“Philosophy of Social Science: A New Introduction”
Task 2 - Understanding Social Science
students
JACKY MILADY GARCIA
SOLANO
YAHAIRA GUZMAN ARENAS
WILLIAM ALONSO
MARCIALES URBINA
YESICA TATIANA ROMERO
WILMER RONCANCIO
VARGAS
number group 551034_10
DIDACTICS OF SOCIAL SCIENCE
Universidad Nacional Abierta y a Distancia – UNAD
Licenciatura en idiomas con énfasis en ingles
william marciales
chapter Three
Summary of three chapters.
How does evidence-based policy-making help in
reducing child malnutrition in developing economies?
Can evidence-based policy-making be applied
to all policy areas, or are there limitations to its effectiveness?
Can
evidence-based policy-making be applied to all policy areas, or are there
limitations to its effectiveness?
Evidence-based policy-making can be applied
to all policy areas, but there may be limitations to its effectiveness. The
effectiveness of evidence-based policy-making depends on the availability and
quality of evidence, as well as the political and social context in which
policies are developed and implemented. Additionally, some policy areas may be
more complex and difficult to evaluate than others, which can make it
challenging to apply evidence-based approaches. However, the use of
evidence-based policy-making is still considered to be a valuable tool for
improving decision-making processes in a wide range of policy areas.
What is
EBP?
According to , EBP stands for evidence-based policy. It is an approach to policy-making that involves using the best available evidence to inform decisions about policies and programs. While policy-makers have always used evidence to some degree, EBP is a more systematic approach that emphasizes the importance of considering the "best evidence" when making decisions.
The goal of EBP is to help policy-makers make better-informed decisions by putting the best available evidence at the center of the policy process.
What is
'Best' Evidence?
According
to , "best evidence" refers to the most reliable and valid evidence
available for a particular policy question or decision. The concept of
"best evidence" is central to evidence-based policy-making, and
involves developing explicit criteria for judging evidence and appraising
existing research in order to offer guidance to policy-makers in determining
what is the best evidence for their purposes. The best evidence is typically
seen as evidence that supports causal claims and reports predictions about the
impact a policy is likely to have. The most reliable form of best evidence is a
systematic review of the results of several randomized controlled trials
(RCTs), while the second-best form is the results of individual RCTs in which
confounding factors have been controlled for.
in public
funding and determine potential students. If you then find that there is a drop
in the number of not
people
applying for university places, is this evidence that the policy has failed?
You need to consider
what else
is going on besides the change in fee policy. There are a number of rival
hypotheses that could
account for
the drop in applications. Birth rates fluctuate: does this year coincide with a
smaller group of
people in
the appropriate age group? People are influenced in deciding to apply to
university by their beliefs
about
whether it will help them get a well-paid job and, since the economy is
struggling, the current
circumstances
make many people decide it will not be financed
a drop in
the number of people applying for university places after a policy change, such
as a rise in university fees, is not necessarily evidence that the policy has
failed. This is because there may be other factors that could account for the
drop in applications, such as fluctuations in birth rates or changes in the
economy. Therefore, it is important to consider these other factors and rule
out alternative explanations before making causal claims about the impact of a
policy. This highlights the importance of using rigorous research methods, such
as randomized controlled trials, to control for confounding factors and avoid
bias and inaccuracy in making causal claims.
Systematic
Reviews
Criticisms
of EBP 1: The Claim to Be Objective
Regarding
criticisms of EBP, one of the main criticisms is that it claims to be
objective, but in reality, it involves numerous judgments and decisions that
are subject to bias and interpretation. For example, decisions have to be made
about which studies to include in a systematic review, and quality factors have
to be combined and weighed. This process involves a lot of judgment and
interpretation, which can lead to different conclusions depending on who is
conducting the review.
Therefore,
it cannot be guaranteed to be completely reliable or objective.
Criticisms
of EBP 2: The Claim to Produce Universal Knowledge
Regarding
criticisms of EBP, one of the main criticisms is that it claims to produce
universal knowledge, but in reality, the findings of social research may not be
generalizable to other contexts. This is because social reality is complex and
varies across different locations and contexts. The causal impact of any policy
will be shaped by its interactions with other parts of the social system as it
is implemented, and this will produce varied outcomes in different locations.
Therefore, while empirical research can be a useful resource for policy-makers,
it is much more complex and limited than EBP assumes.
