argument194 左撇子~~ [展翅高飞] Dicmi 27th arg

dicmiUID: 183392

欢迎互改，欢迎拍砖，欢迎留连接，欢迎~~~

TOPIC: ARGUMENT194 - A recent study suggests that people who are left-handed are more likely to succeed in business than are right-handed people. Researchers studied photographs of 1,000 prominent business executives and found that 21 percent of these executives wrote with their left hand. So the percentage of prominent business executives who are left-handed (21 percent) is almost twice the percentage of people in the general population who are left-handed (11 percent). Thus, people who are left-handed would be well advised to pursue a career in business, whereas people who are right-handed would be well advised to imitate the business practices exhibited by left-handers.
WORDS: 545          TIME: 0:33:09          DATE: 2006-8-5

Outline
1.        Study is not reliable. A: Respondents. B左手写不代表左撇子C 21%应该和找工作的人中左撇子的比例相比较
2.        认为左撇子导致商业成功没有根据
3.        即时是左撇子容易商业成功。也不是非得让他们从事商业，也不是非得让用右手的人学习左撇子。（就是攻击最后的结论）

Prior to hastily advise left-handers to pursue a business career, whereas right-handers to imitate the left-handers, the reasoning of this suggestion should be closely scrutinized from other angles. The author alleges that the left-handers are more likely to succeed in business, without considering other potential alternatives, which may severely undermine the credibility of the final suggestion.

A threshold fallacy with this argument involves the study’s statistically unreliability. Firstly, we are not informed whether the 1,000 prominent business executives is representative enough to reflect the general situation. Failing to infer the sampling process, it is highly possible that those people are selected beforehand by the researcher. Also, the quantity of respondents is only 1,000, which is too limited to be statistically significant. Secondly, the author simply equates the people who wrote with left hand with people who are left-handed, which is obviously unwarranted. To be specific, some people could write with both hands, whereas some people who are right-handed are also able to write with left-handed. If so, those people cannot be included in the left-handers, which subsequently make the 21 percent insignificant. Thirdly, the comparison between 21 percent and 11 percent is unreasonable to some extent. Actually, to evaluate the real situation, the author needs the compare the 21 percent with the left-handers who are pursuing a career in business rather than the general population, which, of course, includes children, the old, and so forth. Therefore, from these three perspectives, unless the author provides more information about the study, it is hasty and risky to accept the result of the study and base the following deduction on it.

Additionally, providing the study is valid, the author fails to establish a reliable relationship between left-handers and business success. Actually, a myriad of other reasons could help to explain this phenomenon. Possibly, the business success is because the left-handers are diligent people who are studying hard and working hard, and consequently become success. Or possibly, they are promoted to the business executives due to their intimate relationship with their boss rather than their so-called capabilities. In short, no strong data is given to solidify the asserted relationship. Thus, any of these scenarios, if true, may undermine the relationship.

Furthermore, even if the causal relationship is substantiated, it is unwarranted to recommend those left-handers need pursue a career in business, and those right-handers imitate left-handers. On the one hand, consider the left-handers. Though they may be successful in business area, without the information about what the situation is in other areas like education, politics, arts, it is presumptuous to urge them to pursue a career in business. Perhaps, they can be better off in those areas besides the business. As a result, they can pursue a career in those areas as well. In return, the business area cannot be the left-handers only choice. On the other hand, consider the right-handers. Common sense tells us that a successful career involves various factors, say education, experience, intelligence and etc. Whether merely imitating left-handers could be helpful to right-handers in business is open to doubt. It is completely possible that some innate left-handed genius in business are hardly be imitated by right-handers. Meanwhile, as the saying goes, “Every roads lead to Roma”, the right-handers also have their own approach to achieve the business success, instead of the mere imitation. Failing to see the potential differences, the arguer's analogical deduction is not justifiable. Hence, taking there two points into consideration, lacking further evidence about the recommendations, the speaker cannot convince us that these two suggestion is the best and the only way for left-handers and right-handers respectively.

