To add some context, I offer a citation from https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/9euq3:

It is not surprising that coercion derives from actors’ intent to prevent undesired events, behaviors and interactions from taking place in the future (immediate, near or distant future), since this future constitutes a possible (or virtual) present coming their way. Reiterating the importance and ubiquity of promises: if something will no longer happen in any future instant (and that is acknowledged rationally and emotionally), it cannot be intimidating in any present instant. Any threat, as opposed to actual harm, corresponds to circumstances necessarily in the future, being presently subjunctive, as is all that is avoidable, because what already happened cannot be avoided. As any aim, goal or objective is always future-oriented insofar as it still remains to be reached, pursued or accomplished, I could even argue, given sufficient space, that something that is believed to not happen in any future instant cannot be motivating in the present and that all present actions ultimately have future-oriented motivations, but that is not required here, most of all because actions in the present will obviously influence only the future, never the already known past nor the instantaneous present itself in which they occur. Insofar as goals in general, before completion, cannot be confined to the instantaneous present (imminently fated to become part of the past), they necessarily correspond to the future, even if pertaining to changing or preserving the present or investigating, exposing, reinterpreting or simply enjoying memories of the past. For example, even if one wants to know what happened yesterday, they can only hope, in the present, to learn about it in the future, starting the next instant. The present can only be changed or preserved in the future and any action concerning the past aims at providing a future experience with respect to it (of clarification, remembrance, etc.), regardless of entailing further – hence also future – intended or unintended consequences (e.g., compensation, punishment, etc.). If what matters to actors is always ultimately the future, how could sociologists avoid acknowledging the central role of virtual agency, promises and compromises? (pp. 17-18)

As for the underlying premise of the question being true, check this other quote:

[...] the amount of scholarly books and articles on trust, risk and cheating that even use the word “promises” repetitively without ever suspecting the concept’s full heuristic potential is remarkable. Sztompka (2003) thoroughly surveyed the literature on trust, profusely citing eminent works of authors such as Luhmann, Giddens, Merton, Coleman, Fukuyama and many others, systematizing nearly everything concerning trust – except promises. The 17 contributors to Trust in Society (Cook, 2001) similarly missed it, as well as others in more recent volumes (e.g., Buskens et.al, 2020). Promises can be trusted or not trusted, but they are clearly not the same as trust. Be it as a feeling, a belief and/or a disposition (Simon, 2020), trust is acknowledged as a fundamental aspect of social life, but promises are, up to now, largely overlooked by Sociology, despite constantly present. (p. 30)

This stems from another question I've had in my mind: How much responsibility should an individual hold for the food waste they produce or for buying items that have their expiry date way in the future instead of buying items that have an expiry date in the time frame during which you are cooking the item.

I'm asking as an American, but I believe the disparity holds true in any place in the world.

I’ve been thinking about how certain behaviors are punished in society and wanted to get some insight into why drug use and prostitution are punished much harsher than traffic violations, even though traffic violations can potentially harm far more people. For example, running a stop sign or speeding can lead to accidents, injuries, or even death, but the penalties for these offenses are often limited to fines or short-term consequences, rarely resulting in serious jail time.

On the other hand, drug use and prostitution (not forced sex trafficking) can lead to long prison sentences or other harsh penalties, even when no one else but the consenting parties may be directly harmed. At first I thought itmight be that traffic violations happen before any actual harm occurs, but it seems like many drug busts and prostitution arrests are made through sting operations, where no real harm is happening either—the "buyer" or "client" is actually an undercover officer pretending to be someone they’re not.

Why is there this inconsistency in how we punish behaviors that can both potentially harm others, but the penalties for one seem far harsher than the other? How do we explain this difference from a social science perspective?

How long does a population have to be expelled from, or a minority in, a land for their status as ‘indigenous’ to expire? What are the relevant factors that determine this?

Regardless if we agree or don't (I personally disagree), "superheroes are inherently fascist" is a common and popular criticism that we see with some frequency.

The criticism doesn't really reach heroes from Japanese comic books, however. We will really never see any "My Hero Academia is a fascist manga" opinion out there, and even if we did we would never get the positive response that "DC Comics/Marvel Comics are fascist" usually gets. It's also hard to imagine anyone saying that Killua Zoldyck should just donate money instead of beating up goons that we see so often with Batman and similar.

Are there fundamental differences between American heroes and Japanese heroes that casts some light on why one is "inherently fascist" and the other is not?

Such as rage, insecurity, humiliation, jealousy, etc. By unprovoked hatred I mean going out of your way to hate on somebody purely for belonging to an out-group. Like the people online who constantly hate on other for their gender, race, sexuality, nationality, religion, etc

Hello all,
I hope this question is appropriate for the community.

