December 29, 2011
Posted by Jay Livingston
(Cross posted at Sociological Images)
This ad illustrates some sociological idea, something I could use in class. I’m just not sure what it is. (You may have already seen it. It’s been around on the Internet for a few months.)
Yes, it’s a beer commercial, not a documentary, not “reality.” But the couples are real and unscripted – like the victims in a “Candid Camera” bit (or the subjects in some social psychology experiments). Real and unscripted too is our reaction as viewers. I don’t know about you, but after the ad was over, I realized that I had shared something of the couples’ anxiety at being different and hence excluded. The bikers are neutral, maybe they are even silently hostile, so when they suddenly became accepting, my sense of relief was palpable. I laughed out loud.
So sociological point one is that we are social animals. Excluded we feel fear, accepted and included we feel comfort. Point two is that laughter is social. Here (and in many other situations) it’s a kind of tension-meter. There ad had no joke that I was laughing at. It was just a release from tension. No tension, no laughter.
The ad also illustrates “definition of the situation.” The rigged set-up shatters the couples’ standard definition of going to the movies. They are anxious not just because they are different but because they nave no workable definition and therefore no clear sense of what to do.
Finally, the ad raises the issue of stereotypes. Stereotypes may actually have some general statistical accuracy. The trouble is that the stereotype converts a statistical tendency to absolute certainty. We react as though we expect all members of the stereotype to be that way all the time or most of the time. Is it reasonable when you see 148 bikers to be fearful even to the point of leaving (I think some of the couples didn’t take the available seats)? You don’t need to have read Hunter S. Thompson to know there is some truth in the image of bikers as above the mean on violence. But in a theater where you find them quietly awaiting the movie?
What other sociological ideas does the ad suggest?
If You’re Going to Use Anecdotal Data, At Least Choose the Right Anecdotes
December 26, 2011
Posted by Jay Livingston
For instance isn’t proof. So goes the old saying (Yiddish? Navaho? Confucian?).
Every semester in every course, I tell students that although anecdotal data can be useful for illustrating a general truth, a few selected cases don’t prove anything. So the argumentum ex anecdotum (pardon my made-up Latin) bothers me, especially when it comes from a social scientist.
Here’s a letter in today’s Times.
Not only does Princeton Lecturer Nieli rely solely on anecdotal data, but at least two of the four people he mentions clearly illustrate the point he is denying - that with great wealth comes the potential for great political power. Does anyone think that Michael Bloomberg, whatever his skills in politics, would have become mayor if his income were that of a lecturer at Princeton? If money really makes no difference in politics, if we all had equal power based only on our one vote per person, why do politicians spend so much time raising so much money?
Or take the recent legislation in California to apply the state sales tax to Internet sales. It was pretty clear that one citizen of the state of Washington, Jeff Bezos, had vastly more influence on the legislation than did any citizen of California. It’s also clear that Mr. Bezos was lobbying not for what was best for the people of the Golden State but what was best for Amazon.
I won’t bother to comment on Lecturer Nieli’s professional assessment of the psychological motivations (jealousy, spite) of those who oppose great inequality.
Perhaps Mr. Nieli lectures to his Princeton students that huge disparities in citizens’ power are true to the spirit of democracy. But then again, I’ve never known Princeton to be careful in its choice of lecturers.
Jay Livingston was a lecturer in the psychology department at Princeton. (True fact.)
Posted by Jay Livingston
For instance isn’t proof. So goes the old saying (Yiddish? Navaho? Confucian?).
Every semester in every course, I tell students that although anecdotal data can be useful for illustrating a general truth, a few selected cases don’t prove anything. So the argumentum ex anecdotum (pardon my made-up Latin) bothers me, especially when it comes from a social scientist.
Here’s a letter in today’s Times.
Ian Ayres and Aaron S. Edlin write, “It would be bad for our democracy if 1 percenters started making 40 or 50 times as much as the median American.”
Are Bill and Melinda Gates a great threat to democracy? Jeff Bezos? Oprah Winfrey? Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg? I fail to see how those who have amassed great fortunes in America threaten American democracy.
They do not plot coups or finance fascist militias. They do, however, give lots of money to wonderful charitable and educational organizations.
I think much of the animus toward the enormous success of such people is rooted in jealousy. “It’s not right that some people should make so much more money than I do” is the spiteful feeling behind much of the opposition to the 1 percenters.
Russ Nieli
Princeton, N.J., Dec. 20, 2011
The writer is a lecturer in the politics department at Princeton.
