The theory of structuration is a social theory of the creation and reproduction of social systems that is based in the analysis of both structure and agents, without giving primacy to either.
That’s the theory. But I don’t understand it, i’ll be briefly talking about Anthony Giddens and this is one of his most famous work. I just need a short explanation that shows I know enough about it without being too detailed please.
I'm stuck and just need a little help in which I can expand and complete my assignment.
Q) In which ways does the socialization process within organizations support the validity of structuration theory? Please provide at least one concrete example to support your response.
Yes, I'm doing homework and am stuck
Someone just pointed out Hillary's idea of exposing her kids to her love of her "native España's" national sport, Fútbol, (which is just Soccer over here in the good ol' US of A) is to buy them a foosball table. 🤦♀️
When Alec was first doing damage control after shooting Halyna dead, he had to BUY a soccer ball on his way to the park for the Photo Op with the kiddies.
These kids do no sports: no T-Ball, Little League, Pop Warner, Indoor/Outdoor Soccer, Swim Team, etc.
Carmen doesn't even study dance and they live in NYC, the dance capital of the world! Despite Hillary "seriously studying" gymnastics & ballroom growing up.
It's been a while since my wee ones were wee, but I remember if I didn't have them in some sort of structured activities after school, they would torture each other and tear the house apart.
Children strive with structure and love to learn, and what's more, need the stimulation of being around other kids and adults besides their caretakers; that's a fringe benefit of team sports or group classes.
If Hillary is so tortured by them she has to hide out in her room and have naughty notes slipped to her under her door, maybe she should think about taking them somewhere else and getting them involved in something besides each other and their iPads.
Children have A LOT of energy that needs to be directed towards healthy, fun pursuits
Can't she at least let the staff take them?
If they gave us an Urban Map with a lot of small houses, and structures, we’d see an extreme lack of destruction compared to recent titles. Almost no destruction at all.
Dice didn’t want to embarrass themselves further so they went with enormous empty maps with nothing to destroy.
Leaks of that exposure map, seems like more empty space with no urban fighting areas. I’ll wait for Dice to prove me right.
Thanks for coming to my TED talk.
It's all relative.
I want to open up a discussion for the more unconventional ways of organizing photos specifically in folders, file structures, project/album names, catalogs, etc.
Commercial work for clients is pretty simple in my opinion:
Client -> Project name / date
or
Category (fashion, etc.) -> Client -> Project/date
or something similar
It's the artistic and/or personal photos that I'm having trouble with and would like to hear your thoughts.
Conventionally, I think most people organize photos based on date:
Year -> Month -> Day
To me this is pointless, since almost all cataloging software has search tools that can search by the photo's meta date ('search for all photos taken in 2020', for example, and boom, there you have it)
Also, if we think about how we look for photos, dates don't make much sense. For 'I wanna look at photos from my 2018 trip to Spain', dates can easily be searched for via tags/metadata. For 'I want to find all photos of sunsets in my entire life', date-based organization doesn't make sense (you'll end up having to slog through multiple catalogs looking for 'sunset' tags)
Another common approach is sorting by genre or subject, for example, 'street', 'nature', 'travel', 'food', etc.
However, things can easily get messy. For example, what if it's a street photo taken on one of your trips abroad? What about a photo of your dog in a vast forest—is it 'nature' or 'pets'? How about a photo of your coffee on a balcony overlooking the sea—is it 'food' or 'landscape'? Should you duplicate them and put them in multiple categories?
You see how this can get confusing, and I'm sure we've all experienced something like it. Therefore, to me, tags seem to work better for genre/subject, as you can have multiple tags and search by them.
That leaves the question still of how can we best organize photos in file structures/albums/groups etc?
Personally, I have two large Capture One catalogs (outside of commercial work): 1) 'life' and 2) 'studies'
'life' basically contains all the personal photos I've taken, trips abroad, photos of my friends, pets, food I've cooked, etc.