The Social
Construction of Key Concepts
"above" individuals and that they have properties and powers that cannot be reduced to the properties and powers of their individual members. Others maintain that social groups are simply an aggregate of individuals and do not exist independently of their individual members. However, it is generally accepted that social groups involve more than one individual and are collections of people who interact with each other on the basis of shared attitudes. Therefore, the nature of social groups and their relationship to individuals is a complex and ongoing topic of discussion in social ontology.
contemporary debates. To clarify, the term "holism" shouldn't be confused with the concept labeled "collectivism" here. Holism asserts that human agents depend non-causally on social relations for distinct capacities, whereas "atomism" argues that individuals can develop all human capacities independently. Holism and atomism pertain to individual human capacities, whereas collectivism and individualism (both ontological and methodological) relate to social groups and their connections to individuals.
Wimer roncacio vargas
13. Social Epistemology in Practice
According to the
reading, interdisciplinarity in action is based on three challenges. The first
examines the disparities and relies on deciding what is at stake in this
phenomenon the second discusses how responding to population aging involves
coordinating how people work. The last section shows that doing ‘good’
interdisciplinary science involves combining different reasons to pursue this.
Interdisciplinarity is
an approach to academic learning, research, and teaching. It also integrates a
disciplinary practice, and its meaning comes from the interdisciplinary spirit
in Greek of habits or customs, Ethos social scientists mention genetics to
avoid the true underlying cause of health disparities: current social,
political, and educational inequalities. experienced by different racial and
ethnic groups, finding resources to understand and address "racial health
disparities" is an interdisciplinary issue, reflecting the struggles faced
in everyday life by people who identify with various races. It is not only a
socio-economic problem but also a classificatory one where people receive
better attention because they are white than black people.
A second challenge in
the field of interdisciplinarity involves determining what methods and analyses
are already available within each discipline and deciding when and how to use
them. Researchers with different approaches must face the task of selecting the
most appropriate methods in their respective disciplines. In addition, work in
various disciplines typically takes place at different physical locations,
follows different schedules, and adheres to different patterns of work
activity. Coordinating collaborative efforts while respecting each team
member's disciplinary practices can seem almost unachievable. Furthermore,
disparities in research methodologies often align with discipline-specific
social contexts, and job negotiation across disciplines often requires
navigating different work cultures (Strauss 1978). This is where conflicts
often arise between interdisciplinary participants.
It is important not to
influence that we know the values of others or influence our own objective
because we are still learning in our investigative process. Interdisciplinary
motivations structure the production of knowledge and can review individual and
discipline-specific objectives. A way of dealing with different values within
a group, such as conflicts visions or practices of the world is to discover
ways of making differences visible. Recognize such challenges early in
collaborative work and allow Factoring differences adds value to interdisciplinary
knowledge production and potentially prepares group members to better
understand disputes later in the process.
Social Epistemology in
Practice
Some social
epistemologists claim to give general accounts of the extent to which
diversity, critical forums, and discussions about values are ideal. one of
the best-known stories is that of Helen Longino (1990) contextual empiricism”
that specifies four standards for scientific knowledge: equality of
intellectual authority (lack of testimonial unfairness), shared standards for
evaluation that include success, public forums for criticism, and
responsiveness to criticism. The extent to which these standards are followed
by scientific communities could benefit from a social standard such as this,
which provides a checklist of the types of social phenomena to be evaluated
A social epistemic
analysis can go further, looking at trust, experience, authority, review by
debates, the results of consensus conferences, etc. the probable presence of
cognitive biases, analysis of points of view, objectives and values in
research, epistemic diversity, testimonial injustice, agnotology, and social
norms. This leads to a deeper understanding of the debate. and ultimately
extends the options available using tools of social epistemology and other
fields.
Yesica Tatiana
The behavior of society and individuals began
to be studied scientifically. This approach assumed that understanding social
phenomena required adopting the methods of natural science, as advocated by
John Stuart Mill. Social inquiry was seen as an extension of scientific method
and explanation, leading to a comparison with more established sciences and
influencing how social science developed its theoretical and practical
resources to achieve objective results. The objectivity in social science is
based on three principal ideas: grabbing only onto real objects and real facts,
driving out values from descriptions and explanations (separate facts from
values) and using only methods like to secure true outcomes (use just
quantitative methods in both sciences). Now we are going to discuss these ideas
one by one.
