had evergreen trees. But that's not the same as saying a Christmas tree has some real connection to the birth of Christianity.

And where did Santa Claus come from anyway? This is just a modern interpretation of a story about one or more early Christian's. I'll leave it to you to dig into the historical details. Suffice it to say that the modern interpretation of St. Nick is only distantly related to reality. But Santa gets kids and their parents in the shopping malls. Heck, you can even have your pet's picture taken with Santa at some shopping malls.

How did Black Friday, the big after-Thanksgiving shopping day, when many retailers start to turn a profit, become such a big deal? Was it simple marketing by retailers and their trade associations? Probably? When did Black Friday first bexcome such a big deal for retailers and shoppers? I'm guessing that, as I just suggested, the process was begun by xcomemrcial interests and did not just happen.

Consisder that a lesson in how the use of power shapes a society: People and organizations can use money, access to the media, propaganda, and some psychology to create or "manage" traditions like after Thanksgiving shopping, and gift giving on Christmas.

And, how can I mention the politics of Christmas without mentioning the evil "War on Christmas" that conservatives love to talk about! What's the war on Christmas? Well, conservatives can point to many stories that seem to reflect liberal hostility to Christmas. The problem is that you can prove almost anything about anything by stringing together stories about people doing things (or not doing things). The conservatives don't care though. They want to maintain the power to define for us what is good or desirable. They are using isolated stories about liberal, athiest hostility to Christmas to scare people.

Liberals do the same sort of thing over issues of women's rights, racial discrimination, and poverty.

How many guys are getting their women diamond jewelry for Christmas? Why? The main reason has got to be advertising, which creates expectations in the minds of women and standards for men. A diamond necklace is not inherently more romantic than a silver necklace that costs 5% as much. A $2000 gift does not show more caring than a $100 gift, does it? Well, that really depends on what people think. And what people think is partly a reflection of the social environment.

Well, I ended up not postng anything last week, for some reason. Next week I'll explain why fantasy role playing games are so interesting to many people.

Powered by Qumana

Webcam Girls: Will They Destroy Western Civilization?

2006-12-03T10:39:00.000-05:00

Most people about webcam girls, so you'll get either a blank look or a denunciation of moral decline in American society should you ask someone about them. I think you'd mostly just get blank looks from people. People certainly know about Internet pornography, of which webcam girls are a part.

In case you don't know much about webcam girls, I can give you the basics in a couple of sentences. Webcam girls (yes, there are also webcam guys) use cameras connected to their computers to transmit images of themselves to whomever wants to see them. Often people will connect their own cameras and have a two-way ideo connection with the webcam girl. Much of what happens is of a sexual nature. Let's just leave it at that, shall we?

You can see where the controversy arises. Is it really OK for people to do sexually explicit things in front of a webcam while strangers watch. Cultural conservatives and feminists would object for different reasons. Obviously what webcam girls do is a violation of traditional norms regarding sexuality. Feminists probably object for the same reason that feminists reject pornography - webcam sex shows objectify women. So, let's just note that these religious/moral objections exist and get on with asking some sociological questions.

I like counting things. Maybe it comes from being mildly autistic. Maybe I want the modicum of respect that comes from doing things in a mathematically rigorous fashion. If you are the same sort of person you are probably wondering how many of the webcam girls, and guys exist. You may also be wondering if most of them are in the United States and Canada. I'm also curious about the breakdown of age and education. Are most of the webcam girls college students who are earning some extra money using their webcam.

Why do webcam girls do what they do, besides the obvious potential to make money. Why do people pay money to communicate with these girls? Couldn't they use their time and money more productively? Are the customers all college guys or fat, middle-aged losers? I'm guessing that the truth is a bit more complicated but the details will have to be worked out...somehow. Nobody is going to be eager to talk about their sexual Internet adventures in person or possibly even in a questionnaire. The customers could be surveyed using a clever and discrete technique similar to the following:

Include in your questionnaire two questions with one place to check "Yes" and one place for "No" so that there is no way of determining which question the person answered. One question pertains to something both innocuous and easily checked. The other question could be something like; "Have you ever engaged in sexuial activities while chatting online with a woman who was using a webcam?".

The other question could ask if the person has a college education or rents their home or something that could be checked out using public records.Find out what percentage of the population rents and compare that percentage with the percentage of yes answers to the webcam visit question. If 48% of the population rents and 56% answered "Yes" then you can estimate that 8% have engaged in sexually explicit conduct with a webcam girl. OK, maybe they actually visited a webcam guy. The question might need to be written so it is gender neutral: "Have you ever engaged in sexual behavior while chatting with someone who was using a webcam to trasmit images to you?"

I know that webcam girls and visits to them are looked upon negatively by most everyone in the United States. I wonder if Europeans feel the same? Australians and New Zealanders? Canadians? Japanese?

Powered by Qumana

Fast Food is Making Me Fat!

2006-11-26T11:09:00.000-05:00

Do you love McDonald's, Burger King, and Wendy's? If so, why? If not, why not? Is fast food bad for you or not? Is the heavy consumption of fast food a social problem? A public health problem? No problem at all?

Who is more responsible for obesity in America - the obese people or the fast food companies? What can social science research teach us about this question? Hmm...

Talking heads in the media tell us that the fast food companies are peddling cheap, unhelathy crap because they can, and they can make us buy their junk food. Or, media types (John Stossel comes to mind) tell us that people get fat because they eat too much and don't get enough exercise. The assumption here is that people are deciding to spend their time eating and doing things other than exercising. Are these assumptions reasonable or not? Here is another question that some social scientific thinking can help us answer.

Science suggests that the assumptions made by "conservatives" regarding fast food consumption are simply not reasonable. Here's something to think about: Our brains are wired to want food when food is available. This biological urge to eat and store up fat researves varies in intensity from one person to another, but we all have that urge. Eating to store fat goes back to prehistory when the food supply was uncertain and packing on some fat when the opportunity presented itself was a good strategy for surviving lean times.

Even worse, our decisions about what to eat are not generally part of some rational, long-term plan. Most of our decisions are really driven by peer pressure, time constraints, fatigue ("I'm tired and just want some dinner."), information that we receive and process without much conscious reflection, and prejudices and biases that vary in nature from one person to another. YOur childhood is also a powerful influence on bahvaior. If dinner often came from Burger King or Arby's when you were growing up, chances are you still like fast food.

Social pressures do, undeniably, shape our behavior. Relentless marketing efforts do influence buying decisions. Our feeling, probably not based on reality, that we are frantically busy and haven't got time for "real" food today also drives our buying decisions. And hundreds of food buying decisions per year add up to a fast food diet or some other sort of diet.

Lesson: If you avoid fast food, maybe you shouldn't feel too proud of yourself! Likewise, if you have turned into a fast food junkie, you shouldn't be too hard on yourself.

And on a slightly different subject...

For culture critics fast food represents yet another form of cultural imperialism. We are infiltrating and umdermining local culture with our bland, generic, unhealthy fast food. Never mind that fast food chains really do adapt themselves to local culture in ways large and small. The McDonalds in Odessa, Ukraine (actually there are at least 2 locations) charges extra for condiments. In India, McDonalds does not serve beef. In China, McDonald's restaurants are cool hangouts and date destinations, at least for the younger crowd. I think some fast food places in Europe serve beer and wine. So, here is some (adminittedly weak) evidence that fast food restaurants are shaped by the culture of other countries.

Powered by Qumana

Do Sociology by Patronizing Escort Services?

2006-11-18T10:12:00.000-05:00

I'm not sure if you could do a valid study this way. Ditto for working underover as an escort. Please correct me if I'm wrong about either of those things. Today's topic is the escort service.

You've all seen the ads for companies offering female companionship with a discreet and sexy young woman. (I have to wonder if the women are really as attractive as the photos in the ads suggest.) Escort services sell "companionship" rather than offering to trade sex for money. This makes the services barely legal, at least in the United States. I suppose escort services would be legal in Australia and the Netherlands, where prostitution is legal.

Questions about the business:

How many are there in the United States?

How many men in the USA have used an escort service?

How many men in the USA have used one and would never admit it, even on an anonymous survey?

Questions about the escorts:

Who are the escorts?

Why do they do it?

How long has the average escort worked in the field?

How do they think about the services they provide?

Do they like men or not?

A sociological question:

Are there any measurable impacts, good or bad, of escort services? I know feminists probably think that escort services just encourage men to view women as sex objects. Conservatives think that escort services are bad because they enable sexual immorality and break up relationships.

And a brief footnote about the illusions and fantasies that pervade society:

Men are generally expected/expecting to pay for sex. Some forms of exhange are socially acceptable (wedding ring), others are not accepted (giving $20 to a hooker) and others are barely tolerated (hiring a $350/hour escort for "companionship"). So, the illusion here is that women can be ezpected to freely share sexual experiences as a sign of love and commitment. If you won't "share" until you get a wedding ring or a few free meals then you are really exchanging sex for some of the man's resources. Think about that before hitting the dance clubs tonight.

Powered by Qumana

Election Day!!!!

2006-11-06T21:29:00.000-05:00

Thank God the campaign ads are going away soon. I'm sure that I am not the only one who is relieved about this. My original ideas was to write about escort services, but election day intervened in my blogging schedule. Now I feel compelled to make some observations about elections and voting and Congress.

Let us start with some questions then:

1. Why do politicians and parties run negative ads? Is it because there is real evidence that they sway voters' opinions? Maybe the ads persist because political advisors and consultants have this idea to "sell" to politicians who are looking for any possible advantage over their competition.

2. Why do politicians insist on mking emotional appeals? Maybe they understand that decision making is erally emotional and not rational as we are often pleased to believe.

3. What sorts of people are more likely to vote? Less likely to vote?

4. What sorts of people are not likely to vote for each of the most common reasons for not voting: not enough time, not interested in politics, belief that voting will not make a difference.

5. What social factors (race, age, education level, peer pressure, et cetera) influence voter participation and why?

Here are a couple of observations too:

Some places (towns, counties, states?) forbid the sale of alcoholic beverages on election day. I noticed this a few years ago when I lived in Alliance, Ohio.

Sending a few new faces to Congress will not allow for a change in Congress. Why? The newbies are entering an established social world with rules (formal and informal), relationships, and traditions that are not going to change because some people would like for things to work differently.

Powered by Qumana

Thoughts About Grocery Shopping

2006-11-04T10:14:00.000-05:00

Ever been to a grocery store or supermarket? I thought so. Maybe you never paused to think about why grocery stores have the features that they have. And why do we have grocery stores at all? Why don't we just have farmer's markets and bakeries and such? Those things used to be the norm in the United States and in much of the world people still like to shop at specialty stores and farmer's markets even when there are supermarkets to visit.

This is also true in Odessa, Ukraine where there is at least one chain of supermarkets. Those stores are small by American standards but have most of the features we associate with North American supermarkets. Some of the locations feature currency exchange kiosks. The supermarkets also sell whiskey and vodka.

One likely reason for the American love of supermarkets does suggest itself: Americans love convenience! And what could be better than stopping at one store to get a lot of prepared and packaged foods. Yes, you can buy produce and meat and such at supermarkets. Just look at peoples' shopping carts and you'll see how much of the food is convenience food like microwave dinners and cans of soup. A can of soup is a convenience food? Yes.

If you've been alive for a more than a few years I'll bet you've noticed a few commonalities in the North American supermarkets. Here are a few: frequent shopper cards, magazines, tabloids, office supplies, departments (at least a bakery and deli), extra services like money orders, greeting cards.

You may have noticed that other innovations in the supermarket business have spread around the country. Some supermarkets sell organic foods and "health" foods only. Wild Oats and Whole Foods are probably the most famous of those supermarket chains. Some supermarket chains offer online shopping and home delivery.

Why are supermarkets the way they are? Well, three sociological processes are at work. The people who design grocery stores and the people who manage supermarkets are all in social networks (clubs, trade associations, whatever) that foster idea sharing. This could explain why the same sorts, like Fourth of July cookout displays, appear everywhere. Sometimes government regulations determine that stores need to have something, such as a public restrooms. Thirdly, people pay attention to social trends and to the competition. When something seems like a good idea - say frequent shopper cards - the idea tends to be picked up by other companies.

Next time: Escort services!

Powered by Qumana

Why Are People Afraid of Ghosts?

2006-10-30T21:42:00.000-05:00

That's not really a sociological question but it does raise some sociological questions.

According to an article I read in last week's Time magazine, 37% of Americans believe that houses can really be haunted. (Did the research organization really get a good cross-section of the American public when they asked that question? Who knows.) I wonder how we compare with the populations of other rich, industrialized nations.

I wonder how religion and education level affect belief in haunted houses. I'll go way out on a limb and say the less religious you are the more likely you subscribe to a materialistic worldview that doesn't allow for the existence of ghosts and magic. I'll also guess that as education increases, belief in education decreases. So, maybe 5% of people with graduate degrees believe in haunted houses while 60% of high school dropouts think that houses can be haunted. Why do I think so> Well, maybe getting more education is related to having a more "rational" worldview, one that tends to make people dismiss things like ghosts and magic.

Halloween is based on a pagan holiday, if I remember my history correctly. The pagan holiday was then co-opted by the Catholic church and turned into something called All-Souls Day, which I think was actually observed on November 1st. (Sorry to say that I am just too busy and tired to do any research tonight.). Of course that Pagan and Christian stuff was tossed out the window as society started to turn away from religion.

Yes, I guess Americans are still quite religious compared with Europeans. Or are we? I sometimes wonder how much of this "religiosity" is just an act. How often are our "Christian" sentiments just kneejerk reactions programmed into us when our parents could still make us go to church? How often are our "Christian" attitudes toward social issues like ga marriage really just the product of manipulation by political and religious elites? But I digress...

Anyway, now that the various religious associations with this extra-spooky time of the year have fallen away we are left with costume parties, treak-or-treating, and 5647 types of Halloween candy. And about 1/3 of that candy will be on sale beginning November 1. Yum.

When did we start playing tricks on people and asking for treats? Yes, I played some tricks as a kid. But being either a baby or a sugar addict, I tended to focus on the candy. Yum. Ever noticed that trick-or-treat time has changed? well, probably not unless you are over 30. Seems like it was normal for kids to go around the neighborhood asking for candy. Now, I think, most kids only go to organized Halloween events like events at malls. Yawn.

Powered by Qumana

Want to Change the World? Keep These Thoughts in Mind

2006-10-29T10:32:00.000-05:00

Solving the world's problems will require some new ideas and some effective selling of many ideas. Taking advantage of opportunities to improve things that are okay now will also take new ideas. That's easy enough to see.

But what counts as a good idea? If you don't know then you can't really say whether your idea is any good. Many factors are really involved here, though we may want to oversimplify the evaluation process and simply assert that we have a good idea ("My idea will be good for women." "My idea will force people to save energy.").

I've written about the characteristics of social pollution before. We obviously want our world-changing ideas to be the opposite of social pollution. We want our "good" ideas to be scientically sound (wherever there is some relevant science), logical, and consistent with widely held human values like freedom, family, and health.

One more element we need to consider is the set of abstract principles that also need to be considered. I'd like to offer a preliminary list of principles to keep in mind as you create an idea and try to sell it to the world:

1. Decision making is emotional not rational.

2. Canging perceptions will be more effective than appealing to emotions or to cold facts.

3. People will work harder to avoid a loss than to achieve a gain.

4. People who benefit from an idea should also bear the costs.

5. Look for ways to gain leverage over an issue, to get the maximum effect per unit of money or time.

6. All changes in society will have unintended consequences, good and bad.

7. People always want to know what's in it for them.

8. Opportunities, rather than perceived problems, are a legitimate focus.

Powered by Qumana

All About Shopping Malls

2006-10-28T09:12:00.000-04:00

Macy's, Hechts, Sears, "cool" specialty stores, Christmas sales, model railroad shows, baseball card shows, and so much more! This is why people love going to the shopping mall. Or maybe the convenience of having so many different places to shop at one location is the real reason. Maybe, shopping malls are popular because Fortune 500 executives and government officials have colluded to turn us into mindless, yet efficient, consumers of the dazzling array of mostly useless stuff that can be found at the local mall.

So, in about 400 words I'm going to cover everything the budding social theorist (social critic, culture critic) will want to know about the sociology of shopping malls.

1. Why do teenagers like to hang out at malls? I assume that teenagers still like to do this. The sociological explanation may be simply that there are other teenagers and they are all (generally) at the mall without their parents. Freedom, movies, junk food, friends, and romantic opportunities can all be found at the mall on a Friday night!

2. Why are multi-level malls have stairs and escalators spread around the mall that way? If you often visit medium to large shopping malls you probably notcied that pattern that down escalators are often located some distance apart. You have to walk through part of a level to get to the escalator to the level you want to reach. Probably, mall designers want to force you to walk around and look at more stuff. The more stuff you have to look at, the more likely you are to buy something on impulse.

3. How many malls are there in the United States? Mmm, at the moment I'm not able to think of anywhere you could look for that number? Perhaps Googling "shopping malls in the United States" and "number" would work.

4. How are malls changing? Are there more now than at some particular time in the past? Are there fewer malls today? I suppose there is some year before which nobody was trying to keep count of the number of malls in the United States. You can bet that somebody, somewhere has been keeping track.

5. Why do malls have so many features in common? All shopping malls have some of these features: food court, movie theaters, customer service/information desk, security, stroller rental, "anchor stores" (big department stores like Sears), kiosks, vending machines, ATMs, and Christmas decorations. Malls generally host community events like the aforementioned model railroad shows and baseball card shows. At least 50% of shopping malls that have Christmas decorations put them up in the same week (second week of November?).

You can bet that most of the architects and managers grew up in North America and went to American universities, where they learned the same things about design and about the "proper" design of a shopping mall. These same people probably belong to the same social networks and so are exposed to the same sorts of ideas. When they do surveys of what mall tenants and visitors want, they will get answers from people with relatively similar sets of ideas about what a proper shopping mall should offer.

6. Are shopping malls good or evil? Well, shopping malls are mindless objects and cannot, at least in theory, be good or evil. As a "social technology" designed to efficiently sell goods and services malls might be considered good. The shopping mall appears to be a very popular social innovation. Maybe things like shopping malls can be justifiably labeled "good" or "evil" because of the intentions of their creators, or because of their social consequences. Whether an object can truly be good or evil, in any sense of those words, is a deep (and rather boring) philosphical issue.

I'll stick with the sociological questions about shopping malls. As one would expect, some people are critical of the shopping mall. Why? Well, aside from the environmental impact implied by all that paved-over land and all that traffic, the collection of chain stores at malls tends to wreck the homegrown downtown shopping experience that so many old people and you small-town people are familiar with.

Other observers of contemporary society point out that shopping malls perform many of the same social functions as those quaint downtowns: places to shop, places to socialize, and places to have community events. Maybe the fact that these things tend to be done differently at a mall is really a problem. Maybe the quality and quantity of social interactions at a mall don't measure up to what people had in the old downtown shopping district. Or maybe not. Maybe the criticism of shopping malls is just some conservative (or liberal.progressive?) reaction against social change.

OK, next time I'm going to post the inevitable Halloween blog. The specific subject would be a secret if I knew the specific subject, which I don't.