'studies' are things that seem like they could be taken by anyone and have no distinct personal subjects. For example, if I'm on a trip abroad and I take a photo of a beautiful tree alone in a field, I'd put that photo into 'studies'
Still, this gets tricky in a way similar to my genre/subject example above. A photo of a friend posed beautifully in an empty ocean at
... keep reading on reddit ➡
It is often daunting to find so much information on music theory online, as a teacher I have created a PDF with basics outlined - from the Chromatic scale to Diatonic chords. This will help you get an idea of what to start with, and how it connects with other concepts!
You can view it here for free.
EDIT: Thank you for the great feedback! I have corrected a few mistakes y'all have pointed out. All the best on your journey! Will share more parts once I am finished writing them.
I want to generate a graph from a starting set of X nodes, this is layer 0. To generate a new layer, layer 1, the algorithm creates a new node for every unique pair of nodes existing in the graph, and has edges to the two nodes of this pair. For layer 2, the same thing is done, we create a new node for every unique pair that exists in the graph -- this means we make nodes for (layer_1, layer_1) pairs and (layer_1, layer_0) pairs, but not (layer_0, layer_0) pairs because nodes representing those already exist (in layer 1).
E.g. start with 4 nodes
Iteration 1
- L1 nodes -> 4C2 = 6
- Total no. of nodes = 4 + 6 = 10
Iteration 2
- L2 nodes -> 6C2 + 6*4 = 15 + 24 = 39
- Total no. of nodes = 39 + 10 = 49
Iteration 3
- L3 nodes -> 39C2 + 39*10 = 741 + 390 = 1131
- Total no. of nodes = 1131 + 39 = 1170
Iteration n
- Ln nodes -> [No. in L(n-1)]C2 + [No. in L(n-1)]*[total from iteration n-2]
- Total no. of nodes = [No. in Ln] + [total from iteration n-1]
I want to know how to create unique indexes for each node, and from these indexes we can derive the indexes of the two related nodes that form the pair (or if the nodes are fundamental). I also want to minimize the range of possible indexes as much as possible, minimizing the number of bits that nodes of this graph can be represented with.
I want to create a model that is too large to store relations explicitly, so trying to find a way to get relations implicitly, given a random index.
Thanks for any help.
I'm working on a research project on Lafcadio Hearn's Japanese ghost stories (inspired by Japanese folklore and supernatural tales, which Hearn collected and re-wrote) and often in these stories, he frames the 'ghost story' as a narrative within a narrative, in which he (the Hearn-figure) narrates how he came to hear of the story (via his friends, servants, etc in Japan), how he interprets it, and generally exerts a lot of control on the narrative structure (for instance, in one story he suddenly interrupts a climactic part of the story to abruptly end it). I want to link this 'authorial tendency' to his nonfiction writings on Japan as a reporter and travel writer, in which he (in)famously interprets and explains Japan as an expat European.
(I'm writing this with a bad migraine, so I'm sorry for any errors or vagueness) but I would be grateful if anyone can point me towards theories that could help me deal with this authorial voice (which can go from an ethnographer's voice to the sincere voice of a narrator transcribing and relating what he has been told and, very often, taking creative liberties, and exerting a tight control over structure). I'm also interested in a framework that could allow me to look at different levels/frames of the narrative structure. Perhaps someone familiar with narratology could point me in the right direction.
I do also want to keep in view postcolonial theories, considering that imperial expansion was a huge part of what made Hearn's life and career in Japan possible and was a significant context for his writings.
Thank you for reading this mess and I'll be grateful for any help!
Have you ever met a woman who's tall but seems just so visually small and thin? Or a woman who's petite and not visibly overweight but just takes much more room in the literal physical sense? Seen people with a bigger head vs a smaller head, wider feet vs not etc. Larger ribcage or a thinner one.
These terms are indeed not Kibbe-based but something we as regular people are often taught in our everyday lives about bone structure or people's bodies ("I have large bones!"), so I find them helpful when adding to Kibbe's teachings (without taking away what he has established). To some of you these are very obvious, but many still mistake them, mixing everything around. Which is not helpful to anyone.
So state it simply:
- Pure Yin bones: Visually larger, wider & thicker. Takes more physical space horizontally. Often mistaken for Kibbe term "width".
