I’m currently researching and writing about the concept and phenomenon that is social death and I’m struggling to pin point why understanding social death is important. I know tackles some of the core issues in social justice but I just can’t quite articulate what the purpose of understanding social death is. I’ve gone through countless studies but I haven’t seen anyone state what understanding social death does for us as individuals/a society/scholars. I hope this is the right subreddit for this :’)

Theory Wednesday topics include:

* Social science in academia

* Famous debates

* Questions about methods and data sources

* Philosophy of social science

* and so on.

Do you wonder about choosing a dissertation topic? Finding think tank work? Want to learn about natural language processing? Have a question about the academic applications of Marxian theories or social network analysis? The history of a theory? This is the place!

Like our other feature threads (Monday Reading and Research and Friday Free-For-All), this thread will be lightly moderated as long as it stays broadly on topics tangentially related to academic or professional social science.

I found this article by the controversial "J. Phillippe Rushton" that There are racial differences in brain size and that this can affect IQ

I recognize that easterners and westerners tend to resonate with different personal values generally, but is the term 'core values' or 'personal values' a global enough way of talking about what is integral to us?

I am working on a project to provide a large number of first-year university students with a values discovery session. Our program teaches leadership, and we typically start with a values session conducted by professional coach. As we move to a much broader audience, roughly half of whom will come from an Eastern/Asian upbringing, we asked the question, is ‘values discovery’ a useful term for this population?

Our thought is that a personal values inventory seems like a very western and individual thing. Is there an accepted eastern counterpart to this language, or another approach coaches and sociologists take to talk about core personal principals? I’m looking for some global language that makes sense so all of our students can understand what they are getting into.

edited some words

Hi. Ok so I found this from the Federal Reserve. https://www.richmondfed.org/research/national_economy/macro_minute/2023/mm_09_26_23 It looks like it says that the Union Wage Premium for Private Sector Full-Time Wage and Salary Workers is around 12.5%. So a non-union worker might make 100,000 and a union worker might make 112,500. Is that accurate? I thought it was much higher and more than double. Ok so I saw union wages of unionized electricians. It was more than double. They showed their before and after paychecks as proof.

This also mentions union wage premium by sector. Construction has a 33% premium. On the other hand, Manufacturing, Trade, and few sectors have a small negative wage union. Is that accurate? Why? How is it possible that unions lower wages of non-union workers? So unions are only good for increasing wages in some sectors?
On a related note, does union wage premium consider ONLY real wages? Does wage union premium consider TOTAL compensation?
If a non-union worker makes 100,000 cash and union worker makes 112,000 cash, isn't that misleading if non-union worker also has 20,000 worth in employer retirement, healthcare, and other contributions. Maybe union worker doesn't have that. While real wages have stagnated, total compensation has seen a lot of growth https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2016/09/wages-with-benefits/

I'm reading the book "The Meme Machine", and its author, Susan Blackmore, had a few interesting theories on the history of the human species. A few of which were:

Human brain development happened exponentially and unconnected from initial benefits due a memetic selection processes. Along the natural genetic selection processes, optimizing for hunting, humans developed strong enough social and intellectual processes to be able to develop and spread memes. And memetic moved the pressure to the most minimal optimal creature, to be the most fit, to something even more; and thus forced proto-humans down a path of long term intellectual development, which was exponential.

I am going to propose an entirely new theory based on memetics. In summary it

is this. The turning point in our evolutionary history was when we began to imitate each other. From this point on a second replicator, the meme, came into play. Memes changed the environment in which genes were selected, and the direction of change was determined by the outcome of memetic selection.

I suggested that imitation requires three skills: making decisions about what

to imitate, complex transformations from one point of view to another, and the production of matching bodily actions. These basic skills, or at least the beginnings of them, are available in many primates and were probably available to our ancestors of 5 million years ago. Primates have good motor control and hand co-ordination, and good general intelligence which would enable them to classify actions and decide what to imitate.

