Merged Arday life and death

[theprestige]

I once did a course which, on paper seemed incredibly 'woke': French feminist Hélène Cixous, Angela Carter, Virginia Woolf (re cross-dressing Orlando), etc., together with a whole truckload of 'post'colonialist' writers such as Anita Desai, Janet Frame (who writes of her first hand experiences in mental hospitals in NZ), etc., some truly weird and wacky stuff thrown in, and do you know what? It was one of the most mind expanding courses I have ever been on, and certainly not worthless, 'easy' or not as 'not real like Chemistry'.

So no argument then.

 

[Vixen]

Sure, there's a place in academia for that work, as something to be studied. Which it is. But it does not itself constitute a piece of academic literature. Do you understand the distinction? Because it's important.

Interestingly enough, one of the topics of study of that book is whether and how much of it might be fabricated. So I will accept that studying Arday's fabulism is a valid topic for academia.

There are plenty of respected academics who were real pieces of ◊◊◊◊ in real life. For example Rimbaud (mercenary), Nietzche, Strindberg, Wagner, Hamsun, or even Marx. You are going after Arday on a personal level based on your contempt for Sociology. You demand Arday be pure as the driven snow yet I bet you make exceptions for the old establishment cliques.

 

[Ziggurat]

AIUI it was not about their 'own personal life' but about social interactions with the local police and wider communities.

Entirely from their personal perspective, not accounting for any possible differences between that personal perspective and the perspective of anyone else.

It was structured and approved in advance by Cambridge Uni.

Which demonstrates the problem is systematic. Yes, I know. I've been saying that from the start. Arday is not a pioneer in the use of autoethnographies. The fact that the practice is widespread and accepted is part of the corruption of academic standards that is at the heart of this tragedy.

Your opinion seems to be little more than snobbery to try to explain your prejudice against Sociology as taught by Arday.

Again, the problem is in no way unique to Arday. He isn't in any way special in this regard. Autoethnographies are a fundamental weakness which have been exploited.

It's rationalisation because a sociological study of police and local communities interactions can definitely help in social policy making for local councils and social workers, etc. It gives other students a body of work to build on.

If they were done rigorously and objectively, that's absolutely true.

An autoethnography is not a valid way to do something rigorous or objective.

 

[Mojo]

If your read the 'sample' for

We See Things They’ll Never See: Love, Hope, and Neurodiversity​

You'll understand why I came to conclude it must be "geared towards 'neurodivergent' young adults."

But that isn't how you "came to conclude it must be "geared towards 'neurodivergent' young adults."" You concluded that "because his other book is about popular songs and how they make you feel." Reading the sample will therefore tell us nothing about how you reached your conclusion.

 

[Vixen]

But that isn't how you "came to conclude it must be "geared towards 'neurodivergent' young adults."" You concluded that "because his other book is about popular songs and how they make you feel." Reading the sample will therefore tell us nothing about how you reached your conclusion.

It came about because I recognised the title of Ziggurat's paper as also being the title of a book I had already seen on Amazon and had read the 'sample'. It turns out the two titles were slightly different, that is how the confusion came about. You asked what made me think the Amazon book was for young adults and that is why I explained it to you.

Clear now?

 

[Ziggurat]

There are plenty of respected academics who were real pieces of ◊◊◊◊ in real life. For example Rimbaud (mercenary), Nietzche, Strindberg, Wagner, Hamsun, or even Marx. You are going after Arday on a personal level based on your contempt for Sociology. You demand Arday be pure as the driven snow yet I bet you make exceptions for the old establishment cliques.

