For example, social groups are often united by shared beliefs.^(1) Members of the group gain the benefits of being in a group by accepting and promoting those beliefs,^(2) even when that itself doesn't benefit society in any obvious way, and in fact can be detrimental to society when one such group clashes with another of opposing beliefs.^(3)

It's also common for things that are detrimental to society, such as discrimination,^(4) to become normalized to the point that refusal or opposition carries significant risks for the individual.^(5)

Why is that?

^(1)https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/collective-intentionality/

^(2)https://medium.com/@brandon\_97642/joining-an-organized-religion-isnt-always-comfortable-or-easy-98bb17e2a132

^(3)https://web.archive.org/web/20080305231359/http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/ltn01.html

^(4)https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1108&context=ncpacapstone

^(5)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil\_rights\_movement

Especially when one partner is in their early young adulthood and the other partner is significantly older or in their late adulthood (i.e 27+).It seems very suspect that someone say 29+ would want to date someone in the 18-20 age range because they have nothing in common and often have different responsibilities in life. Another example where it would be very suspect is leonardo DeCaprio where he dumps his girlfriend's when they're 20 and starts dating them when they're 18-19 which it seems like he would definately go for a lower age if it wasn't for the law.

In r/askpolitics or really anywhere in society, it's a common belief that the feminist/anti-racist/gay rights movement of a few decades ago was reasonable & just wanted equal rights, but now they want to completely disrupt society. I don't think you can make a serious argument this is true. As someone who lived through the 80s, people certainly didn't think this was true at time. So if it isn't true, why is this such a widespread belief?

I know the obvious answer of the French revolution, but my understanding of that is that it dealt with nationalism and consciousness of being a member of a nation rather than modes and techniques of governance. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'd love recommendations for an article or book that breaks such things down, in addition to your nuanced and comprehensive answers.

Not trying to start a firestorm, but was wondering if there was a way to label the approach that you can completely solve common social and economic problems through the perfect policy change. A few examples, Problem: police brutality. Solution: require all police to live in the neighborhood they patrol. Bing bang boom, issue solved. Problem: children do better in 2 parent household perform better in school and have a healthier well-being throughout their lives. Solution: Kids should have 2 parents. Abracadabra, we did it!

Perhaps there’s better examples, but I’m trying to describe the “we’re just one simple policy change away from solving all of our problems forever” mentality that I believe ignores complexity, root causes, unintended consequences, and other points of nuance the would be necessary to craft even a partial remedy for a perceived problem.

Is this a thing? Or am I just missing something or too old to be on Reddit?

I recognize a lot of the words in that question are probably anachronistic, but I keep reading that people in ancient states could go years without contact with government representatives, etc. So did their leaders run their temple factory thingies and let everyone else do what they would?

Every few years, particularly around presidential election cycles, it comes up that people with higher educational attainment (college degrees, etc) skew heavily toward the Democratic candidate. Oftentimes, people online chalk this trend up to the claim that college education "exposes people to diverse perspectives and communities," thus increasing empathy, leading to support for social inclusivity and economic redistribution.

This claim has always struck me as a bit facile. I've met a great number of college graduates who had little interest in expanding their worldviews. Often, such people would just focus narrowly on their field of study, which, if it were STEM, wouldn't really expose them to many "political" ideas.

(I also take issue with the assumption that voting for the democratic party represents "progressivism," as most democratic politicians/policies are firmly neoliberal.)

Are there any better explanations as to the Democratic tilt among college graduates? My hypotheses is that the trend has more to do with the socioecomic interests of professional-class college graduates, but I'd be curious if there's any substantive research on the topic.

We are from Greece as baseline information. So my father is organizing sports meetings between various small European teams. He says that although we offered them everything here, for example transportation from and to the airport, nice accommodation, meals and even beers and entertainment, Western Europeans such as Germans, Belgians, French, and English offer the bare minimum. He says that Spanish, Italians, Poles and Russians are somewhat better. From the core western nations, English are a little better. Coincidentally, his perceptions correlate with distance from the primary Germanic countries such as Germany and the Netherlands. When he got frustrated from their behavior, he stop offering many amenities here as well, such as transportation or nights out. Once he remarked, “Why should those people have the advanced civilizations and not us?”

