24 Matching Annotations
  1. Sep 2016
    1. hat we are all each other’s audience and we sort of perform

      I'll bring up again the subjective nature of rational and perception. Human capital, or social capital, assumes that the rational is concurrent with all actors. That's not the case as can be exemplified in numerous interactions online via Catfish type interactions. For those directly involved in those situations the behavior exhibited is totally rational and acceptable. Those outside of it potentially find amusement, and therefore apply that capital in a different way. Are both wrong, right, or is one distinctly correct over the other? Ten years ago the collective would argue that the norm leans towards the behavior is not rational. Now, with more and more solidarity with internet interaction occurring what's the norm? I feel it's less convincing from ten years ago. That lens is ever changing according to social norms, and norms applied to one's self.

    2. phenomenon of “the free rider”. The free rider problem is an individual’s rational decision not to participate in group activity if it’s not worth their time, energy, money, etc. But! They stand to be

      The free rider in this theory can actually be the intellectual personality that we are studying can't it?. What's wrong with the free riding actor? There is no such thing as a utopia, so why would we expect the collective to be all encompassing? This part of the theory I wasn't a fan about. As generations cross over and old methodologies morph into new ones, the free riders are required to question the system. Why can't the free riders be the actors to help keep the collective in check? Just food for thought.

    3. rational choice is playing a role with the actors, and a mental scale of the costs and benefits is present.

      Rational choice is exactly that, rational. Defining what is rational does not have a universal standard. So as the weight test of pros, cons, and best decision process occur in the actor(s) minds, what is rational to one actor may not be rational to another. The mental scale isn't one that can truly be measured. Rationality is subjective in nature and it's important that as decisions are made that are considered against the "norm" effort is made to first define the rational before perusing any further.

    4. It is almost Shakespearean in nature!

      Shakespeare is a great example for illustrating presentation of self and it's relation to rational choice/exchange theory, IMO.

    5. reflection of yourself based on the appraisals we get

      Yep, and here is the potential cost or benefit to actors, which is decided based on their control of self presentation and their success at the theatricality of interaction. In a way, both are assets/goods and are costs/benefits. (If your reflected appraisals turn negative, your confidence may suffer, affecting your success with social "acting.")

    6. When an actor interacts with another individual, the actor is attempting to control the impression the individual forms of him. Meanwhile, the individual is trying to form an impression of the actor based on the interaction.

      Here we are, presentation. I think control of self-presentation and image is a "good" one owns and seeks to retain control over. Personal capital, if we want to go there. I appreciate considering these concepts alongside Exchange Theory.

    7. The free rider problem is an individual’s rational decision not to participate in group activity if it’s not worth their time, energy, money, etc.

      I find parallels with the free rider issue to my own experience with workplace dynamics. I work in a bureaucracy which is especially non-social, which creates little collective cohesiveness or interests, except for justifying each's job within the bureaucracy -- an idea which Collins detailed heavily in his description of the evolution of universities and governments. This provides incentive for free riders, but little ability of groups (not being social or cohesive) to react to that behavior.

    8. there is a lot of calculation occurring within these exchanges, and rational choice is playing a role with the actors, and a mental scale of the costs and benefits is present

      While rational choice provides valuable perspective, I have a lot of difficulty believing we calculate this way, explicitly. I think much of the calculation, for many people, is present but occurs on the gut level -- either way, our mental scales are skewed (Dozens of examples to point to, but I am thinking to an extent about the multiracial study and how monoracial online daters might justify interactions which reveal biases.) Exchange Theory, critically elevates and complicates this with the less tangible social "goods" -- status, relationship dynamics, knowledge, etc. -- which affect emotional and intuited responses.

    9. actors

      (Dramaturgy!) I like the word actors specifically because it implies both the emotional/social (acting, self-presentation, rituals/ceremony, convolution in interactions) and also the rational -- we're just people, doing things.

    10. the “theatrical nature” of social interactions

      Dramaturgy! I think?

    11. If (a) and (b) are true, and if it costs me anything to help produce the good, then the rational actor will not contribute to the good. 

      This article seems to simplify the free rider problem by implying that it's the only rational choice. ADE offers several solutions that fit within rational choice theory: 1) selective incentives that reward individuals who bear the cost of the goods, 2) intangible benefits of participation, 3) enforcing participation or using negative sanctions for not contributing to the public good.

    12. altruism and philanthropic behaviors are adequately explained as still being rational behaviors

      Coleman's discussion of norms applies to why altruism is a rational individual choice if a society chooses to value philanthropy, promoting it with positive consequences (good reputation) or imposing sanctions (disapproval and bad reputation).

    13. The free rider problem can be described with a simple equation:  (a) There are some goods (or benefits) where the use of the good cannot be restricted to those who helped produce or help participate in the production of the good

      In ADE, page 218, line 22-23, a very valid and important consideration for all rational choice theorists- explaining how groups and more perplexingly successful groups form from a group of individuals when rational thought places more weight on cost than benefit- why would an individual act out against rational thought. Critics of Rational Choice Theory state that not persons do not always act out of rational thought and emotion impacts their rational thought processes. An example being those who decide to eat undercooked food when rational thinking says not to

    14. calculation with the individuals;

      evidence of rational thought and the ability to weigh costs from benefits

    15. Coleman additionally describes the phenomenon of “the free rider”. The free rider problem is an individual’s rational decision not to participate in group activity if it’s not worth their time, energy, money, etc.

