PROBLEMS
PROBLEMS
PROBLEMS
ALL DAY LONG
WOUT ULTEE
ICS THEORY COURSE
SEPTEMBER 17, 2008
PROBLEMS
PROBLEMS
PROBLEMS
ALL DAY LONG
(the Everly Brothers)
PROBLEMS
PROBLEMS
PROBLEMS
ALL DAY LONG?
FOUR YEARS LONG!
PROBLEMS
PROBLEMS
PROBLEMS
ALL DAY LONG?
FOUR YEARS LONG!
(ICS juniors)
YOU WILL ALREADY KNOW A LOT
ABOUT BAD AND GOOD RESEARCH
FROM YOUR BACHELOR AND MASTER
WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT BAD AND
GOOD THEORIES?
NOT FROM A SUBSTANTIVE, BUT FROM
A FORMAL POINT OF VIEW?
AND WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT BAD
AND BETTER PROBLEMS?
LINDENBERG:
RESEARCH SHOULD BE THEORY-GUIDED
AND THE BEST THEORY TO GUIDE
RESEARCH IS RATIONAL CHOICE THEORY
ULTEE:
THEORY-BUILDING SHOULD BE
PROBLEM-DRIVEN
AND THE FAMILY OF RATIONAL ACTION
THEORIES HAS BEEN IN SEARCH OF
PROBLEMS
WHEREAS SOCIOLOGY HAS A CATALOG
OF CLASSICAL QUESTIONS
THE THINGS TO DO TODAY:
•MY DIAGNOSIS OF AND MY REMEDY FOR WHAT IS
WRONG WITH CONTEMPORARY SOCIOLOGY
•OVERARCHING PROBLEMS AND SUBPROBLEMS
•FILLING IN ALL THE BLANKS OF QUESTIONS
•THE SEQUENCE OF RAISING QUESTIONS
•THE BACKGROUND OF QUESTIONS
•GENERATIONS OF QUESTIONS
•CONTRADICTIONS AS THE BEST QUESTIONS
SOCIOLOGY WAS AND IS MESSY
ONCE IT WAS HELD THAT SOCIOLOGY IS MESSY
BECAUSE IT DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT VIEW
OF THE RELATION BETWEEN
THEORY AND RESEARCH
THE SOLUTION, BORROWED FROM
PSYCHOLOGY, WAS TO OPERATIONALIZE
CONCEPTS RELIABLY AND VALIDLY
AND GEAR RESEARCH TOWARDS REPLICATION
HOWEVER, THE LITERATURE ON
RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY IS A MESS
AND MORE IS GOING ON IN RESEARCH
THAN REPLICATION
A THEORY IS MORE THAN A SYSTEM OF
CONCEPTS
SOCIOLOGY HAS TOO MANY CONCEPTS
WITHOUT PROPOSITIONS
A THEORY IS A SYSTEM OF
PROPOSITIONS
AND SOME PROPOSITIONS ARE RICHER
IN CONTENT THAN OTHERS
WITH THE LESS INFORMATIVE
PROPOSITIONS BEING DERIVABLE FORM
THE MORE INFORMATIVE PROPOSITIONS
LATER RESEARCH PROVIDES STRONGER
TESTS OF PROPOSITIONS
TESTS OF PROPOSITIONS ARE MORE
SEVERE IF A PROPOSITION IS
CONFRONTED WITH AN ALTERNATIVE
PROPOSITION
THESE ALTERNATIVE PROPOSITIONS MAY
IMPLY THAT SEEMINGLY VALID
OPERATIONALIZATIONS ARE SOMETIMES
OFF THE MARK
THE FIRST OFF THE MARK OPERATIONALIZATION
SHOULD STATUS BE MEASURED AS OCCUPATION,
AS EDUCATION OR AS INCOME?
