The choice of visuals for norms, conventions and customs is quite hilarious.

I'd like to draw your attention on a small but important error in the transcript: at 14:55 it says "Turney's" but actually what is meant is the German sociologist "Ferdinand Tönnies"

This is fascinating to an economic sociologist like me.

Tells you a lot about the sort of life Robert Skidelsky has led that he calls a football team being up by one goal "one-love"

@caballosinnombre3981

4 жыл бұрын

endearing

Interesting as always; a fountain of knowledge. However, it is a pretty big and inaccurate claim 8:08 that no one in sociology has really tackled the structure agency debate (individualism Holism). It has pretty much been accepted that it is a duality. Bourdeau and Giddens have both looked at this relationship in great detail and most sociologists address it at some point, but often focus more on one 'end' or the other.

@abcrane

2 жыл бұрын

here's my take: one caveat to the Holism vs Individualism, we cannot truly know what came first in human social evolution-the influence of the group on the individual or the reverse--but we can see that conformity to group norms has indeed been the norm in all economic epochs. the important aspect of this dichotomy is not which direction is the influence (from individual to group or the reverse) BUT rather the healthfulness (physiological, psychological, ecosystem) of either direction TO individuals and groups. On another note, I do think that "Alpha" male/female influences the group greatly (individual influencing group, but IN TURN, the group then sort of collectively "figures out" strategies as a whole in dealing with the mayhem of Alpha influence. We see this in baboons. In the absence of the alpha, the group is much more peaceable and the group is deciding on this normative (Holism). in the presence of the Alpha, the group is often very anxious and aggressive (Individualism). Now, this is then not a static binary, but a constant shifting between Holism and Individualism. Dare I say, a "Hegelian dance."

All very good Observation.

His wholism is a great way to visualize bureaucracy and show why when monopoly institutions like government bureaucracy lack innovation and fail when any new challenge arises. The lack of innovation is also why the USSR failed as communism is a synonym for his wholism. These social-driven approaches failed when competing with more individualistic market systems, creating disruptive innovations. Just look at how CDC, FDA, WHO, EDD, DMV's, IRS, etc. responded to Covid 19 and compare that to Amazon. The FDA delays alone killed hundreds of thousands while Amazon restructured logistics providing supplies to the masses.

Feel like I'm back in a 9am grad school lecture lol

@nicolasmorgan4474

4 жыл бұрын

And may I ask what it is you do now?

❤❤

If only Summers, Bernanski , Greenspan et al had attended 3 Lectures similar to these.

@JT_India

Жыл бұрын

Nothing would have happened. They know it alright. Some people are are driven by a different motive power. Attending a course doesn't mean they will understand it. And if they did, it doesn't mean they will follow it. Moreover, what if they already know? Economics is nothing without Politics. And when one is immersed in politics, he looks at economics from a different angle, as a policy that guarantees the vantage view for a few while pretending a level field for all.

@dkblack1289

Жыл бұрын

@@JT_India I agree with you. Benanke was the Principle at the School of Economics at Princeton from 1996-2002 when he joined Federal Reserve Board. So he understands everything. Neoclassical economics is effectively feudal ecenomiics with modern technology. The job of economists is to maintain the exploitative power relationship between the ruling class and labour. You dont have to be an economist to know that whenever employment approaches full capacity, the Federal Reserve Bank raises interest rates in order to create unemployment, and he hence, weaken the bargaining power of labour. The legal superstructure walks cheek by jaw with economics in ensuring that the power of labour is continually suppressed. Neoclassical Economics is a breakaway sect from sociology catholicism leading a crusade, and until its brought back to the fold, it is war of the elite against the subjects.

one caveat to the Holism vs Individualism, we cannot truly know what came first in human social evolution-the influence of the group on the individual or the reverse--but we can see that conformity to group norms has indeed been the norm in all economic epochs. the important aspect of this dichotomy is not which direction is the influence (from individual to group or the reverse) BUT rather the healthfulness (physiological, psychological, ecosystem) of either direction TO individuals and groups. On another note, I do think that "Alpha" male/female influences the group greatly (individual influencing group, but IN TURN, the group then sort of collectively "figures out" strategies as a whole in dealing with the mayhem of Alpha influence. We see this in baboons. In the absence of the alpha, the group is much more peaceable and the group is deciding on this normative Holism. in the presence of the Alpha, the group is often very anxious and aggressive. Individualism. Now, this is then not a static binary, but a constant shifting between Holism and Individualism. Dare I say, a "Hegelian dance."

@agchiomole4440

Жыл бұрын

interesting

The revolt of norms is itself a norm. As each individual seeks to serve their own needs through acquisition of resources which are gathered and understood by the whole. Each individual has their own interests, which is itself a seed to this revolting nature, when combined with other factors. It details a nature of curiosity and discovery, a want to manipulate and understand the world around them to greater or lesser scale, in satisfaction of the individual needs, which are in part defined by the overall group. The need to reproduce for instance is competitive, and required another individual, who is also selective based on needs and interest. Therefore the more resources one has, and the more understanding they can exhibit, or control over those resources, the more likely to have a mate of choice. As well the better off their offspring. As competition over resources, however playful it may be, pushes individuals out from the competitive edge, the necessity of competition grows in those individuals, thus the revolt occurs. Especially in a capitalist society these revolts become violent. In this way the individual behavior accumulates into group behavior.

@JonathanMarcy

Жыл бұрын

However, this also means a group effort can define individual behavior. It goes both ways. If the group discovers a new method of using a resource, the individual may take interest. If the group operated on the interests that benefit the group rather then the individual, it will discover uses if those resources that benefit the whole of the group, and the common interest would serve to that purpose even if someone tries to compete over that knowledge. So rather then many heads competing over this new resource, instead each individual gets a piece of the resource to synergetic effect.

@JonathanMarcy

Жыл бұрын

In the former example, the group is to an extent at odds with itself. In the latter the sum of the group is greater then the individual

Where is the next chapter on Marx?

🚁

Soren Kirkegaard would have a good laugh at all this dizziness.