I suggest that the social skills others have singled out as directly responsible

for our large brain were in fact responsible for the prior step of acquiring imitation. As soon as our ancestors crossed the threshold into true imitation a second replicator was unwittingly unleashed. Only then did the memetic pressure for increasing brain size begin.

This theory is interesting, if based on complete speculation, and also neglectful to the other complex modes of communication found all throughout life. It neglects to mention the role of language primarily. If I were to, base something on this I would say, the break through was probably at the point humans developed basic vocal communication. And the apparent extreme natural selection for complex muscles in our faces and throats, more so than any other animal, the best communicators and spreaders of memes, survived, and started the exponential rise of our brains.

Humans without language are extremely stunted, and it seems the healthy human brain is completely dependent on some form of linguistic encoding for memes.

Another speculative theory she purposed was on the development of farming:

But why did farming spread at all? The answer might seem to be obvious –

for example, that farming makes life easier or happier, or that it provides a genetic advantage to the people who practise it. In fact, it seems that farming did not make life easier, nor did it improve nutrition, or reduce disease. The British science writer Colin Tudge (1995) describes farming as ‘the end of Eden’. Rather than being easier, the life of early farmers was utter misery. [...] Stories in the Old Testament describe the arduous work of farmers and, after all, Adam was thrown out of Eden and told ‘In the sweat of thy face shalt though eat bread’.

By contrast, modern hunter-gatherers have been estimated to spend only about fifteen hours a

week hunting and have plenty of time for leisure. This is despite the fact that they have been pushed into marginal environments far poorer than those in which our ancient ancestors probably lived. Why would people the world over have given up an easier life in favour of a life of toil and drudgery?

[...]

Memetics allows us to ask a different question. That is, why were farming

practices successful as memes? In other words, how did these particular memes get themselves copied? The answers might include their benefits to human happiness or to human genes, but are not confined to those possibilities. Memes can spread for other reasons too, including less benign ones. They might spread because they appear to provide advantages even when they do not, because they are especially easily imitated by human brains, because they change the selective environment to the detriment of competing memes, and so on. With a meme’s eye view we ask not how inventions benefit human happiness or human genes, but how they benefit themselves.

This speculation is interesting me, but ignores other explanations even within memetics. In Marxist tradition, with farming societies, came class society, and came exploitation. It could be, as part of the "farming memeplex" came the concept of the king, and the working classes to support them, and accept their own subjugation.

(book review tangent)

I think this book is interesting, but feels half baked and very meandering. The author said it was the product of a period of ill health where she had a lot of time to think. It seems to me, that she thought in quantity but not quality, and did not iterate over her ideas. Reading up on pop sci, and thinking about current events. She switches from tangent to tangent, embellishing details that need not be embellished, and glossing over her own original work at time. It feels almost timid and insecure at times, as if she was a lot younger than a PhD in her 40s or 50s at the time. It also feels as if she wanted to write a more pop-sci book, but forgot the part that, she is just too in depth that the average person will get lost and loose interest. Its as if she thinks shes a science communicator, and not a PhD.

(tangent over)

I was wondering if anyone expanded on these theories, if they have had memetic successes in their own right?

I have read so much literature on honour killings, but most of it only explores causes, doesn’t offers any reasonable solutions in my opinion.

If honour killings occur as a result of social censure, how will honour killings in diaspora communities make sense since the reasons behind such killings almost always deal with a girl having a bf or getting “westernised” whatever that means, which would be completely acceptable outside the community in wider society. It doesn’t explains how western women who do OFs and porn don’t face such type of violence, since doing both of those things invites incredible hate, name calling, and makes many people question or mock the upbringing as reflected in phrases like “your dad will be proud.” Most importantly, the family will actually get ostracised by the western society for committing such crimes, the same thing that they fear would happen if they don’t carry out them.

Research also doesn’t explains differences between cultures. For instance, even within cultures where such violence is condoned, people disagree on when it’s justifiable to kill someone to protect family reputation. An example would be how a family won’t regard removing hijab or going on a date as a reasonable excuse to murder their daughter, they might consider having sex outside wedlock or wearing more westernised apparel as such.

