Talk:Action theory (sociology)

"Parsons, however was not against positivism as such but against the absolution of positivism" - Is 'absolution' the right word here? It seems incorrect, but I don't know enough about the topic to know. 'Absolutivity' or something similar seems more appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.111.249.247 (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

In the process of developing this new page dedicated to Parsons' action theory and moving the previous article 'action theory' to 'action theory (philosophy)'--Tomsega (talk) 22:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Znaniecki
This article should mention contributions of Florian Znaniecki. notes he made major contributions here, alongside Robert Morrison MacIver, Howard Paul Becker and young Talcott Parsons.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 22:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

--- I have no idea what any of the words on the page mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.197.6.140 (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You're not alone. Parsons' entire approach is largely "Make words up" and "quote irrelevant and abstruse Philosophy texts whenever possible". After the Carmel Conference in the 1960s, when the government said you need actual research and some training to get grant funding, Parsons' influence in Sociology fell to its current level e.g. zero. His book on Economic Sociology forgets to include investments and the means of production in its system, rendering it insane. He was trained as an Economist, was initially appointed to that department but they realized he didn't understand basic Economics or math and shuffled him off to Sociology because it wasn't a serious discipline then. This drove Sorokin (who was trying to make Sociology a legitimate discipline) insane. Guinness4life (talk) 03:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)