On conclusion, the argument is not well reasoned and inherently flawed. To buttress up the final suggestion, the author is required to provide detailed sampling process about the study, to make the study reliable. Moreover, if we can be offered with more substantial evidence to prove the causal relationship, the conclusion could be further persuasive.

xxnu1121UID: 2165617

Prior to hastily advise left-handers to pursue a business career, whereas right-handers to imitate the left-handers, the reasoning of this suggestion should be closely scrutinized from other angles. The author alleges that the left-handers are more likely to succeed in business, without considering other potential alternatives, which may severely undermine the credibility of the final suggestion.

A threshold fallacy with this argument involves the study’s statistically unreliability. Firstly, we are not informed whether the 1,000 prominent business executives is representative enough to reflect the general situation. Failing to infer the sampling process, it is highly possible that those people are selected beforehand by the researcher. Also, the quantity of respondents is only 1,000, which is too limited to be statistically significant. Secondly, the author simply equates the people who wrote with left hand with people who are left-handed, which is obviously unwarranted. To be specific, some people could write with both hands, whereas some people who are right-handed are also able to write with left-handed. If so, those people cannot be included in the left-handers, which subsequently make the 21 percent insignificant. Thirdly, the comparison between 21 percent and 11 percent is unreasonable to some extent. Actually, to evaluate the real situation, the author needs the compare the 21 percent with the left-handers who are pursuing a career in business rather than the general population, which, of course, includes children, the old, and so forth. Therefore, from these three perspectives, unless the author provides more information about the study, it is hasty and risky to accept the result of the study and base the following deduction on it.（这一段地逻辑感觉面面俱到，滴水不漏，赞）

Additionally, providing（provided？） the study is valid, the author fails to establish a reliable relationship between left-handers and business success. Actually, a myriad of other reasons could help to explain this phenomenon. Possibly, the business success is because（attributable to the fact可能会好一点） the left-handers are diligent people who are studying hard and working hard（industriously）, and consequently become success. Or possibly, they are promoted to the business executives due to their intimate relationship with their boss rather than their so-called capabilities. In short, no strong data is given to solidify the asserted relationship. Thus, any of these scenarios, if true, may undermine the relationship.

Furthermore, even if the causal relationship is substantiated, it is unwarranted to recommend those left-handers need pursue a career in business, and those right-handers imitate left-handers. On the one hand, consider the left-handers. Though they may be successful in business area, without the information about what the situation is in other areas like education, politics, arts, it is presumptuous to urge them to pursue a career in business. Perhaps, they can be better off in those areas besides the business. As a result, they can pursue a career in those areas as well. In return, the business area cannot be the left-handers only choice. On the other hand, consider the right-handers. Common sense tells us that a successful career involves various factors, say education, experience, intelligence and etc. Whether merely imitating left-handers could be helpful to right-handers in business is open to doubt. It is completely possible that some innate left-handed genius in business are hardly be imitated by right-handers. Meanwhile, as the saying goes, “Every roads lead to Roma”, the right-handers also have their own approach to achieve the business success, instead of the mere imitation. Failing to see the potential differences, the arguer's analogical deduction is not justifiable. Hence, taking there two points into consideration, lacking further evidence about the recommendations, the speaker cannot convince us that these two suggestion is the best and the only way for left-handers and right-handers respectively.

On conclusion, the argument is not well reasoned and inherently flawed. To buttress up the final suggestion, the author is required to provide detailed sampling process about the study, to make the study reliable. Moreover, if we can be offered with more substantial evidence to prove the causal relationship, the conclusion could be further persuasive.
攻击得很到位，我很难挑出什么bug，敬仰中

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... type%26typeid%3D102

cicadaUID: 2221454

the comparison between 21 percent and 11 percent is unreasonable to some extent. Actually, to evaluate the real situation, the author needs the compare the 21 percent with the left-handers who are pursuing a career in business rather than the general population, which, of course, includes children, the old, and so forth.个人认为21％的比例和大众比不恰当，但是和在商业领域谋职的人比也不是十分妥当。因为文中的意思是在商业领域取得成功的左撇子如此之大以至于作者把它当作论据说明左撇子人应该从商。故我觉得最好的应该是和从事各行各业的人比，如果可以说明从商取得成功的的概率最大，方可取信于人。另外楼主的文章的确写得不错，在这篇argument中我也觉得第一段尤为出彩。只是提个小小的建议，楼主如能文章的精练简洁上下功夫，极望登封造极。因为以你语言功底字数已经不是你要考虑的问题了。

dicmiUID: 183392

好不容易上gter来，又看到让我move的话了~~
hughug

唉，这篇我还是尽量减少字数的结果了，不然按照我以往的习惯，这么多错误，极有可能码到700的~~

那个21%比例实在不好批，我知道可以批，但是不知道应该和谁比。
Cicada说的和各行各业的比，的确有道理，我在第三段的那里也提到了这一点，不知道是不是和你说的是类似的内容呢？

简洁~~，还要努力啊~~

jallineUID: 2192970

呜呜~~~~
我想了半天还是只写出两段来......
拜读中...

