• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

"90% of the power..."

EagleEye

Thinker
E
Joined
Jul 29, 2005
Messages
244
I am currently taking a sociology class. My instructor is a native of Columbia, and holds a PhD in Sociology (I believe). I believe he's an idiot.

There are a few things that have really struck me about some of the claims he makes... but before I get to that, I should tell you... he presents these claims as "fact", and repeatedly makes the disclaimer that "we may not like it, but we are here to examine the truth. Not how we want things to be, but rather how things ARE."

In saying that, he is pretty much making it out to be that whatever he says is fact, and that if you disagree with it, then YOU are misinformed and that you need to change your thinking; All while distancing himself from blame for making the claims... after all, he's just repeating facts, instead of giving his own opinions. I have challenged him on some of these "facts" and he even told me that he was OFFENDED by me daring to challenge his facts... evidently, we're supposed to swallow whatever he feeds us, even if it contradicts what we already believe... but he's not subject to the same intellectual processes... Nevermind TRUTH, and presenting EVIDENCE... we're not allowed to be offended, but he is.

So, what has he claimed?

1: Last week, he claimed that scientific THEORIES are pretty much worthless, because they cannot be proven. He explained in great detail how to derail any theory, and it all comes down to his basic misunderstanding of the scientific process and statistics.

For example, somehow today the subject of Freud came up, and how many of Freud's observations were made on psychologically ill people, and that Freud gave people cocaine during his experiments and such... While that may be poor scientific method, it doesn't invalidate his THEORIES. According to the instructor, ANY AND ALL studies (especially ones in the field of psychology) are invalid because in order to be accurate, you'd have to include EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF THE HUMAN RACE in the study. To paraphrase him: "The results of the study are only true for the set of people included in the study, but don't apply to the rest of the world."

This is just one example of the **** he spews.

Claim #2: Humans have no instincts at all. EVERYTHING we do is learned behavior. He seems to define "instinct" as the ability to be a doctor, lawyer, teacher, etc... as soon as you're born. His precise definition goes along the lines of "an instinct is where you are born knowing how to act like the adult of your species."

Um, excuse me?

Someone brought up the instinctive suckling of a baby to the breast. He discounted that by saying that a baby could adapt and feed from a bottle instead of the breast. I pointed out that the instinct to suck... to seek out the nipple (be it attached to the beast, or a bottle) is still there... the source of nourishment doesn't matter, all that matters is that the baby instinctively seeks it out. I have even heard of studies where a baby can SMELL the milk... that a woman's nipples actually excrete a certain scent that the baby smells and is instinctively drawn toward.

So, psychology is flawed and not real science... and humans have no instinct... everything we know is learned... sounds to me like he's really trying to prop up sociology as the most noble of sciences. SOCIOLOGY ALONE explains why people behave the way they do. SOCIOLOGY ALONE explains why people have certain preferences (sexual, material, etc...) SOCIOLOGY ALONE is how we learn to be who we are and molds who we will be in the future.

Which means, by the way, that in essence, he has said that homosexuality is learned behavior (because it couldn't be genetic by his definition of how people acquire their sexual preferences). I don't know what the TRUTH is in this regard, but he has COMPLETELY dismissed the possibility of a genetic link.

Claim #3: He has, at least 9 times, pointed out that 90% of the power in the United States is controlled by the WHITE, ANGLO, SAXON, PROTESTANT, MALE, which is only 4% of the overall population. (WASP being 9%, and half of any population is generally male, thus the 4%.)

Now, I MIGHT be able to take this information at face value, except for the fact that he's gone over this long and detailed description of it soooo many times! I say at LEAST 9 times... I've lost count. Keep in mind I've only been in this class 6 weeks, meeting twice per week... so we're averaging more than once for every 2 class periods.

A few times he has mentioned that FIVE, yes ONLY FIVE, families have been in charge of the USA's power (economic and political) "from the founding fathers to the present day"...

I finally challenged him on it in our last class. I started by saying "Name them... " he refused. "If there are only five, and you seem pretty certain it's only five, then surely you have their names!" He started rattling off names, and there were far more than 5...

Rockefeller, Kennedy, etc...

So I cornered him... "Is the Bush family decended from one of those families of the founding fathers? How about Clinton? Which powerful family is HE a member of?"

He didn't have an answer...

So I flat out told him that since he is making the claim, it's up to him to provide the proof. He told me that, no, it's up to ME to refute his claims...

*sigh*...

Since he flat out refuses to follow basic rules of debate: that the claimant is responsible for backing up his claim... I figure I need to cave in and compile the proof I need to show him just how wrong his assertions are.