OLD SOLUTION: MAKE A SCALE OF ALL THREE
DIMENSIONS
TAKE EACH DIMENSION AS HAVING THREE
CATEGORIES: HIGH, MIDDLE, LOW
LATER CRITICISM: A PERSON WHO IS HIGH ON
INCOME AND LOW ON EDUCATION IS LUMPED IN
THE SAME FINAL CATEGORY AS A PERSON WITH
MIDDLE EDUCATION AND MIDDLE INCOME
YET THE HYPOTHESIS OF STATUS INCONSISTENCY
SAYS THAT THE VOTING BEHAVIOUR OF THESE
PEOPLE WILL BE QUITE DIFFERENT
NEW SOLUTION: KEEP DIMENSIONS SEPARATE SO
THAT THE STATUS INCONSISTENCY HYPOTHESIS
CAN BE TESTED
THE SECOND OFF THE MARK OPERATIONALIZATION
SHOULD CULTURAL PARTICIPATION BE MEASURED AS VISITING
PLAYS, OR VISITING CLASSICAL CONCERTS, OR VISITING MUSEUMS?
OLD SOLUTION: MAKE A SCALE OF ALL THREE DIMENSIONS
LATER QUESTION TO BE ANSWERED AFTER IT WAS FOUND THAT
CULTURAL PARTICIPATION IS HIGHER IF A PERSON HAS MORE
EDUCATION:
DOES RELIGION KEEP PEOPLE FROM CULTURAL PARTICIPATION?
HYPOTHESIS: ORTHODOX PROPESTANT PERSONS SHUN PLAYS, BUT
LIKE CLASSICAL CONCERTS
THE SCALE IS NOT ATTUNED TO TESTING THIS HYPOTHESIS, ALL
DIMENSIONS ARE TREATED AS EQUAL
SOLUTION: KEEP DIMENSIONS SEPARATE SO THAT THE HYPOTHESIS
ABOUT ORTHODOX PROPESTANTS CAN BE TESTED
NOT: R1
R2
BUT: T1
R1
T2
R2
REPLICATION VERSUS
SEVERE TESTING
IN ADDITION, SOCIOLOGY IS A MESS
BECAUSE THE RELATION BETWEEN ITS
THEORIES OFTEN IS UNCLEAR
RATIONAL CHOICE THEORY
??
??
??
??
DURKHEIM’S
DURKHEIM’S
INTEGRATION
ANOMIE
THEORY
THEORY
OF SUICIDE
OF SUICIDE
LOOSE PROPOSITIONS VERSUS
DERIVABLE PROPOSITIONS
THE STRUCTURE OF DURKHEIM’S
INTEGRATION THEORY OF SUICIDE:
LEVELS OF CONTENT (AND GENERALITY)
T1
T2
T4
NORMS ON
SUICIDE
INTEGRATION
IN CHURCH,
FAMILY
T3
T5
T6
T7
T8
RELIGION,
MARRIAGE
APART FROM T’S AND R’S,
THERE ARE P’S
THEORIES ARE THERE TO
SOLVE PROBLEMS
THE EXPRESSION THAT THEORY T1 DOES
NOT SOLVE PROBLEM P1
CAN MEAN TWO THINGS:
* IT MAKES PREDICTIONS THAT ARE OFF THE
MARK
* IT DOES NOT MAKE ANY PREDICTIONS AT
ALL ON A CERTAIN TOPIC
THE FIRST CASE INDICATES THAT
SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH T1
THE SECOND CRITICISM AMOUNTS TO
SAYING THAT IT IS DIFFICULT TO EAT SOUP
WITH A KNIFE
BUT SOME THEORIES MAY
SOLVE MORE PROBLEMS THAN
OTHER THEORIES, AND THE
MORE PROBLEMS A THEORY
SOLVES, THE BETTER
P1
P2
T1
P3
RATIONAL CHOICE THEORY SHOULD
BE SUCH A UNIFYING THEORY
MAKING SOCIOLOGY LESS MESSY
SOCIOLOGY IS MESSY MAINLY
BECAUSE ITS CATALOG OF
PROBLEMS SEEMS FAR TOO LONG,
WITHOUT APPARENT LINKS
BETWEEN PROBLEMS
HOWEVER, THERE ARE LINKS
BETWEEN SOCIOLOGY’S PROBLEMS:
FOR INSTANCE, THERE ARE
OVERARCHING PROBLEMS AND
SUBPROBLEMS
THE EMERGENCE OF THE PROBLEM OF COHESION
THE EMERGENCE OF THE PROBLEM OF COHESION
HOBBES’
WAR OF ALL
AGAINST
ALL AND OF
RULERS
AGAINST
RULERS
THE EMERGENCE OF THE PROBLEM OF COHESION
HOBBES’
WAR OF ALL
AGAINST
ALL AND OF
RULERS
AGAINST
RULERS
LOCKE’S
REBELLION
OF
SUBJECTS
AGAINST
RULERS
THE EMERGENCE OF THE PROBLEM OF COHESION
