Misconceptions About My Blog

I’ll finish polishing up this article and adding new sources, later on.

Intro

I'll polish this up in August

I think people just have PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS of what they expect sociology writing to be, based on what they’ve PREVIOUSLY read of other people’s

I’ll give some examples of how preconceptions can ruin someone’s perception of an artwork, rather than if they’d instead judged it by its own merits.

1) People who said they hated the Ice Age movie and Dreamworks movies, when 3D animated movies was the NEW thing. They hated it because their preconceptions made them expect a Disney-esque movie when actually the competition wanted to differentiate themselves from the biggest media company in the world. Years later, those preconceptions faded, as the general public learnt that competing kids movies are increasingly more likely to differentiate than imitate.

2) Lil Wayne’s Rebirth album. I was one of the fans who hated the album when it first came out. For me it was because it had 4 different genres in the songwriting, pop rock, punk, post-hardcore and grunge, so it wasn’t coherent. Months later I realised that his creative vision was to try to cover the whole spectrum of his whole spectrum, not just one rock sub-genre.

3) Russell Brand’s book Revolution. As a political manifesto, judging by his appearances on BBC Question Time, Newsnight and Channel 4 News as well as his Guardian articles, I was VERY disappointed to find that his book had zero solutions, zero half-solutions, zero suggestions, zero ideological beliefs or advocacies for anything. After reading the FIVE star reviews on Amazon, I realised that the whole point of Russell Brand as a non-fiction writer, is not to tell you WHAT to think or HOW to think but to instead MOTIVATE you to think, like some motivational speaker like Alan Watts, Paul McKenna or Uri Geller.

Devil’s advocate responses that are generalised and apply to everyone

Oh so you’re like THOSE grifters!

xxx

Is this going to be a whole blog/book saying that liberalism sucks?

Is this going to be a long historical essay like Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time, or On Fire by Naomi Klein

Why don’t you look at the other side of the argument?

yyy

Where’s the academic sources and peer review?

I’ll add some links in later

But note that

My social commentary blog is NOT supposed to be a

  1. Historical essay
  2. Weekly roundup
  3. Threat report
  4. Consultation with lots of community submitted case studies
  5. Incident tracker

Good examples of a weekly roundup are The Spectator and New Statesman for Britain as well as Salon and Takimag for America. Two are liberal and two are conservative.

So it’s not supposed to have loads of sources

1) I don’t see the point of using any academic sources from journals. Adding more sources doesn’t MERELY make any stated concept, any less or more real.

2) Academia, especially soft science (eg. psychology, sociology, humanities) has gone politically correct. If it’s not PC, it won’t get published, interviewed, consulted, funded or researched.

3) My sociology writing priorities using miniture mental models that remain INTACT amongst systematic cross-referencing analysis amongst any scale or subset – rather than to rely on sources, citations or testimony.

I wrote about 3) in my book

The book that needs to be rewritten in its ENTIRETY with a 2nd edition

Scale concepts down in isolation

If you see a social phonomenon, remove all the parts associated with it that’s not important and just ancillary or loosely related, to then see if the expectation you hypothesise will STILL remain true, within your miniture mental model. If it doesn’t, then you’re probably wrong and have overlooked something and need to consider something else as either your cause, effects, hypothesis or compounding factor is wrong.

EXTRACT FROM MY BOOK, TO BE UPDATED IN THE 2ND EDITION

Applying a functionalist lens to human behaviour

Scale concepts down in isolation

If you see a social phonomenon, remove all the parts associated with it that’s not important and just ancillary or loosely related, to then see if the expectation you hypothesise will STILL remain true, within your miniture mental model. If it doesn’t, then you’re probably wrong and have overlooked something and need to consider something else as either your cause, effects, hypothesis or compounding factor is wrong.