      Per Coleman from ADE, the "free rider" will engage in a cost/benefit analysis to determine their level of engagement in an activity based upon rational thought. The two examples of involvement in environmental efforts and the lack of working classes in the U.S. to act collectively to redistribute wages are great examples. Another example that comes to mind since I am involved is one's decision to join the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF). There is argument to this day the bay has not in many years made significant improvement and trying to persuade others to join the CBF is linked to "free riders". Those considering joining the CBF weight the benefits of joining versus the monetary costs (membership dues) and ultimately determine if they will join or not based upon what they will receive versus what it will cost in terms of time, money, etc.

    16. Coleman looks at capital through a functionalist perspective.

      As Pryor writes there are various sociological theories that apply to the production of capital and the triangle diagram works well as a representation. The Rational Choice theorist would examine the diagram and view individual choices taking place at each level to determine the greater effect(s) on the generation of human capital but this diagram functions most appropriately to diagram Symbolic Interactionism and show how individual components function as a group to generate in this case the phenomena of human capital

    17. there is a lot of calculation occurring within these exchanges, and rational choice is playing a role with the actors, and a mental scale of the costs and benefits is present.

      In reflection of the video it is important to mention that critics of Rational Choice Theory would say that not all persons engage in rational thought and additionally persuasions brought about by factors other than individual choice may affect decisions such as social pressures.

    18. Coleman conceptualizes the meaning of “trust” within social processes (which is just a fancy way of saying social exchanges).

      Mirroring much of Rucha's comments Coleman discusses trust as a means of a decision making process based upon evaluation of others' judgment and performance. Placing trust in someone is part of the process of maximizing personal gain by placing trust in another. Important to note per ADE and Coleman's examination of trust, that rewards for trust are not equally distributed but rather according to social dynamics such as sex, gender, and class to name a few. The topic of trust includes two key players, the trustor and trustee. The trustor would be placing trust in another while the trustee is the person acting as confidant or trusted person. ADE cites the example of Julia and Malika, whom are involved in a financial situation of trust. Another example appropriate for studying digital sociology would be the level of trust established between purchasers (trustors) and sellers (trustees) in a digital exchange of information online.

    19. The free rider problem

      This also reminds me of Michael Hechter's article on Sociological Rational Choice theory in 1997. In describing how members of church face a collective action problem, Hechter explains that strict churches often impose 'costly and esoteric' requirements on their members, which helps them solve 'free riders' problem as only those who are really committed to church will join the church, making churches more successful and strong.

    20. Exchange theory explains the individual, while rational choice theory explains the collective.

      Exchange theory can be thought of as the application of rational choice theory based upon the various levels of social interaction, involving a cost/benefit analysis and involving or weighing the socially approvable behavior or socially unapprovable behavior while seeking to maiximize profits

    21. Exchange/Rational Choice theories describes how social exchanges are a system of rewards and costs

      In addition it is important to mention from reading ADE a basic principle of Homan's that individual choices that result in action(s) are occur along the continuum of rationality and individual to collectiveness so to better understand Rational Choice Theory it includes individual choice based upon rewards and costs and the choices one makes occur as a result of a level of rational thinking and individual or collective choice.

    22. phenomenon of “the free rider”

      ADE and Collins both discuss the problem of 'free rider' in their books. This issue was formulated by Mancur Olson in 1965. Olivia does a great job of explaining how rational actors 'free ride'. In my opinion, many of us are guilty of 'free riding'. At least, I am. The basic assumption behind it is, "whether I make a contribution to the cause or not, the output will not change, then why to bother?" Collins explains the 'free rider' problem by giving an example of free bus service and ADE describes by giving an example of the fight for the protection of natural environment. In a rational mind, it makes sense to not contribute to some cause if the benefits will be free anyway when other people contribute to it. Olivia doesn't mention here but both Collins and ADE explain the different solutions offered by rational choice theorists which can help prevent 'free rider' problem. For example, selective incentives - when those who participate are rewarded exclusively, and negatively sanctioning those who do not participate in the cause to the public good.

    23. This calculated exchange is exampled in the book like so:

      ADE provides the same example for describing the role of trustor and trustee in an exchange. Olivia does a great job by presenting this example, as in my opinion, all of us can relate to it because all of us have been through similar kind of situation where we had to weigh our gains and losses. If the gain in this situation outweighs the possible losses, one might consider the risk worth taking. The 'trust' in another person depends on the rational calculations which are based on the information available on another person (their reputation of being trustworthy). In the case of Julia and Malika, Malika will be able to make her decision based on a rational calculation of if she can place a bet on Julia's trustworthiness. As given in ADE, it is of advantage for Julia to be trustworthy to receive benefits ($200) and it is of advantage for Malika to trust Julia to when possible gain outweighs the possible loss.

    24. while rational choice theory explains the collective

      The content in ADE emphasizes that exchange theorists focus their attention on the strategic decision-making of the individuals and how these particular decisions can have an impact on social relationships within small groups. On the other hand, rational choice theorists examine how these strategic decisions and rational interactions between the individuals can have an influence on group dynamics in broader social conditions by "producing group solidarity, norms, and control of resources" (ADE).