Powered by Qumana

Fitness Center Sociology

2006-10-24T21:45:00.000-04:00

Exercise, YMCAs, gyms, health clubs, rock climbing gyms (like the Sportrock chain here in the DC area) raise bunces of questions about culture, organizations, economics, relationships, and psychology. I think that I'll concentrate on raising some of the questions and suggesting ways that the questions could be researched.

How many gyms per 100,000 people are there in the United States? How does this fugure compare with the figures for Canada, Australia, Japan, and the European Union. I'm going to suggest that Europeans are less interested in the sorts of activities that a gym typically offers - aerobics classes, weight training, exercise bikes. You can't smoke and sip a coffee on an exercise bike (Just a joke people!). Anyway, Europeans tend to spend more time walking and bike riding because gas is very expensive and their cities tend to be less car-friendly. Owning a car also tends to be much, much more expensive!

What percent of adults in the United States belong to a gym or health club? How does that figure compare with other rich industrialized nations? Is the trend up or down, or has the percentage stayed pretty stable? Why have things worked out that way? What social, cultural, and psychological factors are involved?

If you want to look at trends, what years offer good starting points and ending points?. As an endpoint 2005 makes sense because figures for the whole year are almost certainly available. But where do you begin? Maybe there is a year before which nobody was trying to collect membership data. You could always get estimates from some trade association. Just be sure to check the method that they used to make their estimates! Trade associations might inflate the figures to make the industry look more important than it really is.

Another critical question suggests itself: To what extent are these centers really contributing to health and fitness as opposed to pandering to our media-driven desire for a certain "sexy" body type?

So, much for the "big" questions about fitness centers. Now, the process of using the facilities at your local gym is also sociological in many ways. Some of those ways are kinda boring, at least for me, so I'll skip right to the interesting part. How do the rules at a fitness center become rules anyway? Some rules are simple efforts to protect the equipment or to comply with local regulations. Some rules may be designed to protect the facility from lawsuits.

Some rules serve an obvious purpose, but it might be interesting to discover where they came from and how they became common. Two examples of these sorts of rules will make my point and maybe help you to think of other, similar rules. First, gym users are requested to wipe off the equipment after using it. Second, users of strength training machines are expected to take turns if someone is waiting.

Next time: The sociology of shopping malls! Bring your credit card and wear sensible shoes!

Powered by Qumana

Pedestrian Traffic Jams

2006-10-19T21:21:00.000-04:00

I could have titled this post "The Sociology of Walking" but that isn't terribly interesting. So, now you know the actual subject of my post - the sociology of walking. (If this were a thesis or dissertation I might title it "The Sociology of Walking with Special Emphasis on the Phenomenon of Stoppages in Pedestrian Traffic Flows." If anyone needs a thesis title or subject you are welcome to use that one!)

How many of you generally follow these sorts of rules:

1. Walk on the right

2. On an escalator, walk on the left and stand on the right (Yes that really is a rule!)

3. Exit from the back of the bus if people are waiting to board the bus

What other rules can you think of? Think about rules for opening doors to public buildings, to using crosswalks, and for paying attention to what you are doing.

"Sunday" walkers really aren't paying attention. They just saunter along blissfully unaware that other people may be focused on getting somewhere. I honestly think their behavior is just a temporary lapse in walker etiquette. And other people are just too fat or lazy to move any faster. The old and infirm are a different matter because they can't help but be a tad slow. Many Sunday walkers are just being rude though.

Some of the Sunday walkers also like to stop at the top or bottom of an escalator for no apparent reason. Happily for we heavy users of Metro, these people rarely act up during rush hour.

The phenomenon of the Sunday walker leads me, clumsily, to a discussion of pedestrian traffic jams. I'm going to theorize that pedestrian traffic jams happen when three conditions are satisfied: (1) One or more people insist on moving more slowly than the crowd, (2) there is any sort of bottleneck, like a kiosk or a bench, the obstructs the flow of traffic, and (3) the area has reached a certain critical density level that makes it hard for individuals to manuever. I could say more about the dynamics, and the parallels with motor vehicle traffic, but I think that is enough information for one blog post.

Strange but true: Some sociologist or anthropologist has almost certainly studied pedestrian traffic jams. Maybe somebody feels energetic enough to locate the research. Maybe somebody who needs a thesis topic will feel moved to investigate my ideas about pedestrian traffic jams.

That's about all I've got to say about walking. Next time I'll tackle the sociology of the gym! Be sure to dress appropriately for that class!

Powered by Qumana

United States Population tops 300,000,000!

2006-10-17T20:52:00.000-04:00

So, what does this mean sociological, economically, and ecologically? Economically, it means there are more potential buyers of my books :-) For the environment, well the meaning of this momentus event is up for debate. Sociologically, hitting the 300 million mark is of no real consequence unless we make it so. The country is not significantly more diverse today than yesterday. Cultural and economic opportunities have not expanded greatly in the past 24 hours. The change, if there was any, probably would have been the same even if the population slipped by 0.034% in the past 24 hours?

Hmmm, so what is the percentage difference in the country's population compared with yesterday at this time (8:22)?

The mass media: Well, they have to talk about something don't they? This symbolic but not important event gave the networks a little something to fill the airwaves for awhile.

The environmental impact of a large, growing, and rich population is something worth talking about. And I did read about the subject in Washington Post Express yesterday. The environmental significance of this population milestone is negligible. But if our population keeps growing, and buying SUVs and houses in the 'burbs, things could get pretty bad.

Maybe they could get pretty bad. I'm not entirely convinced. Scientists seem to think that global climate change is real, and is really fueled by human activity. If so, our high level of fossil fuel use can't continue. With the population growing and the standard of living steady or increasing for many people increased fossil fuel use seems inevitable.

Anyway, our impact on the environment will depend more on lifestyle choices and policies than on sheer numbers. Maybe we can eat fewer imported foods, consume less meat, walk more, live in condos or apartment buildings, and that sort of "green" stuff. I should hope so! I'd love to buy a condo in a super green building. I'm not interested in giving up meat though.

Population growth also means the country is getting more crowded. They just aren't making land anymore, and gobbling up one's weak neighbors to get more land is socially unacceptable these days. We'll just have to accept the increasingly crowded malls, highways, and supermarkets. But the United States isn't densely populated compared with most of Western Europe, Japan, Singapore, Indonesia, India, Bangladesh, Israel, Gaza, and China.

So much for the idea of a population crisis in the United States!

Next Time: How Can People Create a Pedestrian Traffic Jam?

Powered by Qumana

Why Do People Do What They Do?

2006-10-05T22:00:00.000-04:00

How does one answer that question in a short blog post, or even several short posts? Such a feat is not really possible. I can offer a few random thoughts on why some carelessly selected and unrelated phenomena occur. The answers, as I like to think of them, are not what you were probably expecting. Some of my answers may confuse or offend. That's okay because reality can be confusing or offensive.

So, two random questions and answers:

1. Why do men love football? It gives them something in common with other guys. This sense of commonality engenders the trust that's needed in social relationships and in business. (It is comparatively hard to trust some slightly bitter loner who sits at home at night and writes eggheaded stuff.)

2. Why do women watch soap operas? See above.

And, some random observations:

Our individual decisions to do stuff, or not do stuff, can influence society in many ways. Sometimes the influences are obvious in particular cases and sometimes things take a bit of effort to understand..

That nutjob in Pennsylvania who killed the Amish children has made a mark on society.

People who watch infomercials are building a society that keeps producing informercials for products and services ranging from the useless (colloidal silver) to the ridiculous (no down payment real estate investing).

Teenage guys car surf because they are rewarded by other young people - you know who you are!

Why do guys insist on acting like pigs? Because they tend to be rewarded with sex, probably by the same women who complain..

Why do guys buy flashy sports cars and hot motorcycles? Three reasons: sex; social status; a cultural rule that says this is an appropriate way for a man to express his personality and show of his wealth.

So, the individual decisions we make to do things or not do things, or to reward or punish add up in ways we don't always think about.

Powered by Qumana

Helping People Make Better Decisions(r)

2006-10-03T22:22:00.000-04:00

Voters, politicians, consumers, activists, managers and the rest of us all make choices regularly. We make choices about legislation (Shall I vote for it or against it?), where to live, what car to buy, what politicians to vote for, whether to bother voting at all, and a bunch of other stuff. You get the picture.

My topic for the past two posts has been the common human question "What should I do?" and the ways in which our answers depend on much more than free will. Now I want to offer a few (potentially) practical thoughts and put this subject to bed.

My ideas relate to creating a social environment where people are encouraged to make better decisions. One of the big influences on decisions is what sociologists call the "generalized other" - a fancy term for the cultural expectations and judgements that we're exposed to throughout life. Our childhood is another important factor in our decision making.

So, here are six suggestions for creating a social environment that encourages better decision making.

1. Create and promote new ideas -specifically, we need people who can create and sell new decision rules, like the rule about avoiding synthetic chemicals or the rule about never taking "hot" stock tips.

2. Boycott men's and women's lifestyle magazines - I never read the women's magazines, but the men's magazines tend to promote fantasy images of what a man's body, sex life, income, and wardrobe should be like. I suspect that the equivalent women's magazines are just as harmful.

3. Advertising regulations - Libertarians please don't read this! We should ban AL:L advertising for alcohol, tobacco, and gambling.The net effects on society of those three things are so negative that we should not allow companies to market them through the usual channels. That brings me to ...

4. Banning product placements - Companies should not be allowed to place their alcohol and tobacco products in movies.

5. Critical thinking skills - teach 'em in school

6. Moral education - GASP! CHOKE! Yes, I think kids should be taught to understand widely held human values (like freedom and family), why those values are so common, and how they can be undermined by our personal decisions, by corporations, by governments, by religions, and by secular interest groups.

So, your homework assignment is to take one of my six ideas and make something happen! I'll expect to see a progress report monthly beginning on 11/04.

(r) Obviously, the (r) is a joke here! I can't register some generic-sounding blog title. Or can I?

Powered by Qumana

Creative Social Change Projects

2006-09-30T12:12:00.000-04:00

I was rereading Edward De Bono's book Serious Creativity and got some ideas. De Bono describes many techniques for generating new ideas, and some techniques for introducing creativity into organizations. These are really formal mechanisms for eliciting new ideas.

Activist organizations and social service nonprofits need to keep up a list of specific areas where creative ideas are needed. This is what De Bono called a Creative Hit List.

People interested in changing the world in some way, big or small, could benefit from creating new concepts to use or to promote. This much is probably not news, but maybe you have never thought of an organization implementing a formal process to create new concepts. This is called concept R&D. Maybe some of the big activist organizations, like Greenpeace, need Concept R&D offices. Maybe some of the big social service organizations like the United Way need the same sort of office.

Activists often concentrate on solving problems, which is a reasonable thing to do if you genuinely believe that ___________ is a big problem. Creative Hit Lists and Concept R&D can be useful here. As De Bono points out in Serious Creativity, there is a need to go beyond problem solving and make a conscious effort to look for opportunities. An Opportunity Search could be done in broad subject areas like fund raising, public policy, marketing, and public education. Searches could also be focused on issue areas like animal welfare or renewable energy. What opportunities exist to advance our agenda? To change more behaviors in the direction we desire?

We can't help but act on assumptions about the world, about people, about social institutions, and about what tactics or strategies will work best. Sometimes we need to tease out then challenge assumptions about the world and even our assumptions about what needs to be changed.

Powered by Qumana

How to Make Better Decisions(What Should I Do? - Part 2)

2006-09-30T11:13:00.000-04:00

Last time I went on and on about how the mass media, peer groups, and childhood experiences lead us to making bad decisions. These bad decisions are bad for individuals and they add up to real problems for society.

If I sometimes drive my car like I am in Formula 1, this is really a personal problem and not a social problem. If everyone who owns a hot car starts to drive like a race car driver then we have a social problem! Preventing that sort of building up from personal decision to social problem is what I'm going to offer a few ideas about this time.

So, lets take these influences on our decisions one-by-one:

1. Mass Media - Maybe some old advice is really best here: Read fewer men's/women's magazines, watch less television (or at least stick with news, and serious documentaries - the life of Ann Nicole Smith does not count as a serious documentary subject by the way!). Boycott companies that sponsor trash television shows.

What is trash television anyway? Well, almost all television is trash television to some people. I feel the need to be a little more precise than that. Trash television to me is television that promotes unhealthy body images (for men and women), unrealistic ideas about success, unrealistic expectations for relationships, and unrealistic standards regarding what people should own. Hmm, maybe most television is trash.

2. Peer Pressure - Once again, the old advice is best: Pick your friends carefully! Pick your kid's friends even more carefully. Some people say that you cannot pick your friends, but this is obviously not true! We have some control over who we develop or end relationships with and when. This is what it means to pick your friends.

3. Generalized Other - our ideas about how others will react to our behavior comes from friends, family, coworkers, religious leaders (even if you are not religious) and the mass media. Aside from being careful about what you read or watch and picking your friends carefully, there is probably nothing you can do.

4. Childhood Experiences - Well, if you are old enough to reflect on your childhood experiences then it is too late for you! However, you can still try to protect your kids from trash television and bad kids in the neighborhood.

However, the more people follow the advice to avoid "trash" television (and books and magazines and radio shows) the more likely culture will change to produce a "generalized other" that is more supportive of making healthy, for the individual, decisions.

Maybe I need to say more about this next time.

Powered by Qumana

What Should I Do?

2006-09-26T21:41:00.000-04:00

This isn't really a question for my readers. This post is about decisions we make in our personal lives, decisions about finances, jobs, education, relationships, and many other things. Decision making involves social forces, free will, and psychological forces we are only dimly aware of.

You see, the idea that we do what we choose to do is partly true and partly illusion.

How does this work?

1. Peer pressure - friends get us to binge drink or drive too fast; coworkers get us to work harder than we planned to work

2. Childhood experiences - This is really from Pscyhology 101. Childhood experiences influence our ability to trust people and that ability (or lack of it) can affect our relationship decisions.

3. Mass Media - This is almost everyone's favorite whipping boy when it comes to dicussing the causes of social problems. Television, magazines, radio, books, newspapers, and the Internet do affect us by giving us ideas about how we should live or what we should be afraid of.

4. The Generalized Other - a fancy term for the collective opinions and views that we think other people have: "What will people think of me if they see me doing ___________?"

5. Learning - Not just formal schooling, but all forms of learning can expose us to rules for making "good" decisions. We probably apply these rules without even thinking about them. You might buy a slightly used Honda Civic because this represents a "sensible" transportation choice. Your rules for picking a vehicle may have come from friends, family, and the media. Another person my consider a 2006 Miata to be a perfectly sound transportation choice because she is using different decision rules.

OK, so that was kinda interesting. What good is it? Maybe I can explain in my next post.

Powered by Qumana

The Birds and the Bees

2006-09-21T22:22:00.000-04:00

Yes, this post is about sex. And biology. And genetics. Think for a few minutes and I bet you can identify some of the wasy that sex, biology, and genetics each influence society and culture.

1. Our attitudes toward sex are really cultural and not biological or genetic. Consider how many people make money with sex toys, pronographic films, dirty magazines, books of sex advice, and so on. People who market these things, intentionally or not, create cultural expectations of what sex should be like. We spread those expaectations when we interact with friends and lovers, or potential lovers. (Ideas that we spread around are called memes.The term was created by evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins.)

2. Some businesses, academics, and writers are trumpeting the impending victory of science and technology over biology. We can soon prevent or cure any genetic disorder. We can prevent most of the problems of aging and even reverse some of the effects. (Sorry, but there is no hope of curing married men of the urge to visit topless bars.) Never mind if those expectations are rooted in facts or wishful thinking or marketing hype. The cultural impacts are real so the reality of the predictions is, sociologically speaking, irrelevant.

3. How long will it be before someone writes an essay or makes a speech and suggests that Arabic men are genetically inferior to Northern European white males?

4. Biology imposes limits on how a society could be organized. We need food, water, and protection from the elements. So, the need to secure food, water, and protection from the elements imposes limits on how many people can live in a given area, what they must do to get food, and how much time and effort is required to cope with the climate. So, biology acting in concert with climate and the local ecology will influence social organization and culture.

Sociology lecture over.

Powered by Qumana

Politics Explained

2006-09-19T21:20:00.000-04:00

What explains party politics, campaign promises, broken campaign promises, smear campaigns, political scandals, imaginary political scandals, voting behavior, and public policy? Sociology explains that stuff. Really. Consider these sociological observations:

1. People form groups for all sorts of reasons and to pursue all sorts of goals. Advancing our vision of how society should work is generally going to be a group effort. So, people band together with people who have roughly similar views and form political parties. (Note that this can happen even in places where some or all political parties are outlawed.)

2. The concept of democratic rule predates the United States by at least 2000 years.

3. Politicians make campaign promises that they may or may not be able to keep because other politicians make campaing promises. And we seem to expect these promises to be made, if not kept. The expectation sets up a competitive political environment where nobody dares say "I'll try real hard to do good things." or "Realistically, a freshman Representative can't expect to accomplish a whole bunch, but I'll do what I can."

4. Who's to blame for low voter turnout? The lazy people who can't be bothered? Yes, that really is the answer.

5. Political ideas don't just emerge out of somebody's head or from smoke-filled back room. Both of those things are involved but a lot more also goes on here. People evaluate ideas in light of what their audience will like, they get pressure/encouragement/inspiration from interest groups. powerful lobbyists, and books. God help us but politicians also test ideas on focus groups.

Sidebar: You did know that politics involved selling didn't you? Politicians sell their influence and their ideas.

That's enough sociological rambling for today folks!

Powered by Qumana

Bad Driving Explained

2006-09-14T21:50:00.000-04:00

I was inspired to address this subject by a question someone asked me last night: Why are there so many rude drivers? You probably thought that some people were just selfish and/or stupid.

You were partly right. Since this is a sociology blog so I feel compelled to come up with a few sociological observations.

Several social forces are at work, or not, in the case of rude drivers. Consider the low standard that so many drivers set for us. Its easy to say that I'm not as bad as that chick who cut me off while talking on a cel phone and drinking coffee. Bad drivers seldom experience any negative consequences for their behavior. Sure, they get tickets sometimes. Sometimes bad drivers and the just plain rude drivers get in accidents. Do they take responsibility for themselves? Not always. Nope. It is easy to blame to the "stupid cops" for punishing aggressive drivers to whom natural selection has bequethed control of the roads. Easier still is blaming dumb luck or bad road conditions for your accident.

An unwillingness to own up to one's responsibilities is party psychological and perhaps partly cultural. Conservatives love to complain about how American culture encourages people to blame everyone else for everything. Maybe the conservatives have a point there. Or maybe not.

Getting back to the consequences of bad driving behavior brings up an idea. People seldom get in trouble for being rude or aggressive. Maybe that can change? A honking horn or an obscene gesture aren't going to make an impact. Playing Mad Max with a really rude drive is definitely not a good idea. We need new and informal ways to sanction bad drivers and make them behave. We need something that doesn't require the police to be involved, is not dangerous, is legal, and will make a real impression. Horns and ramming are defnitely out! Cursing and making obscene gestures can get you in trouble, or have no effect whatever.

