Mood and temperamental traits(extaversion and neuroticism) Social relationship(lack of loneliness and satisfaction with friendship) Purpose in life

Life satisfaction According to veenhoven,"happiness is the degree to which a person evaluates the overall quality of his present life-as-a-whole positively."

Now I would like to start with the modes of inquiry, the natural scientist approach that includes value statistics and believes that natural science is fact focused, but facts keep on changing with the values. Facts are undependable and can change when science progresses so depending on facts may not be the only solution, according to my opinion facts and values would create a proper solution. I may be wrong but facts are set and determined by a societies values, norms and neutrality. The second mode of inquiry, Descriptivists, who seem to be more interfering. A guy moves from America to Asia to study a particular tribe or religion, lets take Islam for instance. I being a Muslim, fear god, carry out religious traditions and follow the values on which the religion is set so how come an outsider who has never studied about Allah, nor he believes in him, can fear him? He may be able to prepare a research report but the descriptions of a particular tribe without their emotions and reasonings is useless. Descriptivists dont judge the descriptions, so whats the purpose of bringing up that fact in front of a large audience? If judgments are left to the people then 1000 people 1000 judgments thus the matter becomes more complicated here, people may have different logics and thus the matter is left to perceptions and interpretations, as studied in the last class. The third mode of inquiry, critical social science that conflicts with the first two, people have moral and spiritual values so why should an outsider who blends in a religion, tribe or a certain cast of people to carry out his research thus breaching the moral values (in Islam a non-Muslim spying is called a Hypocrite). An individual should not be allowed to hurt the values or criticize other religions, sects and tribes as human create their own meaning for everything (Here comes the post modern or social constructionist theory with which I agree). I wear my red jacket almost in all the business meetings because I think that the jacket is lucky and I would almost hit every tender with it, my psychology, this is because I have praised that jacket, some would say this is because of the grace of Allah (SWT) and some may regard this as luck. Why cant it be, people should be allowed to spend life in their own ways and their should be no one criticizing or humiliating them. I would bring up my own theory that you can call as Dr.Miqdads theoretical ideas. Dont criticize anyone if you dont have proper reasonings. If people regard mercy killing as right and you thing it is wrong then try convincing the latter with your logic and policies, if you outrage the argument then you are right and the latter is wrong. But denying things just for the heck of it is wrong, for instance in America a couple can spend a night without getting married because they think it is right so for instance if you think that its a sin or unhealthy.PROVE IT

Read more: http://socyberty.com/social-sciences/five-modes-of-socialinquiry/#ixzz1pAKZLmmV Read more: http://socyberty.com/social-sciences/five-modes-of-socialinquiry/#ixzz1pABmvgIt

Sociology. Since this was my first time being introduced to the Social Sciences, I must say that I was a lot confused at the end of the class. Although I did understand certain things which were discussed. The first class was the Conceptions of Science in which you tried to introduce us as to what Science is. It is only after first understanding what science actually is that we can differentiate between the natural sciences, social sciences and the humanities/arts. You explained the eight conceptions of science as identified by David Lindberg. These were: 1. Activity conception (that science is the mode of human activity through which we have tried to capture the environment); 2. Theoretical conception (that science is a body of theoritical and conceptual knowledge); 3. Universal-laws conception ( that science is in search of a way to be able to express everything in a precise language and to discover or produce universal laws through which the behaviour of objects can be explained, predicted and even contolled) 4. Methodological conception. While explaining this, the difference between experiment and experience was identified i.e. knowledge through experiments can be transferred/passed to others while one through experience isnt. 5. Epistemological conception 6. Content conception 7. Rigour conception 8. Approval conception

You also explained that most questions are answered through science, religion and philosophy. Regarding this, I understood that the human mind raises questions when it ponders about something (philosophy). When the human mind wasnt mature enough, these questions were answered to some extent by the religion. And now as the human mind is becoming more and more experienced, it is trying to search for the answers through science. From the arguments that keep arising during discussion on any topic, I realised that human minds and thinking can not be united and we will always have differences. This will remain so unless we go back to something which we all share and which can unite us.

We also need to become more mature in our understanding and base it on concrete proofs rather than just what nani or the mohallay walay used to say. This is all I remember that I understood. Yeah just one more thing that whatever concept or understanding we have about something, there is always a better, more complex and a more arguable explanation of that concept.

Read more: http://socyberty.com/social-sciences/introduction-to-social-sciences/#ixzz1pADYyRDX