HOBBES’
WAR OF ALL
AGAINST
ALL AND OF
RULERS
AGAINST
RULERS
LOCKE’S
REBELLION
OF
SUBJECTS
AGAINST
RULERS
BENTHAM’S
SWIFT,
SEVERE AND
CERTAIN
SENTENCING
THE EMERGENCE OF THE PROBLEM OF
COHESION
HOBBES’
WAR OF ALL
AGAINST
ALL AND OF
RULERS
AGAINST
RULERS
LOCKE’S
REBELLION
OF
SUBJECTS
AGAINST
RULERS
BENTHAM’S
SWIFT,
SEVERE AND
CERTAIN
SENTENCES
DURKHEIM’S
SUICIDE
THE EMERGENCE OF THE PROBLEM OF
COHESION
COHESION
HOBBES’
WAR OF ALL
AGAINST
ALL AND OF
RULERS
AGAINST
RULERS
LOCKE’S
REBELLION
OF
SUBJECTS
AGAINST
RULERS
BENTHAM’S
SWIFT,
SEVERE AND
CERTAIN
SENTENCES
DURKHEIM’S
SUICIDE
ONCE MORE DURKHEIM ON COHESION
ONCE MORE DURKHEIM ON COHESION
VIOLENCE AGAINST OTHERS
ONCE MORE DURKHEIM ON COHESION
VIOLENCE AGAINST OTHERS
ECONOMIC
TIES
THROUGH
THE
DIVISION OF
LABOUR
ONCE MORE DURKHEIM ON COHESION
VIOLENCE AGAINST OTHERS
ECONOMIC
TIES
THROUGH
THE
DIVISION OF
LABOUR
SUICIDE AS
CUTTING
THE LAST
TIE TO
SOCIETY
ONCE MORE DURKHEIM ON COHESION
VIOLENCE AGAINST OTHERS
ECONOMIC
TIES
THROUGH
THE
DIVISION OF
LABOUR
SUICIDE AS
CUTTING
THE LAST
TIE TO
SOCIETY
PARTAKING
IN
RELIGIOUS
RITES
ONCE MORE DURKHEIM ON COHESION
VIOLENCE AGAINST OTHERS
ECONOMIC
TIES
THROUGH
THE DIVISION
OF LABOUR
SUICIDE AS
CUTTING
THE LAST
TIE TO
SOCIETY
PARTAKING
IN
RELIGIOUS
RITES
MARRIAGE
AND
DIVORCE
ONCE MORE DURKHEIM ON COHESION
VIOLENCE AGAINST OTHERS
ECONOMIC
TIES
THROUGH
THE DIVISION
OF LABOUR
SUICIDE AS
CUTTING
THE LAST
TIE TO
SOCIETY
ISOLATION
PARTAKING
IN
RELIGIOUS
RITES
MARRIAGE
AND
DIVORCE
ONCE MORE DURKHEIM ON COHESION
COHESION
VIOLENCE AGAINST OTHERS
ECONOMIC
TIES
THROUGH
THE DIVISION
OF LABOUR
SUICIDE AS
CUTTING
THE LAST
TIE TO
SOCIETY
ISOLATION
PARTAKING
IN
RELIGIOUS
RITES
MARRIAGE
AND
DIVORCE
PROBLEM STRUCTURES AND THEIR DYNAMICS
P7
P1
P2
P6
P3
P4
P5
BAD AND BETTER QUESTIONS:
FILLING IN ALL THE BLANKS
PSYCHOLOGY IS ABOUT HUMAN BEINGS
SOCIOLOGY IS ABOUT HUMAN SOCIETIES
TRUE, BUT THE STUDY OF SOCIETIES IS
NOT A FULL-FLEDGED PROBLEM
IT IS AT BEST THE SPECIFICATION OF THE
OBJECT TO BE STUDIED
BAD AND BETTER QUESTIONS:
FILLING IN ALL THE BLANKS
SOCIOLOGY STUDIES HOW
SOCIETIES FUNCTION
THAT DOES NOT SAY MUCH:
FUNCTIONING IS NOT YET A
VARIABLE FEATURE OF SOCIETIES
BAD AND BETTER QUESTIONS:
FILLING IN ALL THE BLANKS
SOCIOLOGY STUDIES THE
FREQUENCY WITH WHICH EACH
PARTICULAR PENAL LAW OF
INDUSTRIAL SOCIETIES IS
TRESPASSED
HERE A VARIABLE FEATURE OF
SOCIETIES IS SPECIFIED
BAD AND BETTER QUESTIONS:
FILLING IN ALL THE BLANKS
SOCIOLOGY STUDIES THE
FREQUENCY WITH WHICH EACH
PARTICULAR PENAL LAW OF
INDUSTRIAL SOCIETIES IS
TRESPASSED
HERE THE SOCIETAL PHENOMENON
TE BE EXPLAINED IS SPECIFIED
BUT NO HINT IS GIVEN OF THE
FACTOR(S) DOING THE
EXPLANATION
BAD AND BETTER QUESTIONS:
FILLING IN ALL THE BLANKS
WHY IS IN 2005 THE MURDER RATE
IN THE USA AND RUSSIA HIGHER
THAN IN THE NETHERLANDS AND
SWEDEN?