What the ◊◊◊◊ are you talking about? I haven't made exceptions for anyone. For example, let's look at Marx. He was never actually an academic. He had a degree, but the degree isn't what makes one an academic, the work is. And he didn't do academic work. In fact, he didn't really work at all. He mooched off his wealthy friend (who got his family fortune from slavery), and his theories are complete garbage. You're right that Marx was a piece of ◊◊◊◊. Arday doesn't hold a candle to him. And the fact that Marx is widely respected in academia is very much to their shame. But that still speaks to my actual position that the institution is the primary villain in all this. I've said that consistently. And none of that makes Arday any sort of hero. He was a con man. The fact that there are worse people doesn't actually excuse Arday.

 

[Mojo]

It came about because I recognised the title of Ziggurat's paper as also being the title of a book I had already seen on Amazon and had read the 'sample'. It turns out the two titles were slightly different, that is how the confusion came about. You asked what made me think the Amazon book was for young adults and that is why I explained it to you.

Clear now?

I asked what made you conclude that it was for young adults, and you replied, "because his other book is about popular songs and how they make you feel."

Now that it's been pointed out to you that this would be a stupid way of assessing a book, you are implying that you reached your conclusion by reading the sample.

One of these must be a lie.

 

[Vixen]

Entirely from their personal perspective, not accounting for any possible differences between that personal perspective and the perspective of anyone else.

Which demonstrates the problem is systematic. Yes, I know. I've been saying that from the start. Arday is not a pioneer in the use of autoethnographies. The fact that the practice is widespread and accepted is part of the corruption of academic standards that is at the heart of this tragedy.

Again, the problem is in no way unique to Arday. He isn't in any way special in this regard. Autoethnographies are a fundamental weakness which have been exploited.

If they were done rigorously and objectively, that's absolutely true.

An autoethnography is not a valid way to do something rigorous or objective.

Other than stating it is your personal view it is not 'a valid way to do something rigorous or objective' you haven't really explained the process of your reasoning. For example, by comparing and contrasting it with other academic disciplines. Of course it's not like Chemistry. That is why it is a separate discipline. Yes, a lot of people look down on one subject or another. My ex's aunt, on hearing her dear nephew had got into London Uni to do a joint Physics and Philosophy BSc, went around claiming that 'a BSc is not as good as a BA', all because her son, of whom she used to boast came top in the Valley's 11-plus, could only get a job in the local steelworks. Do you see that yours and other's grudge against Arday and Sociology seems predicated on some kind of need to hide envy or to deny the worth of another? Don't you see it's rationalisation, because I can't see you getting up in arms about Professor Orr, recently in the news, accused of alleged political corruption, yet he is still in his post at Cambridge as Professor of Religion (IIRC) and Ethics. Where is your outrage at people like Orr? And what use is religion or ethics anyway? Can't get sample sizes for Ethics, either. And besides, Ethics is easy, not hard like what Chemistry is. ('Now that's a real subject!' ~ Smarty Cooky.) No-one cares if Orr is a fabulist who shoots his mouth off.

 

[Mojo]

Do you see that yours and other's grudge against Arday and Sociology...

You're the one who is desperately trying to dismiss Arday's work in sociology as being "for young adults".

 

[Vixen]

What the ◊◊◊◊ are you talking about? I haven't made exceptions for anyone. For example, let's look at Marx. He was never actually an academic. He had a degree, but the degree isn't what makes one an academic, the work is. And he didn't do academic work. In fact, he didn't really work at all. He mooched off his wealthy friend (who got his family fortune from slavery), and his theories are complete garbage. You're right that Marx was a piece of ◊◊◊◊. Arday doesn't hold a candle to him. And the fact that Marx is widely respected in academia is very much to their shame. But that still speaks to my actual position that the institution is the primary villain in all this. I've said that consistently. And none of that makes Arday any sort of hero. He was a con man. The fact that there are worse people doesn't actually excuse Arday.

What?! No matter what you think of communism or socialism, Marx was one of the great C19 thinkers. His work still underpins much political theory today. Sheesh! It's like claiming Beethoven is rubbish because you don't like Germans.

 

[Ziggurat]

What?! No matter what you think of communism or socialism, Marx was one of the great C19 thinkers.

