Dr. Daniels, I want to make sure I understand you. See below...
On 4/13/07, Marcus G. Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mikhail Gorelkin wrote: > > reflexivity is also a part of cybernetics (of second order), and > > cybernetists think that complexity theory is a part of cybernetics too... > > > For the social scientist, the approach raises two problems: > > 1) Too much reflection means too much attention to models of the world. > To ask the right questions means having unbiased data on how people in > some context of interest actually behave. I take it that when you say context of interest you are inferring that this is a model of the world. I understand you as meaning that context is unstable, always shifting, as a natural outcome of reflection. The act of shifting contexts and perspectives and between models of the world is reflexivity. That's a good way to think of it! Asking the right questions means settling on a few world models at the most but one, a context of interest, is preferred. I'm, however, unclear on the relationship of unbiased data to the framework you are proposing. Does biased data arise from gathering data in one model of the world, moving to another, gathering more data, moving to another model of the world and so on? I believe that there is some other criteria that you have for determining if data is biased or unbiased that might not be related to one or many world models and the shifting between them, but I'm unsure. I acknowledge that I may be asking the wrong questions here. Please advise! > > 2) It's typically not possible to sufficiently influence or observe > people to understand cause and effect across individuals or groups. > The insights gained from reflexive participation will just be the kind > of models we get living life (but with fancied-up language to sound more > important than they are). Seems to me this kind of modeling is more the > domain of the intelligence agencies than universities. > I take it that when you say that there is an impossibility to influence or observe then you are speaking from a particular model of the world. I cannot understand what you mean by sufficiency until I better understand where you are coming from. I think that it is most appropriate here for me to take responsibility for my ignorance on this because I don't think that I adequately explained the model of the world that I'm living in when I speak of reflexivity much less interpret how you think about it based on what I said or what you already know. I really would like to share it with you if I can, but I also don't want to bore FRIAM (I'm absolutely capable of that!). I think that if reflexive participation, as you put it, by an analyst could get at the world you experience living your life then it would be a highly successful approach. That's a pretty radical claim you're making! I'd say that such analysis would give some insight into another person's world but definitely not a replication of the same model. I recently watched a whole slew of spy movies (The Conversation, Syriana, The Good Shepard…) and I think that you're absolutely right that the model of reflexivity your proposing, shifting between models of the world, fits with the narratives portrayed in these films. You defiantly gave me an entirely new way to think about reflexive sociology! Does such an approach not belong in the University?!? I'm intrigued. Thanks for this response, you really got me thinking! Have a good night Matt > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