THIS IS AN EXPLANATORY
QUESTION, BUT NO CAUSES ARE
SPECIFIED
BAD AND BETTER QUESTIONS:
FILLING IN ALL THE BLANKS
IS IN 2005 THE MURDER RATE IN THE
USA AND RUSSIA HIGHER THAN IN THE
NETHERLANDS AND SWEDEN,
BECAUSE THE FIRST TWO COUNTRIES
HAVE LENIENT LAWS ON GUN
OWNERSHIP, WHILE THE LAST TWO
HAVE RESTRICTIVE LAWS?
THIS QUESTION SPECIFIES A
POSSIBLE CAUSE
FROM DESCRIPTIVE QUESTIONS
BY WAY OF COMPARARIVE QUESTIONS
AND TREND QUESTIONS
TO DEEPER AND DEEPER
EXPLANATORY QUESTIONS
DEPTH HAS NO END
STOPPING RULES ARE ARBITRARY
AND SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED
HOW HIGH IS IN 2005 THE MURDER RATE
IN THE NETHERLANDS?
THIS IS A DESCRIPTIVE QUESTION
THE DESCRIPTION MAY NOT BE EASY
MURDER RATES IN THE STATISTICS OF
DEATH CAUSES MAY DIFFER
FROM MURDER RATES IN POLICE
STATISTICS AND
FROM MURDER RATES IN CONVICTION
STATISTICS
TO WHAT EXTENT DOES THE DUTCH
2005 MURDER RATE DIFFER FROM
THE DUTCH MURDER RATE IN 2000?
THIS IS A TREND QUESTION
TO WHAT EXTENT DOES THE DUTCH
2005 MURDER RATE DIFFER FROM
THE MURDER RATES FOR THAT
YEAR IN RUSSIA, SWEDEN AND THE
UNITED STATES?
THIS IS A COMPARATIVE QUESTION
A TREND QUESTION
PRESUPPOSES AN ANSWER TO A
DESCRIPTIVE QUESTION
AND SO DOES A COMPARATIVE
QUESTION
IF THE DESCRIPTIVE ANSWER IS
FALSE
THEN THE TREND QUESTION AND
THE COMPARATIVE QUESTION ARE
MISGUIDED
IS THE DUTCH 2005 MURDER RATE
LOWER THAN THE UNITED STATES 2005
MURDER RATE BECAUSE GUNS ARE
MORE FREELY AVAILABLE IN THE USA
THAN IN THE NETHERLANDS?
THIS IS AN EXPLANATORY QUESTION
THIS EXPLANATORY QUESTION
PRESUPPOSES AN ANSWER TO A
COMPARATIVE QUESTION
IF THE ANSWER TO THE COMPARATIVE
QUESTION IS FALSE, THE EXPLANATORY
QUESTION IS MISGUIDED
WHY WOULD LESS STRINGENT LAWS ON
GUN OWNERSHIP MAKE FOR HIGHER
MURDER RATES?
