At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
I love how abbot attacks girls on the internet cuz he's mad he'll never get near one in real life
Sociology and anthropology for one ARE like twins. they both seek to find the social and cultural forces that inflence human behavior. sociologists who are more interested in social relations and structures like race, ethnicity, social class, gender, etc., anthropologist are also concerned with the physical and cultural development of human beings from the time of their origin to this day.
hahaha. she so mad. i thought this was a discussion, not an attack. Stick to the subject at hand here.
uh, no. Anthro has biological components that sociology rarely uses. There are different fields in Anthro just like there is for EVERY major
Sociology is the systematic study of society
Then, explain that.
that is the issue when you do not use biological components like genetics, it limits your studies specially in the study of epidemiology
like i said sociology "RARELY" uses biology
Then, can you explain why theres a field called sociobiology?
i agree that biology is needed in sociology. Sociology is highly flawed because they think everything is a social construct. This is very DUMB of people who hold PhD's to think this way. Race is not only a social construct but it is also very much genetic/biological.
Also sociology is flawed in that they only consider the black and white paradigm in race and ethnicity studies. Very closedminded.
im not reading that so give me a summary
Also, whenever people say race is a social construct i say 2 words to disprove them: East Asians. Nuff said
I am not concerned with who started or coined what, but when it comes to rigorous scientific methods, Malinowski established it in the field of Anthropology, which sociology later on adopted along the works of Franz Boaz and people that followed him like Claude Lévi-Strauss.
So what? that's just methodology. EVERYBODY uses it.
we can discuss about Comte for all that matters, but his field work was not sound
methodology is important in science
agreed but so what? EVERYBODY in the social sciences uses it
that doesn't prove that sociology is a "baby version of anthro"
not to the same extent and rigor before Malinowski
I will tell you how that part is true.
Sociology and anthro is different also there are more Soc majors than anthro majors in america
SOC is much more popular *flips hair*
nin just shutup and help me with math
ah Du Bois is appropriately more described as an anthropologist than a sociologist, but splitting hair does not do service to his work because both field refer to him in the same manner.
who cares about Du Bois he's an idiot. He advocated assimilation
He didn't even give 2 fawks about ethnicity
You can not entirely dismiss someone based on a few flukes of his or her works.
and im pretty sure du bois admired Nazi Germany
ethnicity and nationality have a very weak divide between the two, but in view of sociology and anthropology, this becomes highly subjective based on circumstances.
he visited Nazi Germany and had nothing but good things to say about them
KARL MARX FTW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
just as no sociologist nor anthropologist would dismiss Malinowski because of the racist or supremacist remarks he wrote in his diaries.
DUDE NIN can u help me with a simple math problem please
ye, math is used frequently in anthropological studies particularly when we delve into Epidemiology which is a huge subject for both sociology and anthropology.
Hey Zale i don't disrespect the natural sciences i highly respect it unless someone attacks me and my major. Then i'll unleash hell on them.
Nin what do you know about epistemic privilege?
that's a sad venn diagram you drew for one, it is not factual and I think we both agree that there is no scope of sociology that anthropology doesn't do
That's right!!! Soc is at the CORE!!!!! without us there would be no anthro!!!
no not core
YOU DREW IT THAT WAY NO TAKEBACKS!!!
What is epistemic privilege?
human activity every human activity is in the scope of anthropology
are we really going to discuss epistemic privilege?
Why? does it hurt your reality nin?