No he isn't. He's incredibly influential, but he's not a great thinker. His theories are garbage, and have never worked. Even the communists think he was wrong.

His work still underpins much political theory today.

That's a damning indictment of political theory. But I don't think it's even true. You'll mostly see Marx taught in soft subjects like gender studies. You know who doesn't really pay Marx any attention? Economists. And considering that he thought he was coming up with an economic theory, well, that's kind of a legacy of failure.

 

[steenkh]

No he isn't. He's incredibly influential, but he's not a great thinker.

Well, currently, I am attending a series of lectures on "Great Thinkers". These are Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Adam Smith, Karl Marx, and Max Weber. It seems not everybody agree with your evaluation.

 

[smartcooky]

Do you think English Literature is a valid discipline?

Non-sequitur. Your answer does not relate to anything @Ziggurat said.

 

[Rolfe]

What?! No matter what you think of communism or socialism, Marx was one of the great C19 thinkers. His work still underpins much political theory today. Sheesh! It's like claiming Beethoven is rubbish because you don't like Germans.

To extend this, Wagner wasn't an academic of any description. He didn't even attend a university or college as a student, and he certainly was never on the staff of a university. He was a creative artist, and one of the greatest the world has ever known. He was also an extremely complex character, being capable of great generosity as well as leaving debts unpaid. He was extremely well-liked by many people.

His appalling antisemitism was notable even for the time in which he lived, and yet he had Jewish friends and invited Jewish conductors to interpret his masterpieces. To reduce a towering figure of western art to a single dismissive phrase is merely evidence of a small mind.

 

[Ziggurat]

Well, currently, I am attending a series of lectures on "Great Thinkers". These are Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Adam Smith, Karl Marx, and Max Weber. It seems not everybody agree with your evaluation.

The fact that some people disagree with me isn't evidence that I'm wrong.

 

[EHocking]

Unfortunately, you can't put human beings in a laboratory like laboratory rats to assess their human condition. …

ORLY?

You claim, a number of times on this forum, to have done exactly this when boasting about your qualifications in psychology and knowledge of the experimental method.

 

[Vixen]

No he isn't. He's incredibly influential, but he's not a great thinker. His theories are garbage, and have never worked. Even the communists think he was wrong.

That's a damning indictment of political theory. But I don't think it's even true. You'll mostly see Marx taught in soft subjects like gender studies. You know who doesn't really pay Marx any attention? Economists. And considering that he thought he was coming up with an economic theory, well, that's kind of a legacy of failure.

Sure, we are largely still Keynesian with Friedman's Monetarism introduced by Thatcher not very successfully compared to the USA but is it really superior when a handful of tech bros control key industries and pocket obscene wealth? At least Marx provided a comprehensive analysis of class and capital and the subsequent competing interests. If that is woke and a verboten subject to the right, then Sociologists must be effectively doing something meaningful.

 

[Vixen]

ORLY?

You claim, a number of times on this forum, to have done exactly this when boasting about your qualifications in psychology and knowledge of the experimental method.

The human condition is not the same as human behaviour. Do look up the difference between Psychology and Sociology.

BTW As you full well know, there was zero 'boasting', it was a correction of a claim I was not a scientist and a claim by yourself that I had never done laboratory reports but they were really 'assessments' just like you in high school, (claimed you). Please keep your put downs to yourself, thanks.

 

[junkshop]

At last I am fully caught-up with this thread.

Probably won't be back.

 

[Ziggurat]

Sure, we are largely still Keynesian with Friedman's Monetarism introduced by Thatcher not very successfully compared to the USA but is it really superior when a handful of tech bros control key industries and pocket obscene wealth?

Is that superior to communism? Infinitely. Oh, and we aren't actually following Friedman's advice. Nobody is.

At least Marx provided a comprehensive analysis of class and capital and the subsequent competing interests.

It doesn't matter if a theory is comprehensive if it's still wrong.