He is not completely wrong. For thousands of years, the Mediterranean was a center of civilization and hospitality was a cornerstone of this civilization. Ancient Greek, Persian, Jewish and Arabic sources give great emphasis to being honorable to guests. I remember how much emphasis we were given on the rituals around accepting guests when we were studdying the Homeric epics at school. Also for Greeks that have travelled wide, there is a perception that Middle Easterners are even more hospital than Greeks. Especially Turks and Iranians are on top. Despite the propaganda, the average citizen of those countries is friendly.

This is not an isolated incident also. I read the same from a Jewish Greek who travelled to Belgium, Germany and other north west European countries for business meetings, who now lives in Israel. He said that the poor hospitality is infuriating, so we shouldn’t be so critical of Greece all of the time.

Of course, culture is changing inside Greece as well. Younger generations, urbanites and people with hectic lifestyles cannot meet the expectations of traditional hospitality. So Greece is becoming a little more like Western Europe, but still it is much more warm and hospital compared to Northwest Europe and even Italy, Spain and the the Balkan countries. How did this change came about? How hospitality became from a defining feature of high culture to something optional?

Historically, many states have grappled with demographic challenges when significant portions of their populations belong to distinct ethnic, religious, or cultural groups. In Israel, while Palestinians officially make up around 20% of the population, this figure doesn’t account for the approximately 4 million Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza. These populations, though technically outside Israel’s borders, live in close proximity and regularly enter Israel for work, effectively integrating into the economic and social fabric of the state.

If we consider these groups together, the demographic reality changes dramatically, potentially making Palestinians close to 60% of the total population in the broader region controlled or heavily influenced by Israel.

Given historical precedents of other states managing large minority or majority populations within their borders or spheres of influence:

1. Was it a miscalculation for Israel to allow this level of demographic proximity, considering its identity as a Jewish state?
2. What lessons can we draw from historical examples of other empires, states, or societies that faced similar demographic challenges?
3. How might this demographic dynamic affect the long-term viability of Israel’s national identity and stability?

I’m particularly interested in comparisons with other historical situations where a state had to balance its foundational identity with significant minority or majority populations, as well as the role demographics played in state-building and national survival. How might these precedents apply to Israel’s situation today?

Sources for claim #1: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-48703377, https://www.lemonde.fr/en/france/article/2024/03/11/why-ramadan-has-taken-root-among-young-muslims_6606144_7.html

Source for Claim #2: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/jan/29/thinktanks.religion#:~:text=In%20the%20survey%20of%201%2C003,17%25%20of%20those%20over%2055.

He was a judge and senator before being President that the author said had no sense of politeness or fashion and did his role because he liked his duty.

It went on to say that lawyers were the spiritual sucessors of theologians and that the courthouse of the frontier lands was basically a show for gossip that got misappropriated into modern politics.

What’s with the hatred towards government employees? Is it a misunderstanding of what government jobs actually look like? Due to political rhetoric? Ideological hatred of authority?

I just read a post about how someone's girlfriend loses their cool over the smallest of things, doesn't admit to any wrongdoing and sends pics of herself post-crying to the boyfriend after disagreements

What could lead to this sort of behaviour from a romantic partner? Are there any dangers of sticking it out with someone whose behaviour resembles this?

I struggle so much at applying International Relations approaches, I feel like neoclassical realism is always the best fit, because it builds on neorealism but also incorporates domestic factors - which essentially is the best of both worlds. However, I feel like for the war on terror, there was a huge ideological factor since the threat itself (to American security) was not necessarily from Iraq but the U.S. decided to portray it that way to justify intervention.
If I had to choose between neorealism, liberalism, neoclassical realism, or constructivism, how would it go?

https://youtu.be/FC9r3Gs8XuU?si=CnVCl0ug5RbY6960

""Mental illness" is an expression, a metaphor that describes an offending, disturbing, shocking, or vexing conduct, action, or pattern of behavior, such as schizophrenia, as an "illness" or "disease".

"Mental illness is a myth, whose function is to disguise and thus render more palatable the bitter pill of moral conflicts in human relations."

I've been subject to a lot of transgender backlash from the (well-meaning but skeptical & paranoid) men in my life. I'm a layperson who is out of my depth on the subject. His quotes and speeches are... disconcerting. I'm inquiring on this man's epistemic credibility, does he have any? If you could go into some detail, that would help.

Not sure if this is the right place for this question.

look at this reel what the actual f***, what's the purpose? interactions, comments?