THIS IS A DEEPER EXPLANATORY
QUESTION
IF THE ANSWER TO THE MORE
SUPERFICIAL EXPLANATORY QUESTION
IS FALSE, THE DEEPER EXPLANATORY
QUESTION IS MISGUIDED
TRY AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE
TO CHECK THE
IMPORTANT ASSUMPTIONS OF
YOUR QUESTIONS
DURKHEIM AIMED FOR DEEPER
EXPLANATIONS
HIS STOPPING RULE WAS THAT
SOCIETAL PHENOMENA ARE TO BE
EXPLAINED BY OTHER SOCIETAL
PHENOMENA
THE INDIVIDUALIST PROGRAM IN
SOCIOLOGY HOLDS THAT
SOCIETAL EXPLANATIONS DO NOT
GO DEEP ENOUGH
ONLY EXPLANATIONS OF SOCIETAL
PHENOMENA ARE ACCEPTABLE
WHICH GO BACK TO THE
INDIVIDUAL LEVEL
THE RATIONAL CHOICE PROGRAM IN
SOCIOLOGY HOLDS THAT INDIVIDUAL
EXPLANATIONS OF SOCIETAL
PHENOMENA ARE NOT ALWAYS
ACCEPTABLE
THEY SHOULD ALWAYS INVOLVE THE
ASSUMPTION THAT INDIVIDUALS ACT
IN A RATIONAL WAY
THE EVOLUTIONARY PROGRAM IN
SOCIOLOGY HOLDS THAT INDIVIDUAL
EXPLANATIONS OF SOCIETAL
PHENOMENA ARE NOT ALWAYS
ACCEPTABLE
THEY SHOULD ALWAYS INVOLVE THE
SELECTIVE EFFECTS OF THE
ENVIRONMENT ON INDIVIDUALS
(PEOPLE ARE NOT ALWAYS RATIONAL,
AND IF THEY ARE NOT RATIONAL THEIR
REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS WILL BE
LIMITED)
THE QUEST FOR DEPTH IS
WORTHWHILE BECAUSE A DEEPER
EXPLANATION MODIFIES THE MORE
SUPERFICIAL EXPLANATION
HOWEVER, WHETHER THIS LOGICAL
POSSIBILITY FREQUENLTY OCCURS
IS ANOTHER MATTER
THE POINT IS NOT TO EXPLAIN
SOCIETAL PHENOMENA BY
INDIVIDUAL ASSUMPTIONS
THE POINT IS TO INTERPRETE
ABSOLUTE PROPERTIES OF
SOCIETIES AS RELATIONAL
PROPERTIES OF SOCIETIES
AND TO EXPLAIN THESE RELATIONAL
SOCIETAL PROPERTIES BY
PROPOSITIONS INVOKING THE
RELATIONS BETWEEN THE MEMBERS
OF A SOCIETY
THIS RULE HAS TWO CONTRASTS:
SOCIETIES, INDIVIDUALS AND THE
MEMBERS OF A SOCIETY
AND THE ABSOLUTE PROPERTIES OF
SOCIETIES AND OF INDIVIDUALS
AND THE RELATIONAL PROPERTIES
OF INDIVIDUALS AND SOCIETIES
(THE ERROR OF HUMMELL AND OPP, THE REDUCTION OF
SOCIOLOGY TO PSYCHOLOGY FROM 1968, IS TO BYPASS
THE RULE TO INTERPRET ABSOLUTE PROPERTIES AS
RELATIONAL PROPERTIES)
SO, A QUESTION HAS A BACKGROUND
AND THAT BACKGROUND MAY CONTAIN
FALSE OR OTHERWISE MISLEADING
ASSUMPTIONS
EXAMPLE:
FIVE GENERATIONS IN SOCIAL MOBILITY
RESEARCH
AT ISSUE IS HERE NOT THE DISTINCTION
BETWEEN DESCRIPTIVE AND
EXPLANATORY QUESTIONS,
NOR THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN
SUPERFICIAL AND DEEPER QUESTIONS
FIRST GENERATION SOCIAL MOBILITY QUESTIONS AS
POSED BY LIPSET IN 1959
WHY ARE SOME MEMBERS OF A SOCIETY UPWARDLY
MOBILE, OTHERS DOWNWARDLY MOBILE, YET OTHERS
STATIONARY?
WHY ARE THERE MORE UPWARDLY MOBILE PERSONS
IN SOME SOCIETIES THAN IN OTHER SOCIETIES?