Apply deductive reasoning (Much like sudoku or picross)

If you can negatively screen against something to then eliminate the majority, based on what doesn’t fit the criteria

For example if there are precautionary measures against something and something manages to slip through the net, it could be done by rogue staff, an inside job or a false flag attack, if the deductive reasoning question is asked for how could any banned or improper behaviour possibly occur, if the chances anything could slip through the net, is so minutely and infinitely slim

The list goes on

AN introduction to rasa routing (1st edition) ~tynamite 2019

Different ways of cross-referencing or sub-sampling a miniature mental model but within a uniform and standardised way, that remains consistent whatever the end result (output), the determining factors (input) or the observation point (where someone looks to start analyzing before and after the fact)

If it STILL remains true AFTER scaling it down AFTER removing the unrelated and ancillary stuff

What it’s not meant to be
:cross~5: Weekly roundup
:cross~5: Threat report
:cross~5: Academic journal type article
:cross~5: Some XOJane style “it happened to me” style article like on Metro UK or Thought Catalog

So people can show me OTHER blogs…..

But….
But is there a miniature mental model though, in OTHER people’s writing that remains INTACT, when cross-referenced, scaled down or sub-sampled??????

This is why no academic sources from journals are needed

That’s my point

Look at what other people are doing. But is there a miniature mental model though, in OTHER people’s writing that remains INTACT, when cross-referenced, scaled down or sub-sampled??????

Avoiding wishy-washy language

That is wishy-washy language.
It’s neither here or there.

It’s like a Lorraine Kelly interview with Shakira who is accused of tax evasion

Surely wishy-washy language might make you FEEL good or enlightened……but….it is

1) Indeterminate
2) Indecisive
3) Non-imposing

Wishy washy language in a complex world with a myriad of variables, is just JUNK data

I think that AI generated answer is absolutely garbage and junk data

The methodology of how the conclusion is reached, is outdated, redundant, contradictory, black and white thinking binary thinking and excessive reductionism

Yeah because of the BEAUTY INVERSION

Consider the beauty inversion

I’m on about my own article here.

There’s my reason WHY I disagree

Because we’ve reached a BEAUTY INVERSION

If beyond mutually beneficial is net gain
If beyond ethical is prosocial

Then just because someone commits a behaviour that is both net gain and prosocial, it doesn’t mean that it’ll foster pair bonding, as nowadays it’ll cause a reservation of trust
If one of those academic articles from those journals, claim that an attitude, behavior or speech is good

Then just because it’s net gain and prosocial, will NOWADAYS due to the beauty inversion, it will counter-intuituvely cause the opposite effect, than something that society deems as “less good”

Yeah because there’s underlying beliefs that underpin everything else

Intersectionality

Did my privilege help me get to where I am today, from an intersectionality axis standpoint?

Should I use my underprivileged demographics to help raise awareness of the social justice issues?

What taskforces do they have here?

  • Young people
  • LGBT
  • Women
  • Disabled people
  • Race or racism

No I just can’t relate to the intersectional axis

https://musiciansunion.org.uk/about-the-mu/equality-diversity-and-inclusion

Only 5 people helped me in my life.

Nah I just can’t relate.
Only 5 people helped me in my life become a writer.

When I was 3, my mum taught me how to read with those Peter and Jane books.
When I was 11, the mentor at school told me to have a diary.
When I was 15, my english teacher told me to read 1984 and read The Guardian, which helped me know exactly WHAT startups would need to be created, to bypass the Google censorship, years ahead of time.
When I was 16, I sent a demo to a record label in London and got help, well quasi-signed, below the table (not above).
When I was 18, after writing my first novel, my brother said that he needed to make a team, so with his magician skills, he made a proactive effort to do some networking to give me some connections.

And that’s about it really.

In the grand scheme of things, statistically speaking, most writers and musicians get nothing, no signing, no representation, no help.
But even so, I fail to see how any intersectional based things, would of helped me gain any success, prominence, connections or ascension in the media industry.

but you paper over some real issues
being black
being differently abled
instead of referencing social meaning, just speak about where you are with it

So no I just can’t relate as I don’t think any of those things in that intersectional axis GRAPH, has hindered me in my aspiration to enter the media industry or get a good job before and after university.