So, what I plan on doing is to try and find documentation of "those in power" and their backgrounds... by "those in power", I mean not only political, but also social and economic power. I figure if I can find a list of all of the lead political figures, and a breakdown of their heritage, as well as the CEOs of, say, Fortune 500 companies (or even Fortune 100 companies)... as well as not just the current president, but also all FORMER presidents... I figure I will come up with a nifty bunch of statistics showing that the Male WASP is NOT, in fact, in charge of 90% of the power in the USA... Keep in mind, "power" is not necessarily political... it's also economic. This is why I'm including the Fortune 500 companies...

This is where I would like to ask you all for help. This could prove a daunting task for me alone... but if I get some help from you guys, we can compile quite the list of "people in power" and their backgrounds... All it takes to NOT be a Male WASP is:

Be female... or...
... Not white (ie: hispanic, asian, native american, black, etc...)
... Not Anglo Saxon (and I really need to find a clear definition of this)
... Not Protestant.

See, this teacher is, himself, a minority... and he seems RABIDLY anti-white... at the very least he IS anti-WASP. He's preaching cultural diversity, but implying that we can do without the culture of the majority...

In fact, he keeps referring to the "typical white american" as a member of the "majority", but I think I've heard recently that whites are no longer the majority... or maybe it was the WASP was no longer in the majority.

So what do you say, guys and girls? Wanna help compile information?

I have already started, and the results are promising (but not surprising... they fit my theory already)...

Of Fortune 500 companies, 10 CEOs are women. This does not take in to account other criteria...

Of the 100 Senators of the US Senate:
1 African American
1 Asian American
3 Hispanic Americans
14 Women

19 of 100... 81 are Male Whites

Of course, we're not sure, out of those 81 white males, how many are WASPs... I'm guessing not even 60% of them. (Many will be Non-Anglo, or Catholic, for example...)

70 women in House of Reps
435 Total in House of Reps

83.9% of the house is comprised of white males...

According to
http://www.heidrick.com/NR/rdonlyres/5128A...05WBDCensus.pdf
14.7% of the members of Fortune 500 boards of directors in 2005 are female.

Kinda puts a huge nail in the "90% of the power" argument... but I'd like to REALLY nail this guy to the wall with FACTS that show he's got an agenda.
 
Well, sociology isn't really a science. I guess this guy deals with that fact by trying to rip everyone down to his level.

"The results of the study are only true for the set of people included in the study, but don't apply to the rest of the world."
Click to expand...

It blows my mind how people can selectively act like deductive and inductive reasoning don't exist. "Who knows weather the sun will rise tommorow, we would need a time machine to gather such evidence!"
 
CaptainManacles said:
Well, sociology isn't really a science. I guess this guy deals with that fact by trying to rip everyone down to his level.

It blows my mind how people can selectively act like deductive and inductive reasoning don't exist. "Who knows weather the sun will rise tommorow, we would need a time machine to gather such evidence!"
Click to expand...

EXACTLY!

"But how do I *KNOW* that I can go when the light turns green? Someone may still run the red light!"

"Statistics show that people run red lights less than .0001% of the time."

"WHO CARES ABOUT STATISTICS!?!? They only show what happened in those SPECIFIC TIMES the measurements were taken, and has NO RELEVANCE to the situation right now!"

What a tool this guy is...
 
EagleEye said:
... but I'd like to REALLY nail this guy to the wall with FACTS that show he's got an agenda.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I'm pointing out the obvious, but in your class, HE is the one with the power. I hope your GPA can survive the probable backlash from him.

If you don't care about the GPA, fight the good fight.
 
I suspect you aren't the only one with differences of opinion to this guy. Even so, I wouldn't fret it, unless you are required to regurgitate his crap to pass exams or something. Does he want this back in any essays or such?

If you really have concerns, perhaps take it up with whomever sets the curricula in your institution.
 
Your instructor sounds like an idiot. Talk trash about him before and after class, in effect building an informal coalition of sorts. Question his questionable claims as usual, and then give him a nasty review when it comes time to do evaluations. Other than that, big deal. I'm sure you could have fulfilled your GE undergraduate requirments without taking sociology.
 
Originally posted by EagleEye
While that may be poor scientific method, it doesn't invalidate his THEORIES.
Click to expand...
There is more than enough that does, though.