THESE QUESTIONS ARE MISGUIDED BECAUSE THEY
BYPASS THE POSSIBILITY OF BOTTOM AND CEILING
EFFECTS, LUMP HETEROGENEOUS PERSONS
TOGETHER AS STATIONARY, AND NEGLECT
DISTRIBUTIONAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SOCIETIES
SECOND GENERATION SOCIAL MOBILITY
QUESTION AS POSED BY DUNCAN IN 1967
TO WHAT EXTENT DOES IN A SOCIETY AT A
CERTAIN POINT IN TIME A PERSON’S
DESTINATION DEPEND UPON THIS
PERSON’S ORIGIN?
SINCE THIS QUESTION AVOIDS
DIFFERENCE SCORES (AS MOBILITY
SCORES ARE) THERE ARE NO BOTTOM
AND CEILING EFFECTS
AND THE MEASURE OF ASSOCIATION
BETWEEN ORIGIN AND DESTINATION MAY
BE DISTRIBUTION FREE
THIRD GENERATION SOCIAL MOBILITY
QUESTION AS POSED BY GOLDTHORPE IN 1980
TO WHAT EXTENT HAVE THE VARIOUS
COMPETITIONS BETWEEN THE MEMBERS OF
SOCIETIES FROM DIFFERENT ORIGINS FOR
DIFFERENT DESTINATIONS THE SAME UNEQUAL
OUTCOMES?
IT IS MISLEADING TO COMPUTE CORRELATION
AND REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS FOR THE
EFFECT OF ORIGINS ON DESTINATIONS
BECAUSE EFFECTS MAY DIFFER IN STRENGTH
ALONG THE OCCUPATIONAL STATUS SCALE
FOURTH GENERATION SOCIAL MOBILITY
QUESTION AS POSED BY MAYER AND BLOSSFELD
IN 1988
TO WHAT EXTENT DOES THE OCCUPATIONAL
STATUS RIGHT NOW OF THE MEMBERS OF A
SOCIETY BELONGING TO THE SAME BIRTH
COHORT DEPEND UPON THEIR ORIGIN STATUS?
MOBILITY ALWAYS REFERS TO TWO POINTS IN
TIME, AND WHEN EARLIER GENERATIONS
COMPARED ORIGINS AND DESTINATIONS,
THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THESE TWO POINTS IN
TIME WAS NOT THE SAME
FIFTH GENERATION SOCIAL MOBILITY
QUESTION NOT EXPLICITLY POSED UNTIL NOW
TO WHAT EXTENT ARE THE OCCUPATIONAL
CAREERS OF PERSONS BELONGING TO THE
SAME BIRTH COHORT OF A PARTICULAR
SOCIETY SELF-REINFORCING PROCESSES?
APART FROM INTERGENERATIONAL MOBILITY
AND ORIGIN EFFECTS THERE IS
INTRAGENERATIONAL MOBILITY
AND INTERGENERATIONAL MOBILITY AND
INTRAGENERATIONAL MOBILITY SHOULD BE
STUDIED SEPARATELY, TAKING THE LENGTH
OF A PERSON’S WORK LIFE INTO ACCOUNT
FIFTH GENERATION MOBILITY QUESTION NOT
EXPLICITLY POSED UNTIL NOW
TO WHAT EXTENT ARE THE OCCUPATIONAL
CAREERS OF PERSONS BELONGING TO THE SAME
BIRTH COHORT OF A PARTICULAR SOCIETY SELFREINFORCING PROCESSES?
DO NOT HUNT FOR CAREER PATTERNS BY
APPLYING CLUSTER TECHNIQUES
THESE TECHNIQUES ARE THEORETCALLY BLIND
AND NOT ATTUNED TO THE PROBLEM AT HAND
WHEREAS RESEARCH SHOULD BE THEORYGUIDED AND PROBLEM-DRIVEN
REALLY BAD QUESTIONS:
TUNNEL VISION QUESTIONS
OR ONE-TRACK-MIND QUESTIONS
WHY DOES THE EXPLOITED WORKING CLASS
REMAIN PASSIVE?
(THE WORKING CLASS IS NOT EXPLOITED!)
WHICH SELECTIVE INCENTIVE MAKES PEOPLE
JOIN GREENPEACE?
(SHOULD A SELECTIVE INCENTIVE ALWAYS BE
THE CAUSE OF JOINING?)