不然按照我以往的习惯，这么多错误，极有可能码到700的~~

dicmiUID: 183392

寒。。。这个这个；。。。

因为它有一个study~~

然后结论肯定错了~~
结论是两个方面的，可以分成两段（280就这么做的），不过我合成一段了
中间的这段就显的少了。。

jallineUID: 2192970

既然学习过了, 就顺便发表一下看法吧~

Prior to hastily advise left-handers to pursue a business career, whereas right-handers to imitate the left-handers, the reasoning of this suggestion should be closely scrutinized from other angles. The author alleges that the left-handers are more likely to succeed in business, without considering other potential alternatives, which may severely undermine the credibility of the final suggestion.

A threshold fallacy with this argument involves the study’s statistically unreliability. Firstly, we are not informed whether the 1,000 prominent business executives is representative enough to reflect the general situation. Failing to infer the sampling process, it is highly possible that those people are selected beforehand by the researcher.[我写的时候觉得这个是弱攻击, 你这里反击似乎也不很有力] Also, the quantity of respondents is only 1,000, which is too limited to be statistically significant. Secondly, the author simply equates the people who wrote with left hand with people who are left-handed, which is obviously unwarranted. To be specific, some people could write with both hands, whereas some people who are right-handed are also able to write with left-handed. If so, those people cannot be included in the left-handers, which subsequently make the 21 percent insignificant. [我写的时候觉得这个有些无理, 也没有写, sigh…] Thirdly, the comparison between 21 percent and 11 percent is unreasonable to some extent[somehow]. Actually, to evaluate the real situation, the author needs the[to] compare the 21 percent with [all我觉得有必要强调一下] the left-handers [percentage] who are pursuing a career in business rather than the general population, which, of course, includes children, the old, and so forth.[赫赫, 这个问题我也有说] Therefore, from these three perspectives, unless the author provides more information about the study, it is hasty and risky to accept the result of the study and base the following deduction on it.

Additionally, providing the study is valid, the author fails to establish a reliable relationship between left-handers and business success. Actually, a myriad of other reasons could help to explain this phenomenon. Possibly, the business success is because the left-handers are diligent people who are studying hard and working hard, and consequently become success. Or possibly, they are promoted to the business executives due to their intimate relationship with their boss rather than their so-called capabilities. In short, no strong data is given to solidify the asserted relationship. Thus, any of these scenarios, if true, may undermine the relationship. [手不一定是成功的原因我承认, 但为什么容易被promote? 而且这种事情同时在1000人身上发生似乎也不大可能吧.]
[另外我觉得这一个攻击点是不是不大合适, 作者只是声称左手更容易成功, 即使如你所说是因为他们左手, 而更勤奋, 或人际关系更好, 但是最终不管过程, 还是左手者更容易取得成功, 还是证明了作者的论点.]

Furthermore, even if the causal relationship is substantiated, it is unwarranted to recommend those left-handers need pursue a career in business, and those right-handers imitate left-handers. On the one hand, consider the left-handers. Though they may be successful in business area, without the information about what the situation is in other areas like education, politics, arts, it is presumptuous to urge them to pursue a career in business. Perhaps, they can be better off in those areas besides the business. As a result, they can pursue a career in those areas as well. In return[? To this point似乎更适合], the business area cannot be the left-handers[‘] only choice. On the other hand, consider the right-handers. Common sense tells us that a successful career involves various factors, say education, experience, intelligence and etc. Whether merely imitating left-handers could be helpful to right-handers in business is open to doubt. It is completely possible that some innate left-handed genius in business are hardly be imitated by right-handers. Meanwhile, as the saying goes, “Every roads lead to Roma”, [赞, 第一次看到A中用引言的] the right-handers also have their own approach to achieve the business success, instead of the mere imitation. Failing to see the potential differences, the arguer's analogical deduction is not justifiable. Hence, taking there two points into consideration, lacking further evidence about the recommendations, the speaker cannot convince us that these two suggestion is the best and the only way for left-handers and right-handers respectively.
[和楼上不一样, 我觉得这一段写的最好, 典型的D风格, 呵呵]
On conclusion, the argument is not well reasoned and inherently flawed. To buttress up the final suggestion, the author is required to provide detailed sampling process about the study, to make the study reliable. Moreover, if we can be offered with more substantial evidence to prove the causal relationship, the conclusion could be further persuasive.