I'm a history professor teaching a mixed-discipline History/Political Science undergraduate research methods course, which is part 1 of a 2-part capstone sequence for juniors and seniors.

Their main assignment this semester will be to write a literature review on a chosen topic, using it as the first step toward completing an article length research project of their own next semester.

Since the idea of scholarship as an ongoing conversation is difficult for a lot of students to wrap their heads around, I'm wanting to offer them as many examples of published peer-reviewed literature reviews (what my discipline would call historiographical essays) as I can find.

What are the best and most instructive full length review articles you know of? Any subfield any topic would be welcome, though this cohort has a strong interest in international relations, international law, and public policy.

Thanks so much!

Hi everyone, my proposed research project revolves around how AI can be used in prisons for risk management and to assist in rehabilitation. The feedback I got from a potential supervisor is that I need to write a concrete methodology, explaining which AI tools/models I will use in my research and how, and which type of data and from which databases I will collect it. We agreed that it's impossible to use data coming directly from prison/police, and agreed that I don't have to program AI models myself but I will use existing tools. Since the topic is still an emerging one, I can't find (re)sources for my methodology, and I don't know how to structure it. I am in a state of confusion and frustration, as I need to come up with a feasible project. The supervisor supports my ideas but hasn't been suggesting anything regarding the methodology.

What type of methodology should I go for? Should I go for quantitative or qualitative methods (or both)? Which tools should I use, what is out there? Which data and from where should I collect them?

Any advice or idea is deeply appreciated!!

Hello,

I am an aspiring researcher currently busy writing my master's thesis on identity studies. My supervisor has suggested me to interview a couple of academics to provide insight on some of the themes that might be more controversial in the society i'm studying, however i'm not sure i understand the point of getting academics to talk about a topic that they have already written about. I just do not know what new information they could possibly provide to help my thesis research. How would you approach this? I have already asked my supervisor but he's not really helping.

Thank you for your time!

Especially on subreddits and forums like r/decadology, this has been something I have noticed quite a lot. When looking back, all I see are a bunch of hate crimes, erasure, and constant attacking of said marginalized groups. If anything, even though currently it’s not good or perfect, it’s definitely far better than back in those times.

And whenever you bring up the homophobic and transphobic humor from back then, they’ll make it like it was a silly, harmless quirk for being a product of their time. And if not, they’ll try to stir away the subject, like claiming is social class differences or the rich, acting like they care but really are trying to stir away blame.

I’m usually not on social media or YouTube comment sections, but recently I’ve scrolled through some content and noticed a lot of comments like, “Women had the same status as men; they didn’t have to fight for anything,” or similar claims. There are also many comments trying to "debunk" feminist ideas, like the concept of patriarchy, with these arguments.

Why do people say this? Is there any truth to it, or is it just troll comments?

What was different enough about the society they grew up in - about the time period wherein they were in their twenties and thirties - that led to them having kids more often?

I am researching for a book that i’m writing and i’m looking for book suggestions surrounding the topic of desire and lust.

This includes biographies (e.g. Tiger Woods, Cleopatra), social science books, psychology book (e.g., porn and its affects, social media), anything to be honest!

The more the better.

From childhood to adulthood, history to modern times.

Does media also have an impact?

Culture, as the shared practices, beliefs, and values of human societies that protect us from what we don’t understand, stands as one of the most defining characteristics of our species. But how did it arise? Was it a deliberate effort by early humans to impose order on their chaotic world, or did it emerge more organically, as the spontaneous expression of collective unconscious drives, much like art often does?

The question, then, lies in the interplay between these forces. Did humans stumble into culture through the organic evolution of shared behaviors, only later seeking to codify and refine it? Or was there, from the beginning, a conscious intention to mold the world into something more comprehensible and ordered?

I have herd that grimdark was popular in the 2000s because times where touph but I also herd that the media of the Great Depression was lighthearted because Peale didn't want to think of the bad stuff.

Hey there,
I've a question about interview quality assessment practices.

Has anyone here dealt with evaluating interview quality when working with multiple external interviewers? I'm specifically looking at establishing objective quality criteria within research teams.

I've made some review on the topic with Perplexity and Claude and the best of source I could cite here is https://www.sfu.ca/~palys/Kvale-TenStandardObjectionsToQualInterviews.pdf (1997), but I want to know actual practice on the topic.

Here's our situation: We're currently contracting about 10 interviewers who conduct 20-30 interviews in total. Our onboarding process includes:

- Initial kickoff call

- Interview guide

- Structured interview framework

The challenge we're facing is significant variation in interview quality. Often, our analysts struggle to extract meaningful insights from some of the transcripts, while others are gold mines of information.