- Pure Yang bones: Visually smaller & thinner. Takes less physical space horizontally. Often mistaken for Kibbe term "delicate".
Neither is better or more beautiful than the other, but they are key differences for finding ID bases and then the specific ID.
What helped me to see the different IDs more clearly with their every nuances was of course practice, but seeing this in real life and going from "inside out", as in focusing first on bones and their OVERALL look and only from there everything on top of it, was the biggest change to differentiating all of the IDs.
So, for helping my own brain to see it, I categorized the bone structures in my mind like so:
- Only R & TR have yin-base bones.
- Gamines are a mixture but my eyes see yang first (smallness in horizontal space).
- Naturals have yang-base bones, no matter their height. First and foremost I see a wide yang over a thin yin. SN is not a muscular yin, it's a soft blunt yang.
- Classics are balanced, but I see a toned-down yang first. Yin in SCs is not similar to the yin in R/ TRs.
- Only D & SD have pure yang bones.
So in my eyes about every ID shows yang first except for R & TR. Then I just go along the line from there; how much is there (pure or mixture i.e do I see also non-kibbe-width), is it blunt or not, are they petite? From there it's pretty easy to differentiate and go for the exact ID.
This is not clearly against what Kibbe teaches (except he doesn't like us typing others, haha! But I'm a student of life and will continue to do so), but it's also a lot against what I see throwing out here
... keep reading on reddit ➡Ever since act 1 ended, this sub and many other platforms were bombarded with how this arc is gonna be 5 acts. According to this structure, the 3rd act is where the tragedy should happen. So a large part of the fandom expected something bad to happen there.
But if we look at Wano as a 3 act play, it's easy to see that act 2 had the tragedy which was Ebisu town eating the smiles and Yasue's death. These events got a bit downplayed because a lot of readers didn't take this as the tragedy part of the play and their expectations rose further for something truly bad happening to the alliance or that Oden's flashback will be act 3 and therefore the tragedy.
When Oden's flashback ended but the act didn't, many readers still believed of an even worse setback coming(raid failing is the only remaining option). Expectations kept rising for something extraordinary bad to happen that now some readers are feeling a disappointed. Oda's fake out deaths didn't help with that either.
Is a setback still possible? Yes, Luffy's fight is still ongoing after all and most of the struggle and tension usually comes from there. I can even see Luffy losing and the alliance work together to hold Kaido off till Luffy comes back(similar to Dressrosa), but a full on defeat of the Samurai is just impossible and weird choice at this point.
I feel like if Morj didn't base his theory on the 5 act structure, he would've let go of it a long time ago already.
Many new readers who caught up at Onigashima don't have the complaints that I keep reading from weekly readers (lack of tension and stakes) and that because I feel new readers aren't expecting a big loss to still happen.
Imagine for a second the atoms in our body are the planets where teeny tiny intelligent organisms live. What if the planets in space are atoms in a beings body, a body too large for us to see visually, but biologically everything happens organically. Us being beings in this beings body are part of the system. And as a thought experiment we can expand and project this system all throughout the universe- so that the being that we are in is in another being. Etc. (this definitely touches on fractals, the interconnectedness of the universe, multiverse etc.)
We can also apply what is happening currently in our world to this premise. Maybe the being we are all situated in is healing from a sickness. As they see you feel worse before you feel better when healing. (By bringing the sickness to the surface). What if the earth is a cell in this beings body and the changes we are facing on earth are reflective of this beings cells (earth) repairing itself or changing?
Something to think about. I hope you can follow what I’m saying lol.
Anyway, this is an interesting thought. And now that I’m on this topic, here are some interesting questions:
Are we communicating with these beings, as being a part of them and them a part of us? I would say most definitely.
If thoughts can influence beings and matter what influence does this have on the premise of reality I have presented? Are thoughts and communication like biological nodes that transmit information to serve a higher purpose? In the case of my premise I have presented, are any thoughts we have and any communication we have with other humans what’s holding biology and organic systems together?