dicmiUID: 183392

恩。等的就是这个：）
seat to revise

dicmiUID: 183392

手的那个问题我觉得是很关键的。

设想一下：1000个人调查过了，我们不说手，就调查近视不近视吧。  发现90%的人都近视，那么是不是可以认为因为近视，他们就容易成功了？
显然不是吧~~
这样的调查就像是设好了圈套等你套，那样的话，我们也可以认为女的容易成功（如果女的多的话），个子高于1.70m的容易成功（如果个子高的人多的话）。。。那样是不是很荒谬呢？

就本题而言，发现21%成功人士是左撇子，就只能认为是巧合。


对于数据代表性的那个，攻击的确少，我是怕这段太长了。有三个点要说。但我认为这个代表性可以攻击的，1000人数上的有点弱攻击的样子，可以舍弃

jallineUID: 2192970

general population与prominent executives 来自不同的群体，需要标化后才能相比，否则存在系统偏倚；21%是构成比，不能和11%这个率比较；

查到这样一条, 不过当初我没选修概率论, 所以看不懂, dicmi解释一下?

dicmiUID: 183392

我也不是很懂这个术语
~~~~~~

期待达人解答吧

刚才绞尽脑汁想举个例子出来的，发现统计学的东西也是忘了~~

creativeUID: 2193617

关于这个survey，我是这样理解的：
因为成功经理中左撇子的比例（先不考虑照片的fallacy）比总人口中的高，所以到处左撇比正常人更容易取得成功。
所以我的反驳是：
1.文中没有给出在不成功的商人中左撇子的比例，也许这个比例远高于21%
2.文中没有排除因为左撇子在其他方面的优势大于21%的可能，以上两点不排除的话，就不能说左撇子和其他行业比起来，更适合于经商
3.毕竟79%的成功经理是正常人，也许左撇子正好是成功者中的最后21%，所以，让正常人向左撇子看齐完全没有理由

我的困惑是，不能肯定对survey的反驳可以作为第一攻击点，（印象中，survey作第一攻击点是不可取的）但是有找不到另一个。望各位G友指点.

SerendipUID: 2227806

如果简单理解的话，就是说在精英人士中左撇子占的比率比总体中左撇子的比率大—〉左撇子精英更多，我认为这个21和11的比没什么太大问题，而且我觉得在其他错误都很好批地情况下，可以不用关注这个相对来说正大于负的错误。

wp123UID: 2187508

举个例子吧，有一个班级共60人，其中男生24人，女生36人。那么其构成比就是男生占40%，女生占60%。


一、群体的涵义和特征。
群体作为社会学分析的具体单位，在社会学的先驱者那里，就已被列人研究的重要内容。但对群体作出明确的定义，还是本世纪初的事。美国社会学家阿尔比恩·W·斯莫尔在1905年将群体定义为“一大群或一小群的人，在期间所存在的关系使我们必须把他们作为整体来考虑。”①此后，人们认为这一定义过于宽泛，于是对群体的涵义又提出了各种各样的解释。我们认为，群体是人们通过某种社会关系联结起来，进行共同活动和感情交流的集体。它既同社会和个人相区别，又介于社会和个人之间，并且是联结二者的中介。
群体大致有以下特征：
1．有一定数量的社会成员。群体成员至少有两个人，这是构成群体的主体基础。在较大的群体中，还有一定的组织结构和一定的分工协作，并且有权威人物的存在.
2．有一定的为群体成员所接受的目标。群体目标是群体功能的具体体现，也是组织的灵魂。没有目标的群体是不可能存在的。
3．有明确的成员关系，并形成归属感。群体成员之间互相依赖，在心理和行为上互相影响，围绕群体目标开展活动，具有相对独特的互动方式。