Looking for insights on:

- Methods to systematically evaluate interview quality

- Ways to establish and align on quality metrics across the team

- Processes that worked for you in similar situations

Would love to hear about your experiences in tackling this challenge. Have you found any effective ways to standardize quality across multiple interviewers?

Appreciate any input! 🙏

Do beliefs like atheism or lack of religion lead to people being better consumerists and more materialistic?

With the LA fires causing an estimated $20 billion in insured losses, the big question is: Will these insurance giants actually absorb the losses themselves, or are they about to come crying to Uncle Sam for a bailout "to protect the economy"?

These companies are all about maximizing shareholder value—collecting premiums, investing the money, and then nickel-and-diming policyholders during payouts. But now that the tables have turned, should taxpayers really be expected to bail them out?

Seriously, think about it:

• Insurers are supposed to have reinsurance and reserves for exactly this type of disaster. Isn't this what we pay them for?
• If they get bailed out, wouldn’t it set a terrible precedent? Private profits, public losses?
• Meanwhile, communities are left waiting for help while insurance execs collect massive bonuses.

What do you think?

• Should these profit-driven companies be forced to handle this themselves?

• If a bailout happens, how do we make them more accountable in the future?

(Sorry for the rant, but man, this feels like one of those situations where regular folks get screwed while the suits get away with it. And yes, I know I’m rambling a bit lol.)

How do you differentiate among socialism, communism, and capitalism, given your experience within the present world's economy?

This may be a bit of a weird one, but I had an encounter online in which I was teased for suggesting that Indian people shouldn't be allowed to use it. I guess I had simply just assumed that only Black people should be allowed to use it, and I had never gone back to reconsider that conclusion. I will note that I am not an expert, and I am also not Black or Indian, but I personally am leaning towards the idea that only Black people should be allowed to use it. What are your thoughts?

Dear all,

I am searching bilateral remittance data, and even though I do find the world banks press releases announcing the release of the updated data set, I do not find the data itself. Anyone does have a link to the exact web page (not generic data bank, please)? Or any other hints?

Thaaaaaank you <3

Hey! It feels like people throw around fatherlessness statistics a lot and was hoping to get people's thoughts on them. Specifically, I've been trying to track down the origin of a claim from Frank Turek (notoriously a liar btw) on statistics about fatherlessness. I was hoping someone could help check the validity of the source for these claims, or just give modern-day information contradicting or confirming these sorts of claims:

children from fatherless homes account for
- 60 percent of America’s rapists
- 63 percent of America’s youth suicides
- 70 percent of America’s long-term prison inmates
- 70 percent of America’s reform school attendees
- 71 percent of America’s teenage pregnancies
- 71 percent of America’s high school dropouts
- 72 percent of America’s adolescent murderers
- 85 percent of America’s youth prisoners
- 85 percent of America’s youth with behavioral disorders
- 90 percent of America’s runaway

I see these same statistics all over the web since the early 2000s until now, usually from Christian and "men's rights" groups, but Turek cites this website: http://fathersforlife.org/divorce/chldrndiv.htm.
And the site is longer active... but it is on the wayback machine! Checking there, there's a ton of claims on this website, and at least a good bit seem to match Turek's. For sources that seem impossible to trace to me, it lists like
U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report, Sept., 1988
Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 14 p. 403-26 (one article pointed to Knight and Prentky 1987)
U. S. D.H.H.S. Bureau of the Census (no date???)

so, can anyone help lol?

Good afternoon and a happy new year for everyone!

Most critiques and criticisms I see of our current economic-social production, distribution and organization system, both from the right and left, often absorb Fukuyama's and late 90s "neoliberal" "end of history" narrative that what is being called capitalism is the most ultimate most optimal system for one purpose or another.

While in the view of many liberal authors capitalism is the ultimate system overall (and only slow progress and small improvements are needed), the view from more seemingly leftist or so called anti-capitalist American and European authors seem to sometimes agree that capitalism is the most productive and efficient system, and the problem is exactly focusing on productivity, growth, efficiency and overall corporate profits instead of "at the human" (whatever that means). That always seemed contradictory and defective for me.

However, I am also not too happy with mainstream marxist critique (at least not the stuff I usually read about and the people I talk with). The focus on preserving marxist tradition seems to make many think that Marx thought at his time that "the bourgeoisie thoughtfully and conscientiously orchestrate 'the system' and are behind everything"; that's at least not my reading of Marx and seems straight out of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, conspiratorial. Even if it was Marx's thought, I think that does not seem to be the reality today. It seems rather wishful-thinking and responsability-evading to deny the role the middle class as a whole and the "average-human-zeitgeist" has in shaping society (both political and the market) today, even if individually no one can change anything.