EVERYTHING we do is learned behavior.
Click to expand...
If he had said that modern behavioural biology does no longer make a distinction between learned behaviour and instincts, he may have had a point. No such distinction is made because whether you call something an instinct or learned behaviour, it has developed both through internal construction of the organism and external influences of the environment as it is part of an organism's phenotype.

I don't know what the TRUTH is in this regard, but he has COMPLETELY dismissed the possibility of a genetic link.
Click to expand...
Which shows the problem of making a distinction between innate and learned behaviour, as many learned behaviours also have genetic links.

Humans have no instincts at all.
Click to expand...
Did he say anything about other animals? If he claims other animals do have instincts while humans do not, he's clearly wrong. There is no obvious difference in the way animals and humans develop their behaviours.

His precise definition goes along the lines of "an instinct is where you are born knowing how to act like the adult of your species."
Click to expand...
The concept of "instinct" does involve being able to know how to act in specific circumstances without having learned it, but not only as an adult. Did he say it like that?

In fact, he keeps referring to the "typical white american" as a member of the "majority", but I think I've heard recently that whites are no longer the majority...
Click to expand...
I'm fairly sure it still is. Chances are good that that's going to change though.

Originally posted by CaptainManacles
Well, sociology isn't really a science.
Click to expand...
Sociology is just as much a science as other social sciences (which means that according to some philosophers of science it isn't, but they are pretty exclusionist).

But just like history has its revisionists, economics its Libertarian Party hacks and psychology its quacks, sociology too has some people who give their field a bad name.
 
Washington University, where I am employed, dropped it's sociology department several years ago....

In regard to the statement about human beings having only learned behavior, he's just parroting the standard line starting from about the 1930s.

Read, (or suggest he read) The Blank Slate by Stephen Pinker. An excellent book that pretty much lays the notion to rest.
 
EagleEye said:
Claim #2: Humans have no instincts at all. EVERYTHING we do is learned behavior. He seems to define "instinct" as the ability to be a doctor, lawyer, teacher, etc... as soon as you're born. His precise definition goes along the lines of "an instinct is where you are born knowing how to act like the adult of your species."
Click to expand...


AI researchers and psychologists used to presume this "tabula rasa", or blank slate concept about the human mind. They now know there's all kinds of crap built-in as hardwired into the brain. Facial recognition, horizontal and vertical line detection, etc. etc. etc.

It's ironic, but presuming the human has no instincts is exactly the kind of scientific generalization this buffoon is pooh-poohing.

Tell him to put that in his pipe and smoke it.

1: Last week, he claimed that scientific THEORIES are pretty much worthless, because they cannot be proven.
Click to expand...

Cannot be proven in a philosophical sense, therefore worthless?

Here's a scientific theory: If you walk off a tall cliff without a parachute or something, you will die.

See if his conclusion, that the theory is "worthless", is something he's willing to test. It's surprising how many philosophers start to hem and haw at this. Of course, the point deeper philosophers are trying to make, who ask, rhetorically, well how do you know, is lost on these lesser ones like this goofball, who miss the point entirely.


Claim #3: He has, at least 9 times, pointed out that 90% of the power in the United States is controlled by the WHITE, ANGLO, SAXON, PROTESTANT, MALE, which is only 4% of the overall population. (WASP being 9%, and half of any population is generally male, thus the 4%.)
Click to expand...

This sounds like he looked around at "white males" controlling 90% of it, then presumed they were all WASPS, then looked up the technical WASP percentages (which would be 5% if he were rounding 9 / 2, and were honest, which it appears he is not.

He seems to be using a restrictive definition of Protestant as literally some particular denomination, rather than "all non-Catholic Christians". I find it hard to believe that 90% is literally all restricted-concept-WASP males. Heck, his 90% probably includes white females who own companies as well, inherited or otherwise.
 
Cain said:
Your instructor sounds like an idiot. Talk trash about him before and after class, in effect building an informal coalition of sorts. Question his questionable claims as usual, and then give him a nasty review when it comes time to do evaluations.
Click to expand...

If it really bothers you, talk to the department chair. At most universities, this kind of behavior rises to the level of "incompetence" and can be grounds for termination, even of tenured faculty. If you make it clear to the department chair that you are serious about your complaint, and you will not be brushed off, things are likely to happen.

Albeit slowly....

Oh, and if he is the department chair, talk to the dean. &c.
 
In the UK, Sociology is seen as a soft subject, and it pretty much the butt of any joke about education standards. At degree level, it's basically the last resort course for those who didn't achieve decent A Level grades, and is almost always one of the last courses left through clearing (a process whereby universities fill the popular courses from the best applicants, then let the less gifted applicants apply for whichever courses are under-subscribed). It's seen by many as the course that you do to get a degree if you're not smart enough to study an academic subject. Media Studies has a similar reputation now, too.