4．有一定的行为准则。群体规范有些是明文规定的，有些则是约定俗成的，它保证群体有秩序地、协调地开展活动。
5．时间上具有一定的持续性。任何群体都是现实的社会实体，它不仅占有一定的空间位置，而且在时间上也具有一定的持续性。
从群体的界定可以看到，群体和我们一般所讲的人群是不同的概念。在社会学研究中，人群通常是指那些偶发聚集体，也就是偶然地在同时间同一地方临时聚集起来的一群人，比如搭乘公共汽车的乘客。商店里购物的顾客、电影院里观看电影的观众、餐厅里就餐的食客等等。在这些人群的成员之间并不发生具有意义的社会互动，也没有共同的归属感，聚合的时间也十分短暂。因此他们不能算作群体。然而需要指出的是，即使是松散的人群，在一定条件下也会转化为我们所说的群体。比方说，公共汽车上突然有乘客晕倒，这时乘客们就可能会彼此交换意见，寻求救助的办法，这时这群人就有了一定的目标，出现了朝向这个目标的社会互动，于是就会形成实际的群体。
我于1980年出生在美丽的西子湖畔。上中学时，老师和同学对我的评价是：看上去柔弱，但社会活动能力挺强。
进人大学后，我参加了学校里一个与我所学专业有关的学生社团——法学会。刚入会的时候，我只是打打杂，跟着高年级同学的指挥棒转。我充分发挥自己的特长，从最基础、最琐碎的事情做起。写宣传海报，向系刊、校刊投稿，筹备学会活动，等等。学会交给我的每一件事，我都很认真、出色地去完成。于是，我获得了很好的人际关系，遇到什么难事，我只要一招手，便有同学采帮我。大二下学期，在大家的一致拥护下，我成为法学会会长。
接手法学会的，学校正对学生社团采取优胜劣汰政策。带着压力，我和会员一起为法学会的生存和发展努力着。我们走出校门，与学校周围的居委会联系，在居民小区内设立了十几个法律信箱，定期开启，回答居民的法律问题；还不定期地到社区开展法律咨询，取得了很好的社会效果。
我们法学会有一个王牌活动项目——“模拟法庭”。为了使这一活动上一个新台阶，我与会员们一起深人社会，到中学、乡镇、企业去普及法律知识，进行模拟法庭巡演。所到之处，反响强烈。媒体也对这一活动做了多次报道。功夫不负有心人。我主持的法学会被学校评为优秀甲级社团，并推荐为向币里申报的“明星社团”。
回顾法学会的活动，我和我的同学们虽然都付出了很多，但同时也得到了很多的锻炼。这段经历，将令我们终身难忘。
资料来源：摘编自祝蓓里、杠公卓主编：《爱与成长》，华东师范大学出版社2001年版。
二、群体的类型
作为人类基本活动形式的群体，有着纷繁复杂的类型。依据不同的标准，可以将群体划分为不同类别。有人曾作过统计，目前，对群体已经有近40种分类方法。下面介绍几种主要的分类方法和群体类型。
（一）初级群体和次级群体
初级群体和次级群体是以成员的互动关系特征为标准，而进行的一种群体分类，这是社会学群体研究中最经典的分类之一。
初级群体又称作首属群体，是社会群体中最古老、最基本的形式，是个人参加社会生活的基础群体。如家庭、邻里、游戏伙伴等，都属于初级群体。初级群体概念是20世纪初由美国社会学家C·库利提出来的。他认为，个人总是从一些直接的、人数不多的、亲密的交往过程中形成最初的社会关系，由这些初级的社会关系联结起来的群体就是初级群体。初级群体具有规模较小、面对面交往、认同感强烈等特性。
次级群体又称作次属群体，是用来表示与初级群体相对应的各种群体，如学校、职业群体、社团等。次级群体是人们为了达到一定的社会目的而建立起来的。一般说来，次级群体规模比初级群体要大，成员较多，有些成员之间不一定有直接的个人接触，群体内人们的联系往往通过一些中间环节来建立。次级群体既是个人步人社会所必须加人的群体，也是个人社会活动领域拓展和活动能力增强的标志。
（二）正式群体和非正式群体