My observation is that any culture or community where women have greater autonomy in terms of sexuality, is less likely to witness honour based violence. Where people tolerate insults, and give individual the right to make choices also encounter fewer honour based crimes. But how can we make a culture or community to give up on the practice given a myriad of reasons and justifications that exist to endorse honour based violence?

MONDAY RESEARCH AND READING: Monday Reading and Research will focus on exactly that: the history you have been reading this week and the research you've been working on. It's also the prime thread for requesting books or articles on a particular subject. As with all our weekly features (Theory Wednesdays and Friday Free-For-Alls are the others), this thread will be lightly moderated.

​

So, encountered an recently that changed article recently that changed how you thought about nationalism? Or pricing? Or anxiety? Cross-cultural communication? Did you have to read a horrendous piece of mumbo-jumbo that snuck through peer-review and want to tell us about how bad it was? Need help finding the literature on topic Y and don't even know how where to start? Is there some new trend in the literature that you're noticing and want to talk about? Then this is the thread for you!

Been thinking lately, why do people with an anxious attachment style only feel relief after venting their frustrations in long form to the person that’s been stirring the anxiety up in them? Ie why does not venting to another person or journaling offer them that relief?

Is it possible at all?

One of the big problems for trans healthcare seems to be a lack of good research, which can be fairly understandable given the methodological hurdles such a field faces. Ethics boards and privacy laws will make a lot of research unfeasible, while the nature of trans health makes it difficult to do experimental research. This is even more true when it comes into dysphoria amongst minors.

One area I have been wondering about is how to measure whether social contagion plays a role in the rise in minors seeking gender affirming care (as well as the sharp shift towards it being primarily natal males seeking care to natal females). I have seen some research published on the topic, but most of it seems to be either extremely noteworthy methodological shortcomings or whose findings don't point us very well one way or another (although if anyone reading is aware of research they feel is high-quality, feel free to link it).

​

So, with that in mind, what would be your approach to trying to measure whether social contagion is happening and, if it is, how prevalent it is and how exactly it works?

My only two asks are to try to make it realistic (even if it may require a decent budget and/or government cooperation) and try to keep the discussion scientific. This is a socially salient issue, but we are supposed to be social scientists here, not philosophers or pundits.

Hi, I found this publication:

https://mfr.osf.io/export?format=pdf&url=https%3A//files.osf.io/v1/resources/r5gps/providers/osfstorage/63a647b9651dce007022e19d%3Fformat%3Dpdf%26action%3Ddownload%26direct%26version%3D1

Even there might be this minority stress effect, other effects may lead to a higher amount of diagnosed mental issues in LGBT people.

What are the current findings about this? Why is the minority stress theory not challenged much more?

Perhaps I am way off on this, but I get the impression that people on ideological extremes not only believe that things are bad, but they reject most evidence that things are improving.

For example, progressives may resist admitting when things improve because core to their ideology is that things are "irrevocably broken".

I suppose this is similar to persecution complex in some ways.

Is there research on this area, or a name for it? I haven't been able to find anything.

Thank you!

I was reading about England's football jersey situation, where Nike changed the color of the English cross. Some people were furious over it, while others were calling them right-wing boomers, snowflakes etc etc.

Is it possible to upload qualitative data that has already been manually coded (in excel spreadsheet) to any kind of coding software and keep the codes?

From a social science viewpoint, what factors contribute to the fact that dancing in public spaces, even in venues specifically designed for dance, is such an embarrassingly loaded act? Additionally, is this phenomenon predominantly observed in Western cultures, or is it a universal sentiment?

Answer to any question in the scenario would be appreciated.

