AKD 2009

April 5, 2009
Posted by Jay Livingston

Thursday evening, we (the Montclair Sociology Department) had our annual Alpha Kappa Delta induction ceremony. Sixteen students joined the sociology honor society.

• Daniel Ahearn
• Matt Barraro
• Mari Chela Bien-Aime
• Ashley Blount
• Kristin Bobenko
• Marissa Caruso
• Shaylene Connors
• Tehresa Fallon
• Matt Grogaard
• Megan Hatem
• Helen Kane
• Burcu Korkut
• Joed Lopez
• Claire McEwan
• Lou Pacifico
• Jessica Pescatore
• Katherine Spargo
• Lee Tedeschi

A few were no-shows – such good students that they wouldn’t cut an evening class in favor of AKD. And unfortunately, many of them left immediately after our speaker, David Grazian, finished, so I managed to get photos of only four of the honorees.

Lee, Joed, Shaylene, Matt B.

David Grazian talked about his research on Philadelphia night life.* He takes a dramaturgical approach, looking at the restaurants and clubs as stages where the staff and the customers are performing. Which is the way they look at it too. Restaurants put much thought, time, and money into creating their look – the decor, the lighting, the music – using the same strategies and often the same superficial materials used in movie sets. Cuba Libre, for example, is basically a movie set for a film set in pre-Castro Havana. (Click on the image for a larger view.)

Managers also instruct the staff how to perform, and just before opening for the evening they have something like the cast meeting for a play, where the managers give the waitstaff “notes” on the previous evening’s performances.
The customers too are performers. They spend hours on their costume – men as well as women trying on several different pairs of jeans before deciding – and planning their roles with fellow cast members (wingmen, girlfriends, et. al.)

But what is it all for? The restaurants and bars are in it for the money. They count the receipts at the end of the night. But what about all those men and women? According to Grazian, guys want to get laid, of course, but rarely do. So they turn instead to a sort of contest to see who can get the most phone numbers.** The women mostly just want to be with their friends, look good, and get men to buy them drinks. The ostensible goal is fun, to have a good time, but it all sounds a bit grim. Everyone is on the same set, but they’re in two different movies. The guys are in a Judd Apatow film while the women are in Sex and the City.


* During the Q&A, someone asked why not New York or Los Angeles. To his credit David did not say, “All things considered, I’d rather be in Philadelphia.”

** The masculine competition can turn ugly. Grazian says that the rule of thumb for bars is that when the male-female ratio reaches 2-1, it’s almost certain that a fight will break out.

Guns, Killing, and Nonsense . . . Again

April 4, 2009
Posted by Jay Livingston

The response of the pro-gun people to the massacre in Binghamton was predictable. The problem isn’t that the killer had guns. The problem is that other people did not. Fox’s commentator on the issue, John Lott (a researcher whose integrity has been much questioned) claims that more guns would deter these shooters.

Every multiple-victim public shooting that I have studied, where more than three people have been killed, has taken place where guns are banned.

Is McDonald’s a gun-free zone? Or Luby’s cafeteria in Kileen, Texas ? A private home in Seattle? It’s possible that the lab in Sunnyvale and the office building in San Francisco and the mall in Omaha had gun-free rules, but I doubt it. There are several other civilian workplace and home massacres I have not bothered to check.*

The other favorite NRA fantasy is that if only people had been carrying guns, someone would have taken out the shooter as soon as he opened fire. (I suspect that the gun-lovers picture themselves in the key savior role.)

On the other side, we have Charles Blow at the New York Times. In his column today, Blow warns that the far right is arming itself. The gun-lovers have put out the word that Obama is going to repeal the Second Amendment and take their guns away. Revolution has become a favorite word on the right. When the left talks about revolution, they usually mean an economic transformation. But the right wingers are talking about guns.

Guns are, for lack of a better word, good. Guns are right.
Guns work. Guns clarify, cut through, and capture the essence of the revolutionary spirit.
Guns in all their forms have marked the upward surge of mankind.
And guns -- you mark my words -- will save the USA.**

And they’re not just talking, they’re buying. Blow cites FBI data showing that since Obama was elected, there has been a large increase in requests for background checks for gun ownership.

Talk of revolution followed by more people wanting guns.