正式群体和非正式群体是以群体的关系结构和组织功能为标准，而进行的一种群体分类。
正式群体也就是社会组织，其具体内涵，将在下一章详细论述。
非正式群体与正式群体不同，它不是由上级社会结构组织起来的，而是在成员个人倡议的基础上建立的。因此，一般说来，非正式群体是一种自发形成的、无正式组织结构、无正式章程的群体，如朋友群、游伴群等。非正式群体既存在于正式群体之外，也可以在正式群体内部形成。非正式群体的主要功能是满足个人工作之外的一些心理需要，个性特征、情境和共同兴趣，在构成非正式群体中起着重要作用。正是在这个意义上，有人又把非正式群体称作心理群体或兴趣群体。
正式群体和非正式群体的概念，是在美国学者G·梅约于1927—1932年进行的著名的霍桑实验以后，才正式成为社会学的术语的。梅约研究发现，在企业中，在正式群体以外，还存在一种自发形成的群体。这种非正式组织起来的群体所产生的“社会舆论”，是每个成员的劳动态度的道德标准，对班组的团结。风气、绩效有着重要影响。
（三）内群体和外群体
内群体和外群体是以成员对群体的心理归属为标准，而进行的一种群体分类。
内群体和外群体，又称作“我群”和“他群”。这两个概念是由萨姆纳在《民俗论》（1907年）一书中最先提出的。萨姆纳认为，根据成员对自己与群体关系密切程度的自我感觉以及对不同群体的态度，可以将群体分为内群体和外群体。凡是成员感到自己与群体关系密切，对群体有强烈归属感的，就是内群体。而那些由他人结合而成、与自己没有什么关系的群体，就属于外群体。内群体和外群体是通过“我们”和“他们”的群体界限来划分和定义的。这些群体界限，有的是有形的，如学校的校徽，就是一种群体界限符号。然而，更多的则是基于群体成员一种感情上的亲切和态度上的认同，这种认同促使成员之间亲密、团结、协调、台作。因此，内群体和外群体的研究，对于揭示社会伦理问题，有着更显著的意义。
（四）成员群体和参照群体
参照群体和成员群体是以群体成员的归属为标准，而进行的一种群体分类。
成员群体也就是内群体，个人属于该群体的成员，并以本群体的规范作为自己活动的准则，各成员之间在行为上彼此互相影响。
参照群体是指被某一群体成员用来作为某种参照对象并试图效法的群体。参照群体的概念是借用自然科学中的“参照系”一词演化而来的，有“目标”、“标准”的含义，所以也叫作“标准群体”或“榜样群体”。参照群体不是人们所属的群体，而是个人心目中想要加人或理想中的群体，它的价值观和规范体系常常是参照者个人的目标或标准。如大学生群体往往是那些想考人大学的高中生的参照群体；某个著名球队往往成为一些球迷的参照群体，等等。不同性质的参照群体有不同的特点，其权威性和影响力也不尽相同。一个人如果把一个或多个群体看作自己的参照群体，也就会自觉或不自觉地用参照群体的价值观和规范来对照自己行为，指导自己的行动。
参照群体的概念，是由美国社会学家海曼提出的。后来，一些研究者把参照群体概念扩大到个人对自己的社会地位、行为和观点评价的标准等问题上。因此，参照群体既可以指个人所羡慕的群体或他曾是其成员的群体，也可以指他所属的群体；既可以指小群体，也可以指大群体。有的甚至具体的个人也可能充当参照群体的角色。
（五）大群体和小群体
大群体和小群体是以群体的规模为标准，而进行的一种群体分类。
大群体一般指规模较大、人数较多、人员之间较少直接互动的群体。典型的大群体是如阶级群体这样的利益群体。这类群体人数众多，活动方式和组合形式有的超出了作为实体的群体范围，在其中甚至还可以划分出许多具有实体形式的群体。