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DCtjW-qvDIS/?igsh=b3R2YW44ZzJ1dW9p

Hi Everyone, I am conducting serial semi structured interviews. I am interested in both the patterns that are in the data and the narratives of the participants. I was reading on narrative analysis and I am a bit lost for sort of a guide on how to conduct narrative thematic analysis for novice researchers. Do you have any recommendations? Thank you 💗

Hi all,

We often discuss how algorithms influence human behavior (e.g., social media recommendations, algorithmic trading), but I’ve been wondering: when billions of humans interact with these systems over time, could the collective behaviors and decisions start resembling an emergent system with its own dynamics?

For example, social media platforms prioritize content for engagement, which influences cultural trends and even political movements. If these trends are shaped by algorithms rather than human intent, is it possible we’re unintentionally creating a kind of "meta-system" where human culture is evolving based on algorithmic optimization rather than traditional human values?

Could this result in a system that prioritizes goals like propagation, engagement, or efficiency—independent of, or even misaligned with, human well-being? Are there scientific frameworks or studies exploring how human society might function as part of an emergent system influenced by algorithms?

Thanks for your thoughts!

Hi all! I’m currently looking at cultural differences in emotion recognition and expressive suppression. If you are Indian (born in India), Indian-American, or European-American please fill out this survey if you have the time. It should take about 20-25 minutes. Thank you!

https://newschool.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_0v1sGREOHqjex70

☺️☺️☺️

My amateur understanding of addiction is that it’s a chemical dependence on a substance. You get your body hooked on a drug, and if you stop using it you get painful withdrawal symptoms.

Recently I‘ve seen addiction used to mean basically any kind of habit that people find hard to break: screen use, watching pornography, shopping. Gambling fits into this category too but I’ve seen gambling addiction talked about forever.

These things seem very different on their face to me, but i don’t understand the mechanism of how addiction works. How do professionals define addiction? Do they distinguish between types of addiction caused by chemicals versus behaviors/habits? How can they distinguish scientifically between addictive behaviors vs. those that are simply socially disapproved of or unpleasant for others?

I'm looking for studies exploring why Dogmatism developed in mqny traditional, pre-modern cultures?

For example, the 30 years ears, Or the cultural dogmatism of Qin dynasty, etc.

If there is no such researches, then studies on why democracy didnt develop in pre-modern societies?

This FAQ seems to represent the consensus on these matters

https://reddit.com/r/Economics/w/faq_immigration?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share

Besides the economic benefits. Is it possible that immigration has other social harms and even if there are negligible social harms. There are other concerns that host states might have ?

Apologies for what may seem like a basic or naive question. I’m not a social scientist, so I’m not very well acquainted with the literature, but I’m doing some philosophical research on sociality very broadly understood and I’ve noticed that 'social interaction' is often mentioned, but never properly defined. I know it is a term that we can all probably understand intuitively, but (given the nature of my research) I was wondering whether there is (or are) any canonical definition(s) of ‘social interaction' in the social sciences.

Thanks!

I noticed the media on platforms posts bizarre, often negative videos of “what’s Black”

An example is Snapchat, the main feed doesn’t show white people in a “sexually promiscuous, heathenistic, pompous or obnoxious light”.

Many of conservatives are highly uneducated about Black people. The negative aspect of rap and criminal culture is not even black, but they associate Black with crime, violence, and danger. Do you think the media has anything to do with it?

Most black people are NOT the media portrayal.

How has media shaped conservative whites talking points around Black progress?

Im going to include common responses Ive heard online and in person from my conservative friends.

It seems there is an unusually high degree of fear in their hearts towards equality and prosperity of the Black demographic.

Reparations:

“We don’t want to give reparations to blacks, because they’ll just go buy luxury items.”

Systemic Racism:

“I didn’t do slavery, racism ended a long time ago.”

Generational Wealth:

“If Blacks would just work hard, they would be wealthy, too.”

How do you define social science? Is social science part of science and thus the same definition of science applies or is it completely different from natural science?

Given that some have argued that the goal of social science is addressing social problems (e.g., Watts, 2017), does that naturally make all social science works applied science (like engineering) or is it that the basic/applied distinction is not suitable at all?

Watts, D. J. (2017). Should social science be more solution-oriented? Nature Human Behaviour, 1(1), 0015. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-016-0015

Whats the fascinating history?