Any ideas?

Powered by Qumana

What causes terrorism?

2006-09-12T21:54:00.000-04:00

The political answer is that terrrorism is caused by evil people who want to kill Americans or at least destroy our democratic, capitalist way of life. That's the sort of garbage that makes me hate politics. But, you and I have both heard similarly witless explanations of terrorism. Here are a few other explanations for terrorism:

1. Terrorists want to martyr themselves and go to heaven. (Where else can a guy get 72 virgins?)

2. The terrorists are people who will do absolutely anything to spread fundamentalist Islam.

3. The terrorists are genetically defective individuals.

4. The terrorists are products of a degenerate, primitive culture.

5. The terrorists are mentally defective individuals.

6. The terrorists are driven to insane behavior by demonic forces.

7. The terrorists are products of a culture that glorifies the struggle against infidels and offers little hope of economic success or stable family life for huge numbers of young people who are poorly educated and under the influence of authoritarian religious leaders who role in society is grounded in centuries of tradition.

8. Who cares! Terrorists are the enemy in a great clash of civilizations!

Guess which explanation is closest to the truth?

Powered by Qumana

How Does Society Work?

2006-09-09T11:08:00.000-04:00

Money, office politics, biology, sex, genetics, greed, and powerful organizations are the reasons that things happen in society. Hmmm...

How does society really work? I'm hoping you've wondered about this as much as I have. The answers are all around us, on TV, in conversations with friends, on talk radio, in the newspapers. Stick with me for a few minutes and I'll show you how all of those "explanations" come up short.

We can easily be sold an overly simplified explanation of how things work. People are busy. People are focused on day-to-day concerns and are ready to accept any seemingly reasonable explanation. Money and special interest groups drive politics. Greed and selfishness explain why environmental problems persist.

Those short answers contain elements of truth. Money, interest groups (not just political interest groups), and psychology all contribute to our society being one way and not another. Oh, and so does the natural environment. Geography is also be involved.

What else? Well, blind chance plays a part in things. The culture - beliefs, values, technologies, symbolism, laws, unwritten rules - also influences the way a society works. Relationships between people and groups also shape a society. History is also involved; nothing just happens in a historical vacuum. Biology, not just genetics, is also involved in making a society work the way it does. There are interaction effects between biology, geography, natural environment, psychology, culture, relationships, and chance.

Yeah, that's pretty abstract. In future posts, I'll bring things down to earth using real-world events. This being election season I may feel compelled to comment on the politicians' ideas - do they pass my social pollution test? Finally, I'll try to explain what you can really do with all of this knowledge.

Question: Does anyone really do anything for money? (My answer is "no" but I'll save the explanation for a future post.)

A closing question: Why are people in the United States not like people in Pakistan? If you can answer that question in a rigorous way you deserve a Ph.D. in Sociology. Or, at least you can be a guest columnist.

Powered by Qumana

Miscellaneous Thoughts

2006-09-05T20:16:00.000-04:00

Election season has officially started. The advertising season started a bit earlier than the Labor Day weekend opening of "election season." You probably know that if you watch television or read the newspaper. This seems like a good time to remind people of a few important facts about politics.

1. Politicians lie.

2. Politicians want to get in office and stay in office.

3. One can be sure that some politicians believe their own stories

4. Politicians generally traffic in slogans and stories that pander to one side or another, rather than coming up with reasonable ideas and showing us why the ideas are reasonable.

Politicians can lie and tell us meaningless stories because we are all distracted. We hear facts and anecdotes that support our liberal or conservative view of the world. We don't take much time to reflect, so we tend to believe the stories and facts that support our own worldview. We vote accordingly.

Sociological consequences: Public policy is created that has no significant effect or that makes things worse. The government vomits money all over the place. We elect people who have grandiose ideas about their places in the world. That grandiosity, to the extent that its contradicted by facts, makes us waste money and energy.

One could argue that our current conservative leadership is motivated by a fantasy that centers on leading an epic struggle of Christianity against fundamentalist Islam. I am not arguing that the war on terror is pointless, only that we are overreaching to say this is an epic struggle between Christianity and fundamentalist Islam. How much money and energy are being wasted on a conflict that, while serious, is definitely not in the same league as World War II.

Maybe I can explain these ideas in more detail. I'll just have to pay attention to political advertising. I think everyone else should do the same. Everyone should also reread my posts on social pollution so politicians' ideas are easier to evaluate.

Powered by Qumana

Social Criticism is Lazy Thinking

2006-08-26T10:25:00.000-04:00

Why do people complain about the state of society? We all do this sometimes. We complain about the Bush administration, Dick Cheney, pollution, economic policy, declining morals, intrusive government, loss of civil rights. corporate greed, housing prices (My personal favorite!), the status of women, and a bunch of other things.

My very favorite topic of criticism happens to be the quality of thinking that underlies much of modern society. That's why I keep blogging about social pollution. I 'm not a super-genius but it doesn't take one to see how many decisions are based on bad information, emotions whipped up by activists and politicians, and appeals to selfishness.

What am I going to do about it? I'll offer a list of vaguely defined things to do. I think you should pick something and decide to do it. If you want to work with someone then send me an email.

1. Become an activist for science education! Any democratic society where many people think evolution is "just a theory" andf chemicals are bad for you is cricling the drain.

2. Become an activist for critical thinking lessons in schools. There need to be lessons on logic and on the thinking lessons like those developed by Edward De Bono. (See www.edwdebono.com/cort/index.cfm for more information.)

3. Create an outrageous Web site. Pick a bad idea you'd like to shine a light on, and create a Web site like eatbabies.com. Yes, that is a real Web site.

4. Create an outrageous public demonstration. Naked chicks painted like animals works for PETA. Maybe something similar will work for fighing social pollution.

5. Write about the myths and baseless ideas that underlie modern life in some area, like social policy or lifestyles or spending habits. Pick something and get your work published whereever you can.

6. Badger politicians by auditing what they say and what they write. Publish the results in letters to the editor, Web content, or whatever you've got. If there is a public meeting or question and answer session maybe you can ask a valid but embarrasing question.

Powered by Qumana

The Problem with Morality

2006-08-23T21:12:00.000-04:00

Fighting sweatshop labor, getting fair wages for Third World coffee farmers, protecting the traditional family, and keeping people away from Internet porn are all moral crusades these days. To varying degrees almost all such crusades are all good for people, "good" meaning people will really experience benefits.

Still, moral crusading causes problems, aside from the obvious problem of the other side winning the battle. Who wants to see their side lose in a moral struggle over homosexual rights or whatever? Who wants to see society race along in "the wrong direction"? .

Sometimes "crackpot" moral crusades are easy to identify and we can tell that people are wasting their time. Is there really any social value in fighting to outlaw masturbation for example? Or premarital sex? Or private property? (Remember when I claimed that almost all moral crusades are good to some degree? Those three are exceptions!)

Then there are all of those other well-intentioned crusades that may not be worth the trouble. Consider the idea that we ought to buy fair trade coffee, crafts created by worker-owned collectives, and organic food.

Consider the massive amounts of time and money Americans pour into efforts that have questionable value. Why not buy cheap food and donate money to an environmental organization? Why not buy cheap art, then donate money to an international development organization? Why not donate time and money to efforts that will really help families?

All I'm saying is this: As a society we need to be more rational about how we use our resources to fight moral crusades. Don't just pick your battles, weigh the costs and benefits of your battle before you pick one. Society will be better off because of your efforts.

Powered by Qumana

Worrying About "Social Order" is Bad

2006-08-17T21:44:00.000-04:00

Maybe I am a bit behind the times here. In my day people worried about society going to hell in a handbasket (Please help me invent a better expression!) thanks to crime, gangs, gun violence, crack, disturbing economic inequality, unchecked corporate greed, decaying inner cities, racial tensions, and broke governments.

Now all we need to worry about is global climate change, the war on terror, racial tensions, disturbing economic inequality, and corporate greed.

All of these problems could make people really nervous. Maybe those people are going to start agitating for drastic measures to be taken. we;'ve got to get the situation under control you know. Our way of life is at stake here. The bad guys are gunning for us, for a variety of nutjob reasons. We need tougher laws, more military spending, more law enforcement, and courts that are really tough on the bad guys.

Anyone who ever took a history class or watched the news probably knows where this could lead: totalitarianism. Kiss your rights goodbye! Since that much is pretty clear to us all I will move on...

When we get all worked up over the eroding social order, we fall prey to all sorts of simplistic and misleading ideas. Consider these examples:

1. The solution to Washington DC's "crime emergency" is to get more cops on patrol and impose a curfew on teens.

2. The root of our social problems comes from our society's drift away from its Judeo-Christian roots and into the briar patch that is secular humanism.

3. We need tougher laws to deal with _________ (insert a crime problem, any crime problem).

(Those were just examples, mind you; I don't take them seriously!)

Never mind that in all three cases we have no idea what the real problem is. Never mind that the "problem" may be something stirred up by activists or by reporters. Lastly, our belief in a "problem" or a "solution" may represent emotion and not a careful analysis of the situation.

The sociological lesson here: Knee-jerk reactions to problems of "social order" can cause us to waste a huge amount of labor and money on nonsolutions. We could even allow something like Nazism to take root.

Powered by Qumana

Measuring Social Pollution

2006-08-15T19:35:00.000-04:00

OK, so we all know that society is plagued by bad ideas. We do know that don't we? Good. Maybe we should devise a way of measuring social pollution. Some of you may be familiar with Harper's Index, a list of anecdotes and statistics. The Index is really only for entertainment, but the items listed do give an amusing look at the nature of our times.

Well, maybe the ideas that characterize our times deserve the same treatment. The index could include statistics like these, from a 2005 Gallup Poll of 1,002 Americans:

41% of respondents believe in ESP

42% of respondents believe in telepathy

51% believe that aliens have visited Earth

Ideas related to science, technology, morals, and ethics could also be good Index items I think. How many American's prefer to avoid food grown with chemicals? (NOTE: Food is chemicals. Plants make their own pesticides.) How many people think its okay to steal from a chain store but not from a locally-owned corner store?

I tried to actually create a Social Pollution Index like the one I just described. Tracking down enough information to publish a montly index turned out to be tough! Maybe I should return to that idea; it could even be the focus of my sociology blogs.

Hmmm...

FOOTNOTE: Social scientists may want to create a very different sort of index. This one would rate the level of social pollution in society by combining scores on variables such as superstition and technological literacy.

Powered by Qumana

Individualism is Bad for You

2006-08-12T09:33:00.000-04:00

Can the cornerstone of American life really be a problem? Say it ain't so!

Inidividualism is valuable to a degree. In this sense, individualism is just like science, religion, and lots of other things. The problems start when individualistic thinking gets carried to extremes. Of course this happens all the time as a desire to have our inidividual selves recognized and respected gets twisted in dangerous ways. Huh?

Consider social policy - We come up with stupid ideas and vote on stupid policies because we:(1) Only care about our taxes not going up, not even a penny, (2) we assume that people have more control over their behavior than they actually have.

Consider self-help - How many millions of hours and billions of dollars are wasted by people who have nothing wrong with them. Of course, being OK is not OK. We have to discover our inner selves and blah, blah, blah. (Self-improvement books can be helpful but, really, how much imporvement do most of us need?)

Consider relationships - What do you suppoe is going to happen to marriage, and general relations between the sexes, if all we care about is our almighty egos? Maybe there will be more cheating, more beating, and more dislike of the opposite sex (same sex for gay people of course).

I wonder how much money and time we waste each year protecting ourselves from amoral individuals who we know are going to take advantage of us if they can? And why are those inidivudals amoral, you ask? Because they grew up being taught to honor their egocentric desires above all else.

Powered by Qumana

Religion is a Social Problem

2006-08-08T19:50:00.000-04:00

Islamic fundamentalism, Christian evangelicals (maybe), cults, crackpot faith healers, belief in crystal power, and televangelist garbagecreate problems. Why? Well, I'll explain in a minute. Remember that I'm not bashing religion; I'm just pointing out some of the costs that we pay by focusing on religion and spirituality.

Consider all of the money and time wasted each year, in America at least, on seemingly worthless religious activities: going to tent revivals, watching televangelists, donating to televangelists, and meditating with crystals. If 20,000,000 give an average of $100 a year to televangelists, that's $200,000,000 a year that's arguably been wasted. New Age books, crystals, and seminars probably bleed off a few billion more every year. I Iwonder how much money people spend each year on trips to Lourdes? Then there is the time wasted each year.

I guess you could describe the social impact of religion as a set of mathematical equations. X people spend Y hours on watching televangelists. X people spend Y dollars a year on new age books, tapes, and videos. I think you get the idea.

Religion also has other social consequences, that I can't quantify so easily. People could be doing other things with the money and time they devote to dubious religious activities. Maybe the money could be sent to charities that take concrete actions to improve peoples' lives. Maybe people could actively try and make their lives better instead of working to get supernatural comfort and guidance.

Religious belief fuels wars too. I guess you figured that one out, so I'll not beat that horse any more. I wonder if Jainists, Buddhists, or Hindus ever started a war? (India is not a Hindu nation because it officially has a secular government.)

How many times does religious belief make people ignore problems that are obviously caused by human action or by biology. When we say that Down's Syndrome is the will of God we excuse ourselves, as a society, from looking for a way to prevent or cure this condition. When we say that God decides who is rich and who is poor we excuse ourselves from having to care about shocking economic inequality. Religion can sap our humanity, and that is something already in extremely short supply these days.

Maybe, moral laziness is a side effect of having a religious worldview. People stop caring about other individuals because God wants that old guy to be a vagrant. Or,maybe the vagrant is being punished for some offense against the gods. Either way, we are excused from needing to do anything.

Powered by Qumana

Science is a Social Problem

2006-07-27T19:43:00.000-04:00

Are evolutionary theory, genetic engineering, stem cell research and the mindset behind them hurting society more than helping? How would we know?

The real problem referred to in my title is a bit more fuzzy than the one suggested in that first paragraph. The problem is that scientific thinking is displacing moral reasoning and ethical judgement.. Slavish adherence to science pollutes social policy, and thinking about our own behavior. We only care about the most efficient means to a given end, rather than thinking about the end in question. To paraphrase Jeff Goldblum's character in Jurassic Park, "You were so busy trying to figure out if you could do something, you never stopped to ask if you should." (He was talking about cloning dinosaurs, but the sentiment applies in lots of other cases.)

Of course the scientific worldview has been enormously beneficial in many ways. Neat and simple "scientific" explanations of things help us feel like we understand the world. This is psychologicallly comforting, even if our unsderstanding is really an illusion. The inventions we've developed out of a scientific understanding of the world have been the the basis for huge imporvements in the human condition over the past few centuries.

All is not well in the modern, scientific world. I'll spare you the usual blather about nuclear bombs and concentration camps. Of course those things are bad! Another problem of the scientific world view deserves our attention. The problem is dehumanization. Do we really want to be thought of in terms of our reporductive cells or as bundles of biological urges. Do we want our social value to be measured by our fitness to reproduce (shades of Nazism and euthanasia)? I hope not!

Let us work to keep science in its place: Helping us to understand and perhaps mainuplate the relationships between natural phenomena. Let's restrict rationality to its proper role in helping us find the best way to achieve goals that arise from other values.

Powered by Qumana

Why Nature is Not Our Friend

2006-07-25T19:58:00.000-04:00

Ever wondered if homosexuality is natural? What about cities, tattoos, or stay at home husbands? Of coure the thing most people worry about these days is, drum roll please, genetic engineering. Is it natural to mess with the genetic material that makes plants and animals what they are?

There are actually two problems that crop up when we think about what's natural. First, we start to use nature as measure of how things ought to be. Second, we try to explain social behavior, poverty, wealth, even human personalities as if they were mainly products of the natural world. Let me explain...

Go against nature in this regard and are not a man. Of course, you may be a woman, so you will be called a diesel dyke if you steps too far out of bounds.

It gets even worse. We tend to think of nature as having special/magical/supernatural properties. So, natural cures and natural foods are good. We "need" a spiritual connection with the natural world. Some people think plants and animals have a special "life force" that science cannot duplicate. (I think I'm right about this.)

The bottom line: What does this cost us, if anything? Well, whenever science suggests that natural cures and supplements are not better, but we buy them anyway, we waste money. The synthetic compounds are sometimes cheaper, or maybe not, but they actuall tend to work. And how many people are actually harmed each year by natural cures? And what are the social costs when we condemn "unnatural" behaviors like homosexuality and a woman taking care of her husband or boyfriend? However, the costs are diffuse and hard to understand; the benefits are concrete and clear.

We keep thinking so highly of natural things and the natural world for a couple of reasons. Some entrepreneurs are making tons of money selling "superior" natural products. People feel good about their eforts to fight unnatural things like homosexuality and genetic engineering. People feel they understand the world better when they can easily put things into the categories of "unnatural" and "natural" so we keep doing this.

Powered by Qumana

Is it all about biology?

2006-07-22T11:23:00.000-04:00

Is what all about biology? Is everything about people and, therefore about society, really explainable in terms of biology or genetics? That's the question of the day.

The basic idea is this: Everything we do reflects a biological urge to eat, protect our children, avoid danger, or reproduce. Because society is really the sum of everything people do, society is really formed and guided by the same biological forces.

I'll leave the dissertation on the complexities of human society for someone who needs a dissertation topic. The real point of this post is to tell you about the origins of biological thinking, the costs of this sort of thinking, and the benefits. Look for this pattern to be repeated when I blog about religion, science, morals, economics, social order, individualism, and nature.

Fixation on biology as the cause of everything comes from three sources. First, we all have an inherent need to simplify things. Simple, biological or genetic explanations do seem to work in many cases. Second, science is replacing religion/magic/superstittion as a general way of explaining the world. Anything genetic or biological that sounds plausible tends to be taken seriously. Thirdly, there really is abundant evidence that genetics and random biological variations in the brain influence much of our behavior.

So, what does all this biological thinking cost us anyway? Focusing on biology and genetics costs us in three ways:

1. Dehumanization - We suspect that other people really exist to serve our reproductive needs and we treat them this way. Using people for money and sex is tolerated becuase its "natural"; crime and adultery increase. Reason and planning are replaced with biolgical urges. Why do women strut around in fashion shows? To display their fitness to reproduce. (Real explanation from some TV show!) Why do people like to watch contortionists like those amazing Chinese acrobats? To see body parts (presumable penises and vaginas) that are not ordinarily on display. (Again, that's a real explanation.)

2. Misguided social policy - Working on a simple genetic or biological solution to a problem wastes money and time!

3. Opportunity costs - We could be spending our time and money on policies that have a firmer scientific foundation.

Finally, consider who benefits from the simplistic biological view of human behavior. The drug companies benefit by selling us pills to fix our problems. Need energy, more sleep, less stress? Take a pill and everything will be better. Or, take lots of pills. Don't worry, the drug companies will make more! Also, scientists and doctors feel more important because they are "in control" of the biological means to fix what's wrong with us.

Simplistic biological thinking has a huge psychological benefit. People also feel better because they have an explanation for the way things are. They feel that they understand things and can control them. Religious explanations for things serve the same purpose. People hate to get sick and die because of some mindless and random event; they feel better if their suffering seems to be part of a divine plan to help humanity.