小群体则是指那些规模较小、成员之间能够直接互动的群体。小群体的主要特征是：成员间有面对面的联系，行为上相互作用、相互影响；成员在心理上彼此意识到对方，保持着直接的思想沟通；具有共同认可的群体规范。小群体研究在群体研究中占有重要地位。美国社会学者西奥多·M·米尔斯认为，小群体是更一般的社会系统，它不仅是微观系统，而且基本上是大社会的缩影。仔细研究这些微观系统，可以构架理论模型，然后应用到较难直接接触的社会中去，发展一般社会系统思考方法。
群体除了上述分类之外，还可以按照形成的直接纽带分为血缘群体、地缘群体、业缘群体、志缘群体和趣缘群体；按照对社会的作用性质分为积极群体和消极群体，等等。同时，这些分类又互相交叉。因此，我们在对具体群体进行研究时，必须选择好分析的视角，并且注意不同类别群体之间的交互影响。
三、初级群体
（一）初级群体的涵义和特征
初级群体作为由面对面的互动所形成的、具有亲密的人际关系的社会群体，在社会生活中具有重要的地位和作用。
从总体上分析，初级群体具有以下特征：一是规模小。初级群体的规模一般在几人到十几个或二十几人之间，在小规模的群体里，成员之间进行着全面深人的交往。二是有长期的、经常的面对面互动。初级群体由于人数少，成员间可以直接交往而不需要中间环节，在直接的。面对面的交往中，成员之间对彼此的音容笑貌、行为举止都十分熟悉，从而增进了彼此的感情联系。三是成员的人格特征可以得到比较全面的表现，初级群体成员之间大都处于一种较为宽松的氛围，因此可以表现出比较全面的人格特征。四是成员之间的角色位置难以替代。在初级群体中，由于人们之间有着自然形成而非外部强加的角色关系，具有强烈的感情联系，所以在彼此的心目中都具有独特的地位，难以简单地替换。五是习惯、伦理道德和感情在维系群体中发挥着重要作用。初级群体一般不靠严格的规章、制度或法律等正式手段来维护，群体成员能够很好地处理相互关系，所依靠的是习惯，人们在初级群体中生活，通常感到比较自由，不太受拘束。
（二）初级群体的类型
1．家庭。家庭是最基本的初级群体。对于家庭的分析，我们将在第二节详细阐述。
2．邻里。邻里是在地缘关系基础上结成的友好往来、守望相助的共同体。邻里既指左邻右舍几户人家，也指一个小村落或一个居民点等。在传统社会，邻里关系往往比较密切，“远亲不如近邻”就是这种现象的写照。现代社会由于商品经济的发展，人们的迁移频繁，加之高楼大厦的兴建，使邻里关系淡化。特别是在大城市的许多新区，传统的邻里形式已发生重大变化。但在农村或小城镇，邻里依然是十分重要的初级群体，发挥着重要的社会功能。
3．伙伴群体。伙伴群体是指以性格、志向、兴趣、感情、个性等因素为纽带结合而成的一种非正式群体。这类群体对人的社会化，尤其是对于青少年世界观、人生观、价值观的形成，发挥着重要的影响作用。
（三）现代社会中的初级群体
现代社会，随着经济和社会生活的发展，初级群体的功能出现了衰退和外移的现象。人们参与初级群体活动越来越少，初级群体成员之间发生的联系减少，彼此的依赖程度降低，交往的时间缩短，造成初级群体成员间的关系变得松散。初级群体的这些变化，既有历史的进步意义，也带来了一些消极影响。这些消极影响突出表现在：对老年人的赡养与照顾问题；出现“破损家庭”中儿童的社会化问题；对人们的感情需要等方面带来的困难。在西方发达国家中，人们普遍存在孤独感，精神病患病率增长，酒精中毒与吸毒现象增多，社会上人情淡漠，等等，
些社会不良现象的滋长，与初级群体的衰落有一定的联系。因此，一些社会学家呼吁，在现代化进程中，要加强初级群体建设，重视其功能的发挥。我国在现代化的进程中，也应该警惕这种现象的发生。

wp123UID: 2187508

率和构成比的定义不同，应用价值也不同。率具有稳定性和可比性。不同人群中具有同质性的率是可比的.

构成比受到许多因素的影响，其应用受到许多限制.

简单的说,率就是恒定不变的,到那里都那样
而构成比,因为群体不同,可能发生变化.