Grabbing only real
facts: this idea talks about if the problems already exists or the oly exist
because of the humans become them into phenomenons. For example the alcoholism,
this exist for its own count or it only exits due to the sociologicas studies
about it. However, this does not mean that scientific objects are created by
science, but it means how deeeply they are embedden in society On the other
hand, there´s brute and constructed facts, we understand “brute facts” as those
that would exists without the presence of humans and the “constructed facts”,
those that exist because of humans, both facts requiere representations,
according to Ian Hackin. And this man, also says that is not necessary to mark
a difference between natural and social science. So, we can not say that some
social or natural factors are not relevant or they just exists due to their
studies. In the same way, there is a relation between these two sciences,
because how was said before the social science was born as natural science, so
this lead us to think that all the sciences emereges as natural one
No values: “a commonly
held claim is that social science is value-laden through and through. Values
appear both at the level of the results of social inquiry and at the level of
the means and resources of this inquiry” (Pag. 129). What we mean with that is,
the realm of social inquiry, distinguishing between factual information and
value judgments is challenging. However, this inherent value-leadenness in
social science is not necessarily problematic. Max Weber, a key figure in
sociology, advocated for objectivity in social science while acknowledging its
value-laden nature. Weber proposed a distinction between "value
judgments" and "value relevance." Value judgments involve
subjective evaluations based on ethics, worldviews, opinions, or standpoints,
while value relevance relates to cultural and social values that attribute
significance to what is studied. Weber advised social scientists to avoid
making value judgments in their work but to embrace value relevance in their
research. For instance, in the study of capitalism, the focus is on identifying
and analyzing features considered "relevant" for investigation, such
as the concept of "internal rationalization," which characterizes
capitalism's systematic organization of human activities in an efficient,
calculable, and impersonal manner.
Follow the best
method: this is chosen by the objetcivity and validity of the method and the
investigation. This viewpoint has given rise to two prominent scientific
beliefs. To begin with, internal validity is best ensured by adhering to a set
of formal requirements aimed at maintaining result consistency. These
requirements are typically expressed using operationalized, probabilistic, or
statistical language. Secondly, the methods characterized by internal validity,
as outlined earlier, are generally regarded as the most effective and widely applicable
methods in principle.
3.1 Numbers as the route to objectivity: Rigorous
formal methodologies are often contrasted with qualitative approaches like
interviews, focus groups, ethnographic observation, and content analysis.
Qualitative methods are frequently criticized for being seen as less precise,
more subjective, and influenced by personal opinions in comparison to
quantitative methods. Consequently, there is an argument that qualitative
methods should be avoided in robust scientific research. Embracing this
perspective, the social sciences, where qualitative methods are commonly used,
sometimes seek to transform them into quantitative formats. This is based on
the belief that prioritizing quantity over quality can help mitigate bias,
subjective judgment, and disagreements among researchers or different schools
of thought. Thus, especially in the social sciences, the pursuit of objectivity
has often led to a preference for quantitative methods over qualitative ones.
Best methods in principle: the best method according to (Carlson et al. 1995) is entography due to covers the complexity of human behaviour, creating an unique and wide route of investigation. Furtheremore, the autor of the article says that “there are not better/best methods in principle in view of achivieng objective results” (pag. 140). The degree of objectivity in a research method is often determined by how well it addresses the specific inquiries within a particular research context. Rather than expecting a single method to have all the solutions or tools needed, it's often more effective to combine various methodologies. There is no universally applicable rule or strategy that guarantees the utmost objectivity in assessments or decision-making in real-world situations. It's crucial not to set overly high expectations, even for the most robust statistical findings, experiments, or formally designed outcomes.
FEMINIST STANDPOINT
THEORY
The feminism is a
movement that advocate for the equality and equity between women and men. But
since the begging of the history, women have been excluded by the society and
science, that´s why we can say that the science is for men and not for women,
this according feminist philosophers. In words of Harding “feminist standpoint
theory intends to map the practices of power, the ways the dominant
institutions and their conceptual frameworks create and maintain oppressive
social relations. Secondly, it does this by locating, in a material and
political disadvantage or form of oppression, a distinctive insight about how a
hierarchical social structure works.... Third, the perspectives of the
oppressed cannot be automatically privileged.... Finally, standpoint theory is
more about the creation of groups’ consciousness than about shifts in the
consciousness of individuals. (2004a: 31–2)” this means that women are
oppressed by the dominant institutions, politics and society.
