RoR: Forum

bonk

Post 1

Friday, November 18, 2005 - 10:03am

Here's another one:

Q: Why is there no Nobel Prize for Sociology?

A: Actually, there is, it's called "Literature."

Post 2

Friday, November 18, 2005 - 11:27am

Sociology is the science with the most tools and the fewest results.

;-)

Post 3

Friday, November 18, 2005 - 11:29am

Marty,

You mean you're not a fan of Margaret Mead? ;-)

Jim

Post 4

Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 1:49am

I'm not a fan of sociology!

Post 5

Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 4:41am

In case the sarcasm didn't come across in my post, I'm not a fan of Sociology either! I guess Margaret Mead was more of an anthropologist/sociologist possibly one of the worst.

I am, however, a huge fan of your jokes :-)!

Jim

Post 6

Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 5:30am

Yes - Derek Freeman's books rather well show where Mead really was all a bout.

Post 7

Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 6:48am

James,

I am not a fan of sociologists or anthopologists either, but surely if one is to make a pretense at knowing the field there is a more current reference than Miss Mead.

Post 8

Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 7:00am

Robert,

I make no pretense of knowing the field :-) and I am always up for good suggestions.

Jim

Post 9

Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 9:31am

Robert,

I believe it was only recently that Margaret Mead's "research" was thoroughly debunked. That makes references to her current.

Post 10

Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 5:53am

Marty; I too love your jokes. The really bad effects of a person stay so long after they are gone and discredited. Margaret Mead is a case in point.

Post 11

Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 2:48pm

yes - in mid 90's Freeman's books came out [and late 90's]...

Post 12

Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 3:05pm

Rick,

If you consider 20-25 years recent.

Post 13

Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 5:35pm

She's an icon, hence Marty's comment has widespread appeal. It's like if you wanted to make a joke about psychologists you could make reference to recent ones - but would instead choose Freud if you wanted a broad audience to know the name.

Post 14

Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 9:05pm

Should we write off Mead's statement "Never believe that a few caring people can't change the world. For, indeed, that's all who ever have"? I don't think so - we just can't say she validated it.

Post 15

Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 9:10pm

And on the topic of economists, how's Ronald Reagan:

"One definition of an economist is somebody who sees something happen in practice and wonders if it will work in theory."

Or:

"A friend of mine was asked to a costume ball a short time ago. He slapped some egg on his face and went as a liberal economist."

Post 16

Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 9:14pm

Andrew-
LOL Thanks for the Reagan quotes, particulary the last one. I had not heard that one before.

Post 17

Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 11:46pm

Hehehehe. I hadn't heard the first one. "One definition of an economist is somebody who sees something happen in practice and wonders if it will work in theory." Right on, Ronnie!

Post 18

Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 11:58pm

""One definition of an economist is somebody who sees something happen in practice and wonders if it will work in theory.""

Yes, excellent. That particular adolescent sense of confusion that all statists have. Why? How? Um... oh... I don't like... get it, you know... but what if we... um... regulate something? Huh? That'll help, right?

Ross

Post 19

Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 1:43am