Coincidence? Maybe. Just posturing? Hopefully. But it all gives me a really bad feeling.

Blow wrote these words just before the killings in Pittsburgh occurred. But these shootings help to answer his questions.

The Associated Press: Gunman 'lying in wait' kills 3 Pittsburgh officers via kwout

I wonder where he got such ideas. Of course, ideas don’t kill. But AK-47s and the .357 Magnums and other handguns and the ammunition in Poplawski’s arsenal do, and they are nearly as easy to come by.

And according to the John Lotts of the world, that’s a good thing.

The Pittsburgh slayings also illustrate the weakness of the “gun-free zones are killing zones” idea. The killer’s house was anything but a gun-free zone, and he selected as his victims people who he knew would be carrying guns – police officers.

*Lott seems to be fairly obsessive about finding references to himself no matter how insiginificant and unnoticed the venue, so if I’m wrong about any of these, he will probably post a comment.

** O.K., nobody really said this, not in these exact words. But close. In case you didn’t recognize it, it’s a riff on Gordon Gecko’s “greed is good” speech in Wall Street.

Accentuate the Positive, Eliminate the Negative

April 3, 2009
Posted by Jay Livingston

Be Positive. That’s one of the rules I try to follow in writing (in life, it’s even harder). Phrase things in the affirmative rather than in the negative. It’s especially important in constructing true-false and multiple-choice items for exams. I don’t want to force students into the knotty logic of double negatives.

In prose as well, those multiple negatives get confusing. And negatives take many forms besides variations on no, not, and never. Think of those Supreme Court summaries in the newspaper. “The court failed to overturn a lower-court ruling that denied a request to reverse . . .”

And now this just in from the world of football and guns.

”Plaxico’s contribution to our championship season in 2007 can never be underestimated or undervalued,” Giants coach Tom Coughlin said. “He displayed tremendous determination throughout that season.”

Get it? His contribution can never be undervalued. That means that no matter how little a value you place on Plaxico’s contribution, that value can never be so low that it’s beneath its true value. So that true value must be very low indeed.

The literal meaning of the coach’s remark is just the opposite of what he means and what most people will hear. (And this wasn’t just some off-the-cuff comment. It was a written statement for the team’s official Website.) But the logic of the double negative – never and undervalue – is too difficult to unravel.

I realize that only a handful of tight-assed writers or logicians will be concerned with this technical error. Most people, they could care less.

Update. I e-mailed the Coughlin quote to Mark Liberman at The Language Log, and he has now posted about it. (Apparently, Prof. Liberman either has no hat to tip or is a habitual reader of Giants press releases.) Coach Coughlin, Liberman points out, is not alone. “Cannot be underestimated” to mean the opposite of its literal meaning is fairly common. Googling the phrase gets returns in six figures. I tried a Lexis-Nexis search for the last two years, and it offered its maximum of 1000 hits, including at least one headline. Liberman’s post, with links to earlier Language Log posts is here.

Just a Sample

April 3, 2009
Posted by Jay Livingston

Obama has nominated a sociologist to head the census bureau, Robert Groves (summa at Dartmouth, degrees in statistics and sociology from Michigan, where he is now a professor). According to the New York Times, the choice of Groves, “instantly made Republicans nervous.”

The problem is scientific sampling, also known as the possibility that we might actually get an accurate count of the kinds of people the census usually undercounts.

Republicans expressed alarm because of one of Mr. Groves’s specialties, statistical sampling — roughly speaking, the process of extrapolating from the numbers of people actually counted to arrive at estimates of those uncounted and, presumably, arriving at a realistic total.

The Republicans favor a census that tries to count each person individually, an obvious impossibility with a systematic bias in favor of people who are in places that make them easy to count.

I remember an anecdote from a book on sampling – I wish I could remember the author and title – about a social scientist who had done some research on soldiers and was presenting his finding to a general in the Pentagon. The officer questioned the idea of sampling. How could you know about the hundreds of thousands of soldiers in the military by talking to a couple of thousand. How many should we talk to, asked the sociologist. “You gotta do ’em all,” said the general.

“General,” said the sociologist. “When you go to the doctor, he takes a little tube of blood to find out how much cholesterol and other things are in your blood. That’s a sample. Do you tell him that if he really wants to know the true amount, he has to take it all?”