Your tutor sounds like a jerk, do you need to do the course?
 
tkingdoll said:
In the UK, Sociology is seen as a soft subject, and it pretty much the butt of any joke about education standards.
Click to expand...
U.S. joke:

The physics graduate asks "Why does it do that?"
The engineering graduate asks, "How does it work?"
The accounting graduate asks, "What does it cost?"
The sociology graduate asks, "You want fries with that?"
 
EagleEye said:
.

Claim #3: He has, at least 9 times, pointed out that 90% of the power in the United States is controlled by the WHITE, ANGLO, SAXON, PROTESTANT, MALE, which is only 4% of the overall population. (WASP being 9%, and half of any population is generally male, thus the 4%.)

Now, I MIGHT be able to take this information at face value, except for the fact that he's gone over this long and detailed description of it soooo many times! I say at LEAST 9 times... I've lost count. Keep in mind I've only been in this class 6 weeks, meeting twice per week... so we're averaging more than once for every 2 class periods.

A few times he has mentioned that FIVE, yes ONLY FIVE, families have been in charge of the USA's power (economic and political) "from the founding fathers to the present day"...

I finally challenged him on it in our last class. I started by saying "Name them... " he refused. "If there are only five, and you seem pretty certain it's only five, then surely you have their names!" He started rattling off names, and there were far more than 5...

Rockefeller, Kennedy, etc...
Click to expand...
Umm, does he really give the Kennedy family as an example of WASP power? Typically Roman Catholic is not considered Protestant.
 
tkingdoll said:
In the UK, Sociology is seen as a soft subject, and it pretty much the butt of any joke about education standards. At degree level, it's basically the last resort course for those who didn't achieve decent A Level grades, and is almost always one of the last courses left through clearing (a process whereby universities fill the popular courses from the best applicants, then let the less gifted applicants apply for whichever courses are under-subscribed). It's seen by many as the course that you do to get a degree if you're not smart enough to study an academic subject. Media Studies has a similar reputation now, too.

Your tutor sounds like a jerk, do you need to do the course?
Click to expand...

This guy has only been at this campus for 3 quarters now (it's a community college, and we have 4 quarters of classes instead of semesters.) He JUST moved here from Idaho I believe. So he's not tenured, and is definitely not the department head.

I don't NEED the course, but given the choice of electives, I could either take Sociology or "Ethnic Studies" which sounds to me like a "let's bash white people and embrace anything not that is not white male."
 
Ethnic Studies - oh dear.

However, voting with your feet is a good idea. If the Sociology class is as bad as you say, then perhaps the Ethnic Studies is the lesser of two evils. However, if you do switch, you should ensure that the college are aware of your reasons, silent protest is no protest.
 
The more I think about it, the less I want to argue with this guy. I think I need to simply go over his head and talk with whoever his boss is. It's hard enough talking with him because of the language barrier (hell, the guy is hard to UNDERSTAND in class because of his thick accent.)

I just did a little research on what "WASP" really means... and it seems to be a generic term that is usually meant as insulting, to describe people who decended from English (as in UK England) immigrants. That excludes the whites that came from the rest of mainland Europe (which means I'm not a WASP, as my ethnicity is almost 100% German)...

In the textbook we are using, it actually gives a chart of the breakdown of ethnicity of the US population. Amazingly enough, it shows "NonHispanic European descent" broken down in to various countries of origin.

English is 8.7% - which is probably where he got that "9%" that he uses to define Anglo.

I wonder if I could go through the list of US Senators and determine their ethnicity by family name. Johnson would be English, for example.
 
tkingdoll said:
Ethnic Studies - oh dear.

However, voting with your feet is a good idea. If the Sociology class is as bad as you say, then perhaps the Ethnic Studies is the lesser of two evils. However, if you do switch, you should ensure that the college are aware of your reasons, silent protest is no protest.
Click to expand...

Bah, it's too late for me to withdraw from the class without getting an automatic failing grade. I'm going to suffer through it, but that doesn't mean I'll suffer silently.
 
EagleEye said:
I am currently taking a sociology class. My instructor is a native of Columbia, and holds a PhD in Sociology (I believe). I believe he's an idiot.
Click to expand...


It's possible that this instructor is just messing with your class in order to provoke reactions. (Live action troll)

In my limited experience, Sociologists live for this kind of stuff. He may even be writing a paper and using you all as a sample group.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom