[Xmca-l] Re: Social Science Is Busted. But the NIH Has a PlanthatCould Fix It | WIRED

Tue Nov 29 11:16:56 PST 2016

Peter, Mike,
Have just finished reading Peter’s paper on the impossibility of ever actually being able to be successful in the desire for nano-control of complex  [social] concepts  and the assumption that social scientists can come to an agreed meaning that can be used for large scale data analysis and coding.

Peter, your paper directly refutes the promethean desire to bring scientific concepts [as a systematic set of principles] under volitional control without realizing  the counterpoint that we always return from systematic approaches to *resume* picking up loose threads. Your challenging the metaphor  of intertwining threads as too optimistic, too progressive,  is interesting.
Does seem to be a back and forth historical movement of generating and acquiring cohesive voices followed by fragmentation into a spectrum of layered voices. The back and forth seems to require a sense of play to sustain engagement. 
Peter, I enjoyed how your paper captures the complexity of beginning a career as a teacher.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: mike cole
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 9:32 AM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Social Science Is Busted. But the NIH Has a PlanthatCould Fix It | WIRED

I understand the sentiment, Larry. But for active academics who want to
have a voice, the apparently inexorable movement toward nano-control both
local and global seems unlikely to suffice.

I have not had time to read Peter's paper, but will get to it.

I now have copies of the Zuckerman for those that wish a copy.
mike

On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 7:50 AM, <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:

> Peter, Mike,
> Thanks for engaging with this topic that can seem to be herding cats
> (earlier metaphor).
> I want to raise up a specific question Mike asks:
> Do we come up with (indexes) of identities with  standing??.
> Indexes as signs pointing or gesturing towards ...
> What if we don’t (come up with) indexes.
> What if we singularly and co-generatively ARE indexes  or signs as human
> beings  expressing our humanity, pointing towards worlds of (significance)
> within which our existence occurs (unfolds). My being/becoming as movement,
> inclination, leaning into, indicating the reality of worlds of significance
> and our response ability to see beyond our individual existence to embrace
> and sustain and yes -resume- our mutual engagement nurturing worlds of
> significance.
> It is not a matter of drawing up a list of indexes, but of living out and
> being/becoming indexical beings oriented towards worlds of significance.
>
> Critique yes, but derived from what is already given.
> We stand not only between past and future, but equally between tradition
> and oblivion. (Foulcault).
> The angel of oblivion that must be answered by our existence as sign or
> index.
>
>
>
> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
>
> From: Peter Smagorinsky
> Sent: November 28, 2016 3:43 AM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Social Science Is Busted. But the NIH Has a Plan
> thatCould Fix It | WIRED
>
> Odd, it worked on my end. I'm attaching the ms. p
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@
> mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of R.J.S.Parsons
> Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 6:39 AM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Social Science Is Busted. But the NIH Has a Plan
> that Could Fix It | WIRED
>
> That link to your site doesn't work, Peter.
>
> Rob
>
> On 28/11/2016 11:19, Peter Smagorinsky wrote:
> > I've written something that speaks to the problem that scientists can
> agree on concepts, but social scientists can't. It originates in Vygotsky's
> tendency to illustrate complex social concepts with biological examples
> that oversimplify the process of the development of social concepts that
> have no "solid" form.
> >
> > Smagorinsky, P. (2013). The development of social and practical
> > concepts in learning to teach: A synthesis and extension of Vygotsky's
> > conception. Learning, Culture, and Social Interaction, 2(4), 238-248.
> > Available at
> > http://www.petersmagorinsky.net/About/PDF/LCSI/LCSI_2013.pdf
> >
> > abstract
> > This conceptual paper interrogates, considers, and expands on
> > Vygotsky's notion of concept development. I first review Vygotsky's
> > account of concept development, including his distinction between
> > scientific and spontaneous concepts. I next summarize his pattern of
> > concept development from complexes to pseudoconcepts to concepts, and
> > in the process problematize his view by shifting his discussion from
> > biological examples to social examples. The following section examines
> > concepts as cultural constructions, with attention to the cultural
> > nature of concepts, and concepts and societal telos. The third section
> outlines processes that complement and enrich concept development,
> including concept development's future orientation, the affective dimension
> of concept development, and creativity's role in concept development as a
> higher mental function.
> > The fourth section takes Vygotsky's notion of concept development's
> > “twisting path” and complicates it by questioning the extent to which
> > social concepts have a clear meaning toward which any pathway may lead
> > given their relativistic and ideological nature. This inquiry leads to
> > the proposal of practical concepts that serve as fragmented
> > understandings that generally cohere yet are inherently compromised by
> attention to contradictory means of mediation in socialcultural–historical
> contexts.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> > [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole
> > Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2016 7:36 PM
> > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Social Science Is Busted. But the NIH Has a Plan
> > that Could Fix It | WIRED
> >
> > I just got to this message, Larry.
> > I agree, everyone on xmca should read the article, not only because it
> is relevant to Margaret and Carrie's paper vis a vis the trajectory of
> neoliberal exaggerations of trends visible from Bush onward and if Mill can
> be used as an authority, back to the origins of modern mass schooling. It
> is also directly relevant to the kinds of pressures that current and future
> generations of social science researchers will face in terms of grants and
> publications. For example:
> >
> > * For one, the plan calls for scientists to nail down and agree on
> > terminology for different concepts so researchers aren’t just talking
> > past each other. “Often, in behavioral science, people talk about
> > different phenomena but really mean the same thing,” says Riley. Or
> > the opposite
> > happens: Chemists don’t squabble about what oxygen is, but if
> > psychologists convene a conference on a fuzzier concept like “trust,”
> > says Colin Camerer <http://people.hss.caltech.edu/~camerer/index.htm>,
> > an economist at Caltech, they’ll spend the first two days disagreeing
> > about what the word actually means.*
> >
> > *That ambiguity gets tricky when researchers are trying to share and
> > compare datasets, especially the massive ones scientists work with
> > nowadays. (If you’re trying to compare variables in two datasets both
> > named “resilience,” how do you know they’re really the same thing?) To
> > fix these problems, the plan suggests, scientists should settle on
> > rigorously defined terms. “We need to figure out what we mean when we
> > say ‘depression,’ and how to define it—either by using the same
> > measures, or by calibrating with the same framework,” Riley says.*
> >
> > The first paragraph rings true to me and ought to at least resonate
> with even the most legitimate peripheral participant on xmca. The theory
> ladeness of core terms is so very clearly laid out in this imaginary
> idea-cocktail party. And as the second paragraph makes clear, its all about
> coding, which David has introduced into the conversation.
> >
> > Overall, I think its relevant to both the theory and practice that
> serves as the content of xmca.
> > To quote a Soviet favorite. What is to be done?.
> >
> > With respect to the current article under discussion, that is the
> question I have been trying to push vis a vis those of us whose work is
> professionally tied up with education. Suppose the critique is correct and
> that the nature of the alternative is specified to the level present in the
> article.Here is a quote from the conclusion about which there has been some
> discussion.
> >
> > * In other words, we as teachers, students, parents, and researchers
> > must articulate new ways of making selves intelligible in the
> > contexts of our lives, including producing “identities-with-standing”
> > that encompass the qualities we want to promote, identities that index
> > a way-of-being that brings special pride and a sense of self-worth
> > with respect to qualities that matter. In the case of schools and*
> >
> > *classrooms, these qualities might include intellectual curiosity,
> > serious deliberation, citizen participation,* * * *social critique,
> > and deep knowledge and understanding.*
> >
> >
> > Do we come up with "indexes of 'identities with standing'"? Or "social
> critique" (no problem with knowledge and understanding, we have test
> scores.  :-)  ).
> >
> > How does this collection of legitimately peripheral participants in so
> many lifeworlds address this situation as relevant academic "experts"?
> > (my son often reminds me that an expert is just a drip under pressure).
> >
> > Odd historical circumstances when Lenin's "what is to be done"
> > question is posed in such an upside down confluence of historically
> > antonymous ideologies and world systems.  
> >
> > mike
> >
> > **
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 2:16 PM, <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> This may be of interest on the topic of standardization and
> >> replication and measurement phenomena as what seems to be driving the
> >> desire for
> >> (exact) science and how it is colonizing social studies Social
> >> Science Is Busted. But the NIH Has a Plan that Could Fix It The NIH's
> >> Office of Behavioral and Social Science Research is responding to a
> >> fundamental shift in social science research.
> >>
> >>
> >> https://www.wired.com/2016/11/social-science-busted-nih-plan-fix/
> >> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
> >>
> >>
>
>
>