Powered by Qumana

Some Sources of Social Pollution

2006-07-20T19:38:00.000-04:00

Social pollution could come from anywhere. Our schools, churches, television shows, radio shows, newspapers, friends, and coworkers are all potential sources of bad ideas. I guess you already knew that, or at least suspected it!

I want to spend the next few weeks opining about one funamental cause of social pollution: the tendency to simplistically focus on one aspect of the world as a source of ideas about how society works or how it should work. OK, that's really two things.

Anyway...

We can oversimplify our thinking about society in eight general ways. I'll try to keep this interesting :-)

Nature often gets used as a model for what's good and bad, what should be done, what shouldn't be done, or why things are a certain way. Geography explains why the US is rich and Uzbekistan is poor.A male homemaker is going against the natural order of things. We should only eat natural things.

Science provides a solid, factual foundation for building societies, designing social policies, and for defining how our relationships should work. We try to find moral principles in scientific research, then we try to apply those principles. Auschwitz was a rational place, but it was not a reasonable place. (paraphrased from a forgotten source.)

Biology/Genetics - No, they are not the same, or even pretty much the same. We think that everything in human behavior boils down to biology or genetics. Everything we do is really aimed at reproducing successfully. Revolutions start because males want access to the resources they need to attract females.

Religion often introduces bias into our thinking about society. God decides who is rich and who is poor. Life is a veil of tears. My set of religious principles should govern society. My interpretation of Christianity/Judaism/Islam should guide society and screw you if you disagree.

Morality often leads us astray. This is really the same problem as we get with religion. A grandiose vision of how society could work biases our thinking. we may insist on rigidly enforcing a moral code without regard to the suffering the code causes.

Economic thinking pollutes our minds in many ways. We think everything comes down to money. Some sociologists assert that the society's economic system determines all other aspects of that society.

Individualism gets us into big trouble sometimes. We think that people do what they want to do. We think of our own little selves as the most important thing in society, so we have no need to be concerned about anything else.

Stay tuned for details on each of those eight problem areas. Why are they problems? What is the truth? What are the consequences for us and for society?

Powered by Qumana

How to Fight Social Pollution

2006-07-18T19:54:00.000-04:00

Here we go again. The world is full of ideas on global claimate change, immigration, education, alternative energy, poverty, mankind's place in the natural order, blah, blah, blah. Those who follow my blogs know about my interest in fighting ideas that are counterfactual, illogical, or destructive of widely-held human values.

The time before last, I posted a checklist that you could use to test ideas. I assumed that the world needed a set of objective criteria to evaluate ideas. (Yeah, I know the checklist isn't truly objective because you have to make judgement calls about some things. Don't get all fancy on me!)

I just had a few new thoughts on social pollution, thoughts that should be added to any checklist. Here are four questions you may want to consider:

1. Do the assumptions behind this idea make sense, meaning that they are factual and/or logical?

2. Who will benefit from this idea? (An obvious follow-up question: Who bears the costs of this idea?)

3. Are the people who benefit/will benefit pay the costs are passing the costs to others?

4. Has the problem really been identified, in a concrete way? If the "problem" is that some behavior goes agains God or nature, then the idea is probably nonsense. (A real problem statement is something like "Teen suicide has been increasing for the past four years. We need to do ____________ to reverse this terrible trend.")

I think these four questions could also apply to philosophical ideas like marriage, retirement, self-determination, and democracy. We may not like the results. But, we need to do these sorts of exercises to develop better ideas!

Powered by Qumana

A Social Pollution Checklist

2006-07-15T11:18:00.000-04:00

Maybe complexity is the main reason we don't try harder to evaluate ideas about social policy, economic policy, crime, the war on terror, global climate change, and other issues. The issues themselves are also hard to understand. Deciding what we think about the ideas we encounter can be awfully complicated.

Yet, our unwillingness to confront this complexity causes all sorts of social problems. The biggest problem is the production of social pollution. You should know from previous posts that fighting social pollution is a pet cause of mine. But detecting social pollution can be a complicated affair. There must be a simpler way to detect social pollution. Well, maybe...

Here is an 12-question checklist to whip out whenever you read about or hear about some new idea to make society better:

1. Do any of the assumptions behind this idea seem wrong? (Maybe this is only question worth asking. If the assumptions behind some proposed law, policy, or piece of legislation can't hold up then the idea is probably bovine feces.)

2. Do any of the assumptions contradict the facts? (Perhaps this question is also essential?)

3. Will the idea undermine any of the top 10 human values: family, health and fitness, self esteem, self-reliance, freedom, justice, knowledge, learning, honesty, relationships?

4. Are any facts being misused? (You might also ask yourself if there are any missing facts that are relevant to making a decision about this idea.You could also ask if technical terms, like "theory" or "ecology" are being used correctly.)

5. Does the idea still make sense in light of what you've learned from answering the first four questions? (If YES, keep going. If NO, you may as well stop because things will only get worse!)

6. Is there a cause-effect relationship between the "problem" and the consequences that sparked the idea in question?

7. Is it hard to see how the idea will fix the problem?

8. Are you wondering what the problem is?

9. Is the idea based on research conducted by unnamed experts?

10. Is the solution based on speculation/guesses/something somebody read in the Bible? (A good idea for society will not be based on such lazy thinking!)

11. Are you wondering why the idea would help with the problem?

12. Is the idea being sold based on fear of anything?

This is just a draft of my Social Pollution Checklist. Feel free to offer comments! Try it out and tell me what you think.

Here's a scoring suggestion: The more YES answers, the worse the idea. If the idea gets 6 or more YES answers, or a YES answer to questions one and two, the idea is social pollution!

The checklist is meant for practical ideas like an immigration reform plan or a specific energy policy. It could be used to audit the partly-baked ideas thrown at us by politicians and talk-show hosts. If you really feel introspective you could use the checklist on philosophical ideas, like marriage and retirement.

(Legal footnote: In the unlikely event that you want to use this checklist for commerical purposes, bear in mind that everything I publish is copyrighted. Contact me for information regarding commercial reuse of my work.)

Powered by Qumana

Just the Facts

2006-07-13T19:39:00.000-04:00

Do the facts support our ideas about crime, poverty, immigration, environmental problems, corruption in business, and other things that keep appearing in the news? Are today's laws and policies based on facts?

When an idea is based on no facts, misinterpreted facts, or misused scientific concepts it is probably social pollution. Even if the idea seems likely to have positive consequences for society, it is still social pollutrion if the people who created the idea didn't bother to get their facts straight.

Yes, I know legislation and social policy is mostly based on a combination of ideology (We want society to be this way!) and backroom deal-making. I'm hoping we can put the squeeze on politicians' nutty ideas by testing their ideas against the facts. And while we scrutinize politicians we ought to give some attention to activists' ideas about society and our own ideas. We ought to ask just a few simple but powerful questions about ideas:

1. Are any of the "facts" wrong? Somebody claims that homosexuality is "unnatural" but you've read about a genetic predisposition to homosexuality.

2. Are any terms used incorrectly? To some people a family ideally consists of a married man and woman, and a couple of kids (or maybe the kids are still in the near future). Is this the only reasonable definition of a family, or does it just represent one view of the "correct" family structure?

3. What facts have been left out? For example, what percentage of American families consist of a married man and woman with children (or plans ot have children)?

4. Is there really a trend here? Is the "traditional" family structure really threatened now. as opposed to in the nation's past?

So, next time you are asked to consider some policy, social program, or ballot initiative pause and think about those 4 questions. Society would improve in so many ways if people followed this not-so-complicated advice. (The real challenge here is not getting people to answer these questions, its to get them to divoce their answers from political and religious biases about how society ought to work.)

Next time: A social pollution checklist will tie together the ideas I presented in this post and some others.

Powered by Qumana

Assumptions Can Be Bad

2006-07-11T19:47:00.000-04:00

Assumptions can be a real problem when they relate to social policy, ballot initiatives, activism efforts, and legislation. Are the assumptions behind welfare reform, immigration reform, flag burning bans, anti-poverty measures, and drug policy based on sound assumptions. These are the sorts of issues that call for asking some tough questions about our assumptions.

So, what assumptions are problems? I'm glad you asked me! I've made a list of some common assumptions about society or human behavior. Sometimes these assumptions are justified, but other time they aren't.

1. We know where to intervene in a system (like a local economy) to make positive changes.

2. People do what they want to do - see #3..

3. People are willing and able to change their behavior in a particular direction - don't discount the effects of peer pressure, habit, and fear of change.

4. Lack of money is the problem (EX: our nation's schools).

5. Lack of motivation is the problem

6. The risks will be managed appropriately by competent people.

7. We understand the potential negative consequences of this decision.

8. People are rational.

9. We understand the real costs and benefits of this proposed action.

Hmm, I wonder how much time and money gets wasted because somebody ignored the need to examine their assumptions before proposing some new idea. (Yes, I know that most legislation and policy is not created through a rational process.)

This suggests a new mission for some free thinking sorts who have some time on their hands. Somebody, perhaps me, needs to "out" the bad assumptions behind ideas proposed by activists, politicians, and talk show hosts. In fact, this could be a good project for a nonprofit organization.

Powered by Qumana

Logic Can Save the World

2006-07-06T19:54:00.000-04:00

No, I haven't been watching too much Star Trek. Logic is something that we need more of in social policy, economic policy, elections, foreign policy, education, voting, and personal decisions of all sorts.

(Note to you psychologists: I know that decision making is not really a rational activity. I'm choosing to politely ignore that fact.)

What would happen if policies were based more firmly on logical thinking about what to do in order to achieve a given objective? Wouldn't our social programs, policies, and legislation be better if their logic was rigorously audited by someone? One can hope that shame would force politicians to try harder. One would hope our newfound desire for logical rigor would open a door for logical, humanist legislators, activists, and (maybe?) high-level civil servants.

Maybe, if things worked out that way people wouldn't be able to "sell" the rest of us on policies, programs, and legislation that fail multiple tests of logic. Society would be spared the massive waste of time and money that illogical social polcies, programs, and legislation lead to. And consider the other things that we could be doing instead of fighting gay marriage (which God opposes, of course) or other feel-good things that have little or no social value.

Consider some of the ways we as a society can be led astray:

1. By appeals to emotion - The terrorists are coming to kill our women and children.

2. Appeals to authority - God hates the idea of gay marriage.

3. Cause-Effect (Errors in Identifying) - As skirts get shorter, sex crimes increase so short skirts must make men go crazy!

4. Ad hominem attacks - Rush Limbaugh is a fat windbag.

Yep, we fall prey to these sorts of errors and others, both as society and as individuals making decisions about our own lives. No, I don't agree with the second or third idea!

Powered by Qumana

Values and Society

2006-07-04T09:46:00.000-04:00

Do our social policies and economic policies really support our values? Do spending priorities in Congress really reflect our values. When someone in Congress or, God help us, on talk radio proposes some social program or piece of legislation we might wonder what values will be supported or undermined?

Sometimes we like to think about what society should be like. Liberals, leftists, progressives, and conservatives all like to opine about how society should work. That's okay. People should just keep common human values in mind as they fantasize about how things ought to be.

What values should be kept in mind? Hmm, that's a good question. It really depends on the issue under consideration. Some values will be more relevant to some issues than to others. I'll just offer this list of the top ten human values from a 2000 Roper poll: family, health/fitness, self-esteem, self-reliance, honesty, freedom, justice, relationships, knowledge, learning. We could debate what constitutes justice, or a family.

There ought to be a written guide to how those ten values can be supported or undermined by various sorts of programs and policies. There would also be advice on dealing with questions like "What's the difference between freedom and license?"
and "What definition of 'family' should we use?" The guide would contain guidance on predicting the first-order and econd-order consequences of a policy or program or law. First-order consequences? What?

Well, a Constitutional amendment to ban flag burning would reduce our freedom a little. That's a first-order consequence of the amendment. Reduced freedom may lead to flag burning protests. People are likely to lie about their involvement with or support of those flag burnings. Dishonesty is a second-order consequence.

Powered by Qumana

Three Bad Ideas

2006-06-29T20:09:00.000-04:00

Money makes people happy. Congress should represent the diversity of the US population. Juries should look like the accused. What do you think of these ideas? Why? Well, her is what I think:

Money = Happiness: This is true to a limited extent. Up to a certain income level happiness does tend to increase, then the rate of increase slows down. At some point (An average income of maybe $3500 a year) the change in happiness for a nation's population does not increase rapidly. Individuals are the same way. Beyond a certain income level increased income does not significantly increase happiness. Of course everyone wants to believe that a huge payday will make them happy, happy, happy.

According to an article in Tuesday's Washington Post Express, lottery winners and people who are paralyzed from the neck down report being equally happy one year later. I'm not convinced that this finding supports a genetic "happiness point" but it does suggest that we tend to return to a modest level of happiness after a high or low.

Congress: Isn't Congress the opposite of Progress? That one was too easy to resist. Anyway, I once heard a colleague opine that Congress should represent the diversity of the United States population. Why? "Why not?" was the answer. Well, why not stick with the idea that Congress shall consist of the individuals that the people send to Congress as their representatives? Anyway, our diverse Congress would only satisfy people until we realize that there aren't any African-American lesbians or Hispanic midgets. Statistically, there should probably be one of each in Congress.

Our Peers L:ook Like Us: We have the right to a trial by a jury of our peers. What does that mean? Why doesn't someone go and look it up! I am pretty sure it means that we have the Constitutional right to have our fates decided by fellow citizens rather than professional jurists, a milirary tribunal, or a lone judge. Or maybe it does mean that a black defendent needs to have a mostly black jury? Oddly, I find some merit in that particular idea. There is a long history of slavery and systematic oppression of black people in he United States after all. Nobody else has any excuse for thinking a jury should look like them! The rest of you are just SOL if the jury isn't mostly Asian, mostly female, mostly white, or whatever you are.

Powered by Qumana

The Benefits of Social Pollution

2006-06-27T22:03:00.000-04:00

Like water pollution, global climate change, and toxic waste, social pollution generates costs and benefits. Like pollution of the natural environment the costs and benefits are not spread evenly. The costs and benefits of social pollution aren't as clear as one might think, if one thought about the subject of social pollution.

Who benefits from social pollution you might ask? Well, almost all of us benefit from social pollution at one time or another. Some of us obviously benefit much more than others do. Men, women, government officials, social activists, entrpreneurs (including this blogger). nonprofit staff, the clergy, and writers all benefit from social pollution in some way, at some time.

Consider the belief that wealth equals happiness. Businesses make money by printing the tickets. Government workers get work regulating the conduct of state lotteries. You get to fantasize about lounging on a tropical beach. Conservative preachers and liberal social critics get plenty of ammunition for their speeches/sermons/polemics/rants. Social workers and counselors get work when the myth of lottery jackpot bliss screws up peoples' lives so severely that outside help is required.

Policies and programs can be based on good ideas or on bad ideas. It doesn't matter which policies and programs are based on what ideas; the equation stays the same. We benefit psychologically when one of our preferences is realized in the form of a government program. Government contractors, police, social workers, and nonprofit staff benefit regardless of whether a social program is working or not.

A sense that things are "going the right way" or that something is being done often trumps the need to create rational and reasonable ideas, programs, and policies. The chance tt make money or to exercise power over society (or some part of it) also plays a part.

Powered by Qumana

Fighting Social Pollution (Again!)

2006-06-22T19:58:00.000-04:00

Again with the social pollution! I'm also going to say a few things about celebrity "news" shows, ginned-up social problems and health threats, Q-Ray bracelets, and talk radio. My comments could apply to other specific things that don't occur to me at the moment. The general categories of things that I have in mind here are corporate fear-mongering, political fear-mongering, crass commercialism, and political "thought" that hardly qualifies as thought at all.

You should already know that bad ideas can have three kinds of consequnces: wasted money, wasted energy, and opportunity costs. Keep those costs in mind as you read. I also want to invite you to consider how much money is wasted (and time too!) on health practices, like colon cleansing, that have no value, and may actually be harmful.

So, what's a concerned citizen to do? I have several suggestions. Thanks for asking. Some of these ideas are meant to be taken seriously but not all. I was brainstorming on the subway.

1. Keep reading my blog!

2. The FCC should require that all television shows start with content warnings: The ideas you will be exposed to by watching this program may be harmful to your relationships, finances, career, or intellect."

3. Calculate how much money is wasted on crap like Ehinacea, Q-Ray bracelets, ID theft insurance, or (fill in the blank, it doesn't really matter). Take out an ad in the local paper or in a magazine.

4. See #3, but use a billboard or two.

5. The anti-social pollution movement needs a mascot and a spokesperson. I was thinking we could follow the lead of PETA and get an adult film star.

6. Pass a law requireing that all TVs be powered by hand-cranks. (Pedal-powered generators would be a reasonable alternative.)

7. Calculate the real risk of ____________ (insert overblown health or safety risk) to the average citizen. Post this information on billboards, or take out advertisements.

8. Start a campaign to get critical thinking skills in the curriculum.

9. Boycotts are good - Find out who advertises on/in offensive media and don't buy their stuff. Write in to tell them about your concerns. We could follow the lead of environmentalists and create form letters people only have to flesh out and email from a Web site.

Powered by Qumana

The Costs of Pollution

2006-06-20T19:59:00.000-04:00

Yeah, we can all agree that bad ideas are, well, bad for us. But what does that really mean? What are the consequences of social polution, in time, energy, and dollars? This morning I happened to glance at the celebrity news section of the Washington Post Express. (Guess what? Brangelina was mentioned. Ditto, two drug-addicted and useless rock stars.) This unfortunate encounter led me to expand the scope of this post a bit. Now I also think its important to cover the social costs of frivolous things...

The costs of social pollution fall into three basic categories. You may even recognize this stuff from economics classes.

1. Money wasted - How much do people spend on questionable services, products, social programs?

2. Time wasted - How many hours of labor are wasted each year on pursuing all manner of dubious schemes, both social and personal?

3. Opportunities missed - What else could we have done with the labor and money we squandered?

So, how do the costs add up in real life? Let's say, and this is based on a real-life social program, that we decide to budget $300,000 to set up a program aimed at reaching kids who have been negatively influenced by Goth subculture. Let's say that after $230,000 have been spent we find no young people who need to be rescued from Goth subculture. The social cost of this silly social program is $230,000 plus the 160 hours of staff time spend not locating any young people to help. The social pollution here is the idea that we can/must set up a social program to "rescue" people from a subculture that's labeled as "harmful" in some general way.

What quantifiable and known-to-exist social issue could the time and money have been spent on? Maybe a program to intervene in the lives of teens who are at high risk of suicide? The social value of this sort of intervention is generally not questioned and there are scientific grounds for sorting people into the categories of "high risk" and "not high risk."

So, that's the impact of social pollution on society. Now, lets turn back to the subject of celebrity news for a minute. And a minute is about all I can stand!

How much money do people spend on celebrity gossip magazines and newspapers? How much money gets spent on the reporters, freelance writing, photographs of stuff that's really none of our business? How much labor time and money is spent on creating and distributing those periodicals. One could ask the same questions about celebrity "news" shows like Access Hollywood. What could fans of this stuff be doing with the (conservatively estimated, by me) 2,000,000 hours a year spend consuming useless information that's generally none of our business anyway? What could the writers and editors be doing that keeps them working while providing some social value? (Yes, I know the stuff makes money, but that does not prove its social value, you capitalist tool.)