We say that because,
the majority things in this society are created by men for men, example of this
is science. Which think that all the women live the same experience, thing
which is false, due to every experience is associated to multiples factors, for
example the race, class and sexual orientation.
On the other hand,
feminist standpoint theory emphasizes three principal ideas: the first one is
that the situated knowledge is deeply rooted in specific social contexts; the
thesis of epistemic privilege, suggesting that certain groups have unique
insights due to their social positioning; and the achievement thesis, which
focuses on the impact of cultural, political and social location on knowledge.
This theory rejects the notion of a single objective perspective and highlights
how dominant cultures often overlook the perspectives of marginalized groups
like women, African-American, Latinos and poor people.
Here is another
concept that is talked in the article and is “social location”. In this part
refers to that women´s experience is different due to their location, which is
true, because according where a woman live, her life will be good or bad. For
example, we can´t say that a woman who lives in a nice and fancy neighborhood
has experiment the same things that a woman who lives in poor neighborhood,
their stories are different, thing that the science does not understand,
because how was said before the science generalized all the women experiences,
and summarized in one history.
Said that, is moment
to talk about the epistemic relativism and objectivity. Epistemic relativism
poses a significant challenge to feminist standpoint theory, which advocates
for a perspective influenced by social context. This is concerning because
feminist philosophers argue that feminist social science constitutes better
science, requiring some standard to assess it. Since feminist standpoint theory
rejects traditional scientific objectivity, proponents have sought alternative
ways to explain its success as a feminist social science methodology while
addressing the problems posed by relativism. Sandra Harding, says that the
objectivism is impartial, impersonal and value free, keeping the line that just
because there´s around 4 billion women in the world, does not mean that all of them
live the same or have the same style of life.
In the same way, Wyle
says that the objectivity is actually a judgment based on their alignment with
certain epistemic virtues, such as empirical adequacy, explanatory power,
coherence, and consistency with existing knowledge. This theory helps us
understand how these virtues should be prioritized when selecting theories
because they can't always be fully achieved simultaneously. For instance,
empirical adequacy can involve either deep localized evidence or broad
applicability. Standpoint theory acknowledges that different contexts may
require emphasizing different virtues. Although feminist standpoint theory
promotes partiality and interest in its methodology, it can be seen as
enhancing objectivity by guiding the selection of relevant virtues for a
specific knowledge project. In simple words, her standpoints help to prioritize
the experiences according certain indicators, with the purpose of have unique
experiences.
Continuing with Wyle,
she said “Wherever structures of social differentiation make a systematic
difference to the kinds of work people do, the social relations they enter,
their relative power in these relations, and their self-understanding, it may
be relevant to ask what epistemic effects a (collectively defined) social
location may have” (Pag. 154) . Another way to see this is that the society
marks a difference in everything, and this is way at the moment the scientists
do an investigation they have to keep in mind that the fact that we live in the
same society does not mean that we live the same life. And that´s way the
feminist science is better than the original science, because includes all the
independent variables and experiences and create an inform that covers all
these independences and distant cases.
There is another topic
that is relevant to talk and is the interest-based objectivity. We can approach
objectivity in science by considering that scientific research doesn't directly
deal with the intricate objects of the world but rather with conceptual models
of those objects. Lorraine Daston and Peter Galison refer to these as
"working objects." Scientists must grapple with the challenge of
choosing and shaping these working objects from the multitude of complex
natural objects they encounter in their research. In science, the researchers
not always include all the variables, bit they just include the factors that
they consider as important.
Finally, the
assumption that domestic labor isn't considered work leads social scientists to
overlook tasks primarily performed by women. Feminist critique challenges this
assumption, advocating for research that starts with the everyday lives of
women. This approach reveals that society's model, which devalues tasks mostly
done by women, fails to understand social reality in a way that benefits
women's interests in social change. Women's work, such as meal preparation,
childcare, and supporting their husbands in the visible economy, is genuine
work but often goes unnoticed because it supports an institutional structure
that depends on women's invisibility. By beginning research from women's daily
lives, their work becomes visible, exposing disparities between their
experiences and traditional social concepts like work, leisure, and individual
choices used by social scientists.
