Padriag
Posts: 2633
Joined: 3/30/2005 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kittyinpink For those of you interested in the paticulars, this was as study done by William Ickes (1983). It doesn't bother to mention exactly how the experiment was done, just that Ickes observed "ongoing social interations between traditional and nontradtional men and women. Probably taken from his book "Compatible and incompatible relationships" in which he pontificates about what around here would get quicly labeled "one twue wayism" regarding relationships. Ickes is a bit obsessed with "empathic" approaches to relationships, he largely discounts the value of leadership, competitive ability, etc. Ickes believes in "every day mindreading" which isn't what it sounds like, so much as it is how people react to body language, voice inflections, etc. He's spent a lot of time researching how accurately people can pick up on the moods, etc. of strangers. That's fine, but did we really need a scientific study to tell us that people who know each other well are more "empathically accurate" than total strangers??? Ickes is one of a number of psychologist (and unfortuately a college professor) pushing an agenda, they want to eliminate human social competitiveness and firmly believe all human ills can be solved if we all just learn to sing along together... therefore "dominance" (along with several thousand years of naturally evolved human social heirarchy and behavior) must be eliminated and in their view men are the worst offenders in this regard. IMNSHO its psycho-social engineering rubbish at its worst. As for his research method mentioned above. He used the unstructured dyadic interactive paradigm method. That's a very fancy way of saying you observe the interactions of two or more people in an uncontrolled environment. In other words, you could sit on a park bench and watch two people talking and how they interact and you're using the "unstructured dyadic interactive paradigm". Personally, I'm skeptical of any results based solely on that method. In my opinion its fine for forming a hypothesis, but not for formulating a coherent theory. My reason for that opinion is specifically the uncontrolled conditions, there are simply too many variables to make conclusive statements. You don't know what other factors, unobserved by the observer, might be affecting the interaction. But then that's part of my problem with Ickes... he see's precisely what he wants to see.
_____________________________
Padriag A stern discipline pervades all nature, which is a little cruel so that it may be very kind - Edmund Spencer
|