Powered by Qumana

More Pollution Cleanup Tips

2006-06-15T22:13:00.000-04:00

Political posturing, crass consumerism, religious fanaticism, and other signs of problems in society all need attention. We need alternatives that people will really adopt. We need tools and strategies to overcome all forms of social pollution.

So, what can you do to fight social pollution? I can offer several strategies and some specific ideas.

I've mentioned the need to come up with alternative ideas that people will actually accept. Those two popular activism tools -- calling for a ban, calling for more regulation -- also have their places in a good social pollution cleanup strategy. Yes, this ignores the question of what should be regulated and what should be banned. The more people affected, and the more severely they tend to be affected, the more reasonable an outright ban becomes.

And here's something completely different...

The Free Thinker's Guide to Congress would be an annual analysis of the quality of thinking in Congress. Yes, I think people could compile such a book without being overcome by despair. Congress isn't that bad! People and legislation, whether passed or not, would be evaluated. There would be a one-pager on each person and piece of legislation. OK, maybe this needs to be done in two volumes not one.

People could also vote with their wallets. This is a reliable old activism strategy. Except in this case we look for programs and magazines that spread social pollution. Just keep in mind that social pollution isn't just any old thing you disapprove of. Social pollution is an idea (policy, program, tradition, behavior, belief, similar things I may have left out) that are unscientific, illogical, or that undermine widely-held human values.

By the way, I finally found a list of those values. Here they are (from a 2000 Roper poll): Protecting the family, health and fitness, honesty, freedom, self-esteem, self-reliance, justice, friendship, knowledge, and learning.

Powered by Qumana

(Social) Pollution Cleanup

2006-06-13T19:49:00.000-04:00

Again with the social pollution! Well, I promised to write about pollution cleanup and I'm going to get to it now. Keep in mind that social pollution can come in two basic flavors: philosophical ideas ("Homosexuality is a sin.") and practical ideas (Work on a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.).

Social pollution has four consequences, each of which provides a pretty good reason to be interested in pollution cleanup.

Bad policies, social or economic ("bad" meaning ineffective, wasteful, counterproductive, or completely useless)

Bad social programs (see previous bullet point)

Personal habits - useless ones that waste time, energy, attention develop and spread

Harmful beliefs - beliefs that cause problems for individuals, and by extension for society, develop and spread

I've even got some timely examples of the social pollution problem. Some people believe that natural things are better. This is social pollution because the idea is both illogical and counterfactual. A sex education policy that only teaches about STDs and abstinence is probably counterfactual and illogical. Buying identity theft protection is social pollution because the statistical probability of being a viictim is really rather low, as is the likely financial loss.

I only have time now to introduce the elements of a cleanup strategy now. The outline I offer should give you a pretty good idea of how things will work.

1. Assess the damage from the idea in question

2. Look for the source of the pollution

3. Publicize the damage, the cause, and the source.

4. Come up with an alternative

5. Sell the alternative

Next time I'll say more about specific cleanup strategies and tactics, and I'll add some flesh to that bony outline!

Powered by Qumana

TV Worth Watching, Really

2006-06-08T19:36:00.000-04:00

Ever wonder about the effects of our ideas about nature, relationshiops, work, money, and religion both on society and on our personal lives? If so, you might be interested in my latest idea for a television series.

Ideas and the Modern World would be a one-hour newsmagazine show. Each episode would be organized around a broad topic area, such as education. Segments would examine the impacts of ideas on the decisions we nake, the problems we encounter in life, and the social policies we suffer with or benefit from. Of course there would be some human interest stories. There would also be expert interviews. The question of who benefits from an idea and who suffers would certainly be worth considering in each episode.

Another version of the show employs a host, or chosts, who lead viewers through an exploration of how one idea shapes modern society. You avid TV watchers may remember Connections (with James Burke) or Cosmos (with Carl Sagan). That's what I have in mind! No, I don't have myself in mind as a host.

Who wants to help me make this happen? I'd be open to working on a public access cable show, or something online.

Powered by Qumana

TV Worth Watching, Really

2006-06-08T19:35:00.000-04:00

Who wants to help me make this happen? I'd be open to working on a public access cable show, or something online.

Powered by Qumana

Fighting Social Pollution

2006-06-06T22:31:00.000-04:00

Immigration reform, global climate change, global poverty, the left-wing media, the right-wing government, voter apathy, and our spiraling national debt all need our attention. We need new ideas, in some cases. Mostly, we need to work harder at selling ideas that already exist.

What do I mean? Well, we could use better ideas for government policies, social programs, legislation, and education. It might be good for us if some of our philosophical ideas and traditions were replaced with new things. This all requires considerable creativity and salesmanship by somebody, or lots of somebodies.

Maybe my social pollution prevention groups could get into the creation and selling of these new ideas. I have a few concrete suggestions for how that would work:

1. Know what you want to change - This should be obvious in most cases. Philosophical ideas may be a bit harder to pin down. How do you develop an sell a viable alternative to SUV ownership?

2. Be a salesperson - Think of yourself as having something to sell. If you have a great new idea to promote you need to think like a marketer. What is the competition for this idea? What does the competition offer? What makes my idea better, in ways that matter to my audience? Who is my audience anyway? Where can I reach my audience?

3. Study - Read a book that contains a strategy for gettting and evaluating ideas, like Thinkertoys, How to Think Like Einstein, or The Creative Problem Solver's Toolbox. Study social marketing and the psychology of persuasion (or selling; either one should be helpful). You can find books at Amazon.com or at bigger public libraries. You'll have to look to university and college libraries to find anything on social marketing.

4. Be a thief - Steal ideas that you can use as-is or in modified form.

Powered by Qumana

Measuring Social Pollution

2006-06-01T19:57:00.000-04:00

Ideas are as important as the air and water that we depend on. Wihout a steady stream of ideas that are new, at least to the individual, life would be pretty miserable. Luckily, many ideas are good, or relatively harmless. Unluckily, the more powerful an idea becomes the more damage it can cause.

My last couple of posts described a network of community groups that could fight those powerful and harmful ideas. This post is about a tool the groups (or a solo fighter against bad ideas) could use to evaluate ideas, policies, proposed legislation, and other sorts of ideas.

(Maybe our traditions should be scrutinized using this evaluation tool. That's another post though.)

What sort of evaluation tool do I have in mind? I'm thinking of a worksheet and checklist that would guide people through evaluating a book, speeh, essay, radio broadcast, or whatever. Use this tool to as part public education or social change efforts in your community.

Now, what would be in my Social Pollution Evaluation Guide? Four elements are important to evaluating the quality of an idea.

1. Logic - The Guide would include a list of common logical fallacies, such as the slippery slope, "red herring", ad hominem attack, and unspported assertion.

2. Facts - Are all cited facts relevant? Are they used correctly? Can you think of/dig up any facts, that if they existed, would weaken the idea? Can you think of relevant facts that have been omitted?

3. Values - Some ideas won't be relevant to any of the major/fundamental values like health and material sufficiency. What about the idea under consideration? Do a little thought experiment? Might the idea undermine one of the values?

4. Assumptions - What are the assupmtions? Are they valid? Commonly used assumptions that are often wrong include: We know the source of the problem. The government must intervene. We had better not look to the government for a solution. The many variables that contribute to this problem are both understood and controllable.

Powered by Qumana

Social Pollution Control

2006-05-30T19:47:00.000-04:00

Political debates, elections, scandals, the mass media, religion, an all sorts of activists spread bad ideas. Last time I wrote about community groups dedicating to fighting this social pollution. This post offers a few more details on the tools and techniques that the groups could use to prevent pollution and clean up polluted areas.

(I'll have more to say about claenup and remediation in future posts.)

Advertorials - You've seen advertisements that look like editorials. This is what I have in mind. You could write in a general way about social pollution in the community or audit the quality of thinking behind a current debate, or something else. What would you be selling? Probably, just the idea that people need to visit your Web site and get more information. You could also promote an upcoming rally or demonstration.

Open letters - About the same as advertorials, except that the aim is consciousness raising through the letter alone; could be full-page or half-page ads in newspapers

Letters to the editor - kinda like an open letter but shorter

Letter campaigns - bombard the White House or some local politician with letters explaining why a certain idea is social pollution and (maybe) suggesting what should be done instead. Remember that one aim of these groups is to create and "sell" better ideas.

Demonstrations - Peaceful protests; but could be quite creative if combined with publicity stunts

Publicity Stunts - Something harmless, tasteful, and likely to get media attention.

Public access TV - many cities have studios where people can create shows for airing on local cable television. Why not start a talk show that also features a little commentary and investigative journalism

Next time: How do you measure social pollution anyway?

Powered by Qumana

Pollution Control - Loads of Fun!

2006-05-27T19:44:00.000-04:00

No, this is not another call to clean up the earth, at least not in the way you were probably thinking.

I've written a few posts on the topic of social pollution - ideas that are counterfactual, illogical, or that undermine widely-held human values. Social pollution calls for pollution control. You don't want feces in your community's water supply. Hopefully, you don't want the intellectual equivalent of that either!

We need community groups that work on identifying social pollution in their communities and calling attention to it. Oh, and they would also be bold about identifying the sources of the pollution. You'd want to know who's contaminating the communities tap water with feces, wouldn't you? Aren't the ideas that go into peoples' heads, and form a basis for their lives, at least as important as clean tap water?

These "pollution control" groups would have a variety of tools and tactics at their disposal. I'll just list some of them now and offer details in later posts. Groups members can publicize things through demonstrations, letters to the editor, comments at public hearings, or by starting public access television shows. I was focusing on low-cost things.

The groups would have two related goals: to raise the quality of thinking that forms the foundation of voting behavior and public policy, and to call attention to the negative impacts of ideas on both our personal lives and our communities. The replacement of bad ideas with better ideas could also be taken up by these "pollution control" groups. I'll have to explain how that would work in future posts.

Powered by Qumana

Pollution Control - Loads of Fun!

2006-05-27T10:59:00.000-04:00

No, this is not another call to clean up the earth, at least not in the way you were probably thinking.

These "pollution control" groups would have a variety of tools and tactics at their disposal. I'll just list some of them now and offer details in later posts. Groups members can publicize things through demonstrations, letters to the editor, comments at public hearings, or by starting public acccess television shows. I was focusing on low-cost things.

The groups would have two related goals: to raise the wuality of thinking that forms the foundation of voting behavior and public policy, and to call attention to the negative impacts of ideas on both our personal lives and our communities. The replacement of bad ideas with better ideas could also be taken up by these "pollution control" groups. I'll have to explain how that would work in future posts.

Powered by Qumana

There Ought to Be...

2006-05-21T22:43:00.000-04:00

Television programs that promote sustainable development and a rational and logial approach to dealing with social problems. I've got three ideas about subject matter and content:

1. Eco-Cities TV - A design show dedicated to showing how much resource consumption can be improved in a city, while enhancing quality of life.Each episode would focus on one city, using interviews, expert analysis, and graphics to show what's possible for the selected city.

2. Social Issues TV - Facts and analysis aimed at helping viewers understand a selected issue from a rational and logical (as opposed to ideological) viewpoint. A fast pace and lots of graphics will appeal to young viewers.

3. Sustainable Development TV - A weekly newsmagazine covering technology, policy, programs, and social innovations that contribute to creation of a socially and ecologically sustainable world.

Each show could have a companion Web site. Each could also work as a raio show (including internet) but without the graphics. A weekly Web video series is also a possibility.

I could provide research and expert opinion for any of the series, since I do have a PhD in sociology and a background relevant to each show.

Powered by Qumana

More Immigration Reform

2006-04-06T19:30:00.000-04:00

This will probably be my last post on immigration, immigration, reform, or guest worker programs until the next time the topic gets to be popular. This post is about that proposed guest worker program you may have heard about or read about. How do we know what sort of guest worker program would be a good program?

That question is partly a sociological one. The values, beliefs, and attitudes we use to debate the subject of a guest worker program are a product of our culture. Those values, beliefs, and attitudes did not come entirely from common sense, biological evolution, genetics, or nature. We developed them over the centuries in response to cultural, psychological, and environmental forces.

I don't know what sort of guest worker program there should be, but I do have some suggestions on how to think about the issue. First, a bit of philosophical advice: When we think about big issues like this we should consider whether our position leads to consequences that uphold or undermine other values that we hold. Consider a simple example of how we could undermine the very values we claim to uphold without meaning to be cruel or uncaring.

Taking a hard-line stance against immigration may satisfy your urge to protect America's security (or keep wages for American citiizens a little higher) but what about the hardship imposed on immigrants. If they have nowhere to go except back to some disgusting Mexican shanty town (true for at least some illegals), what will we do? Maybe the Christian thing to do is to pretend not to know that they are illegal aliens.

And switching to a slightly different subject...

Let's assume that a guest worker program is inevitable, and we want to design a good one. What factors should we consider? Here is a quick list of suggestions:

1. How will the program ensure decent wages for unskilled and uneducated immigrants
2. How will the program ensure that working conditions meet health and safety standards?
3. Can the program provide the country with access to enough immigrants with badly needed technical and engineering skills?
4. How does the program work to preserve or replace some of the nonprofit and government jobs that exist because of illegal immigration?

Next time: Modern America and global climate change

The Functions of Immigration (legal or not)

2006-04-04T21:19:00.000-04:00

I think we all know that immigration serves siome useful social functions. But I bet there are functions you never thought of. This post is going to be about legal immigration, illegal immigration, migrant workers, immigration reform debates, guest workers, and the seedy side of immigration.

First, consider the social benefits and costs of illegal immigration:

1. New women for sex traffickers are available
2. Drugs are a little easier to smuggle across a porous border, like the US-Mexico border
3. It supports human traffickers who smuggle illegals across the border
4. Low cost labor is available
5. A porous border and liberal policies provide a safety valve for governments of poor nations - people can be allowed to head across the border instead of causing trouble at home
6. Jobs are created, mainly in the (U.S.) Border Patrol but also in nonprofits that deal with immigrants or immigration issues
7. Nonprofits are organized to advocate for illegals or to try and get them deported in larger numbers

And what are the personal costs and benefits:

1. Sex slavery and prostitution
2. Marginal businesses stay afloat using dirt cheap immigrant labor
3. Improved material quality of life - income, diet, health care, housing
4. Satisfaction derived from working for or against immigration or specific immigration laws - this involves both having a sense of purpose and establishing close relations with others
5. Victimization by illegal immigrants or those who smuggle them into the country

Now I hope you realize that the preceding lists are justs lists of observations. I don't endorse human trafficking, prostitution, or the use of the USA as a dumping ground for undesirables and malcontents from repressive developing nations. I'm just presenting some of the functions that immigration can serve, as well as some of the dysfunctions. I'll also point out that maybe there is a way to get some of the benefits (see items 3 and 4 in the second list,; 4,6, and7 in the first) with fewer of the costs. Hmmm...not sure what sorts of policies could make that possible.

Immigration Reform

2006-03-30T21:50:00.000-05:00

This post is more than a shameless attempt to get traffic out of the current debate over immigration reform. No, it really is. I want to draw attention to some of the bigger issues involved with immigration, particularly in the United States. You'll see that much of what I say can apply to any country.

The real immigration issues in the US today seem to be these: (1) Who should be able to stay in the country?(2) Under what circumstances should they be able to stay? and (3) How should we treat illegal immigrants? The answer to each question involves many elements of sociology. Allow me to explain.

How do we decide who is allowed to stay in the country and under what circumstances? This is obviously a values question and not, strictly speaking, a scientific question. I can suggest that we ought to consider the social functions that immigrants perform. They provide a needed influx of new science and engineering talent. Did anyone not know that many of our engineers and scientists are Chinese, Korean, and Indian? Illegal immigrants also have a function, one that you may not have considered before.

Illegals make it cheaper to provide many services; that much you probably guessed. But, did you consider that the cheap labor keeps many marginal enterprises in business. Some family farms, restaurants, and lanscaping businesses would certainly go under if they could only use people who are in the USA legally. Am I wrong about this?

I think the second and third question are also more about values than science. Perhaps a few sociological insights can still help you consider how you feel about the questions. I'll explain myself next Tuesday, while I also explain some of the social costs and benefits of immigration.

Why is the world a dangerous place?

2006-03-25T10:49:00.000-05:00

Well, maybe we are assuming too much by asking this question. Sure there are wars, terrorist crazies, drug runners, gangs, Avian flu, HIV, tuberculosis, global climate change, civil wars, and more. That laundry list really tells us nothing about how dangerous the world really is.

"Dangerous" is a relative term. The relativism of it leaves us with the potential for getting in all sorts of trouble. Here I am talking about both personal troubles and social troubles. I'll return to those two themes after an aside...

Our perception of danger, however loosely based on reality, can still be beneficial in many ways. Again, "beneficial" is one of those relative terms. Even worse, there are rarely any absolute benefits or costs. Some people always benefit or suffer more, while others may be relatively unaffected. Now, let's get down out of the stratosphere and see what this means in the real world.

The benefits of any idea are social and economic in nature. Ambitious people get power and status by leading the crusade against some danger. Politicians and activists love to get on their soapboxes and talk about such-and-such threat to nature, the American way of life, and et cetera. Perceptions of danger also generate business opportunities. Business opportunities create job opportunities and tax revenue. How many people are making money selling identity theft insurance, self-defense classes, and gas masks? Well, one never knows when a chemical weapon will be used in the neighborhood.

Now, back to those personal and social troubles that I mentioned earlier. There is a common theme here: we waste resources that could be put to better use. If identity theft really has no value to John Q. Public, then he would be better served by investing his money or buying more DVDs. Identity theft can be worked up into a national crisis. Then the government invests inordinately in studies, legislation, and Congressional debate (You did know that their time costs money, I hope.) over something with relatively modest social impact.

But things can get even worse than that! After 9/11 did you or people you know start looking at people of (probable) Middle Eastern descent and think of them as potentially dangerous? Do you think this could breed hostility and hatred? Do you think these dark sentiments were really based on an objective assessment of the threat? Of course not! (Yes, I am saying that it is OK to think of a category of people as bad if there is strong evidence to suggest that they are bad - the Taliban, Gestapo, KGB, and ecoterrorists come to mind.)

The World is a Dangerous Place

2006-03-23T19:53:00.000-05:00

Worried about your physical safety, terrorism, your family, violent crime, identity theft, toxins in the air and water? How worried should you be? Well, your perceptions are whatever they are...

My point with this post is to introduce the idea that our belief about the dangerous world we live in is just an idea. Maybe the idea is based on good evidence, and maybe not! It hardly matters whether the evidence is really that good, since our behaviors tend to be based on perceptions and emotional reactions. Ditto our social policies and laws. The political process adds an additional element of fighting over values. A prime example: Privacy versus security.

The Patriot Act makes some libreals and libertarians very uncomfortable. It tends to make the "law-and-order" conservatives and hawkish Republicans happy because we have to secure the nation against terrorist attacks. Opponents just worry that government agencies know what innocent citizens are doing online or checking out of the local library. (How much of that information the government really collects is a totally different subject. What we care about in this little discussion is perceptions and not what cold, hard facts may show.)