And once again, the
science excludes one job that is done by millions of women in the entire world
and is the domestic labor. This is the worst paid and underestimated job. And
the reason is because the people think that carry a house and a family on is
something easy that everyone can do, but no, this is not a job for everyone,
and something that people (specially men) can understand. This is why the
feminist standpoint say that they approach provides knowledge for women, because
if the normal science can explain the complexity of being a woman the feminist
will do it.
The intention of the
author is show that the not just the society excludes the women, but the
science does it too. And that´s why prove that the feminist ideology is
necessary to make a change in the world and force the science to start to see
the women as a complex and unique creature with different experiences and life
style, which depends to the social location and the objectivism.
Jacky milady
PRIMER ARTÍCULO.
MODELOS DE ELECCIÓN
This chapter talks about the importance that models have in human behavior. It describes the different kinds of models and gives a deep description of each so that the lector may have them clear and at the same time make a relationship between the theory and the reality.
Cartwright, & Montuschi. (2014) describes that the social sciences involve special kinds of models that track our notions, based on common sense or ‘folk’ psychology, of the causes of human behavior.
The division of the field into three domains—decision theory, social choice theory, and game theory—provides a structured framework for studying various aspects of decision-making, individual and collective behavior, and strategic interaction. Here's a brief overview of each domain:
1. Decision Theory:
- Focus: Individual decision-making.
- Scope: It investigates how a single person or agent makes choices and evaluates outcomes based on their preferences, beliefs, and constraints.
- Applications: Psychology and cognitive science are particularly interested in decision theory as it helps understand how individuals make choices and the cognitive processes behind those decisions.
- Key Concepts: Utility theory, expected utility, rationality, subjective probability, decision under uncertainty, and choice modeling.
2. Social Choice Theory:
- Focus: Collective decision-making and aggregation of preferences.
- Scope: It deals with situations where a group of agents must make a collective decision, often with differing individual preferences, and aims to find a way to reconcile these preferences into a group choice.
- Applications: Widely used in political science, public economics, and areas where decisions need to be made by a group, such as voting systems and public policy.
- Key Concepts: Arrow's impossibility theorem, voting methods, preference aggregation, and fairness criteria.
3. Game Theory:
- Focus: Strategic interactions among individuals or agents.
- Scope: Game theory studies situations where multiple decision-makers (players) interact strategically, anticipating each other's actions and seeking to optimize their own outcomes. It models scenarios where the actions of one player affect the payoffs of others.
- Applications: Game theory has extensive applications in microeconomics (e.g., pricing and competition), but it has also found use in sociology, political science, biology (evolutionary game theory), and more recently, various social science disciplines.
- Key Concepts: Nash equilibrium, dominant strategy, cooperative and non-cooperative games, zero-sum games, and extensive form games.
These three domains collectively provide a comprehensive framework for analyzing various aspects of decision-making, whether at the individual level, in group settings, or in situations involving strategic interactions. They are fundamental tools in understanding human behavior, societal choices, and strategic decision-making across multiple disciplines.
2.1 Individual Decision Models
It can be divided in the following aspects:
1. Prospects: In decision theory, a prospect refers to a set of possible future outcomes or events that a decision-maker is considering. Prospects encompass the various possibilities that may result from a particular decision or course of action.
2. Acts: Acts are the different actions or choices that a decision-maker can take in a given situation. Each act corresponds to a specific course of action that may lead to different prospects.
3. States: States represent the different conditions or situations that can occur in the future. These states are often associated with probabilities, indicating the likelihood of each state occurring. Decision-makers consider the possible states of the world when evaluating prospects.
4. Outcomes: Outcomes are the results or consequences that arise from a combination of a chosen act and the actual state of the world. These outcomes can be positive or negative and are used to assess the desirability or utility of a particular decision.
In decision theory, individuals assess prospects and their associated probabilities to make choices that maximize their expected utility or preference. Preferences refer to the personal judgments and valuations that individuals assign to different outcomes and prospects. People make choices based on their preferences, aiming to select acts that align with their desired outcomes.
Overall, the framework you mentioned is a fundamental concept in understanding how individuals make decisions when faced with uncertainty, and it is commonly used in fields such as economics, psychology, and behavioral economics to analyze and model decision-making processes.
