Sometimes it's ignored. Sometimes one word answers. Sometimes a core dump of emotions

Some times used as a weapon (like no contact w another previous text friend or parent)

I'm trying to make a "neat" eval for myself with my friends acquaintance family to not hurt and keep in texting rather than get discouraged

Or do the general nature of many of those goals prevent it

When I read about or see non religious and religious relationships the man is always the athesit so I'm wondering if there's data to support or if there's data to prove me wrong. And if it's true why that is.

Sexual Econimics Theory states that the thinking, preferences and behavior of men and women in dating follow the fundamental economic principles, the theory analyzes the onset of heterosexual sex as a marketplace deal in which the woman is the seller and the man is the buyer.Sexual Economics Theory was proposed by psychologists Roy Beumesteir and Kathleen Vohs.

we know that dominance hierarchy, aka "pecking order," is hardwired into almost all living beings with a social system. I read that this extends even to families and friend groups. that's how hardwired we are to follow it.

love is considered a "cultural resource." we know resources are limited things, and those at the top of the hierarchy get first dibs, and those at the bottom get the scraps of whatever is left.

what I want to know is, does this mean that, in all groups, there will always be at least one individual who is unloved?

is human love a limited resource that some must go without, or is it that those at the bottom are given the least amount of love?

is the least favorite friend in a group still loved by the other members? is the least favorite family member still wanted at Thanksgiving? is the coworker that isn't anyone's first choice of company still someone that is liked and valued and wanted by their fellow coworkers?

is it possible for a human pecking order to exist where all members are valued and loved, or is it the nature of hierarchy itself that resources will be denied to those at the very bottom of it?

Hey all, I'm teaching a social science methods course. I'm pretty strongly ethnographic though, and my methods are somewhat narrow. I use interviews, participant observation, etc., and wish I were teaching ethnographic methods instead, or that I had focused on gaining a wider toolkit.

Would love advice for easy articles to incorporate with other sorts of methods, especially quantitative. I'm a bit nervous to assign anything too complicated (i.e. needing stats), so looking for some light samplers. I was thinking quant survey design?

Any tips on potential exercises also welcome as I'm working on the syllabus.

Thanks in advance!

I find it hard to believe that aversion to sexual abuse is not natural , it seems like to a large part the need for freedom including consent is evolutionary so it is indeed natural

Edit;; wouldn't acknowledging that the responses to sexual abuse are socially constructed mean that cultures that normalise sexual abuse are "better" in the sense that there's less trauma arising from it due to learned helplessness

Basically the title. This is an honest question, and is not intended to be a "gotcha" for either 'side'. It's just difficult for me to single out what this sort of interaction represents and how best to characterize it. From a POC perspective, it seems like a racially based microaggression. From a feminist perspective, it seems like a 'better-safe-than-sorry' piece of risk assessment. Is the Black man wrong for feeling like a victim of racism? Is the woman wrong for taking a safety precaution? Are both wrong? Are neither? Is it simply the case that certain spheres of social justice can't or don't overlap, and someone has got to be victimized? Or is there a way to reconcile this situation without putting forth racist/sexist talking points (i.e., telling either 'side' that they're just going to have to suck it up)? And, just to preemptively respond to a possible answer, while the distinction may seem to lie in whether the woman is clutching her purse because the man is a man, or because the man is a Black man, I would imagine that distinction is lost on/inaccessible to the Black man.

Hi!

Looking for published research that show survey instruments for Hofstede's Uncertainty Avoidance and Hall's Context Constructs. I'm trying to adapt survey items into my survey that is in the InfoTech/InfoSys field. My measurement model currently has 3 items each, but I wanted to add more in case they don't meet internal validity and discriminant criteria.

Tried doing some research but fairly inconclusive. Opinions?

In some places including California the age-crime curve has collapsed, i.e. it is not 15-20 years olds who commit most crime nowadays, it is the older people (mid twenties to mid thirties). Does this reflect a generational change (I.e. the younger generations are less criminal) or a real age-crime curve collapse (people commit crime later in life)?