We have a clash of values, with one side valuing security more highly and one side privacy of law abiding citizens.

This perception that the world is a dangerous place does have consequences, costs, and beefits. Likewise the belief in a safe world has consequences, costs, and benfits. I'll say more in my next post.

Economic Growth Revisited

2006-03-18T11:52:00.000-05:00

So, last time I claimed that economic growth is not required to maintain and improve our infrastructure, create new goods and services, and provide for a growing population. How can that be? Where's the money for new bridges, roads, and schools supposed to come from? Never mind that we won't have businesses to provide all of the goods and services people want.

OK, so that view is partly correct. As a society we do require a growing ability to provide goods and services. Even a teeny, tiny rate of population growth makes this so. We would eventually outgrow the economy's ability to provide luxuries, then the basics. Then we would look like Bangladesh or Nigeria. Not good.

Now many of you may have spotted one or two problems with the preceding rationale for economic growth. If not, well, there are two general problems. The need for businesses to provide goods, services, jobs, and infrastructure is not a real need. Secondly, there is an alternative to increasing the sheer dollar value of goods and services produced. That increase in value is what we normally refer to as economic growth.

About that first problem: There are alternative ways of providing goods and services. You are already familiar with the two best alternatives - government and nonprofits. The third alternative is to create voluntary associations that divide up infrastructure management. You may have seen "Adopt-a-Highway" signs outside your community. That's what I have in mind, except for public safety, road maintenance, education, and who knows what else.

About that second problem: Economic growth calculations are indifferent to two important considerations. Any economic activity contributes to growth. For-profit schools are treated like toxic waste cleanups. Economic growth calculations ignore the negative consequences of much economic activity. The spending that you do to make up for the effects of pollution are counted as economic activity. Never mind that in a purely rational economic system you would not have to pay for the negative impacts of that pollution.

Next time: Ummm, I'm not sure. It will be a surpise for us all.

Economic Growth is Good

2006-03-11T10:22:00.000-05:00

Of course economic growth is good, in some sense of the word. Nwe jobs are created, wealth is created, and opportunity is created. Layoffs and big corporate bankruptcies are not so bad, if the economy is growing and able to absorb the newly unemployed. Economic growth also generates resources that we can use to improve our quality of life.

Economic growth causes concern among social activists and environmental activists. That much you probably knew already. Clearly, economic growth does not benefit peole equally. The rich seem to get richer and the poor and middle class are lucky to stay where they are. At least that is the perception of some social critics. Economic growth also results in (notice I didn't say "causes") pollution.

In spite of those problems, most of us have no problem with the idea of economic growth. Maybe it's because we don't know what else could be done. Maybe because we feel powerless to stop the train and get off. Maybe we are just willing to accept the problems and try to get some of the benefits for ourselves. Maybe we are just to busy to concern ourselves with the issue.

Well, if you've read this far you must be interested in the issue. So, for now I have one thing to share with you. That one thing is a mandatory (for a sociologist) list of the social functions performed by the prevailing belief in economic growth:

1. Getting and and distributing resources - more mining, trains, roads, expansion of our infrastructure, e-commerce, and more
2. Social progress - provision of more and better goods and services to more people, especially in the areas of physical security, health, and safety
3. Meeting needs - specifically the resource needs of a growing population, but also their needs for all sorts of goods and services

Belief in the idea of economic growth helps us maintain the efforts needed to do each of those things. If we lose interest in economic growth, the infrastructure doesn't get better, the new goods and services stop flowing, and we run short of things we need to provide for our growing population.

Whoa! (sound of needle being dragged across a record...) The premise that we need economic growth to have those things is not valid.

Why not, you ask? I'll tell you next time.

What Good is Nationalism?

2006-03-09T19:36:00.000-05:00

Seems like a fair question! What good can come of being all excited over the place where you simply happen to have been born? Your country didn't give you anything; the benefits simply accrue to individuals who are borne there. Sometimes nationalism gets people killed, some of them innocent bystanders in whatever affair provoked the violence that killed them.
How do you know if your reasons for being so proud of the United States or Russia are any better than an Iranian's reasons for being proud of his supposedly backwards country?
Despite what you just read I have no answer to the question of whether nationalism is good or bad. Of course you may not be able to answer either, unless you know two things: (1) What counts as good or bad when we are talking about a society, and (2) the personal and social consequences of nationalism. Don't make up some knee-jerk opinion then fish for justifications. This is precisely the sort of lazy thinking that I am trying to fight with this blog.

The Social Consequences of Nationalism:

1. Pride motivates us to innovate and work hard.
2. We are motivated to fight against threats to our society
3. We are better able to hang together when confronted with a crisis, like an invasion or a natural disaster
4. We gain a (probably unjustified) sense of superiority that can poison our relations with foregners and even lead to racism
5. Wasteful economic competition - lets build the biggest rocket, fastest train, or tallest building

The Personal Consequences:

1. Social approval
2. Opportunities to advance in the party or military
3. A sense of personal security in uncertain times - "We _________ have what it takes to handle this thing!"
4. Creates a sense of belonging to something bigger and more important than us.
5. Death - in a war or a pointless economic competition
6. Wasted resources - we devote money, time, and effort to activities that are misguided or dangerous

I may have left something out, or I may have left the list more obscure than intended. In either case, let me know! And, consider whether nationalism is really a good thing or not, considering those consequences that I just listed.

Nationalism

2006-03-07T19:25:00.000-05:00

This week's post wil be kinda short because of some personal business that I need to attend to. So, here are my thoughts on nationalism.

Nationalism is that feeling of pride in one's nation and its accomplishments combined with an emotional attachment to the nation's symbols, values, and other cultural artifacts. As a sociological phenomenon it could be described as the degree to which the feelings are shared by a nation's citizen's. The more widely spread and intense the feelings, the grreater the degree of nationalism.

Where does nationalism come from? You can thank my favorite contributor to everything - the mass media. The media still help transmit messages that make us feel good or bad about being Americans. We all want to be part of a group for many reasons. The nation is just a really, really big group for us to join. When humans lived in hunter-gatherer bands it was important wto work together to cope with the environment, deal with hostile tribes, and hunt. These needs may have stuck around, in modified form, as society became more complex.

What are the personal and social consequences of nationalism? We'll see next time. Until then, see if you can anticipate what I'll write.

Progess - some Socratic questions

2006-02-25T13:27:00.000-05:00

A blog can't really be Socratic since there is nobody to answer me. But, in the spirit of asking insightful questions about things that are important to us I offer this post. First, you'll want to bear in mind that progress is being defined here as an increase in our ability to understand and manipulate nature, to create goodas and services, and to incorporate widely held values in social policy and law.

Here are my questions:

1. Is is really true that scientific progress makes society better? One could argue that practical problem-solving without basic research continues to provide far more value to society than scientific research.

2. Is it really true that technological progress improves society? Once again, one could argue that everyday problem-solving is far more valuable than prestigious and sexy technological innovation like fission reactors, and genetically altered animals.

3. Is unrestrained progress in science and technology really desirable? If not, then how do we know what restraints there should be or in what direction progress ought to be guided? I'm making the big assumption that a way could be found to guide progress in science and technology. (Regardless of our collective decision, we had better discuss the criteria for what counts as a good decision.)

4. What sort of progress in science and technology will best support widely held human values like family, health, individual liberty, and material security? How do we know?

Looking for a thesis, theme, or term paper, or dissertation topic? Read those questions again!

Next Up: Nationalism

The Idea of Progress

2006-02-22T19:39:00.000-05:00

What is progress and how do we know? Just so we have some place to start I'll offer a definition that, I think, most people can accept: Progress is an increase in a society's capacity to create goods and services, cope with the natural world, and act more effectively to support widely held human values. So, I think that covers progress in science, technology, economy, and morals.

The idea of progress is one of the most important ideas in the history of (modern) Western civilization. It is not an obvious fact of human life and it is not common sense that societies will progress in science, technology, or morals (especially the latter!). Economic growth has been slow for most of human history, but it does occur in most societies.

Obviously, many modern societies are reversing that historical pattern in economics, science, and technology. Moral progress is a really sticky issue, so I'll stick with progress in science and technology for this blog.

Tomorrow I'll make some comments on the nature of scientific progress and of technological progress too. There are some hard questions about the social impacts of scientific and technological progress. For instance: In what specific areas will scientific progress really serve society? How do we know?

Self Improvement and Society

2006-02-18T09:59:00.000-05:00

I bet you' like to lose some wieght, change your eating habits, make a lot more money, or be much more successful with the opposite sex. How much of an imporvement can you really hope to make in these areas?

Last time I noted 11 factors that shape a person's life. Basically, my point was that many factors shape a person's success, or lack of it. Yet we tend to attribute our successes to our own efforts rather than to the combination of chance, biology, genetics, and social environment that objectively affect our lives.

So, if the idea that we can dramatically improve ourselves is a myth, why does the belief persist? Keep in mind that what I'm writing applies to all sorts of self-improvement efforts and not just to making more money.

Two sociological reasons for the persistence of this myth come to mind. First, our constant striving to improve ourselves spurs economic growth as we start businesses, invest, and get specialized training. The other reason has to be that striving to improve oneself in socially approved ways (firmer body, higher income, new values and attitudes) channels our energy in useful directions. This channeling of wenergy supports economic growth and keeps us from causing trouble.

Have you ever been to the self-help/psychology section of a large bookstore? Try running a search on self-improvement at Amazon.com! The persistence of the idea that we can dramatically improve our lives by reading the right books or doing the right diet generates millions in revenue each month for bookstores, publishers, and authors.

(I will deliberately ignore the question of how well these self-improvement methods really work. Is there any research on the results that people get from applying the ideas in books like Unlimited Power, Getting Things Done, Think and Grow Rich, or The Power of Focus? Really, I don't know. If you have any information, please pass it along!)

Jump back to my last post to review the eleven factors that shape our lives. How many do you think are really under your control? Your opinion could reasonably be different from mine, but here is my view:

Only 2, 4, 6, 7, and 11 are somewhat controllable. And the individual's control over decision making, intelligence, and physical health and mental health are probably not as great as we like to think.
The other personality traits that contribute to success - perserverence and self-control in high amounts - seem to be there or not there. Dramatically increasing your self-control is likely to prove extremely difficult. Your efforts could easily be undermined by chance events, like a death in the family, or other biological traits like a predisposition to alcoholism.
The government, economy, blind chance, socialization, and the cultural environment are not under our control at all. All we can really do about the cultural environment, government, or economy is to leave the country for better opportunities elsewhere.
We can attempt to manage the impacts of chance occurrences on our lives through making contingency plans, buying insurance, conducting thought experiments, and other methods. Our ability to use those methods effectively, and even our awareness of them, is likely determined by factors that are mostly beyond our control.

The "take-away" from these two posts is this: The scientific truth is that many factors shape our ability to get ahead in life or to otherwise make major changes in our lives. Your experience of being fully in control of your life is a useful illusion, but an illusion nonetheless. The illusion is useful because it is psychologically helpful to us and promotes progress in society.

The Myth of Self Improvement

2006-02-16T19:27:00.000-05:00

One of our core beliefs, at least in the United States, is that people can substantially improve their lives through their own efforts. The fact of self improvement is considered self-evident. The drive to improve oneself has both spawned and been strengthened by self-help books, seminars, articles, and personal coaches. The self-improvement "myth", and you'll soon see why I call it a myth raises some troubling sociological and psychological questions.

Surely, factors beyond raw desire and perserverence determine how far you can go in life, or how "good" you can be. But I bet most people have never really paused to consider the many factors that shape a person's life. Here is a list:

1. Socialization - what you learn from friends, family, school, church, the mass media
2. Decision making - relative degrees of irrationality
3. Cultural environment - norms, beliefs
4. Intelligence - reasoning, memory, abstract thinking, planning, creativity
5. Economy - jobs, inflation, markets, credit
6. Peer groups - some are helpful, some are not!
7. Physical health - mental and physical
8. Personality traits (stress tolerance, depression, sociability, probably some others)
9. Government - competence, honesty, types of laws and policies
10. The natural environment - climate, soil, weather, water
11. Blind chance - stuff happens
12. Formal education - technical training, university courses of study, more

(Please let me know if you think I left anything out!)

The idea that people can and do get ahead on their own may come more from psyhcology than from sociological processes. Don't you like to feel that good things that happen are due to your own efforts: You got the hot girl to go to thr prom with you. You closed your first big real estate deal.

Whatever it is, we all like to feel that we did it. But maybe the girl was worried about having a prom date and decided that you would do. Maybe a dozen other people with similar talent and drive are not doing quite as well in real estate. Maybe the laws of probablity just happened to work in your favor this time.

Next time I'll say more about how the myth of self improvement works for society and how social factors shape our lives. If you were wondering how much the individual does do or could do, I'll also have some things to say on that subject. Come back Saturday afternoon!

The Nature of Modern Societies

2006-02-14T20:25:00.000-05:00

That's the next blog subject for Dr. Society - What ideas do we have about the nature of society? What are there social functions? How do we know if these ideas are good ideas? By that I mean they are logical, scientific, and supportive of widely-held human values.

Here are some of the ideas, or groups of ideas, I plan to write about:

1. We can improve our circumstances in life solely through our own efforts.
2. Progress in science and technology is good.
3. Economic growth is good.
4. Nationalism is good.
5. We live in a dangerous world.
6. We live in a denagerous society (especially relevant in the United States!).
7. Human sexuality is "bad"/dirty/sinful.
8. Retirement.
9. Direct democracy.
10. Reverence for nature/superior attitude toward nature - 2 opposing views.

I may add one or two more. Expect to see two or three posts, covering the idea, its social consequences, its personal consequences, and the mechanism that keeps it alive in society.

Remember that junk about widely-held human values? I'll explain myself in more detail. Health, family, personal liberty, education, and suffciency (more than poverty, less than substantial wealth) are some of those widely-held values. Of course, you philosophers and anthropologists can find some problems with that short list, but that's OK. I just felt the need to offer some point of reference when I return to the subject of values in future posts.

Next time: The idea of self-improvement, particularly as the idea applies to your economic circumstances.

Does God Play Favorites, Part II

2006-02-11T15:52:00.000-05:00

The belief that God (or substitute any other supernatural being) does favor us over other groups has some valuable social functions. The idea supports groups especially when the groups are threatened by other groups. You should know by now that the belief is born and reinforced in groups, the same groups we may need to be part of.

That all leads to the subject of today's post: What are the social and personal consequences of belief that God plays favorites?

Anyone familiar with world history has already figured out the most important social consequence: War is sometimes the result of the belief that we are favored by God. "God wants us to have their land you know."

Internal social conflict may be almost as serious for cultures and for you and me too! How so?
Pursuit of some ill-conceived idea or policy can come from belief that God wants us to lead the fight against, for example, gay marriage. This can create a strong feeling in the "crusaders" that they are involved in a God-favored struggle. The feeling itself is not a problem, but it can lead to rigid faith in some idea that is at odds with facts, logic, or values.

The recent debate over intelligent design illustrates my point. Religious fundamentalists are trying to make us teach, learn, and respect their religious beliefs. Dressing these beliefs in lab coat does not make them scientific any more than I can make my cat a reindeer by putting plastic antlers on his head! Yet, the seemingly obvious waste of time and energy goes on.

Why? Because, I think, evangelical Christians see their worldview coming under increasing assault from science and modern, materialistic values. But the evangelicals, they assume, are closer in their views to what God intended America to be like. Thus they are the obvious to group to lead a revival in the United States.

So, for society we get lots of time, eenrgy, and money wasted on crusades that are not necessarily as ethical, logical, or scientifically sound as we think. The other side also has to waste resources fighting bad ideas, like intelligent design.

Societies can also be dragged down by bad laws and bad policies predicated on the idea that God is smiling on the nation (or culture, which is roughly the same as a society though there are many exceptions).

Islamic law offers one example of what I mean. A strict, "correct" interpretation" of Islamic law can produce a society that fosters systemactic abuse, especially of women, cruelty to certain deviant groups (homosexuals come to mind), and economic decline. People who constantly study the Quran and try not to violate religious laws are not trying to start businesses, invent useful things, or create new works of art. If credit does not exist it is even harder to start a business.

What about individuals who latch onto the God plays favorites idea? Everything I've already written applies. You get hooked into fighting a war. You spend time, energy, money, and credibility on promoting ideas that come from the dubious belief in being part of a favored group.

Does God Play Favorites?

2006-02-09T21:26:00.000-05:00

I'm not sure if most Christians, Muslims, and Jews have ever seriously considered this question and the ramifications of the fundamentalist answer. The Islamic clerics, to cite a timely example, are whipping their followers into a frenzy over those stupid Danuish cartoons, still! This is one of those ramifications that I mentioned. But enough about Islamic fundamentalism. Do any of these ideas seem familiar:

1. God is on our side in the war on terror (Islamists certainly feel the same way about their conflict with the Christian world.)
2. God favors evangelical Christians.
3. God wants us to have (name a country or region).
4. The Jews are God's chosen people.

I have no idea if any of these statements reflect Ultimate Truth and it really doesn't matter does it? Perceptions are effectively the same as reality.

Consider some reasons for the staying power of this particular idea, of God favoring one group or another. Believing in your "special" status can make a group stronger in the face of adversity. Relationships are vital to our survival and we may thus be willing to accept ideas that don't make sense. A culture filled with beliefs and ideas regarding the supernatural creates a perfect setting for "elitist" religious views to take root.

Next time I want to explore the personal and social consequences of this idea. Awesome!

Muslims Riot Over Cartoons

2006-02-07T19:39:00.000-05:00

You've probably seen the news coverage of riots in Lebanon and elsewhere that seem to have been sparked by some offensive cartoons run in European newspapers. I say "seem to be" because of the possibility that some imams and mullahs were involved in whipping up the crowds. Anway, what does this news have to do with sociology?

Well, in part, I already answered that question. People respond to events partly because of the events, and partly because of leaders who inflame passions, provide a vision, give orders, or whatever that particular leader can do to influence people.

But there is another point to be made here. This one is at once obvious and subtle. Here it is:

People need to consider the social consequences of their actions. Could the newspaper publishers have anticipated this result? If so, are they partly responsible for it? Are the imams and mullahs who, one speculates, are encouraging or condoning the violence, responsible? Are the rioters themselves fully rational and independent human beings who can make their own decisions and face the consequences?

Please! I think the 19th century concept of rationality has been blown out of the water by evolutionary biologist, cognitive psychologists, sociologists, and social pyschologists. People are mostly responding to their environments when they act out.

Of course this logic puts the editors in the position of not being fully responsible for their actions either. What's an eggheaded social thinker to do with this problem? One would wish that people would anticipate consequences like these deadly riots and make an ehtical decision to not publish something that's likely to incite violence. Or is that to soft-minded? Ought people to act on their values (e.g., freedom of expression) without too much concern for the social impact?

The Nature of God

2006-02-04T11:41:00.001-05:00

Does God love everyone equally? Does God intend to punish Christians for meddling in the affairs of Muslims? What is the evidence that God is benevolent or vengeful, in general, or in some specific circumstance? While these are obviously theological questions, sociology can offer some insights into how a society can be shaped by the answers.

