There are three three things that bother me in the construction of most scientific studies, polls and philosophical discourse:
1) the subjugation of the individual to the general
2) the failure to clearly separate thing from relationship
3) the failure to define terms being discussed
I’ve rambled about some of this in snide bits and pieces, but I’d like to get further into them.
This rumin I’ll grumble about number one, and go on to the other two later. I’ll try my best not to be terminally boring, but I’d suggest keeping your finger close to the “delete” key to be on the safe side.
* * * *
Whoops, wait… first, I have to insert my fuckup du jour:
My daughter Erin commented on my last post about our family’s lack of musical-instrument instruction:
“Well… Miquon [my first two kids’ superb grade school] had Morgan and I play the recorder; I took a guitar workshop there too. Mom made me play piano using the John W. Schaum books, and I took flute while I was in Teaneck. I wasn’t good or comfortable with any of them.”
Sorry about my previous claim that nobody in the family took instrument lessons, but sorrier that Erin had to piddle around with stuff that made her uncomfortable.
* * * *
OK, on to the general vs. the individual (see the Eisenhower joke, hee hee?)
Almost all scientific studies are designed to uncover a general principle or mechanism, and almost all opinion polls are designed to identify the general outlook of a given population. Both, by design, ignore or minimize the individual, viewing the specific as irrelevant at the moment.
Scientific principles are general, and it behooves us to discover them in their generality if we want to know what’s going on in the universe (that curiosity thing, if nothing else). This is what hard science – physical science – is about.
But the social sciences (a term that makes me squirm) deal with human populations that are the sum of the individuals that comprise them. Same with those polls that call while we’re eating dinner to tell them what they want to know (I tend to tell them, succinctly, things they’d rather not hear).
Each of us is an individual, but it’s not unlikely that each individual finds him or herself as an unviewed or neutral object at times like these. But there should be ways to see both the individual and the general at the same time, or at least take both into consideration when looking at the results. Because the failure to do so can skew what the results look like, especially in the social sciences.
Example:
I hope you all have more sense than to fill out social questionnaires geared to uncovering political and psychological attitudes. They usually attempt to identify or sort out personal and group bias, yet the studies too often have such bias built in.
How?
It often lies in the order or grouping of the questions, more than in the individual question themselves. (I wish I had saved specific examples, but they piss me off so much I usually toss them immediately.)
The worst are the causist “questionnaires” (lead-ins to a petition or request for donation) which are – purposely – designed to pin you into a narrow mindset where one question assumes you already agree with the organization’s outlook, and the following ones pressure you not to just support that outlook but reinforce it – with no allowance for nuance.
With the actual scientific questionnaires, I don’t think the similar problem is deliberate, but an unconscious leaning in humans to sort items by type.
A couple examples of questions listed in sequence – made up, but closely reflecting ones I’ve seen quoted :
Yes or No:
1. Do you view men and women as equal in rights and abilities?
2. Do you support the feminist position?
OK, if you’re a decent human being, you will say yes to the first.
But… there are those, both male and female, who might be ambivalent about the term “feminist” – in part from their individual definition of the term. Yet those who answer “yes” to the first question will almost certainly be pushed toward answering “yes” to the second, whether or not they have personal reservations about the term “feminist.”
Might there be a different split in yes/no answers to the second if the questions were separated or placed in different contexts? I think so.
Dog or Cat:
1. When choosing an an animal for your home, are you more a “dog person” or a “cat person”?
Yes or No:
2. Would you adopt an injured cat from a shelter if it might otherwise be killed?
With these questions presented in sequence, I’d bet the cat lovers would say “yes” more than the dog lovers to the second. But if the second question were placed in a different context that stressed the ideal of “animal lover,” the answers would likely be more equal.
You don’t agree? Good! That only goes to reinforce my idea that such questionnaires tell us nothing useful and should be junked.
* * * *
As for the proliferating opinion polls – stop taking them! They just codify whatever panic is in vogue at the moment and again, reflect nothing of value while cluttering news space.
The small changes in opinion from year to year, week to week, day to day usually reflect regular fluctuations – as well as, once again, the order and framing of the questions. As in all human activities, opinions change constantly, depending on personal circumstance and social setting, especially given the clothes-drier rollover of social media.
* * * *
A last yowl, about ignoring and downgrading the young:
The habit of ladling idiot names on ill-defined “generations” over the last few decades is yet another way of denying the importance of the individual. You, kid, aren’t a person, you’re a “millennial” of “generationPDQ.”
* * * *
“Wild Rose Hips”is listed as an additional ingredient on our bottle of vitamin C.
Wouldn’t it be a great name for a burlesque chorus line?
lickhaven 