Not only does Princeton Lecturer Nieli rely solely on anecdotal data, but at least two of the four people he mentions clearly illustrate the point he is denying - that with great wealth comes the potential for great political power. Does anyone think that Michael Bloomberg, whatever his skills in politics, would have become mayor if his income were that of a lecturer at Princeton? If money really makes no difference in politics, if we all had equal power based only on our one vote per person, why do politicians spend so much time raising so much money?
Or take the recent legislation in California to apply the state sales tax to Internet sales. It was pretty clear that one citizen of the state of Washington, Jeff Bezos, had vastly more influence on the legislation than did any citizen of California. It’s also clear that Mr. Bezos was lobbying not for what was best for the people of the Golden State but what was best for Amazon.
I won’t bother to comment on Lecturer Nieli’s professional assessment of the psychological motivations (jealousy, spite) of those who oppose great inequality.
Perhaps Mr. Nieli lectures to his Princeton students that huge disparities in citizens’ power are true to the spirit of democracy. But then again, I’ve never known Princeton to be careful in its choice of lecturers.
Jay Livingston was a lecturer in the psychology department at Princeton. (True fact.)
A Christmas Repost
December 25, 2011
Posted by Jay Livingston
Economists, says Dan Ariely (WSJ article here), have a problem with gift giving. It does not fit into their models. It is supremely irrational. Some economists write as if they are actually offended by it, as though gift giving is literally unnatural, a violation of human nature. But if there is a “natural” economy, it is not an economy based on rational self-interest. It is the gift economy. Gift economies precede even barter economies. The rationalized market we take for granted is an economy-come-lately.
Matt Yglesias in Slate has a take similar to Ariely’s. He also has some suggestions for gifts.
Even I said something along the same lines two years ago, and I’m reposting it. If stores and radio stations can recycle the same old songs (including “mine”) every Christmas, and television can give us the same Christmas specials, why not?
--------------------------------------------
What was in those boxes we unwrapped and opened today? Gifts, most people would say.
But according to a Grinch-famous 1993 economics article by Joel Waldfogel, those boxes were also crammed with “deadweight loss” – the difference between what the giver paid for the book or bauble and what it was actually worth to the recipient.
Waldfogel surveyed Yale undergrads and concluded that “between a tenth and a third of the value of holiday gifts is destroyed by gift-giving.” Destroyed. That $40 sweater you gave to your cousin’s husband – you destroyed $10 of its value.
Here’s the key question Waldfogel put to his Yalies about gifts they’d received: “If you did not have them, how much would you be willing to pay to obtain them?”
By this method, a really good gift would mean a high deadweight loss. For example, I would never pay more than $40 for a sweater for myself. No sweater to me is worth more than that. But suppose a good friend bought me a really, really nice $200 sweater. I love that sweater. I love it precisely because it’s an extravagance I never would have allowed myself. But the most I’d be willing to pay for it is $40. So according to Waldfogel, my friend destroyed $160 (80%) of the sweater’s value.
When I first heard about the Waldfogel study, I thought it was a bit of self-parody – like those jokes about engineers , where the engineer sees everything in terms of the concepts of his profession and thus misses the point. (Waldfogel, for example, refers to the “inefficiency” of gift-giving, as though the point of gift-giving were efficiency.) But Waldfogel wasn’t kidding. He just published a follow-up book, Scroogenomics: Why You Shouldn’t Buy Presents for the Holidays.
In fact, gift-giving has become increasingly rationalized and efficient. Children write letters to Santa specifying what they want; brides and grooms have bridal registries that do the same. Cash and gift cards are becoming more popular as gifts. There is no doubt that gift-giving is an economic exchange, and it would be silly to pretend that economic value has nothing to do with it (it’s the thought that counts). But it’s equally silly to think that it gifts are only economic and that they have no social meaning.
Posted by Jay Livingston
Economists, says Dan Ariely (WSJ article here), have a problem with gift giving. It does not fit into their models. It is supremely irrational. Some economists write as if they are actually offended by it, as though gift giving is literally unnatural, a violation of human nature. But if there is a “natural” economy, it is not an economy based on rational self-interest. It is the gift economy. Gift economies precede even barter economies. The rationalized market we take for granted is an economy-come-lately.
Matt Yglesias in Slate has a take similar to Ariely’s. He also has some suggestions for gifts.
Even I said something along the same lines two years ago, and I’m reposting it. If stores and radio stations can recycle the same old songs (including “mine”) every Christmas, and television can give us the same Christmas specials, why not?
--------------------------------------------
What was in those boxes we unwrapped and opened today? Gifts, most people would say.