Sociology can also help us understand why people believe what they do about the nature of God. The social environment is the origin of most of our ideas about the nature of God. How does that work? We get ideas and information from church, peer groups (including church youth groups), books, magaziens, and television shows. The ideas and information paint a picture of what God is supposed to be like. Messages about fire and brimstone or about unconventional love become part of your mindset.

And, psychologists will telly you that we tend to favor evidence that supports our current viewpoints. Evidence that confirms our beliefs about impending divine punishment tends to be accepted without question. Ideas related to God's love and compassion tend to be ignored or rejected or minimized - God really only cares about fundamentalist Christians or Muslims or ultraorthodox Jews.

How does one view or another come to dominate a society like ours? The environment (natural and social) in which a society exists probably has some effect on the prevailing beliefs about God. In a society surrounded by enemies people may lean toward a view of a vengeful God who will help us overcome and destroy our enemies. If nature seems to be working against us, we may believe in an angry and vengeful God who serves up swift punishment for our sins.

Our ideas about the nature of God do not simply appear from nowhere and develop through some rational process. Ideas about the nature of God are added to and molded by whatever beliefs and attitudes already dominate a society. Maybe this is a partial explanation for Muslim terrorism. Their culutures share a long history of dealing with a hostile environment, both natural and social. A God who can and will destroy "infidels" and the unjust reflects the hard realities of their cultural history.

Life after Death, Part 2

2006-01-24T21:32:00.000-05:00

What are the social (and personal) consequences of belief in some form of afterlife? Could terrorism, lack of economic development, and crime be connected to belief in an afterlife, or lack of belief? Perhaps.

It shouldn't surprise anyone that beliefs can have consequences for society. This post just explains some of the details relevant to belief in life after death.

Here's something you may not have considered: Belief in an afterlife may interfere with the development of social institutions that could improve conditions for vulnerable members of society. What!?!

Well, if we are just passing through this life on the way to a higher plane of spiritual development then the poor, frail, and disabled are just experiencing conditions that are unpleasant but transitory. This belief could be associated with belief in destiny or in a divine order of things. If a supreme being decides who is poor or disabled maybe there is no point in worrying about creating social institutions to take better care of them.

Belief in an afterlife could reduce our desire to deal with political and environmental crises as well. I once heard someone say about a nuclear war: "What's so bad about it? We'll just die, go to heaven and live forever." (OK, that's not really a direct qoute, but it captures the spirit of what he said.)

Could belief in an afterlife really lead people to become suicide bombers? Religious leaders in the Islamic world use the belief, among other beliefs, to create social conditions that help them recruit suicide bombers. Belief in an afterlife can encourage people to become suicide bombers. Yes, some of those people would still blow themselves up without belief in an afterlife. I'm guessing that those people would be much harder to recruit!

Belief in an afterlife could also be good for a person in many ways. You feel more "nromal" for sharing an important belief with other people. You can get social support from these people, especially in a religious community of any kind. You may also become more calm, self-disciplined, and industrious (ever heard of Calvinism?). After all, this life is just a phase.

Life after Death, Part 1

2006-01-21T16:33:00.000-05:00

Whatever people in a culture tend to believe about this question will have consequences for society. That the consequences can be good or bad (suicide bombings come to mind) is clear enough. What isn't so clear is the net balance of benefits and costs. Before getting into that question, maybe we should pause to consider where our beliefs about life after death come from and why they persist, if they do.

Beliefs about life after death seem to have roots in four sources.

1. Habit - You pick up certain ideas, probably from church, and they become part of your habitual way of thinking about the big issues of human existence.
2. Socialization - the process through which we learn whats considered "real" or "true" by our society.
3. Peer groups - support for certain ideas, such as life after death being fiction, provides another source for our ideas.

Last but not least is the mass media. We have television preachers telling us about hell and heaven and our immortal souls. Enough exposure to that sort of thinking is likely to take hold of our imaginations and change our thinking. Then there are the spiritual gurus and "experts" spreading ideas about reincarnation, higher planes of existence, and the spirit world.

These four sources for ideas about life after death combine to create a social environment in which certain ideas are allowed to flourish. Our ideas about life after death then have consequences for society, or for other societies.

Next time: What are the social consequences of certain ideas about life after death?

Fate, Destiny, and Society 2

2006-01-19T21:39:00.000-05:00

This post and the previous post offer an explanation of how belief in these metaphysical concepts arose and an explanation of the consequences (good and bad) for us and for society.

What does it mean for society that people belief in fate or destiny? Well, let me back up a step and describe some of the personal consequences. The personal consequences produce social phenomena, as we will see.

The major impact on people who put a lot of faith in things like fate and destiny has got to be a reduced sense of control over their lives. A feeling of personal control gives us the energy to try and make positive changes in ourselves and in our surroundings. Whether this feeling is mostly fact or mostly fantasy is of no importance for the individual. A reduced sense of control causes people suffer three general types of problems:

1. Career failures/problems - which often leads to money problems and to...

2. Relationship problems - money problems cause fights. We have our mates picked for us by fate (even the choice to pair up and produce children is experienced as "destiny"!).

3. Goal setting - which obviously comes before goal getting; Why worry about it if you have some destiny to fulfill.

(SIdenote: I'm focusing on the metaphysical belief in unseen forces that shape our lives. The related subject of religious belief in divine will is going to be the subject of future posts.)

So, what about social consequences? There are at least six types of consequences:

1. Lower quality of life - conditions are determined by metaphysical forces we can't control so why bother to try harder? This probably is not a consciously-held perspective but one that can still color decision-making in many cultures.

2. Slow economic growth - a weak commitment to taking charge of things may reduce the rate of growth; not a bad thing inherently, but many countries are too poor!

3. Political apathy - the government is controlled by metaphysical forces beyond our control so why bother? Maybe we were destined to suffer (for no clear reason or to produce a "better" society in the future).

4. Inequality - there is no way, really, to control who is rich and who is poor

5. Exploitation and oppression - It is our desitny to rule the continent, rule over black people, or whatever.

6. Acceptance of natural disasters - What can we do? It was destined to happen sooner or later.

Next Time: Life after death

Fate, Destiny, and Society I

2006-01-12T21:07:00.000-05:00

Are fate and destiny real? Are miracles real events or figments of our imagination? Why do we believe in fate, destiny, miracles, and things that were "meant to be"? What are the social consequences of these ideas? Stick with me for the next two posts, at least, and I'll try to answer those questions.

First, consider these thoughts:

1. Many, many kinds of events are highly improbable. There are millions, perhaps billion, of people who could experience any one of those events on any given day. It is just a matter of mathematics that lots of really unlikely things happen to people.

2. We tend to interpret events in two ways: First, we tend to try and find patterns in the events that we experience. We also tend to evaluate things from the standpoint of everyday experience and feeeling, rather than by using an "objective" set of criteria: When you win the lottery jackpot you may experience this as a "miracle" when it was really just a statistical fluke.

So, I think that some combination of 1 and 2 explains why beief in destiny and fate persists. The psychological need for these concepts and our own cognitive biases keeps the ideas alive while other supernatural ideas become less popular.

What about the common experience of feeling that a romantic relationship was "meant to be" or that the breakup shows your relationship was not "meant to be"? Are these ideas survivors of a time when we thought that supernatural beings controlled our fates? I think so.

Now we tend to believe (contrary ot all scientific evidence) that we are masters of our own destiny, while still believing that the relationship was meant to be. Interesting, no?

Maybe, just maybe, such ideas are a sort of psychological defense mechanism. Our minds try to protect themselves from the harsh realities of life by inventing comforting explanations for things. We get some protectiond from the constant emotional and phsyical stress that can threaten our sanity and physical survival.

Any psychologists out there care to comment on/rip apart my explanation?

Enough with the psychology lesson. Next time I'll mention some of the social consequences, good or bad, that result from our belief in fate and destiny. (I'll return to the subject of miracles in later posts on religious beliefs.)

Money Brings Happiness, Part 2

2006-01-10T19:30:00.000-05:00

Yes, there is a correlation between happiness and income. In societies there is a positive association between income produced (the gross domestic product) and life satisfaction. But the relationship is not as neat as you may have supposed (more money means more happiness).

What's my evidence? Here are a few of the online information sources you may uncover in your own brief search:

http://www.worldwatch.org/features/consumption/sow/trendsfacts/2004/09/15/

http://www.fool.com/news/commentary/2003/commentary030923DY.htm

http://www.nber.org/digest/aug00/w7487.html

They all cover varying aspects of the rather complicated relatiohship between money and happiness. But this only takes us half way through the what I wanted to cover today.

We should consider what functions idea that money brings happiness might serve for society. Maybe the idea just survives for no particular reason. Maybe the fantasy implied in the idea - great wealth and great happiness - simply amuses enough people to keep the idea alive. I think that, just maybe, there are stronger sociological reasons for the idea to persist

1. It gives people hope, even if it is false hope, that there lives can get better.

2. The belief produces jobs for financial planners.

3. The belief provides opportunities for lottery and gambling revenue, as well as related jobs.

4. The belief helps to sell plenty of books and magazines.

I also think that the idea has a significant dark side to it. Specifically, believing that money brings happiness can lead to:

1. Poor people wasting vast amounts of time and money on lotteries.

2. Instrumental relationships with men. Women want access to the good things that come with plenty of money (or credit, but what's the difference?) so they try to land a man with plenty of money. (and men find it acceptrable to use their resources to attract multiple sex partners.)

3. Amoral reasoning - Men and women tend to accept behavior like that described above, without passing judgement. Moral reasoning tends to be set aside in business because moral may reduce growth and profitability.

4. People are encouraged to waste time fantasizing about how great life would be if...they won the lottery, they had a much higher salary, some rich relative would croak tomorrow, et cetera.

Next time: Is believing in fate or destiny a good idea and how would we know?

Money Brings Happiness

2006-01-07T10:05:00.000-05:00

Here is another pervasive idea in the United States. I suppose it is present to some degree in any country with a capitalist economic system. And perhaps that fact - the existence of a capitalist economic system - explains why the idea is taken seriously by so many people.

Like all of the ideas that pervade society we would be well served to ask some hard questions about it. Not to idly criticize the idea. That is lazy thinking! No, the point is to make sure the ideas that form the basis of social life can survive harsh scrutiny. If they cannot, perhaps they should be replaced. This is when the real work begins. (Perhaps the creation and diffusion of new ideas needs to be addressed in future posts.)

So, here are some specific questions we should be asking about the idea that money brings happiness:

1. Where did the idea come from?
2. What causes the idea to stick around?
3. Is the idea logical?
4. Is the idea consistent with the facts?
5. Does the idea tend to support or undermine widely held values?
6. What are the social functions and social dysfunctions of the idea?

Next time I will answer questions 4 and 6.

Business versus Government, Round 2

2006-01-05T21:39:00.000-05:00

Many of us believe that businesses are more efficient than government agencies. I suppose this belief holds regardless of the level of government - local, state, federal - in question. Never mind whether this belief is actually justified by facts. What's more important is to examine the social consequences of the idea.

Here are three things that happen:

1. Functions that could be carried out by the government are left to the private sector.
2. Privatization of public services occurs because of the bias against government.
3. Effectiveness is sacrificied to efficiency.

The last consequence is the one that seems most important. After all, is it really a problem if businesses are doing stuff for us that the government could do? And so what if privatization makes the government smaller and less expensive? What's the problem? Well, I'm getting to that.

Liberals will readily agree with the idea that we don't want businesses managing services like food inspection and sewage treatment that are vital to public health. Libertarians would probably say that businesses would probably do a better job so why not let them do the work?

The answer to that last question is simple: Efficiency is not the same as effectiveness! Efficiency tends to be the goal for businesses. Efficiency relates to profitablility after all. But government services are meant to be effective, that is, they are designed to produce desired outcomes to the greatest degree that resources and knowledge (and political considerations!) will allow.

For how many of our public services are we really willing to replace effectiveness with economic efficiency as a guiding principle.? Think about that for a bit. And tell me what you think!

Effectiveness is not the same as efficiency.

Social Pollution Index

2006-01-03T19:33:00.000-05:00

I almost forgot to mention this little feature that I'm developing. I want to report indicators of the counterfactual, illogical, and value-damaging ideas that pervade society. The Index will mostly be about the United States. I am not sure what will eventually be reported but here is a taste of what to expect:

There are 31 ExxonMobile funded groups that have publsihed research disputing scientific claims about global warming. (Harper's Index, 07/05)

Percentage of Americans who believe in miracles: 83 (according to a survey I found through through HowStuffWorks.com)

Percentage who believe in astrology: 29 (same source)

Percentage of Americans who said, in a Pew survey, that living things have always existed in their present form: 42

(I shamelessly stole my format from Harper's Index. Its also worth perusing by the way.)

Is there anything you would like to see added? Please tell me! As I inidcate above, this will be the first in a series of posts spaced over several months.

Is business more efficient than government?

2006-01-03T19:15:00.000-05:00

You may have wondered tha. More likely, you have assumed that the answer is "no" and gone on with your life. But wait! This question is really, really, really important.

At the risk of sounding rude, I must say that the idea of business being more efficient than government is without any factual basis, as far as most of us know. I did a brief search online for relevant research. In the short time I was willing to spend I couldn't come up with much.

That kinda makes me wonder two things. Am i really lazy? Does anyone who believes that the government is less efficient than business have any facts to support this belief. My guess is they have even less information than I gleaned from the two Web sites that I visited over the weekend. Here they are in case you were curious:

http://heapol.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/10/3/271
http://www.psiru.org/

Probably the idea is based on anecdotes about lazy government buereuacracts played off against the relentless drive to innovate and compte that allegedly characterizes the private sector. (BTW I doubt that even one lone economist would say that this is an accurate picture of the United States economy. Just ask one!)

I guess that is enough said about the flimsy factual basis for the idea that the private sector is more efficient than government. But, sociologically speaking it really doesn't matter what the facts indicate. It matters what people think both about the existence of facts and about their interpretation.

At the risk of digressing wildly I just have to pause here and point out one more little thing: The facts never speak for themselves. If you have ever been taught this in a college class I feel you have a moral duty to go and demand a refund!!!!

Next Time: What are the social consequences of this belief? We shall see!

More of "Business People are Crooks!"

2005-12-30T19:35:00.000-05:00

Last time I mentioned the sources of our (negative) ideas about business people. The reasons why such an idea could develop and take hold are important to understand. We also need to understand the consequences of this perspective on the business world.

Several negative consequences of the idea come to mind:

1. Laws and policies come to reflect the attitude that business people are out to cheat or oppress people, resulting in unwarranted costs in money and hours of labor wasted on enfocing regulations and in complying with them.

2. Our behavior reflects an overly "dark" view of the business world (which is probably where we earn our living!). The result is money and time spent on watching employees and employers for signs of bad behavior that really aren't there.

3. Companies waste money and labor on managing their images.

4. We waste emotions, time, and money protecting ourselves from dishonest dealings that may, infact, be perfectly respectable.

On the plus side, lawyers make a killing by creating ways that we can get back at the "bad" corporations. Liberal pundits also kill thousands of trees a month writing about the sins of corporate America. Is it "cherry picking" situations that support a certain viewpoint, or a truthful analysis of the business world?

Next time:

Business is more efficient than government, we think.

Business People are Crooks!

2005-12-28T21:28:00.000-05:00

Have you ever had a similar thought? Maybe the fundamental dishonesty of big business is part of your worldview. I'm not going to get into the debate about how well this view is, or is not, supported by the facts. All I'll do is indicate some of the causes and consequences of the idea that business people are dishonest.

Three principle sources of this idea suggest themselves. First, the news media tend to draw attention to real and alleged misbehavior by business people. Second, there is the individualistic, competitive culture we live in. Maybe, just maybe, this culture primes us to believe we are going to be taken advantage of by other people. Thirdly, we tend to have our reasoning colored by prominent, recent events. We tend to think of these situations when the topic of business conduct comes up in any form. (That's what psychologists call the availability heuristic.)

And why wouldn't business people take advantage of us, if they can? We have money and they have no particular reason to care about us, do they?

Next time I'll make a few remarks about the social consequences of this idea that business people are crooks. My conclusions may be a tad bit disturbing to most people.

The American Dream, Again

2005-12-22T19:32:00.000-05:00

OK, this post is really about all visions of the good life. Its just that one idea, with some variations, tends to dominate societies. I hope that what you read here will be clear, yet absdtract enough for you to apply to whatever society you live in/want to know about/really like.

I think we can agree that the classic American Dream has been diluted and modified over the years. Now we want to own a home, even a small condo will do for some of us. (Is it what we want or just an accomodation to the reality of home prices that are out of reach for the average middle class working stiff?)

I bet the same pattern of dilution and modification happens over time in all modern societies. The details are going to vary, of course. The functions that these ideas of the good life serve are a bit more universal.

Visions of the good life serve a variety of functions for individuals and for society.

1. Markets for homes, vehicles, books (homebuying, financial planning, and more topics)
2. Jobs for real estate agents, constructions workers, and utility workers.
3. Drives investing, saving, borrowing (business for banks!)
4. Fosters commitment to the social system - play by the rules and you can live the Dream

But, visions of the good life have their costs. Here are a few of them:

1. Environmentalists decry the pollution, loss of wilderness areas, and fossil fuel consumption traceable to people pursuing the American Dream.
2. The financial demands can put severe mental strain on people.
3. The need for a spouse may promote instrumental relations between men and women.

So, how do you think these ideas apply in _______ (pick any society you are familiar with)?

Defining the Good Life

2005-12-20T19:59:00.000-05:00

This post is mainly about the American Dream. If you live in another country it should be easy enough to see how what I write applies to your society's main ideas about the good life. I say "main idea" because other ideas of the good life will also exist, as they do in the United States.

So, what do I mean by the American Dream? Its a house in the suburbs, a spouse, children, a stable career with a good salary and good prospects for continued advancement. The part about the house in the suburbs is what you probably thought of first. I suppose that is the most commonly accepted element of the American Dream.

Where did the idea come from and what are the consequences for individuals and for society? Remember that consequences of an idea like the American Dream can be good or bad. And always remember that what counts as good and bad will depend on one's perspective. I'll return to both of those themes in many of my future posts.

(A sociological sidenote - What follows is a functionalist analysis, meaning that it focuses on functions and dysfunctions of the subject. A function is simply a positive consequence or benefit whether or not planned; some functions just happen in the course of things. A dysfunction is a negative consequence.)

Next Time: I'll say more about the origins of the American Dream, and list some of the social functions it performs.

Our Ideas and Their Impact on Society

2005-12-17T10:05:00.000-05:00

News flash - People have lots of ideas about things. Some of these ideas are better than others. Some of the bad ideas are worse than others. No, not the ideas that get people on television shows like World's Wildest Police Videos or America's Funniest Home Videos. Nor am I talking about the ideas that get mentioned in either "dumb crook" news or the Darwin Awards.

The ideas that I'll be focusing on for the next several months are ideas about relationships, work, politics, and other areas of social life. Instead of trying to categorize and explain in great, abstract, detail I'll just offer you a list of some of the ideas I want to cover.