2.2 Game Models
3. Ideal Type and its Discontents
The criticisms about choice models in the social sciences, particularly in the context of idealized characterizations of individuals and the focus on individuals rather than societies, highlight some key concerns in the field. Let's delve into these criticisms:
1. Idealized Characterization of Individuals:
- Simplification: Critics argue that choice models often rely on idealized or oversimplified characterizations of individuals, such as the assumption of perfectly rational actors with consistent and transitive preferences. These assumptions may not accurately reflect the complexities of real human behavior.
- Ignoring Psychological Factors: Choice models often overlook important psychological factors, emotions, bounded rationality, and cognitive biases that influence decision-making in the real world. Critics assert that a more nuanced understanding of human psychology is necessary for realistic modeling.
2. Focus on Individuals as Building Blocks:
- Reductionism: Critics contend that the exclusive focus on individual agents in choice models can be reductionist. It may lead to an incomplete understanding of social phenomena, as many societal-level outcomes result from collective actions, interactions, and structural factors that cannot be fully explained by individual-level analysis alone.
- Neglecting Structural Factors: By emphasizing individual choices, choice models may downplay the role of structural factors, institutions, cultural norms, and power dynamics in shaping social outcomes. Critics argue that a more comprehensive approach should consider both individual and societal factors.
3. Holistic Approaches:
- Emerging Perspectives: Some researchers advocate for more holistic approaches that bridge the gap between individual-level and societal-level analyses. These approaches seek to incorporate both micro-level (individual) and macro-level (societal) factors to provide a more complete understanding of social interactions and outcomes.
- Complexity and Interconnectedness: Social phenomena are often characterized by intricate interactions between individuals and their broader social contexts. Critics argue that modeling this complexity requires considering not only individual choices but also the emergent properties and systemic effects of these choices on society.
In response to these criticisms, there is a growing recognition in the social sciences of the need for more nuanced and interdisciplinary approaches. This includes integrating insights from psychology, sociology, economics, and other fields to develop models that better capture the richness and diversity of human behavior and social interactions. Additionally, there is an increased emphasis on acknowledging the role of both individual and societal factors in shaping social outcomes, moving beyond purely reductionist or individualistic perspectives.
3.1 Standard Decision Theory: Unfalsifiable or Simply False?
Max Weber, a prominent figure in sociology, indeed emphasized the importance of understanding social behavior through the concept of "ideal types." Ideal types are theoretical constructs that represent simplified and abstracted models of social phenomena or human behavior. Weber's notion of the "rational actor" or an agent who acts rationally to further their own ends is one such ideal type that has had a significant influence on the social sciences.
3.2 Game Theory: The Reductionist Critique
the criticism of reductionism in game theory and the broader use of methodological individualism highlights a tension between simplifying social interactions for analysis and recognizing the complexity of social phenomena. While individual-level analysis is essential and informative, it may need to be complemented with more holistic perspectives and approaches to gain a comprehensive understanding of the dynamics of social systems and group-level phenomena. The appropriateness of these methods often depends on the specific research question and the context of the study.
In essence, the passage encourages a pragmatic and results-oriented approach to choose modeling in the social sciences. It recognizes that models are simplifications of reality and may have limitations, but their value lies in their ability to provide insights, make predictions, and help researchers understand and address specific questions and problems within their field of study. The appropriateness of a choice model depends on its practical utility in achieving these goals.
SECOND ARTICLE.
NORMS, CONVENTIONS AND THE POWER OF EXPECTATIONS.
The article discusses the nature of norms, particularly social norms, and how they are essential for the functioning of society. Here's a breakdown of the key points in the passage:
1. Norms as Collective Beliefs: Norms are described as social constructs that exist because people collectively believe in them. These norms are upheld because individuals trust that others also believe in and follow them. This collective belief is what gives norms their existence.
2. Dependence on Collective Beliefs: The passage emphasizes that norms are not independent of what people think and believe about them. They exist only because people collectively adhere to them. Norms, in this sense, are not like physical objects such as tables and chairs; instead, they rely on the shared beliefs of a community.
3. Legal vs. Social Norms: The passage distinguishes between legal norms and social norms. Legal norms are explicit, mandatory rules established by the state, often with formal enforcement mechanisms. Social norms, on the other hand, are less specific and rely on informal sanctions like gossip or social ostracism.
