Is sociology worth it in this day and age? Yes or no?

Trying to paint your opponent as a conspiracy theorist isn’t just childish, bringing that in as a comparison to sociology departments is a logical fallacy as the two situations aren’t congruent. Surgeons and pediatricians may tilt one way or the other to a limited extent politically, but the ratio isn’t as lopsided as it is in sociology departments. Nobody in the operating room has any reason to know your political views, or is likely to act upon them in a way affecting your job if they do. Sociology departments are driven by politicised discourse and will enforce conformity.

For that matter, I suggest that your solution is a bit reductive. Perhaps pediatricians, both male and female, tend to support something like the National Health Service because they feel more protective of their patients, who have no say in their parents’ choices or income, and in the US nationalized medicine is the property of one political party? I have one in the family (a pediatrician, not a politician, thank goodness), and that explanation seems a bit more in line with reality.

Whatever you think of my position (which I don’t find extreme), thinking in extremes doesn’t make an argument disingenuous. That’s not what disingenuous means. (Incidentally, one can’t watch for emotional ‘queues’, as you state above in post #32 - one stands in those).

You can place as much faith in sociological studies as you like, and who knows, you may turn out to be right. However, I’ve already explained why I have lost confidence in them. Many properly trained academics have – it’s what is sometimes called the repeatability crisis, because the results for many published scientific and social science studies simply aren’t reproducible. Dissection of some of these failed studies have demonstrated that the researchers were all-too frequently selecting and manipulating data to influence the outcome; i.e. one set of data gives the result the researcher wants, and so the other five sets are not reported. There’s both a philosophical and an ethical component to that:

These studies have presuppositional design flaws.
The results in these studies are selectively reported.
Therefore, such studies should not be assumed to represent reality.​

So in rejecting the claims of advocates in the age of identity politics that these things are biologically determined, I’m entirely comfortable relying on my own observations and logical reasoning. You are free to dismiss them as anecdotes. But then, at least I’m explaining my own argument, rather than simply attaching links to other people’s studies (which may suffer from the reliability problems as outlined above).

 

Addressing the original poster’s question from the perspective of a member of faculty, albeit in a different academic department: Yes, that discipline has been hijacked politically. You may find the field interesting and you may be capable of doing good work in it, but if you’re already concerned enough to ask the question about bias, I think you might well find yourself very unhappy in a place so consumed by politics… even more so than the Political subforum at DegreeInfo! Best of luck in your studies.

 

that reminds me of something

 

You seem to still not understand the difference between biological influence and biological determination. We're going to have to agree to disagree. You've been shown non-sociological studies, but whatever.

 

What originally drove it was the Vietnam war and the 60's "student movement". Student radicals loved their student life (and their student deferments) so they continued on into graduate school in greater numbers than their right-leaning peers and particularly into already politicized and "relevant" fields like sociology. (To say nothing of sociology just being easier than many other subjects.) We see hordes of them in literary theory too. Eventually they emerged with PhDs and were disproportionately represented among new faculty hires. As time went on, they achieved tenure, reached a critical mass in many departments and started to control faculty hiring, graduate admissions, which of their students successfully progressed to PhDs, and along with it the intellectual outlook of their subject. They have worked very hard to ensure that people who don't think exactly like them can't succeed in their subject.

Wouldn't that same argument apply to many of the ostensible evils that supposedly serve to discredit all of humanity's (or at least the Western world's) past cultural achievements? If the self-styled champions of "social justice" failed to make themselves felt back in history, then they can't very well criticize that history now, right?

But that isn't really the point, is it? The point is...

1. Is sociology a subject in which right-leaning individuals can flourish and succeed? That's a question of vital interest to prospective students, which would seem to be very relevant to Degreeinfo's mission. I'm inclined to say that it probably depends on the department. That's probably something that a prospective graduate student can scope out, but it might be more difficult for a prospective undergraduate. One way to do it is to look at the sociology course titles in the school's catalog. Look especially at the titles of recent 'special topics' courses. If the department is highly politicized, then these will likely have very political titles. Another way is to look at the sociology professors' cv's. (There are usually links on department webpages.) What are the titles of the papers they have published? That will give a good idea of their interests and orientations.

2. Does sociology possess integrity as an objective academic subject? Is it actually a "science", does it deserve the social prestige associated with that very portentous word? Or is it just hugely-biased political special pleading? That question is directly relevant to sociology funding and to those who hire sociologists. It's relevant to the general public as well, when the results of sociological "studies" are waved in their faces in hopes of influencing their opinions and ultimately their votes.

 

I wish I could find the article, but it talked about how the military currently leans right, but during the Vietnam era, it leaned left. Of course, this wouldn't provide enough detail on whether or not left-learning sociology students were more likely to stay in school for deferments.


If you're the type who wants no politics in the classroom, then avoid all the social sciences. It's impossible for political issues to not come up because laws and government policies affect people's lives. When teaching the history of penology, I covered how the Black Codes in Texas did not apply to white people. Some sensitive right wingers might consider that left-wing talk, but it's history that just happens to involve legislation. I'm not going to avoid history just because it makes snowflakes uncomfortable.

Political actions are also discussed in economics. You can expect most social scientists to be left-leaning. You can also expect most natural scientists to be left-leaning, but their subjects don't have to discuss politics nearly as much. However, you might hear about man-made climate change in a science class. While this should not be a political issue, many politicians have made this a political issue because legislative solutions have been recommended. The overwhelming majority of scientists believe that climate change is currently happening, and it's largely due to human activity.

It is also untrue that politics never comes up in medicine. Medical associations often give their opinion on healthcare legislation. Currently, many doctors are talking about gun violence as a public health issue, and they've even gotten into a social media battle with the NRA. You'll also hear doctors talk about Planned Parenthood funding and access to women's health clinics and access to birth control through health insurance.

 

There are bad things in the world. I am not uncomfortable calling some of them evil. I believe that if you do not stand against them in some way then you are contributing, however slightly, to their potential success.

 

His research compares conservatives and liberals. You'd have to read his articles or books to see how he defines liberals and conservatives. A lot of people are in between, so they probably don't show drastic differences in how they react to things. For example, one of the studies measured the physical reactions of liberals and conservatives as they were subjected to disturbing images.

 

He coauthored a book that includes this: "So before going any further we wish to make it clear that, even though we often use phrases such as liberal and conservative or left and right for shorthand, this book is about political differences generally and not merely difference between two discrete collections of ideological beliefs.

The differences we are talking about reflect variation across a continuum and perhaps many continuums, not traits that lump everyone into two camps..."

But... then the authors go on to say that they are going to continue to use the terms because the terms are so ingrained in our political discourse.

"Even so, the unidimensional concept of making sense of political differences captures a very long tradition of describing political differences..." (all quotes from page 21)

...and on from there. It's even in the title of the book:

Predisposed: Liberals, Conservatives and the Biology of Political Differences 2014, Routledge

So despite the authors tipping their hats to the issue that you raise, I'm still not convinced that they don't end up grievously oversimplifying. I remain skeptical.

 

I got my BS in Sociology and for me it was worth it. The major doesn't prepare you to do any specific job or career, but that's not the purpose of higher education, anyway. What it does teach you how to do is think logically and critically, and write well. It's very writing intensive, so if you don't like writing or aren't good at it, you will struggle if you have halfway decent professors. I can't speak to Sociology being politically hijacked - maybe that's a recent happening. I earned my degree nearly 20 years ago and don't recall that being an issue.