Talk:Social complexity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Sociology (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Systems  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is not associated with a particular field. Fields are listed on the template page.


I am wondering if there is any research on complex structures, in other words, the group version of self-construct, which is also sometimes concept within the self. or self-system:

  • self-concept
  • self-esteem
  • self-efficacy
  • self-agency
  • experience processing (the bridge between the environment (which includes group) and self (concept).

I imagine this would work by just replacing self with group and looking for the relationship, which is interrelationship. This may overlay object-oriented structure in terms of the environment, group, scope, and depth.--John Bessa (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Article merger[edit]

Replacing this entire article with an early version of the edit to merge this topic with the article Sociology and complexity science. There are only brief statements in some sections, which are marked as stubs. Since I'm a newbie here, I'd appreciate any comments, but particularly stylistic comments.Meclee (talk) 01:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I am willing to work on a merger of this article with the article Sociology and complexity science. They are both the same topic. This topic is also closely related to two other articles: Social dynamics and Differentiation, although those two could remain separate articles with appropriate links between. All of these relate back to the topic of complex systems, which in turn relates back to systems theory (and social systems theory). Perhaps a nested list of 'see also' will do the trick. If not, I may further propose to merge both articles with the article social systems, which could use some work also. In any case, the merged article should use the Sociology topic template. I am open to suggestion and discussion and will be moving slowly on this activity, working on this as I can, 1-2 days a week. Meclee (talk) 22:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I see you are doing some great work on merging this article with sociology and complexity science. Thanks for doing this. My only concerns so far are as follows:

1. Remember not to create a 'sociology of complexity' article. Many researchers in this field are not sociologists and many of them have little knowledge of sociology, for example, many of the physicists and computational scientists working in network theory only cite very specific parts of sociological research and little theory. So, if you are merging articles, please note that they are not the same in this regard. sociology and complexity science are a point of intersection.

2. As made clear through the discussion page on sociology and complexity science, the historical lineage of this network of research is varied, drawing from more than systems thinking, to include areas as diverse as postmodernism, poststructuralism, rational choice theory, micro-economics, and so forth.

3. Finally, social complexity can be much wider than just sociology, to include psychology, economics, etc. So, somehow you have to clarify what you mean by the term.

Again, great work so far. (User talk:Bcastel3)

Thank you, Bcastel3. I was quite happy to read your original article and to learn about the research you are doing. I found the article originally by doing searches for any work specifically in health care. I agree with your comments above. I would only add on #3 that, in analytical terms, there should not be much difference in the "meaning" of "complexity" between sociology, psychology, economics, physics, etc. The primary differences are in the incorporation into theory, the data and, therefore, the application of methods. Now, I have papers to grade so it may be Thanksgiving break before I have a chance to do much further work. Meclee (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Began the first work of integrating some of the body of Sociology and complexity science in order to expand the Methodologies section. Meclee (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

This is really great! fantastic work. (User talk:Bcastel3) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

    • Thank you for the kudos! I'm wrapping up some tasks before Thanksgiving, but hope to have this completed soon! Meclee (talk) 01:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Added some topics to areas of application, but this is still in progress... Meclee (talk) 05:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

This is now a 'final draft' for consideration before merging with Sociology and complexity science. The article may be 'overlinked', and I think I've broken some other rules, so general feedback is welcome.Meclee (talk) 14:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Merger and Redirect from Sociology and complexity science complete. Meclee (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


I have raised this article to "B" class. If anyone disagrees with this rating, please point out possible improvements or edit to add information. Ready to remove merge tags and redirect the Sociology and complexity science article to this article. Thanks for comments! Meclee (talk) 23:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Editing External Links[edit]

I understand the whole extraneous links things, but most of these links are to useful additional resources that go above and beyond the article. Whomever edited the page just deleted everything, showing no time spent examining what should or should not stay. This is a bit extreme. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcastel3 (talkcontribs) 00:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