I just refer to it as stratification
It deals with social stratification
there is no point in using fancy words such as epistemic when people do not even know what that word means
and the positive things that come from being at the bottom that the people who come from privileged community will NEVER have nor understand vicariously
ya I just put it under stratification which is already a sub study
Vera it's like street smarts and also the knowledge and insights in life that minorities have in a dominant oppressive society
there are few things to consider when studying sociology or anthropology, the role of power is one of them
Anthropology studies many things about humans than sociology. Anthropology studies the human culture, biology, archeology and primate ancestors! As for sociology, our behavior is judged by our society, culture, development, structure, interactions and not our evolutionary or biological. That concludes that sociology is limited. epistemic privilege epistemic is related to knowledge Privilege is a synonym for advantage This means that epistemic privilege means the advantage of studying knowledge.
nin how much does cultural anthro cover individualism and collectivsm
Yep sociology is VERY limited
and it pisses me off
When it comes to race studies anthro is superior but when it comes to the study of society and social behavior soc is superior
A lot of anthro majors, especially white students, are scared to go into the bioogical aspects of race because they're afraid of being labeled a racist
which is a problem for anybody OUTSIDE the black and white paradigm.
When it comes to anthropology, the view of individualism and collectivism are not viewed as if they are a separate entities. We can see this in the study of Psychology which studies the individual, but also do not say anything that environmental factors such as his or her social surrounding have no impact or influence in development from physical, mental as well as personalities.
they're not completely separate and CAN be interrelated but they are nevertheless 2 different categories
also, this is CULTURAL anthro
fukin love cultural anthro
Both are examined on equal footing, this is why human genetics and primatology is a subject far away from what you study, because to study humans (anthropology), one must not limit to humans.
so do u agree that race is not purely a social construct
youre a anthro major of course you do
it is a social construction no one was disagreeing with that in any department of physical science and social science maybe you will find it in some crazy philosophy or religious studies that give privilege to one tribe or group of peoples (you know who they are).
no it's not only a social construction
BONE MARROW nuff said
Do you know who Jonathan Relethford is?
we cant talk about characteristics and frequencies on the level of biology and genetics if you want, but do you really want that?
He's a famours anthropologist if u dont know who he is you'll lose credibility
does he know who I am?
nobody knows u foo
I don't buy into names, I look at the data and information and the process in which it was put together. You can pull all the names of famous anthropologists, sociologist, sexologist, psychologist for all I care. I am a biologist, I provide information to you guys :)
Anyways he wrote several books and he's very well known in the anthro community and he even wrote that race was a social construction HOWEVER upon sending him a very detailed email about the biological and genetic differences in East Asians, he agreed with me and he even provided more examples of ethnic groups that have different biological characteristics. He agreed it had to do with white guilt and that in many ways race studies are constrained.
r we done here?
actually, nin which specific ethnic groups do you know with unique biological differences?
Okay that may be a misconception and you're probably using it out of context. Here's what the relative frequency of physical characteristics and genetical characteristics say (phenotype and genotype). There are more differences among similar groups (what you call race) and fewer in different groups. And there the similarities among humans far outweighs the differences. Biology nor Genetics put no emphasis whether race exists or not or it is a biological factor or social factor. Diversity provides species (applicable to all) a higher chance of survival, particularly when we are talking about multicellular like humans.
we can discuss how certain phenotypes and genotypes maybe be more prominent for others, but you must be comfortable with evolutionary biology, because we can briefly (joking) cover it.
we can discuss pre-zygotic and post-zygotic barriers and then move on to what makes certain characteristics "appear" or "disappear" for that matter. Just give me the word.
Dr. Relethford even wrote what you wrote in his books but he corrected himself. The myth that there are more differences within groups than between groups is a misconception. It has to do with proximity. Dr. Relethford said Koreans and Chinese will have more similarities than with Korean and Italians.
Phenotype is not the only biological characteristic that's different. Dude, that's so basic.
I mentioned genotype
relethford is not used in any of my text nor in my biology and genetics studies
East Asians and especially Koreans have the LEAST amount of apocrine glands in the world which means they produce the least amount of body odor. This is also related to ear wax type. People of Asian descent especially of East Asian descent have DRY earwax whereas Western people such as Europeans or Africans have WET earwax. Africans also have the most amount of apocrine glands in the world which means they produce the most body odor. This isn't a bad thing because it's adaptation to your environment and has certain benefits to that environment. Europeans also have a lot of apocrine glands.
Native Americans who have migrated from East Asia also have the dry earwax trait.