The American Dream
Business people are dishonest
Business is more efficient than government
Money leads to happiness
Destiny/Fate/things that are "meant to be"
Homosexuality is unnatural
Nationalism
Progress
Economic growth is good
Market forces are natural
Life after death
God cares about people
God has revealed himself/herself/itself to humanity
Science is about the pursuit of truth
God plays favorites
God determines who is rich and who is poor
People succeed through their own efforts
People do what they want to do
_________ is human nature
Humans are somehow above/apart from nature
We live in a dangerous world/society/dangerous times
Competition is a natural part of life
Sexuality is dirty/sinful
Teenagers should only be taught abstinence
Sex education promotes promiscuity
Gender roles
(subjects may be added or deleted as my interests and imagination dictate)

What a list! I better get started. And if you can think of anything of wide interest that I've overlooked please tell me.

You may be wondering what I intend to write about each idea. Well, we've already covered the fact that our ideas come from several sources - our own heads, religion, education, family, peer groups, and the mass media. I'll let that dog sleep. I'll be concentrating on the actual and possible consequences of each idea, with one or two posts devoted to each idea.

+++++++++++

Interested in exploring the subject of ideas in society at greater length? Look for my book, Ideas and Everyday Life, in April of 2006. Get more of my blog posts, with examples that apply to your daily life.

Ideas and Society

2005-12-16T19:31:00.000-05:00

What do the Patriot Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, intelligent design, pension plans, and New Age beliefs have in common? They all reflect ideas that, for better or worse, shape the way society works.

(They also give me an excuse to squeeze key words into my blog!)

So, this is the end of my long series on how ideas shape our social institutions. Review my past few weeks of blog entries and you'll learn how ideas shape education, religion, families, our economic system, and our political systems. You'll also learn a few things about the origins of the ideas we have about each of those five social institutions.

This entry offers a quick summary of the good and bad ways that ideas about each of the "Big Five" social institutions can shape our lives (some are consequences for society; some for individuals):

Religion - social inaction, mental illness or health, dangerous behavior, support for ideas that undermine widely held values, wasted energy, dogmatism focusing action on harmful social action, promotion of -isms like sexism or racism, "good works" that do what's intended

Education - resources wasted on misguided "life skills" and diversity training, counterproductive policies and programs, curricula that do not match real-world needs, reinforcement of positive behaviors like teamwork and self-discipline

Family - improved outcomes for children because of childrearing practices, mental health benefits, economic gains, mental illness

Political System - ideological positions that waste resources by ignroing facts and logic, irrational policies, policies that support or undermine widely-held values, opportunity costs of bad policies and laws

Economic System - good (or bad) plans for exploiting natural resources, relationships warped by "economic" thinking, social justice can be undermined or supported, corporate misconduct.

I know this is all at pretty abstract. Take the opportunity to reflect on how some of those things I just listed relate to your own life, work, family, or religion.

++++++++++

Interested in exploring the subject of ideas in society at greater length? Look for my book, Ideas and Everyday Life, in April of 2006. Get more of my blog posts, with examples that apply to your daily life.

++++++++++

Next Time: I'll be starting a series on the social impact of specific ideas from religion, science, public policy, and other areas of social life.

Political Systems & Ideas, Part IV

2005-12-13T22:07:00.000-05:00

This is my last post on the impact of ideas on our political systems. Or, maybe I will think of something else to add?

Anyway, I promised to describe the decision-making process. I also want to describe an alternative model that may be sold to politicians, though only with considerable difficulty. You may want to stop reading here if math scares you :-)

So, how do we make political decisions? You know about parliaments, Congressional committees, lobbyists and such. But I intend to answer the question at a philosophical level. This priobably makes a lot of sense to you: Emotion, money, ideology, and numbers of supporters determine which political decisions get made. The same factors also determine the probablity of a given outcome. The formula probably looks like this:

(Emotion + Money + Ideology) X Numbers = Policy

Maybe my use of addition and multiplication is not quite accurate, but I think the model is fairly close to reality. (Interested in how to measure those variables? Ask me!)

Here is a pseudo-mathematical way of depicting an alternative strategy for making political decisions:

Facts + logic + value consistency + cost/benefit ratio + money + supporters = policy

The cost/benefit ratio would look like this:

net gain for society = (quantitative benefit + qualitative benefit)/costs

(Again, you will have to ask me if you want to know how these things can be measured.)

Political Systems & Ideas, Part III

2005-12-10T18:36:00.000-05:00

The ideas that shape our political system and guide our politicians can obviously have negative consequences. Everyone knows that. What you may not have considered is this: "negative consequences" can be those results that undermine our values (really, not just according to one side or the other). Ideas determine how we decide to use our resources.

Laws, regulations, policies, and political philosophies are shaped by ideas. Easy enough. But what exactly can go wrong if the ideas we act on are bad ideas (meaning counterfactual. illogical, or destructive of widely-held values)? There are two types of problems that come to mind.

First, we waste resources doing things that simply do not work and will not work. Politicians love to accuse each other of doing just that. I think I understand the root of the problem, and maybe you do as well.

I can't explain what "working" means in a politcal context since the interpretation of things depends on one's political views. This is not technically true - the measurable result of an action is what it is - but we act as if it were. Thus, each side can accuse the other of wasting resources based on their own definition of what "working" means. Selective use of evidence rears its illogical head on a regular basis in the political world.

Secondly, acting on bad ideas is more likely to produce unintended consequences. After all, the definition of a bad idea is one contrary to facts or logic. Unexpected problems may cancel out any benefits that happen to come from the bad idea. Of course, "problem" and "benefit" are two politically loaded terms. Is it really a benefit if rich people get to keep more of their income under a new tax law? Or is that a problem?

It hardly matters how you answer those questions since the answer depends on your interpretation. The lower tax burden is a fact, but the goodness or badness of it depends on your perspective. One could analyze the actual impact of the tax cut, then compare the impact to relevant values (fairness?) and to the budget. Is the budget smaller because the rich are paying lower taxes? Will greater spending by the rich produce new revenue, business growth, and more tax revenue? Is this outcome acceptable?

Next time: Thoughts on how political decisions really get made, and on how they could be made.

Political Systems & Ideas, Part II

2005-12-08T21:26:00.000-05:00

My schedule is getting crazy so this wil have to be another short post. Nevertheless, I do plan to make a few remarks about ideas and their consequences for our economic system.

Social pollution - ideas that are counterfactual, illogical, or that undermine widely held values.

Social pollution in our political system has serious consequences. When we support a policy or law that can be shown to be harmful, we are effectively using the political system to pollute society. The mass media and the Internet can help the process along. How many political actions are supported by pretty, passionate people without a clue? I'm thinking of Jenna Jameson speaking for PETA, but there are probably better examples. How many of the debates on serious issues in this country are driven by illogical or counterfactual emotional appeals? And then there are the sound bites and slogans.

Yes, political action can also promote moral progress. No argument here! Political actions to extend voting rights or to ban land mines were both worthy efforts. The Internet and mass media can also help here, but don't expect too much. Anybody can post anything on the Internet, and the media tend to focus on "sexy" issues, sound bites, and charismatic talking heads who will attract viewers.

How serious are these problems, really? I'll address that question next time (December 10).

Political Systems & Ideas, Part I

2005-12-07T21:23:00.000-05:00

Is direct democracy a good idea? Is representative government a better idea? How can we reform our malfunctioning system of government? Are other democratic countries really doing any better? Is Congress (or the Parliament, Duma, Bundestag, et cetera) mostly representing interest groups or the people?

So many questions! Some may have reflected your own thoughts about the political system in your country. Some may seem obvious to you: Of course our congress is paid for by big business. (What about nonprofit groups like the National Rifle Association?)

So what ideas do you have about the government and the political system more generally? Do any of these ideas ring true:

1. The government should stick to its Constitutionaly prescribed duties.
2. The government should take cre of the less fortunate.
3. Our system of government is broken and needs to be fixed.
4. Maybe a small group of intelligent, educated professionals could do a better job than the politicians.

Maybe you can add other ideas? Maybe your ideas depend on what level of government we are discussing. The federal government should have one set of duties. like defense and foreign relations, while states take care of education and social welfare programs.

All of your ideas, including the "right" answers to the questions that I posed at the start of this blog, come from the usual sources. Religious leaders, teachers, parents, friends, and the media all carry ideas about politics and government. We observe some of these ideas and integrate them into our thinking. This is fine, but sometimes leads to the bad ideas being treated like good ideas, and we won't see it this way because of the perspective we've acquired from others.

Next time: More comments on where our ideas come from and how they affect the political system.

Ideas and Work

2005-12-03T10:22:00.000-05:00

Having just written about ideas and economic systems, it seems appropriate to insert a few words regarding ideas and work. (Work = the exchanging of labor, skill, or specialized knowledge for pay; domestic labor, volunteer work, and yard "work" do not count for purposes of this blog entry)

So, what sorts of ideas do people have about work? Where do those ideas come from? What impact do they have? Are the ideas actually good ideas, and how would we know?

Here are some types of ideas that people have about work:

1. The meaning of work
2. The plight of the regular, average worker
3. Worker's rights - and their responsibilities to employerrs
4. Employer responsibilities to workers - and employer rights
5. Mythical beliefs about certain types of work - writers make tons of money, working for yourself as an Internet entrepreneur is a fast, easy way to succeed

What is the meaning of work? There are many opinions on this question. Work is simply what we do to pay the bills and make a little extra "fun" money. Work is, or should be, a major source of meaning in peoples' lives. (Funny how this idea is shared by capitalists and Marxists!) In some cultures, work is seen as punishment, so people do as little as they can. In other cultures work, in the modern sense, does not exist. People just labor to survive.

What are the sources of these ideas about work? That idea, and others we have about work, come from the mass media, school, parents, and peer groups. For example. magazine articles, books, and television shows all promote the image of "climbing the corporate ladder" as a desirable, manly goal. Some women's magazines have helped create a womanly version of the same idea.

Going back to items 3 and 4 above. Maybe you can think of some of the rights and responsibilites of both workers and their employers. Give it a try! If you have colleagues or friends from different cultural backgrounds, try comparing ideas with them. If you do this little exercise, I'd apperciate hearing the results. Just post a comment here.

Ideas and Economic Systems III

2005-11-29T22:03:00.000-05:00

Where do we get our ideas about the economy, economic equality, capitalism, socialism, communism, big business, and related topics? Are our ideas actually good ideas and how would we know? Those are the questions of the day.

As usual, most of our ideas about our economic system cope from four sources - school, the family, the mass media, and our peers. They teach us, or brainwash us, to understand our system and our place in that system. We also learn to defend our system and to believe in it, or not, depending on what part of society we belong to.

School usually exposes us to messages about competitition, economic growth, big business, and capitalism. We in the United States learned to associate socialism with Communism and the Soviet Union. More recently, we are learning to equate socialism with France, North Korea, Cuba, Sweden, Denmark, and Canada. This association is reinforced by people like Rush Limbaugh and Mike Savage.

Our friends, family, and coworkers encourage us to go along with ideas that support our economic system. Why do you never hear people in MBA programs discussing the means for creating a socialist economic system in the United States? Seriously, if you have ever encountered that sort of discussion, please let me know!

We get plenty of other economic ideas from the same four sources. Attitudes toward the poor and toward money come from the same places as our ideas about appropriate economic goals. (Have you ever wanted to create a worker collective? I didn't think so!) We also learn that market forces are natural, or else are almost on the level of the sacred.

Anyway, I have no idea whether socialism or capitalism or communism is the superior economic system. It really depends on which system, under what circumstances, is effective, efficient, and supportive of widely-hled values that transcend economics. We should be studying our ideas to see how they hold up on factual, logical, and ethical grounds not blasting the "evils" of socialism or capitalism.

Ideas and Economic Systems II

2005-11-26T13:56:00.000-05:00

Was Karl Marx right about the economy? Are Fortune 500 CEOs doing the right things? Do big companies like Walmart, GM, and Merck really do more good that harm in society? Would it be better if the public controlled the economy rather than individual business people? So many questions, so little time!

Anyway, the point of these blogs on social institutions is to raise issues regarding the ideas we hold, not to reveal The Truth or to criticize. In that spirit, I would like you to think about the following list of ideas that some people have about the economy.

Government intervention in the economy is almost always a bad idea.
The system is fair (or unfair).
Our economic system is superior.
Our economic system is natural.
Capitalism is superior to socialism.
Capitalism is evil.
Economic growth is always good.
Socialism is a better (fairer) system than capitalism.

Which ones do you agree with and why? Can you trace your thinking to a specific source or sources? If you are like most people, this author included, then you probably have a hard time coming up with specific sources for your ideas. Even worse, you may have a hard time coming up with logical or factual reasons for holding those ideas. Most people are in the same boat with regards to one or more of our social institutions.

Like all other social institutions that economic system is supported by ideas that may not be well supported by facts or logic. Of course facts and logic are not the only reasons for ideas about the economic system to take hold. There are other benefits (and consequences) to consider.

Next time I think that I'll focus on the treatment of economic activity as sacred. What are the causes and consequences of this idea?

Ideas and Economic Systems

2005-11-23T01:02:00.000-05:00

Is capitalism good or bad? Are corporations raping the planet and exploiting workers? Is socialism really dead? What is the difference between socialism and communism? Was Jesus a communist? I know these questions are tearing the nation apart! (just kidding) I'll focus on the United States but some of my comments will apply to other countries.

First of all let me be clear about this one thing: The United States is not a capitalist country. Maybe I'm being pedantic here, but capitalism is an economic system. Nations are defined by political systems. The United States has a modified capitalist system, called welfare capitalism by social scientists. Many European and Asian countries have the same system.

Communism is not what the Soviet Union had, propaganda aside. They had a socialist economic system and a totalitarian political system (absolute rule by a person or small group) with democratic trappings. True communism is a system where property is held by the group and used for the group's benefit. In socialism the state controls propoerty and uses it for the public good.

And we have plenty of ideas about capitalism, socialism, and communism don't we? Where do the ideas come from? How accurate are they? What functions do they serve? I'll delve into these questions in my next few blogs.

And Happy Turkey Day to you all. Even the ones eating tofurkey :-)

Make Youthful Risk-Taking a Positive Force

2005-11-19T13:51:00.000-05:00

This post is more a proposal than a simple explanation. My proposal answers the question of what we can do about crime and deviance among young people. Car surfing, bungee jumping, gang activity, drug use, and car theft (to name a few things) are all connected. They all involve risk-taking. And they are disproportionately the activities of young people, mostly young males.

The negative consequences of so many forms of youthful risk taking are so obvious I'll not spend any time on them here. Likewise, I won't go into the facts about crime and deviance among 13-24 year olds. What I want to do is consider this question: How can we, as a society, do a better job of helping young people direct their urge for risk-taking into productive activities?

Many productive activities seem like good choices for programs by nonprofits and local governments. Here are a few possibilities:

1. Team sports - try something exotic
2. Adventure racing - something like a local version of the Discovery Channel Eco-Challenge?
3. Starting small businesses, legal ones :-)
4. Community service projects - organic developed projects, not top-down initiatives
5. Creative projects - the usual stuff
6. Games - computer games, building and racing stuff, orienteering competititions, and others

All six of those ideas have been used before. The point is to be systematic using these programs to channel risk-taking behvior in positive directions. It would be better to "grow" a solution out of local conditions and interests instead of saying "Young people need to start doing _______ so we will start a program."

So that is the basic outline of my idea. I'd be shirking my duty here if I did not point out some of the resosn why we may not want youthful risk-taking and criminal behaviors to go away. The truth is that these behaviors are valuable for many of us, so we do not want them to end! Undesirable risk-taking behavior has several benefits for society:

1. Providing material for books, articles, television, and radio.
2. Less behavior would mean less work for law enforcement personnel, and fewer jobs
3. Ditto, but for corrections jobs.
4. Same as 2 and 3, but for counselors and therapists.
5. Creating ammunitiion for culture critics, church leaders, and politicians
6. Providing work for some social activitists - they want to "fix" the conditions that produce criminal and deviant behavior by young people

Lastly, combatting crime and deviance (binge drinking, casual sex and such) provides a feeling or importance to some activists, pundits, and politicians. They don't want a source of meaning in their lives to go away!

Next: The impact of ideas about our economic system.

The Problem of the Family

2005-11-18T00:51:00.000-05:00

Where do we get ouur ideas about family life? From God? Evolution? Natural law? Hetersexual males? Capitalists? Pop psychology garbage that's simply infected our minds?

What I want to do today is talk about some of the ideas we have about family life. Then I'll describe why there is, perhaps, a problem of family life.

See if you agree with any of these ideas about family life:

1. There is a natural form that families should take.
2. Kids need a yard to play in.
3. A married couple should establish a new household of their own.
4. The husband and wife have natural roles to carry out.
5. It isn't normal for a woman to earn more than her husband.

Where did you get the information or ideas that led to your conclusion? Was it, your parents, your church leaders, the Bible (or Torah or Quran), television? Are the ideas I cited above based on facts, logic, widely held human values? Or, are the ideas based on agreements we as a society make regarding family life, what the roles should be, what parents should do, and so forth?

What about the impacts of the many and varied ideas that we hold about family life? Consider some areas or topics where we may have ideas about family life: spending, saving, arguing, planning.

Now, because somebody needs to say it, I will say that the family has economic functions that have nothing to do with marital bliss or the raising of healthy children. In fact, these functions could be what makes family life truly important to the powers-that-be. What am I talking about!?!

Families teach kids material aspirations (house, salary, vacations, clothing), prepare kids to participate in the economic system (Schools are training for factory work, or they were.) , help control female reproductive behavior (Ever notice that cheating by men is less outragous than cheating by women?), and provide a market for many goods and services.

Our ideas about family life have costs benefits for us, and for the economic system and for social order too! I'm not sure what the order of priority here is, in regards to the functions of the various ideas and goals we learn. I'm guessing that social order comes first, then the economic system, then the psychological well-being of family members.

Next: A few words about youthful risk taking and what we can do to control it.

Ideas and Your Family

2005-11-16T01:03:00.000-05:00

How important are parents? How much does television affect children? Are our ideas about families natural? Are our ideas about gender roles in the family natural or just made up? It doesn't really matter what's true, only what people think is true!

So, how do ideas about family life actually affect peoples' lives? I've already mentioned how ideas about families spread, but I only touched on that subject.

Your own family has huge influences on your own ideas about what family life should be like. You've probably heard that some abusers (and abused women) learn that things are just "that way" from their parents. Likewise, you probably know that positive aspects of your parents relationship may shape your own expectations.

These expectations, such as the man will make enough money to take good care of the family, are not "natural." We learn them and go along with them unless we encounter some compelling reason to change our behavior.

(Remember: Most of these comments apply across societies. The details may be different in France or Japan but the class distinctions are still there!)

The masss media also have some impact on our ideas about family life. Television presents us with images of family life. I have my doubts about how much of what we see on television really shapes our own family life. Perhaps some of the imagesdo soak into our minds and shape our expectations to some degree.

Next time: How do ideas about family life shape spending, saving, domestic squabbles, planning, and life satisfation? If you ever wondered about the "real" origin of these ideas stay tuned!