I know the data isn't 100% accurate but a trend I notice is that people in places like North America, Europe, and Japan talk about how miserable their life is while living in such a developed, rich, and safe nation

I do not watch much tv nor do I have social media, with the exception of Reddit. When I first joined Reddit it was about helping each other by getting answers from real people who had experienced what you were going through, now it has turned into luni rats spreading hate and lies. Any who why is that? Why do people spread hate?

In my studies as a history major, I have come up with a hypothesis that it’s about control. In history, there was a time when Irish and Italian people were not considered white. During this time, powerful trade was going on between them and African countries. Then, once they were accepted as white, it stopped. Then there was the American Revolution, when Americans openly invited migrants to work jobs they were not willing to work. But when the job was done, the media started saying they were stealing jobs, which led to protests and people wanting to push all immigrants out. But when people are united, it seems like things and people thrive better.

So, I recently realised that a theory I learned of a while back should be capable of producing testable predictions.

It had to do with psychological projection and the belief of some Silicon Valley technologists that 'there is 10% chance AGI will exterminate humanity in the next decade'*.

A certain Ted Chiang had speculated that such sentiments could be caused by tech sector people reflecting the behaviour and attitudes of Silicon Valley startups into their products:

This summer, Elon Musk spoke to the National Governors Association and told them that “AI is a fundamental risk to the existence of human civilization.” Doomsayers have been issuing similar warnings for some time, but never before have they commanded so much visibility. Musk isn’t necessarily worried about the rise of a malicious computer like Skynet from The Terminator. Speaking to Maureen Dowd for a Vanity Fair article published in April, Musk gave an example of an artificial intelligence that’s given the task of picking strawberries. It seems harmless enough, but as the AI redesigns itself to be more effective, it might decide that the best way to maximize its output would be to destroy civilization and convert the entire surface of the Earth into strawberry fields. Thus, in its pursuit of a seemingly innocuous goal, an AI could bring about the extinction of humanity purely as an unintended side effect.

This scenario sounds absurd to most people, yet there are a surprising number of technologists who think it illustrates a real danger. Why? Perhaps it’s because they’re already accustomed to entities that operate this way: Silicon Valley tech companies.

Consider: Who pursues their goals with monomaniacal focus, oblivious to the possibility of negative consequences? Who adopts a scorched-earth approach to increasing market share? This hypothetical strawberry-picking AI does what every tech startup wishes it could do — grows at an exponential rate and destroys its competitors until it achieved an absolute monopoly. The idea of superintelligence is such a poorly defined notion that one could envision it taking almost any form with equal justification: a benevolent genie that solves all the world’s problems, or a mathematician that spends all its time proving theorems so abstract that humans can’t even understand them. But when Silicon Valley tries to imagine superintelligence, what it comes up with is no-holds-barred capitalism.

From: Silicon Valley Is Turning Into Its Own Worst Fear

I am not very convinced but it does appear more plausible to me than the 'they have watched too much Terminator'-theory.

Recently I realised that this theory implies testable predictions.

Such as, people working on AI in environments very unlike to 'libertarian' Silicon Valley techno-capitalism where those hypothesised psychological factors are absent should be much less inclined to think in that way. I know such groups exists, for example, the LLM Apertus is the product of a collaboration of Swiss public universities and the Swiss National Supercomputing Centre. Though, I don't have any knowledge of whether such '10% chance AGI will exterminate humanity in the next decade'-sentiment is less prevalent amongst public and/or university AI developers.

Does anybody here knows anything of how much truth there would be to any statement that such fears are less common the greater the socio-cultural distance from Silicon Valley is?

* Weirdly enough, in none of the, admittedly few, examples of such fearmongering I encountered was provided a plausible mechanism for 'AI to exterminate humanity in the next decade'. An LLM hacking the US' nuclear arsenal and Terminator factories might work in Hollywood movies, but I doubt it would work in real life. And I don't think we in this decade would see enough androids for a robot revolution to make more sense than LLMs going Skynet on us.

Lastly, to avoid being misunderstood, I am not saying there is nothing to worry about when it comes to the development of 'AI'; I am worried about various current developments for diverse reasons and think not enough is done to make those opaque Black Boxes which display all kinds of unforeseen and unintended behaviour transparent and ensure they behave. However, those worries are, I think, a bit more grounded than such '10% chance AGI will exterminate humanity in the next decade'-sentiment.