I also just thought of this, what if when scientists say the universe is expanding it really means the being we are situated in is having a baby, giving birth. - There is more coming, more communication, another layer to the matrix and fabric of reality, ultimately GROWTH!
An interesting thought.
Hello, I am currently reading a source on state interventionism in the post colonial Middle East and I can see the following words being used really often:
structural change
I am at a total loss when it comes to defining. The books uses elements of systems theory in other parts and, as far as I know, structural change should be based upon ideas from systems theory and that is all I know.
May I ask for directions on how to find out the definition or what it means generally? Im gonna probably be requested to provide a source so that would also be super useful. Thanks!
I notice a lot of traditional western music theory is related to harmony and melodic movement. Intervals, chordal theory, progressions, voicings, voiceleading, mode work, etc
But am I wrong in the observation that rhythmic theory is comparatively underdeveloped/underdescribed?
Like, outside of the basic distinction of down/upbeats, tempo, and maybe time signatures, not much really comes to mind theory-wise when I see rhythm brought up.
Is there any codified rhyme / reason behind rhythm? Or is it really just a "feel it out" type area of study? Because at least where I'm currently standing, all I know is that Clave Rhythms and the like exist, not why they really work.
TL;DR: What theory is important for a drummer? (Just so it's there, this line is a joke XD)
I codified my studies of storytelling structure, hope it helps someone.
Please excuse the spelling errors.
So I'm working through William Caplin's "Theory of Formal Functions" and revising my own work along with it. I'm noticing a pattern that all structures (sentences, periods, small ternary) as of the first chapter end with a PAC, (the sentence being an exception, yet still usually having a PAC at the end of measure 16 instead of measure 8.)
Now this is fine, but I get confused because I have written a piece (and have a habit of writing) where the structures continually half cadence into the next structure (period HC period HC new theme...) Is this just considered messy writing? The music works in a way where the resolution builds up and resolves on the downbeat of measure 9 (where the next structure starts) instead of measure 8. It still feels like cadencing, but over the barline instead.
I've written equally nice pieces with cadences within the structures (the regular way), but I feel like the continuous half cadencing is just as convincing sometimes. Let me know if I'm missing something, I still have a lot of the book left to read and a lot left to learn.
Please share with me your methods to manage/understand form!
Hi guys, hope you are having a great day,
Alright, hear me out, I have no proof, just a very huge tinfoil hat right now.
So, we know that the younger versions of the characters are gonna be quite prominent, what if we start every single episode with a cold open that is actually a flashback? it could be used to show the theme of each episode and give us the necessary backstory to understand all the characters and where are they emotionally.
What do you guys think?
Thanks for reading!
I've been a live musican for decades, but relatively new to EDM, and I'm pretty adequate where it comes to sound design, creating cool sounding 8 bar grooves and mixing. The thing I'm lacking is how to take a hook or verse and turn it into an entire instrumental song.
You guys know of any good tutorials or tutorial content producers on the theory of how build effective dynamics across an entire song?
EDIT: I've found some other posts in this thread outlining exactly what my question is (Like this one) , but I seem to do better with tutorial videos. So I think that's how I would understand it best.
EDIT 2: I found this - Here's a great video on how to use an existing trance song as structure template to kickstart the structure of your own.
Hello,
I'm stuck on this question and just need a little help/guidance in which I can expand and complete my assignment.
Q) In which ways does the socialization process within organizations support the validity of structuration theory? Please provide at least one concrete example to support your response.
Imagine for a second the atoms in our body are the planets where teeny tiny intelligent organisms live. What if the planets in space are atoms in a beings body, a body too large for us to see visually, but biologically everything happens organically. Us being beings in this beings body are part of the system. And as a thought experiment we can expand and project this system all throughout the universe- so that the being that we are in is in another being. Etc. (this definitely touches on fractals, the interconnectedness of the universe, multiverse etc.)
We can also apply what is happening currently in our world to this premise. Maybe the being we are all situated in is healing from a sickness. As they see you feel worse before you feel better when healing. (By bringing the sickness to the surface). What if the earth is a cell in this beings body and the changes we are facing on earth are reflective of this beings cells (earth) repairing itself or changing?