Well even if it has, which there ACTUALLY was something that hindered me, it had nothing to do with any of those traits on that graph but instead something ELSE.

What else should be added onto that graph now? Maybe we need to add more lines on it.

So what help did I get from the record label?

So I can’t really relate to that intersectional stuff hindering me in entering the media industry or trying to get a good job before or after university.
Well there was SOMETHING that hindered me but it had nothing to do with any of those traits mentioned on that intersectionality axis graph, it was something ELSE.
Shall we add a new line on that graph?

I treat my writing as a disciplinary, not an apple tree

1) Imagine if I was doing affiliate marketing or running a cryptocurrency trading blog. People would think to themselves, why is this person selling OTHER people’s stuff instead of their own? This person is a shitty writer.

2) Imagine if I made 90% of my content free, while keeping 10% of it behind some crowdfunding page on Patreon or Ko-fi, all while I was relying on free organic traffic like social networks for promotion, with over 100K tweets, while churning out 50 blog articles a week. The whole point of giving out free content, is to FUNNEL people towars the Patreon page, where I’m calculated X% of viewers will follow, X% of followers will retweet, X% of followers will join newsletter, X% of newsletter subscribers will donate money. It can work for some people and look good but I DON’T do that high volume, quick turnaround type of writing, I don’t do breeze work type projects, only collosal projects that take months and years to do. So if someone like me was making 90% of my content free and having 100K tweets and trying to get loads of twitter followers, then given how I don’t do the “high volume quick turnaround” type writing, for me to use social networks for crowdfunding funnelling as free organic traffic, it would make me look like a shitty writer.

3) Imagine if I was doing that “weekly roundup” type writing like in The Spectator, New Statesman, Takimag or Slate Magazine. I’m sure the writers for those websites have some sort of original writing but I never wanted to do the “weekly roundup” thing for all the stuff that couldn’t fit in the newspaper. So if I was to do that, then people would think “oh so he’s one of THOSE writers” when I’m not and don’t intend to be, so people would ASSUME that I have RELATIVELY less original opinions than I actually do, compared to non-fiction writers who DON’T do the weekly roundup thing. So if I ever did the weekly roundup thing, it would make me look like a shitty writer.

So once someone falls into those 3 categories, given the type of writing that I want and intend to do, from a young age as a teenager, I made a PROACTIVE decision to avoid doing those 3 things as it just makes me LOOK bad and is HARMFUL to the brand. Once someone who writes the types of writing that I write about, does any one of those 3 things, people will think “this guy’s writing sucks” BEFORE even reading it, so they’ll leave the website.

i can't accept this
not in the way you are framing it

It’s just harmful to MY brand and people will LEAVE my website BEFORE even reading 100 words.

So that’s why I disagree.

Originality begets writers – If someone else already said it, then I ain’t saying it! (including underprivilege)

If the gauge of quality for a writer, is the metric of original opinions, why should I regurgitate other people’s

but you paper over some real issues
being black
being differently abled
instead of referencing social meaning, just speak about where you are with it
being differently abled

Look at how EVERY video and instagram post this person makes, is about autism, as an autistic woman.
https://www.youtube.com/@reberrabon_bon

I see no reason why I should be raising awareness by writing autism blog article 1/2/3/4, with some PSA or personal experience story, if as a writer, someone ELSE has already said what I was thinking, so I can just share a link to THEIR article.
You know, trying to have original opinions and that!

About those 4 other examples I’ll be explaining about my personal experience, it could be argued that my perspective on this could be due to me being autistic for there to be some alienation or dischordance when trying to fit in. But that’s not for me to make that opinion, as I’m not the external observer on this.

Even if it was, I wouldn’t proactively put some autism banner on it like some category or fancy graphics on it. It’ll just be another article in the midst of all the “pond life” looking ones.