I've heard the claim (with the occasional supporting graph) that a major indicator of crime is wealth inequality (as opposed to absolute poverty).

I was having another conversation with someone recently about how overall crime has gradually decreased over time in the US (not withstanding that major crime spike in the 90s, and then that smaller one during COVID). That idea crossed streams with the title thought, and with the present trueism that wealth inequality in the US is growing rapidly, does the idea that "wealth inequality is reasonably predictive of crime" hold much water?

Recently,ISA(International Sociological Association)'s participant abstract receiving has ended.Due to I am a undergraduate and it's my first time to try to submit this sort of large international association,I have many questions about it.I still don't identify my manuscript will be accepted,so I would like to communicate with some friends who have attended this meeting before about the probability of success and the reporting requirements.About these questions:

1.I submitted the RC17.Will this topic or this meeting be friendly to a ongoing research?

2.How difficult is it to successfully submit to ISA?

3.What should I prepare if my abstract be successfully hired?

4.Are there any fellow enthusiasts who would like to have more exchanges on sociological theories with me?

Thanks for you check my post.And let's be friend if you are interested to my topic.

I frequently see an online trend—often pushed by accounts claiming to be sociology or social science majors—where "Feminism" and "Social Darwinism" are weaponized to argue that women are a biologically or socially "superior gender."

The core argument they make is that men are inherently inferior and will or should be "wiped away by the currents of Social Darwinism" if they don't adapt. This rhetoric looks exactly like 20th-century fascist racial supremacy (e.g., Nazi/Hitlerite eugenics), but it substitutes race with gender.

Could someone help me understand:

1. Is there a recognized academic name for this specific intersection of fringe gender extremism and Social Darwinism?
2. Where did this internet subculture originate, and why are these actors trying to disguise fascism/supremacism using the language of social science?
3. How do modern sociologists study or track this kind of online radicalization?

Any its always people calming to be sociologist that post such stuff, cos they are supposedly the experts in such stuff? Thats the only thing sociologist seems to know from college.

I'm not from the social sciences, so apologies if this is a naive question.

I've been looking on r economics and r AskEconomics for critiques of Ha-Joon Chang's work, since I quite enjoyed his books and wanted to get to know some opposing arguments. Some answers do engage with his claims, but many start with something like "he's a cherry-picking political hack" or "nobody takes him seriously", point to citation counts, or brush off follow-up questions with "I'll leave that as an exercise to the reader". I saw similar responses about other heterodox economists like Richard Wolff.

What i found the most surprising is the level of certainty. Answers often state "this is wrong" with a single data counterexample, even when someone points out that a different measure might support the original claim.

I've read that research like Fourcade, Ollion & Algan's "The Superiority of Economists" (2015) describes economics as a bit more self-assured and closed off than other social sciences. So I'm wondering whether that's what academia is really like, or whether this is mostly an online phenomenon?

Do you have any ideas/examples/theories of non formal practices happening in early socialisation stages that could contribute to psychiatrist/psychological/pathological thinking patterns later on in life? As implicit knowledge incorporated in the habitus. Like for example in economical thinking: the practice of getting grades in school as socialisation towards social comparison/competiton thinking patterns.

I've been thinking about this lately.

I think social media should be what makes you, you

Our music taste, favorite movies, the way we speak, our habits, and even the places we love are often influenced by people we've met throughout our lives.

What's interesting is that some of those people might not even be part of our lives anymore, yet we still carry pieces of them with us.

It made me realize how much of our identity is shaped by the things we discover through others.

And it got me wondering why social media focuses so much on showing what people are doing, rather than the things that actually make them who they are.

Personally, I think it would be interesting to discover someone's favorite songs, films, places, random interests, or meaningful memories, especially if you could understand the stories and people behind them.

It could also be a different way of discovering new things through people whose tastes and experiences you connect with.

I'm curious, what do you actually enjoy most about social media? Keeping up with what your friends are doing, getting to know people beyond what they post, or discovering new interests through others?

Do you feel like you can really express yourself on any of the current social media platforms? Why or why not?

Or do you feel like there's something missing from the way we connect and discover things online?

Genuinely interested in hearing different perspectives.

I’m only vaguely familiar with the term “cultural appropriation,” and I’d like to understand how it is defined and studied in the social sciences.

Are there widely accepted criteria for distinguishing cultural appropriation from cultural exchange or appreciation? Or do definitions differ substantially across disciplines and researchers?