4. Expectations and Reciprocity: Social norms can generate expectations of compliance, where people feel it is legitimate to expect certain behaviors from others. For example, reciprocity, the expectation that beneficial actions will be returned, is considered important for building trust in social environments. Trust, in turn, is crucial for the functioning of markets and political systems.
5.The Social Functions of Norms: The passage suggests that norms are essential because they serve specific social functions. For example, norms like reciprocity help maintain trust in society, which is critical for the proper functioning of economic and political systems. Norms, in this view, are not just arbitrary rules but are linked to the broader functioning of society.
In summary, the passage highlights the role of collective beliefs in sustaining social norms, the differences between legal and social norms, and the importance of norms in supporting trust and societal functioning. It emphasizes that norms are not inherent entities but depend on shared beliefs and behaviors.
Norms as Equilibria: The Game Theory Connection
The concept of Nash equilibrium, is a fundamental idea in game theory. In the context of game theory, a Nash equilibrium represents a stable state in which no player has any motivation to change their strategy unilaterally. Here's a breakdown of the key points:
1. Combination of Strategies: In a game involving multiple players, each player chooses a strategy (a set of actions or decisions). A Nash equilibrium is a specific combination of these strategies, where each player's chosen strategy is the best response to the strategies chosen by the other players.
2. No Incentive to Diverge: In a Nash equilibrium, if all players are aware of the strategies chosen by the others and are considering changing their own strategy, they have no incentive to do so. In other words, no player can improve their own outcome by changing their strategy while holding the strategies of others constant.
3. Stability: Nash equilibria represent stable outcomes in the sense that once reached, they tend to persist because there is no unilateral incentive for any player to deviate from their strategy. If a deviation were beneficial to one player, it would likely lead to a new equilibrium.
4. Strategic Interaction: Nash equilibria capture the idea of strategic interaction, where the choices of one player depend on the choices of others. These equilibria help analyze and predict outcomes in various situations, such as economics, politics, and social interactions, where individuals or entities make decisions that affect each other.
In summary, Nash equilibrium is a crucial concept in game theory that describes a stable state in which no player in a game has any reason to change their strategy given the strategies of the other players. It is a fundamental tool for analyzing strategic interactions and understanding decision-making in scenarios involving multiple rational actors.
The Power of Expectations and Epistemic Traps
It discusses the concept of conditional preferences and highlights the importance of mutual expectations in understanding social norms. Let's break down the key points:
1. Empirical Expectations: These are the beliefs that individuals hold about whether a significant portion of the relevant group or population adheres to a particular norm. In other words, it's the belief that many people follow the norm.
2. Normative Expectations: These are the beliefs that individuals hold about whether a significant portion of the relevant group or population believes that they should conform to the norm and may impose sanctions for non-compliance. Normative expectations involve the belief in the moral or social obligation to follow the norm.
3. Conditional Preference: This concept suggests that individuals are more likely to prefer to conform to a social norm when they hold both empirical and normative expectations. It implies that people's preferences for adhering to a norm are contingent on the presence of these expectations.
4. Role of Expectations in Norms: The passage emphasizes that norms exist because of the expectations of those who follow them. These expectations go beyond mere empirical observations and encompass normative beliefs about what is socially or morally right. They may also include the belief that non-compliance will result in punishment and compliance will lead to rewards.
5. Cost-Benefit Model of Conformity: The passage acknowledges the cost-benefit model of conformity, which highlights the importance of sanctions in norm compliance. However, it argues that this model doesn't fully capture the significance of mutual expectations in sustaining norms.
6. Game Theory and Norms: Game theory is mentioned as a modeling tool that can help illustrate the interdependence of actions and mutual expectations in norm compliance. However, it is noted that game theory does not explicitly distinguish between descriptive (empirical) and normative expectations, which are essential for understanding the motivations behind compliance with norms.
7. Operational Definition of Norms: The passage concludes by stating that defining norms in terms of conditional preferences and expectations is operational. This means that such a definition allows for predictions about how changes in expectations will lead to changes in behavior. It also suggests that norms can be measured and analyzed based on what determines compliance.
In summary, this passage underscores the role of expectations, both empirical and normative, in sustaining social norms and emphasizes that norms are not merely based on empirical observations but also on beliefs about what is expected and morally right. It highlights the importance of distinguishing between different types of expectations and suggests that this perspective offers a valuable framework for understanding and predicting norm compliance.
Comentarios
Publicar un comentario