If you go to Korea, you will NOT find deodorant because they don't need it. People who have body odor is looked at as someone with an illness because it's not common.
so how is that a proof of existence that RACE in the context of social studies is a biological factor ? When you are only pointing out differences in differentiation of cells.
What do you mean? Those are different biological traits.
Cells? okay that's getting down to the nitty gritty that's NOT even used in academia. Disappointed in you for that. Anyways, those are biological traits that are different that PROVE race is not purely a social construct.
just as there are different characteristics for viruses and bacterias even within the same grouping, that does not say anything about race if we use the same logic into humans as well as other species within the scope of primates.
it isn't ??
Also, BONE MARROW. You can only donate your bone marrow to your ethnic group or else their body will REJECT IT. This is why people who are bi-racial have an extremely hard time finding donors. You can only donate your bone marrow to people in your specific ethnic group.
glands are what now?
I just proved that race is not purely a social construct and you're not even being relevant anymore.
that is true, in the case of bone marrow, same with blood or anything that you put into your own body that isn't yours there is a relative frequency in rejection and that is based on your immunological response.
You got proven wrong big whoop. Who cares learn from it and move on.
I don't see how it is incorrect
Race is NOT only a social construct. I just provided examples. You want more? i have more.
Ever heard of the Tibetan Spit test?
there is a difference between applying anthropomorphic invention like race and describing nature and its variances.
I proved 3 of my sociology professors wrong and they felt mad DUMB and were going in circles to redeem themselves in front of their students.
but you haven't proven me wrong
Biological differences is contingent on ENVIRONMENT.
we biologist do not deny that differences exist and we use different studies to provide explanation such as evolutionary
okay you're jut using a whole bunch of mumbo jumbo to compensate for the fact that you lost
dude race is not purely a social construct i provided example and i have more end of story WOMP
you mean to say that differences is a race matter? because you can be a different race than your mother if that were the case.
Humans are not all the same i find it HILARIOUS when sociologists say "oh but theres only little genetic variations between race and ethnic groups that it's not significant!" LMAOOOOOO fukin idiots we're also 99% similar with CHIMPS and PIGS and even RATS. It's those small genetic variations then really COUNT.
this is why I wanted to know if you feel comfortable with evolution because I really want to use pre-zygotic and post-zygotic and then move on to what you called "environmental" factors
how can you be different than your mother and father if they're both let's say Korean (since they're genetically uniform).
that really count* not then
ah, then you've probably missed a lot in studying meiosis, mitosis and recombinant DNA
okay i dont wanna hear any sh1t about the 1% of people who have genetic anomalies
or less than 1%
@vera_ewing u ready to hear what i wanted to tell u earlier?
we use variation using probability and statistics I hope you're comfortable about these topics too
you're glossing over these topics like they are minute and unimportant
anything anti-parochial and anti-black and white paradigm i'm willing to listen to. I'm so sick and tired of these closed-minded academics that don't give equal representation to other race and ethnic groups outside of black and white
what the f#%ck laughing out loud
sociology undermines the fact that Koreans and Chinese people have Unique Genetic Sequence which is a clear distinction from a lot of people in the world
I am not the one who brought up race I am just here to give you an insight on how we tackle life's variation and similarities in the field of biology, molecular/genetic and evolutionary and ecological.
that study btw was done by JAPANESE scientists specifically D.r Horai who CONFIRMED that there is no Unique Genetic Sequence among the Japanese and that their DNA consists of Korean, Chinese, Ainu, and something else.
but did you read the whole paper and subsequent papers related to it?
there was but i dont speak Japanese
he is not the first one to write about differences among "Asian" groups he was just supplementing what is already out there
and of course ti won't be translated because of these academics and their WHITE GUILT
uh, HELL YEA when do u ever see sociologists talk about race in the biological and genetic aspects? NEVER
dude FUK the current state of sociology all they care about is black and white it's fukin racist as FUK
Unlike you, I am not a famed sociologist, I am just a mere nobody-biologist.
Biology matters. Sociology is inundated with white guilt.