tags: hay published on:
Who are you known as? Are you facing a conflicting idea of yourself? Are you unsure? Is it difficult to settle into your skin comfortably? Do ghosts of awkwardness haunt you?
What identifiers do you use and which are the ones that you avoid?
Do you fit into the the categories created by the statisticians and the social scientists doing demographic research?
How long has it taken you to realise that seeking common cultural identifiers to describe yourself is a reductive process which gradually withers your charm away?
They pull words out of a hat and stick them on you because they can. Statistics has no moral baggage. Statistical analysis weans out conclusive bits of information about people that is supposed to be a certain kind of absolute truth. Even if you use deep observation to understand qualities of people, this only scratches the surface.
The only thing you can study is the expression of people, the only thing you can characterise is the behaviour. What about the social conditions that cause a change in behaviour? These conditions also help in identifying conditions which are operant inside people. We are hinting at the cultural genotype-phenotype distinction that make any kind of social analytics and study impossible beyond a point.
People are fluid. Social groups are porous. Social science is a fabrication.
There is no root to social experience, there is no source that can be dealt with in isolation from people and their behaviour.
The acceptance of social science and the matrix of social and cultural identifiers it has projected on the populace has misled us.
To have someone else tell you your truth is a let-down.
Is there a possibility of a model of social science that is based on voluntary articulation and identification. Can we fan the notion of social flux into the air? Can we not expect people to be frozen stereotypes?
Stability of the knowledge about social conditions is again established by the negligible incidence of noise at each index of measurement.
If I question the fundamental assumption then we cannot go on. Then we will have pull our brakes and stop to model a way of moving forward that is acceptable.
Each social institution we have is designed to filter out noise. The gold is in the noise.
Noise is dissent.
Democracy is just a fancy word for majority play.
I refuse to see any value in an averaged out, mean, intelligence of the crowd.
A way to acknowledge even the faintest noise in a finely calibrated solution that allows people to feel connected and included is worth pitching for.
Statistics does not have a stomach for noise.
Can we have a surface which evolves its idea of completion and stability as a commutative outcome of all the dents and blemishes on its surface?
If we do not want a simple answer, if we want a representation of the diverse set of world-views that exist? Would that change anything? Would you be able to reinvent your departmental body of knowledge hanging under the social science label?
We are not talking about the flip-flop variation between the integral results of analytics and the reduced-set dialogical space of qualitative experiential narratives. We are talking of an integral, representative qualitative-perspective model of getting results. If you have a name for this already. hold it in your head for some time and we will access it.
This model that we are talking about will change the world you live in and your view of it. It will allow you to taste the tingling of pleasure and surprise that first-time visitors to the world feel. No filters of supposed knowledge about reality clouding your vision, leaving you free to identify with anything that you want to.