If you want to make a case for any of the links, please do so. I looked over them all, one by one, and didn't see any that fit the description you are offering. --Ronz (talk) 03:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. It is great to discuss edits and try to make all the articles on Wikipedia better. It is a lot of fun. But, my review of the links, one by one, see that most of them do fit the description I am offering: helping people learn more about the topic. And, I struggle when someone comes to an article and suddenly sets themselves up as the one to whom the rest must now answer--especially when an article has gone for a very long while meeting people's needs and expectations, as readers. For example, as a professor, I use this page in my undergraduate and graduate classrooms to teach students all the time, and send the link to colleagues all over the world, telling them to explore the external links to learn more about the topic. All of it very useful and positive and done in the true spirit of Wikipedia. So, when someone deletes an entire section, without helping the rest of us to understand why, it is not very democratic. So, I would ask others to comment first, to help us do the best editing possible, before we continue deleting and undeleting. So, any ideas, Mclee for example, who started this page, on improving the external links? Apologies, also, as I do not always get the signing thing right --Bcastel3

Glad that we agree that at least some of them don't belong.
I suggest we follow WP:DR in resolving this, rather than continuing to personalize the situation. --Ronz (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

That would be great to see some links put back. At this point, however, I am bowing out of such decisions, as I do not do a lot of editing and have no real interest in it. So, whatever you and the others think, is fine by me. peace. --Bcastel3 (talk)

If we remove all blatant WP:ELNO#13 links, we're left with: --Ronz (talk) 01:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I concur that wholesale removal of the external links section is unwarranted. I do not see a problem with links to academic centers that are specific to the study of social complexity. In addition to providing examples of the applicaton of the concept in research, these centers are the logical place to learn more about the topic. In some articles, I've seen the external links section sub-divided into types of links; there would be no problem in doing that for this article to help the reader decide which links may be most relevant to their particular need. None of the sites are commercial sites linked for advertising purposes. Meclee (talk) 05:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

"In some articles..." How about we follow the relevant policies and guidelines instead?
I've referred to WP:ELNO, specifically #13. I can go into a great deal more detail, but no one has any real objection to it, nor any of my other concerns, so they should all be kept out. --Ronz (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I like what Meclee has to say. I read through WP:ELNO and it allows blogs that are by noted authorities and it also does not seem to be against the other links, as they are all to academic centers, with no commercial interests. So, in terms of relevant policies, it seems Meclee has a good point to make. Also, I like the notion of subdividing. So, I guess Meclee and I do have real objections. Plus, if you go through the links they are really relevant, all on social complexity; and these are the key centers throughout the world that have a lot to offer readers. The center at Michigan is the top, and Dublin, and elsewhere. These are not just people posting their links. These are, for the most part, the key players in this field, along with Gilbert and the Journal for Artificial Societies and Social Simulation. Just things to think about, as they are helpful things for people to explore Bcastel3 —Preceding undated comment added 04:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for getting the discussion on track.
As for linking to research programs: I suggest one of you making your own webpage on your own websites listing them along with other resources, then we can discuss adding a link to that page. This isn't guaranteed to be acceptable in the long run, but gets us away from blatant ELNO and WP:NOT violations.
WP:ELNO#EL11: "Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)" --Ronz (talk) 17:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I have no affiliation with a site that would be suitable for the page you are suggesting. It's a shame that readers will be deprived of those links until someone has the time demonstrate to an editor who has no experience in the field that these indeed meet recognized authority criteria. Both Bcastel3 and I are in the middle of a semester and teaching takes precedence. Meclee (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Once again, please WP:FOC.
If you want to make a case that Bcastel3 is a recognized authority, do so. You'll note that the wording indicates some minimal criteria. If you'll look for examples of similar blogs used as external links in similar articles, you'll have a very hard time finding any. --Ronz (talk) 02:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Title is not very helpful[edit]

<Sociology and Complexity Science> would probably be a better title. The article seems to be about the study of social complexity. It is NOT a description of <social complexity> (that article would be either very big or woefully inadequate). Given the amount of effort that someone made to merge two overlapping articles in a very interesting area, it is very surprising (to me, at least) that little thought was given to the title. "The scientific study of social complexity" seems a valid alternative; also "Sociology and Modelling Complexity". Interested to hear other comments, but I repeat: the article is about the study of social complexity, whereas the title suggests it is ABOUT social complexity. If I was Craig RH, I would only give the title 1 out of 10. (talk) 18:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)