Hello, today I had a discussion (not an argument) with my brother on whether or not an society where everyone is paid the same and works equivalents, would work.

He says it wouldn't, cause it would take away people's freedom of choice.

I don't see how anyone would want more than housing, food and luxuries (such as a tv, hot shower, phones or something like that), so I say why would anyone want more. In my own words: "if I get full eating one pizza, why would I buy two?"

I now understand that not everyone thinks like me, and that people would want freedom even at the expense of a, In my view in a idealistic society, better world.

But can someone explain to me why people have such a need for freedom that they want it at the cost of security?

(This got a lot more attention than what I was expecting. Yes, I'm aware something like this wouldn't work. I just failed to see how. My discussion with my brother was very clearing in the why's and how's. This was just a hypothetical situation in which the world came to an utopia.)

(In my mind, there wouldn't be a reason to do the bare minimum if you're being supplied with all you need. And I mean, all you need. But I'm also aware people are different and not everyone would want that. Again, my discussion with my brother was very clearing.)

(This was just a genuine question, please don't take this too seriously.)

Saw a joke a couple weeks back about more runners in the neighborhood therefore rent going up and it's been stuck with me ever since. Noticed it in the different neighborhoods of Jersey City, in my suburban hometown in NY, and now while I'm on vacation in Tokyo (more wealthy looking people and stores in Roppongi/ginza and coincidentally enough, more runners)

Does something in the culture of wealthy people make them more active? Or maybe is the reverse true that something in the culture of poorer people places less emphasis on healthy habits such as exercise?

Edit: been asking friends and family about it as well and while none of us are using citations or sources in our discussions lol, it seems kind of obvious that healthy activities/lifestyles lie behind a certain paywall.

To take a "free" activity such as running for example, (US based perspective btw in case any international peeps would like to drop their thoughts here too), you have to be able to afford running shoes and any other gear that you need to do it safely, you need to have a safe area to run in and if you don't already live in a safe neighborhood for that (which is typically more expensive) then you have to travel to an area better suited for it. Traveling even 15min to a nearby park or something entails a certain level of cost as well (affording a car + insurance + gas). Lastly, even having the time to run for 30min and travel 15min to and from and let's assume 30min to get ready and clean up after means you need ~1:30 free to do this activity which is hard to carve out if you can't afford child care while you're away exercising.

Straying a little now, but I feel like with this conclusion of "wealth ~= health," the obvious answer to this problem is a certain guaranteed level of wealth, AKA UBI (universal basic income). With the current conclusion I have of UBI=health, the subsequent discussion of whether we should or shouldn't have UBI would have to include whether or not "health" is a human right.

Please point me in the right direction to where I can expand on this topic/conversation because it's really fun to talk about

I instinctively find these crimes absolutely abhorrent and gross but I've never been able to explain why. There's an innate instinct I and most others have that it is disgusting often to the point of me wanting to kill some of those offenders or worse. Why do we feel this way ? It seems like the legal system has made it so that crimes that don't lead to victims death don't get the death penalty. And some people often argue that this is the "rational" position in the sense that it is "humane" (this is distinct from the arguement that the legal system is imperfect at determining guilty, the humanist argument assumes that the offender has value even despite their wrongdoings).But I don't find any justification for this view either that it is "humane".

What makes sexual crimes instinctively terrible to us ?

I believe that chads, alphas, sigmas, zetas, betas, omegas, gammas and deltas are the only categories that exist in the social hierarchy. All humans, except babies and toddlers, belong to one of these categories.

I believe that chads are all the way at the top of social hierarchy and they’re the gods of the alphas. Sigmas and zetas are equal to alphas, but they’re mostly at the sidelines. Everyone else is below them.

Women can only be alphas, sigmas, zetas, betas, omegas, gammas or deltas. I also think there is a glass ceiling that women can’t pass through in this social hierarchy. Amber Heard, Britney Spears, and Angelina Jolie are great examples of why women can never be chads.