I wouldn’t want to detract away from my niche sociology interest

Incoming mail is sorted on the Open University campus at Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire, 27th January 1971. A distance learning university, the Open University works in association with the BBC, and enrolled its first students in January 1971. (Photo by Chris Ware/Keystone Features/Hulton Archive/Getty Images)
Old fashioned sorting office on train

Writers are judged on the originality of their ideas, not how valid or elucidative they are

You can see what sort of blog it is now.
Social commentary, or as more specific, functionalism and market theory

I just think that if I was to have a blog with loads of articles about

  1. Politics
  2. Culture War issues
  3. The Social Model of disability
  4. Intersectionality and social justice

That people would then gain an idea of what they expect it to be, to then try to pigeon-hole it with their categorisation, so once they expect any of those 3 things, if they ever developed such false preconceptions, then it would then DETRACT from anything else that they would write about, so they wouldn’t bother to explore or consider ever reading anything else.

I don’t believe that I have fringe or crackpot opinions, well antithetical yes

When the minority of articles being about controversial topics, is mistaken by readers to be their majority output
In society, there are a lot of concepts and phenomena which are

Point 1

There is no black and white morality, there are shades of grey. The line that divides black and white is blurred. You cannot really say who is right and wrong 100%. Often it is even hard to even say who is 51% right.

Point 2

The concept cannot be commoditised. Therefore you cannot put the object or event inside a cardboard box and you cannot really depict it within a photograph or 5 minute video

Point 3

There is the ripple effect or domino effect, where by changing one small thing, will end up changing something else, to change something else – and so on. Therefore a solution that sounded good at the time, can inevitably and unfortunately have unforeseen repercussions

Point 4

The codification of morality within strict social boundaries on a blanket scale that’s all encompassing, cannot be pigeon holed into a binary option of allowed and forbidden, Cloud 9 and Room 101. If there was some PSA or written rules, then you couldn’t just say that X is definitely bad and should be banned in all its forms to its fullest extent 100% of the time. And on the contrary, you cannot say that it should be allowed to a mild extent 1% of the time. So the same people who claim that behaviour X is bad, who campaign for it to be banned, even they can’t come to a definite conclusion as to whether it should be banned 100% or allowed 1%, if you ask them the relevant questions.

Point 5

When trying to solve these abstract, pervasive and transversive problems, which are difficult to identify, hypothesise, solve and draft policy for, for the majority of the time, for the proposed solution to occur by those who campaign for it, it is like using a butchers knife to cut a 5 year old out of a cardboard box that they’re trapped in, who is too weak as a child to punch their way out the box. In order for them to create the solution that they desire, by implementing the EXACT SAME protocols and rules that they said was the best strategy to solve the problem, they tend to use a sharp blade to cut a rose.

Wrapping Up My Point

In conclusion, when you have a sociopolitical problem, that has all these predicaments within the context of analysing and potentially solving the problem, as it frequently does nowadays, these problems tend to have all these 5 things in it.
So obviously, when someone does post a sociopolitical blog article on the internet, that’ll be the one that gets the most views, as the people who are reading, sharing and sprouting it, will be the same people who’ve been having prolonged thinking and mulling of those same problems, yet they could not articulate their thoughts and feelings into words. They are forced to find someone else to articulate it for them.
If you consider the thought process of coming ideas to go from
Presupposition —-> Conceptualisation —-> Articulation —-> Actualisation
Then with all that said, I do not believe that anyone in society, from whatever group, that they would disagree with my opinions more than they would for any other person, or that I mention controversial or demographic based topics for articles for the majorit of my blog article or sociology book output.
It’s just that other people find it hard to articulate their abstract concepts into words.
Those people were probably thinking of something similar to what I already said or wrote but they were unable to articulate it in words.

Conclusion

Similar websites to my blog

No I don’t want to do a weekly roundup of political commentary, as The Spectator and New Statesman is too political, with Salon and Takimag as an american equivalent. Guess which one is liberal or conservative!

Related Posts