But according to a Grinch-famous 1993 economics article by Joel Waldfogel, those boxes were also crammed with “deadweight loss” – the difference between what the giver paid for the book or bauble and what it was actually worth to the recipient.
Waldfogel surveyed Yale undergrads and concluded that “between a tenth and a third of the value of holiday gifts is destroyed by gift-giving.” Destroyed. That $40 sweater you gave to your cousin’s husband – you destroyed $10 of its value.
Here’s the key question Waldfogel put to his Yalies about gifts they’d received: “If you did not have them, how much would you be willing to pay to obtain them?”
By this method, a really good gift would mean a high deadweight loss. For example, I would never pay more than $40 for a sweater for myself. No sweater to me is worth more than that. But suppose a good friend bought me a really, really nice $200 sweater. I love that sweater. I love it precisely because it’s an extravagance I never would have allowed myself. But the most I’d be willing to pay for it is $40. So according to Waldfogel, my friend destroyed $160 (80%) of the sweater’s value.
When I first heard about the Waldfogel study, I thought it was a bit of self-parody – like those jokes about engineers , where the engineer sees everything in terms of the concepts of his profession and thus misses the point. (Waldfogel, for example, refers to the “inefficiency” of gift-giving, as though the point of gift-giving were efficiency.) But Waldfogel wasn’t kidding. He just published a follow-up book, Scroogenomics: Why You Shouldn’t Buy Presents for the Holidays.
In fact, gift-giving has become increasingly rationalized and efficient. Children write letters to Santa specifying what they want; brides and grooms have bridal registries that do the same. Cash and gift cards are becoming more popular as gifts. There is no doubt that gift-giving is an economic exchange, and it would be silly to pretend that economic value has nothing to do with it (it’s the thought that counts). But it’s equally silly to think that it gifts are only economic and that they have no social meaning.
MERRY CHRISTMAS
Taking Pictures or Making Pictures
December 24, 2011
Posted by Jay Livingston
(Cross-posted at Sociological Images.)
Ethnographers worry that their mere presence on the scene may be influencing what people do and thus compromising the truth of their studies. They try to minimize that impact, and most of their reports give detailed descriptions of their methods so that readers can assess whether the data might be corrupted.
Photojournalists also claim to be showing us the truth – “pictures don’t lie” – but they compunctions about influencing the people in their photos. Here for example is a photo taken in Israel by Italian photographer Ruben Salvadori. (This is a screen grab of a video, hence the subtitles.)
The defiant Palestinian youth, the flames of the roadblock – it’s all very dramatic. But it is far from spontaneous.
Salvadori studied anthropology, and he is well aware that observers influence what they observe. But editors want “good” photos, not good ethnography. So observer influence is an asset, not a problem.
There relationship is symbiotic. The photogs want dramatic images, the insurgent youths want publicity. Of course, even with the Palestinians youths and the Israeli soldiers, when the action gets real, nobody is thinking about how they’ll look in a photo.
(The full 8-minute video of Salvadori talking about photography in the combat zone was posted at PetaPixel back in October, though I didn't hear about it until recently.)
Posted by Jay Livingston
(Cross-posted at Sociological Images.)
Ethnographers worry that their mere presence on the scene may be influencing what people do and thus compromising the truth of their studies. They try to minimize that impact, and most of their reports give detailed descriptions of their methods so that readers can assess whether the data might be corrupted.
Photojournalists also claim to be showing us the truth – “pictures don’t lie” – but they compunctions about influencing the people in their photos. Here for example is a photo taken in Israel by Italian photographer Ruben Salvadori. (This is a screen grab of a video, hence the subtitles.)
The defiant Palestinian youth, the flames of the roadblock – it’s all very dramatic. But it is far from spontaneous.
Salvadori studied anthropology, and he is well aware that observers influence what they observe. But editors want “good” photos, not good ethnography. So observer influence is an asset, not a problem.
If you point a tiny camera at somebody, what is he going to do? Most likely, he’s going to smile or do something. Now imagine this enlarged with a group of photographers. That show up with helmets, gas masks, and at least two large cameras each, and they come there to take photos of what you do. So you’re not going to sit there twiddling your thumbs.No, the youths don’t twiddle their thumbs, not with the photogs on the scene. Instead, they burn a flag.
There relationship is symbiotic. The photogs want dramatic images, the insurgent youths want publicity. Of course, even with the Palestinians youths and the Israeli soldiers, when the action gets real, nobody is thinking about how they’ll look in a photo.
(The full 8-minute video of Salvadori talking about photography in the combat zone was posted at PetaPixel back in October, though I didn't hear about it until recently.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)