THE ONE BUT BEST
QUESTIONS:
THE INCOMPATIBILITY
BETWEEN TWO
EXPLANATIONS OF THE SAME
RESEARCH FINDING
SUCH INCOMPATABILITIES
SOMETIMES ARE CALLED
ISSUES
THE BEST QUESTIONS:
CONTRADICTIONS BETWEEN
A NOT SO BAD HYPOTHESIS
AND
RESEARCH FINDINGS
SUCH CONTRADICTIONS
SOMETIMES ARE CALLED
ANOMALIES OR PUZZLES
WHY IS THE PERCENTAGE OF
DUTCH JEWS WHO SURVIVED
WORLD WAR 2 (20)
MUCH LOWER THAN THE
PERCENTAGES FOR BELGIUM (50)
AND FRANCE (70)
AND ALMOST AS LOW AS THE
PERCENTAGE FOR POLAND (10)?
THIS EXPLANATORY QUESTION
GAINS ITS URGENCY FROM DUTCH
ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
THE QUESTION OF THE
SURVIVAL RATE SOF DUTCH
JEWS
GAINS EXPLANATORY URGENCY
AGAINST THE BACKGROUND OF
HYPOTHESES DEVELOPED AND
TESTED BY THE SOCIOLOGIST
HELEN FEIN
IN ACCOUNTING FOR GENOCIDE
FROM 1978
FEIN’S TWO HYPOTHESES
SURVIVAL RATES ARE LOWER IN A
COUNTRY
IF THAT COUNTRY BEFORE
WORLD WAR 2 HAD MORE VOTES
FOR ANTI-SEMITIC PARTIES
AND IF THAT COUNTRY DURING
WORLD WAR 2 EXPERIENCED A
STRONG SS-INFLUENCE
IN A COUNTRY COMPARISON
THESE TWO HYPOTHESES DID
QUITE WELL
FEIN CONSIDERED THE
NETHERLANDS TO BE A
COUNTRY LOW IN ANTISEMITISM AND WITH A
MODERATE SS-INFLUENCE
THE NETHERLANDS WAS ON
OUTLIER ON HER PLOT
THE PERCENTAGE OF JEWISH
VICTIMS WAS MUCH HIGHER
THAN PREDICTED
DEEPER RESEARCH QUESTION:
WAS THE PERCENTAGE OF JEWISH VICTIMS
SO HIGH IN THE NETHERLANDS
BECAUSE THE NETHERLANDS WAS MORE
ANTI-SEMITIC THAN FEIN SUPPOSED?
OR BECAUSE THE NETHERLANDS
EXPERIENCED MORE SS-INFLUENCE THAN
FEIN SUPPOSED?
OR BECAUSE THE DUTCH FIGURES USED
BY FEIN ARE OVERESTIMATES?
OF BECAUSE FEIN LEFT OUT A THIRD
FACTOR?
DAWKINGS, THE GOD DELUSION, 2006
DWAKINS IS A BIOLOGIST AND AN ATHEIST
ATHEITIST POINT TOWARS SUCH THINGS AS
RELIGIOUS WARS
BIOLOGISTS USE EVIOLUTIONARY
THEORIES, AND SOMETHING PERSISTS
BECAUSE IT HAS SURVIVAL VALUE
A RELIGION IS SOMETHING, SO AN AHTEIST
BIOLOGIST SEEMS IN DIFFICULTY
DAWKINS, PAGE 172:
When we ask about the survival value of
anything, we may be asking the wrong
question. We need to rewrite the question
in a more helpful way. Perhaps the feature
we are interested in (religion in this case)
does not have a direct survival value of its
own, but is a by-product of something else
that does.
What doe you think of this problem shift?
FOR THE COMING WEEKS:
LOOK AT YOUR OWN ICS PROBLEM
AS A SPECIFIC INSTANCE OF AN
OVERARCHING PROBLEM AND
DETERMINE WHETHER THIS HELPS
YOU ARTICULATING YOUR OWN ICS
PROBLEM
FOR THE COMING WEEKS:
BREAK YOUR OWN ICS
PROBLEM DOWN INTO
SUBPROBLEMS
FOR THE COMING WEEKS:
SEE HOW MANY BLANKS YOU
HAVE FILLED IN OF YOUR OWN
ICS PROBLEM
FOR THE COMING WEEKS:
TRY TO FORMULATE YOUR OWN
ICS PROBLEM AS AN ISSUE AND
AS A PUZZLE