1. Baseline scenario: Dancing in the street is generally seen as embarrassing, perhaps because it deviates from socially accepted behavior in public spaces. The fear of judgment seems to play a significant role here. Why is this the case?
2. Introduction of a costume: If one wears a costume while dancing, the embarrassment seems to lessen. Is there a psychological mechanism that allows us to feel less accountable or judged for our actions when our identity is obscured or altered?
3. Financial incentive without a costume: If offered money to dance in the street without a costume, many might overcome their embarrassment and engage in the behavior. How does the introduction of a financial incentive change our perception of the action and our willingness to engage in it?
4. Significant financial incentive: If the financial incentive is life-changing, it seems the potential for embarrassment disappears almost entirely. The action becomes justified by the reward. What does this say about how we weigh social judgment against personal gain? Are there theories or studies that explain why the promise of significant rewards makes us willing to override our social inhibitions?

I'm interested in understanding the interplay between social norms, identity and incentives in shaping our behaviors. How and why our willingness to engage in certain actions changes under these different conditions?

Thanks!

My description might not be entirely precise, but it's something like this:

A person's mind influencing them to an extent into "seeking out" or exposing themselves to (whether the person is aware of their mind doing this or not) external stimuli that matches the current intentional object (what the person is currently feeling or thinking about) or that matches the positive or negative affectivity of, or the emotion associated with, the current intentional object

If the current intentional object has negative affectivity or is associated with anger, the person will be influenced to an extent to "seek out" external stimuli that's emotionally negative or associated with anger.

If the current intentional object is positive or associated with happiness, the person will be influenced to an extent to "seek out", external stimuli that's emotionally positive or associated with happiness.

If the person thinks of an apple, and there's an emotion or feeling attached to that, the person will be influenced to an extent to "seek out" external stimuli that matches that, whether it's an apple, a song involving apples, etc.

This phenomenon seems to be related to, as far as I can tell, cycles of positive or negative thinking.

someone argued that disgust reaction toward homosexual behavior specially gay men is result of immune system pathogen reaction to avoid std and infection, since anal s*x is a risky behavior we evolved to be disgusted by it and men who engage int it , so my question is how much is he correct? also he said homosexualith is like a paraphernalia who eat shit and regardless that eating shit make you sick and infected diseases they would do it because of sexual arousal

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886910002710

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6562335/

edit: im not homophobia or accepting of his view point, im looking for a way to argue with him

Why and how can anyone justify trumps campaign or any sort isn't a cult.

As if, we all just live in oligarchies, and we don't have actual voice in the matter of goverment?

An example: is the usa an oligarchy?

Just reading the thread about Amanda Bynes, Dan Schneider, and Nickelodean documentary when I learned about Joshua Drake's horrific abuse. The abuser was convicted on 11 counts, they had a confession on tape! He only got an 18 month sentence.

How did the law in the US start off by issuing the death penalty for this type of crime 100 years ago to such a short sentence today? What happened? Not that I am pro-death penalty, it just seems like such an extreme weight shift in sentencing...

Was going to as r/askahistorian but the guidelines seemed to suggest this forum would be more appropriate. Thank you!

International law provides a list of medical organizations. It identifies all organizations and their standards. And how many diseases, including psychological ones, are recorded in legal documents.

What websites can you find this information on?

Theory Wednesday topics include:

* Social science in academia

* Famous debates

* Questions about methods and data sources

* Philosophy of social science

* and so on.

Do you wonder about choosing a dissertation topic? Finding think tank work? Want to learn about natural language processing? Have a question about the academic applications of Marxian theories or social network analysis? The history of a theory? This is the place!

Like our other feature threads (Monday Reading and Research and Friday Free-For-All), this thread will be lightly moderated as long as it stays broadly on topics tangentially related to academic or professional social science.

I was diagnosed with emotional trauma and I don’t’ any traumatic event. does anyone has explication for that

Especially for non-economic crimes such as violent and sexual crimes. And what explains the inconsistent relationship, with some high-poverty areas having high crime rates but not others?

I need help understanding the pros and cons of this argument. I have a debate representing why the federal reserves should be kept. If anyone could help me and give some counter arguments that’d be helpful!