(QUESTION): Considering this, does anyone know contemporary authors with novel analysis who deny capitalism as "the most-optimal/efficient/productive system possible" and focus in the critique of capitalism as sort of a "popularity contest" scheme or to always converge to the "minimum common denominator" of some sort?

I appreciate any and every response and wish everyone an amazing year!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Some context: Recently I've read Moral Mazes and that seemed to me the kind of critique I want: corporate bureaucracy and company politics, trying to manage each individuals strictly selfish strategies for personal growth, undermine the actual prospects of overall company growth and profit. That is, capitalism doesn't maximize neither productivity nor profits because that would require more collective cooperation inside and between companies and the current capitalism ethic is strictly individualistic, selfish and short-sighted/short-term (even if that entails smaller gains for everyone in the end - as in the Tit for Tat game).

Also, my experience in the stock market has suggested me everyone seems to be following trends of some sort and everyone thinks "people are dumber than me, so I need to think and act like them". So people follow the dumbest hypes and that's how you get a massive number of investors falling for obvious scams and outright ponzi-schemes in the market (I will not call names, but you know...): every single investor thinks every other investor is dumb enough to fall for it so he can't be left out, everyone fall for it together. Does anyone know such a critique or analysis of the current financial market?)

Ok so it was regressive policy, right? High income folks gained more from it compared to poor folks. How much poverty has been reduced from it? Did the economy grow more? Was it a good policy? Didn't it worsen inequality?

It seems there's very little attention on this in the news, when political situations are analysed. Very little in political science. And very little in psychology. As if psychology ceases to matter once an issue is political. For all the media attention on political issues, I'd have thought there'd be more focus on the role psychology plays in politics.

Like how much of political decision-making, political affiliation or political opinions (of both politicians and members of the public) is linked to issues related to threats to the ego, ego injury, personal psychological trauma, feelings of life unfairness, adundance/lack of validation of their own hardships, fear/non-fear of shame, desire for power, fear/non-fear of abandonment, how much people internalise others' judgement, do they view the world as hostile or welcoming, how emotionally detached they are, desire for belonging and interpersonal acceptance, fear/non-fear of being seen as weak, previous experiences of abandonment/psychological isolation, experiences of acceptance.

There's a great, famous, old movie called This is England. This is one of the only pieces of media that examines this issue I'd say, although it's not very on-the-nose, so it's easy to miss as being the point of the movie.

If generals from two opposing military states are psychoanalysed, are they so different psychologically? If Presidents or candidates from opposing parties or countries are psychoanalysed, are they so different? Do they both thirst for power, for acceptance and other psychological factors etc? We know people are driven by past experiences, by their individual psychology. People read memoirs of politicians and of activists, which are personal stories that give clues as to how they ended up going down particular political paths. Yet psychology is typically ignored in the media and seemingly in academic circles too. As if people cease to be seen as full, complex people once political issues become involved and are then only influenced by political phenomena, rather than psychological phenomena - or reduced down to lazy, simplistic assumptions about how people come to have particular political positions (eg group-based assumptions such as privilege, evil morality, stupidity). The underlying psychology is almost never delved into. Usually the analysis is about as deep as "this person believes bad things, because they are bad/evil/stupid/selfish/lazy/uncompassionate/entitled".

For example, when someone is trying to figure out why Trump says certain things, attempts to find explanations focus on his possible political motivations, but never on his possible psychological motivations (Trump is just one example, pick any political actor).

I completed phd around two years ago and also have published around 9 papers in Scopus indexed journal. I would like to publish a book in Cambridge or Oxford press. I'll be very thankful if I get some tips. I do quantitative social sciences and from India.

For years I've noticed something that has a massive influence on society but is rarely ever spoken about, despite being so prevalent that it's commonly done (albeit very subtly) by mainstream media outlets and governments even in less corrupt more developed nations.

What I've noticed is that a lot of humans (seems like it's mostly men) will regularly feel the need to spread propaganda/disinformation designed to make their in-groups look better and/or make their rival out-groups look bad.

This propaganda seems to be most commonly about race/ethnicity. But also frequently about politics and gender.

And even when they know that something is completely false, they will still attempt to make others believe it if it benefits their in-group and/or damages other groups.

Is there a term for this? Is it a scientifically documented phenomenon, a part of social dominance/social identity theory maybe? Sometimes I wonder if it has anything to do with mate guarding or some sort of tribalistic insecurity over race mixing, which would explain why it's mostly male driven, so often racial in nature, and why the people who tend to engage in this behavior also tend to be vehemently against race mixing.

Of course this is all anecdotal and my perception of it is likely influenced by my own cognitive biases and the fact that I have autism. But it's just so incredibly prevalent, like ever since I first noticed & conceptualized it, I see it literally all the time. So I find it hard to believe that I'm just overthinking it.