The day has barely started and I am already just desperately waiting for it to be over so I can get back into bed.

Did that study seriously show that there was not a relationship between testosterone and aggression (rather a relationship between testosterone and physical mass, and another relationship between physical mass and aggression, thus the relationship between testosterone and aggression is mediated by physical mass) and then immediately after that claim that testosterone had an effect on aggression?

…

Do medical scientists just not understand how “science” works?

I have to apologize for all of the messages I have not responded to lately. The last few days have been exhausting. There has been a lot of great things happening, but other areas of my life, specifically my relationship with Kyle, is becoming more complicated.

So, in the mean time, enjoy my mindless reblogs. I expect a lot of pretty things and hot men - the kinds of reblogs that require little brain activity.

And I will resume to message answering when things are less strenuous.

On a related note…

Do you think that stress and one’s sex drive are connected? I have heard they are, and it would make sense, because lately I feel like my sex drive has plummeted. I enjoy the hot boys on Tumblr, but it kind of ends there. This is strange for me. I typically really enjoy my body and my sexuality, but even the solo-act of masturbation seems unappealing. I just have no drive, and I don’t like it.

I am hoping it is because of the stress, because I am also hopeful that the stress will subside soon, and my sex drive will return to me.

Does that change if said characteristic is devalued by the dominant culture as well? Can someone express an aversion to a characteristic, while not devaluing it? What happens if the person was at one time attracted to that characteristic, but they are actually experiencing a shift away from that, indeed further limiting their preferences?

The conclusion that I keep coming to is that by expressing a repulsion to said characteristic, you are devaluing it, and that relationships only becomes more problematic because of the influence from the dominant culture. I keep wanting to think that anytime one experiences a narrowing in their preferences, it is possibly (probably?) because of the inequality within their social influences.

I would really like more input on this though. I could use the advice.

robert-brydie:

aaronitron:

sociolab:

aaronitron:

sociolab:

robert-brydie replied to your post: Today I learned that feminist epistemology does…

[Snip]

[Snip]

[Snip]

[Snip]

[Snip]

As the person who first mentioned it - my commitment towards methodological pluralism comes mainly via influence from Bourdieu and critical realists - others come close to similar understandings but do not use the term “methodological pluralism”.  I wonder if part of your hostility to such an idea may be from a different understandings of what the scientific method is?  The reason I have hostility to “the” (emphasis on this part) scientific method is that this is normally outlined as experimentation, prediction and theory-neutral observation.  What I am arguing against isn’t being scientific but that a proper understanding of the object of study requires the adaptation of scientific methodS.  Doing so does not limit the aim to objectify what is being research - indeed Bourdieu from the recognition of the impossibility of theory-neutral observation insists upon the objectification of the objectifying position in order to understand the influences and limits to this, that a naive view of objectivity risks ignoring, with the direction towards improving the ability to objectify.   

Edit: and since you seem to be of the opinion that others are in need of studying more and pay attention I’d recommend Andrew Sayer - Method in Social Science and Bourdieu et. al. - The Craft of Sociology ;-)

Excellent! I am always looking to be a better, more informed Sociologist. I am eager to read the texts you cited.

That being said, I am not sure I agree with your concept of the scientific method. In my experience, this method involves hypothesizing, experimentation, and forming conclusions. With further empirical support, a relationship can make its way to the position of theory, where it is then used as a framework for other research. While I agree each methodological approach must be informed by the object of study (in our case, society), the foundation of objective inquiry, I believe, should begin with the process I outlined above, and thus the scientific method.

This is the process by which objective knowledge had been educed historically, and it is this positivist framework that has propelled Sociology into the position it is in today: as an academic science.

sociolab:

aaronitron:

sociolab:

robert-brydie replied to your post: Today I learned that feminist epistemology does…

I think “the” scientific method is incompatibly with sociology, as well as the practice of the natural sciences. Methodological pluralism enables the adaptation of the most suitable method of researching the object of study.

That is true.  I forget that the scientific method of the natural sciences has its differences.  

I disagree. To use the words of Durkheim, “Indeed our main objective is to extend the scope of scientific rationalism to cover human behavior by demonstrating that, in the light of the past, it is capable of being reduced to relationship of cause and effect, which, by an operation no less rational, can then be transformed into rules of action for the future” (1895).

The purpose of our science is to determine why society behaves the way it does: to determine the cause and effect relationships that drive social interaction and development. To do this, I believe, like Durkheim, we should rely on the method that proven itself objectively reliable and valid: the scientific method.

Methodological pluralism doesn’t say that we can’t or shouldn’t use the scientific method.  It’s saying that there is more than one to understand the world.  The scientific method helps to remove bias and become more objective, but it doesn’t remove them completely.  I value the scientific method and I think its important, but you can’t understand the world by handing out surveys alone.

“…You can’t understand the world by handing out surveys alone.”

Your reductionist conception of methods shows either you have not studied the subject or you just did not pay enough attention. Sociological methodology employs much more than simply handing out surveys. In addition, the scientific method is not a constraint on our objectivity, it is our path to objectivity. The better we are at using the scientific method (and how technology allows us to interact with it), the more objective our understanding of sociological phenomena will be.

And never underestimate the power of a survey. Just take a look at the General Social Survey, which relies on in-person interviews and a relatively small sample size, yet is able to educe information about our world that has been shown to be reliable and valid again and again.

I’m curious what epistomological framework, specific to Sociology, your idea of methodological pluralism stems from?

sociolab:

robert-brydie replied to your post: Today I learned that feminist epistemology does…

I think “the” scientific method is incompatibly with sociology, as well as the practice of the natural sciences. Methodological pluralism enables the adaptation of the most suitable method of researching the object of study.

That is true.  I forget that the scientific method of the natural sciences has its differences.  

I disagree. To use the words of Durkheim, “Indeed our main objective is to extend the scope of scientific rationalism to cover human behavior by demonstrating that, in the light of the past, it is capable of being reduced to relationship of cause and effect, which, by an operation no less rational, can then be transformed into rules of action for the future” (1895).

The purpose of our science is to determine why society behaves the way it does: to determine the cause and effect relationships that drive social interaction and development. To do this, I believe, like Durkheim, we should rely on the method that proven itself objectively reliable and valid: the scientific method.

ashleyisaboysnametoo replied to your post: I think that I just “trolled” for the first time.

Links or it didn’t happen

There are no links yet, as nothing has been posted.

And I don’t think you’ll want to see what I did, Ashley… I don’t think you’d approve.