Something to think about. I hope you can follow what I’m saying lol.
Anyway, this is an interesting thought. And now that I’m on this topic, here are some interesting questions:
Are we communicating with these beings, as being a part of them and them a part of us? I would say most definitely.
If thoughts can influence beings and matter what influence does this have on the premise of reality I have presented? Are thoughts and communication like biological nodes that transmit information to serve a higher purpose? In the case of my premise I have presented, are any thoughts we have and any communication we have with other humans what’s holding biology and organic systems together?
I also just thought of this, what if when scientists say the universe is expanding it really means the being we are situated in is having a baby, giving birth. - There is more coming, more communication, another layer to the matrix and fabric of reality, ultimately GROWTH!
An interesting thought.
Imagine for a second the atoms in our body are the planets where teeny tiny intelligent organisms live. What if the planets in space are atoms in a beings body, a body too large for us to see visually, but biologically everything happens organically. Us being beings in this beings body are part of the system. And as a thought experiment we can expand and project this system all throughout the universe- so that the being that we are in is in another being. Etc. (this definitely touches on fractals, the interconnectedness of the universe, multiverse etc.)
We can also apply what is happening currently in our world to this premise. Maybe the being we are all situated in is healing from a sickness. As they see you feel worse before you feel better when healing. (By bringing the sickness to the surface). What if the earth is a cell in this beings body and the changes we are facing on earth are reflective of this beings cells (earth) repairing itself or changing?
Something to think about. I hope you can follow what I’m saying lol.
Anyway, this is an interesting thought. And now that I’m on this topic, here are some interesting questions:
Are we communicating with these beings, as being a part of them and them a part of us? I would say most definitely.
If thoughts can influence beings and matter what influence does this have on the premise of reality I have presented? Are thoughts and communication like biological nodes that transmit information to serve a higher purpose? In the case of my premise I have presented, are any thoughts we have and any communication we have with other humans what’s holding biology and organic systems together?
I also just thought of this, what if when scientists say the universe is expanding it really means the being we are situated in is having a baby, giving birth. - There is more coming, more communication, another layer to the matrix and fabric of reality, ultimately GROWTH!
An interesting thought.
Imagine for a second the atoms in our body are the planets where teeny tiny intelligent organisms live. What if the planets in space are atoms in a beings body, a body too large for us to see visually, but biologically everything happens organically. Us being beings in this beings body are part of the system. And as a thought experiment we can expand and project this system all throughout the universe- so that the being that we are in is in another being. Etc. (this definitely touches on fractals, the interconnectedness of the universe, multiverse etc.)
We can also apply what is happening currently in our world to this premise. Maybe the being we are all situated in is healing from a sickness. As they see you feel worse before you feel better when healing. (By bringing the sickness to the surface). What if the earth is a cell in this beings body and the changes we are facing on earth are reflective of this beings cells (earth) repairing itself or changing?
Something to think about. I hope you can follow what I’m saying lol.
Anyway, this is an interesting thought. And now that I’m on this topic, here are some interesting questions:
Are we communicating with these beings, as being a part of them and them a part of us? I would say most definitely.
If thoughts can influence beings and matter what influence does this have on the premise of reality I have presented? Are thoughts and communication like biological nodes that transmit information to serve a higher purpose? In the case of my premise I have presented, are any thoughts we have and any communication we have with other humans what’s holding biology and organic systems together?
I also just thought of this, what if when scientists say the universe is expanding it really means the being we are situated in is having a baby, giving birth. - There is more coming, more communication, another layer to the matrix and fabric of reality, ultimately GROWTH!
An interesting thought.
Hello, I am reading a source on state interventionism in economy in postcolonial Middle East and I see the following being used really often:
structural change
There is no explanation of what the authors mean, however, because the books uses elements of systems theory in other parts and, as far as I know, structural change is based upon ideas from systems theory, may I ask for directions on how to find out what it means or what it means generally? Im just at a total loss.