Chads are above the glass ceiling. Alpha males, zeta males, and sigma males can pass through the glass ceiling but they will always have lower social value than chads. Harvey Weinstein is a good example of an alpha male who can never be more valuable than a chad.

Are there any research studies to support this?

When a women wears a bikini or an outfit that's out of the ordinary, it's labelled as 'bold' just generally. The word 'bold' in itself sounds odd, problematic and strange to me. A lot of it could generally come from how it satisfies the male gaze, it's out of place from what patriarchy would want us to wear in public or is just generally that has successfully met the male gaze. Any recommendations on readings related to this? Thank you so much!

I'm wondering if there is any literature that talks about the dynamics of dismantling hierachies. I'm specifically interested in the behavioral economics of the white supremacist backlash we've witnessed in the imperial countries and their settler colonies, especially given that these political projects typically end up endorsing austerity measures. So, specifically anything that deals with the social/economic psychology of one group trying to maintain their relative position in a social hierarchy, even when abolishing the hierarchy entirely would lead to a better absolute position for that group. I've tried looking for papers on this, but haven't had much luck. Bonus points if anything you find uses a game theory approach to model the situation I mentioned.

I know some who are borderline crazy right now. I don't want to be around them if things don't go their way.

People with either of these personality disorders are all around us . Many of these people can hide themselves from us quite well,because most are very intelligent. Some shrinks say that a Psychopath is simply a dangerous Sociopath. Serial killers and mass murderers fit that description. Have you ever suspected anyone you know of these disorders?

Hey all, just wondering if anyone has done any research within or done much thought on the act or littering?

Why do people do it - I remember reading one article that suggests it's due to a lack of public bins, but this seems dubious as most people will carry litter until they find a bin/get home. I also repeatedly see people litter meters away from bins.

What do you guys think the social, historical, cultural etc factors could he that determine why people choose to litter, and what we can do to help remedy this?

This morning I got a thought. The hippie movement of the 60s, punk movement of the 80s, emo movement of the 00s and "alt movement" of today are actually pretty similair.

Furthermore they are usually about 20 years apart and influenced by each other. Is there a reason as to why this keeps repeating itself? And why it didn't start earlier?

Thanks for reading! I teach Ethics at high school. Concerning gender discrimination: Is there an author or study that I can read which explores this idea? I've given an example here:

-The nursing profession is dominated by women. It is less well-paid than male-dominated professions because it is dominated by women. The discrimination is deep ("we underpay women in this culture") rather than shallow ("You're a woman. You should be a nurse rather than a doctor!")

I've got access to journals etc and I'd love any guidance you have. Thanks so much.

In other words, why has Marx been so influential while Proudhon has almost disappeared into obscurity? What does this success/failure say about the relative intellectual strengths/weaknesses of each man's system?

Every news article and social science post seems to talk about the growing divide in American politics and culture. Americans seem upset having to sacrifice on their ideals to vote in the lesser of two evils on a local, state, and federal level. (Depending on who you ask) I feel like the easiest fix would be Ranked voting to allow everyone to vote for options outside the Democrat or Republican parties without throwing their votes away. If nothing else this would allow for bi-partisan issues the vast majority of Americans agree on to be addressed like term limits, stock manipulation, and corporate lobbying. Especially in the digital age with machine voting instead of hand tallying we could easily do a 500+ tier voting where if your #1 candidate loses it will roll over to #2 and so on practically indefinitely. I can't understand how or why this isn't brought up more each election cycle. Could reddit make enough of a social push to implement such a system?

People hate state owned media due to impartality but it seems to be an implementation issue. What I'm more interested in is a state owned media or media platform that can be used to promote pluralism or diversity and is developed in a way that weaker sections of society can have their voices heard as well

I’m not sure if wisdom is a concrete enough term to allow rigorous study, hence me asking here.

Are there any studies in social science that assess things like practices to increase wisdom, innate characteristics that predispose people to be more wise or effects on quality of life of being wise?

Both the history of it, and studies on bookies, the numbers/policy/boleta, so on. What are your reading recommendations for it?