Some everyday examples that prompted my question are:

- Restaurant chains such as Taco Bell or Olive Garden serving food associated with cultures other than that of their founders.

- Someone attending a Greek festival, buying a T-shirt featuring the Greek flag, and wearing it despite not being Greek.

- Someone cooking another culture’s traditional food or opening a restaurant serving it.

- Someone buying traditional clothing or jewelry directly from members of that culture and wearing it.

- Someone performing another culture’s music or getting a tattoo featuring one of its symbols.

I’m interested in the framework used to evaluate examples like these. How do factors such as power differences, historical context, religious significance, commercialization, attribution, and the involvement of members of the originating culture affect the analysis?

Also, does the scholarly use of “appropriation” necessarily imply harm or wrongdoing, or do researchers distinguish between appropriation as a process and particular instances considered harmful?

I’d appreciate research-based explanations or recommended readings, especially anything that explains how these distinctions are applied in practice and how disagreement within the originating culture is addressed.

Time and time again I've seen redditors claim single-sex schooling academically benefits girls and is negative for boys. I decided to search for the evidence and found this, which really shows the difference to be tiny:

https://ffteducationdatalab.org.uk/2024/05/do-pupils-in-single-sex-schools-get-better-grades/

Then there's also that these are the averages, and don't capture the experiences of individual students, who could respond to the environment either more positively or more negatively than the average (should be basic scientific literacy really, to know the average doesn't equal "everyone has this result").

Where is the evidence for the negative or positive effects, after controlling for single-sex schools typically being selective or aligned with higher socioeconomic backgrounds?

And in terms of explanations for how single-sex schooling benefits or harms pupils, what are the mechanisms which the effects are mediated? How would one predict whether single-sex schooling is like to benefit or hinder an individual pupil, in terms of psychological and social factors of the pupil? (eg non-school interpersonal bonds, personality traits, neurodiversities, level of conformity to gender-normed interests, conformity to gender-normed psychological traits, being part of or not part of a minority cultural background, trauma types).

https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/declaration-right-development

A lot of UN's current work in human rights is either based on or takes into account the right to development. What makes this right so special over others ? Could this possibly be the right which addresses the issues inherent in human rights that they need conditions to be enjoyable in practice

We often hear this phrase from couples.
Why do people use it to justify their decision of being togheter??

Is it genuine concern for children, or sometimes a way to make their choices sound morally unquestionable, or any other thing?

What can this say about those people?

Something I've been thinking about lately is just how many different opinions, perspectives and judgements we're exposed to on a daily basis because of social media.

Before the internet, I imagine most people were primarily exposed to the opinions of their family, friends, colleagues and immediate communities. Obviously, television, newspapers and other forms of media existed, but social media seems to have taken this exposure to an entirely different level.

Nowadays, you can scroll through hundreds of comments from complete strangers in a matter of minutes, all expressing different opinions, disagreements, criticisms and judgements about virtually anything imaginable so it makes me wonder whether there are any psychological or sociological consequences to this.

Are humans actually equipped to process this sheer volume of social information? Could constantly being exposed to what thousands of strangers think affect how we perceive ourselves, other people or even society as a whole?

I'm particularly curious whether this could contribute to things like increased self-consciousness, social comparison, anxiety, hostility or distorted perceptions of how common certain beliefs actually are.

I'm not necessarily arguing that social media is inherently harmful, or that people in the past weren't exposed to conflicting opinions. I'm more interested in whether the scale, frequency and accessibility of other people's opinions represent a meaningful change in human social experience. Has there been any academic research into this specific aspect of social media?

There are a lot of subgroups of individuals that seemingly invite darkness into their own lives and lack the social determinants of health to spiral upwards out of their own situations. Many valorizing antisocial or maladaptive behaviors as "authentic".

What mechanisms prevent them seeing themselves for what they're doing in the big picture?

Fascism is absolutely obnoxious; as well as evil, it is elusive and protean by nature. The term is constantly missaplied, or conversely dismissed when it is applied correctly, often to the detriment of productive discourse. It’s a fusilade of sensationalist partisan nonsense and it gets to me. I used to engage with debate, but I’ve found that linking the internet archive text of Umberto Eco’s Ur-Fascism and leaving the thread is much better for my mental health.

Have you found a good way of conveying the idea of fascism to a less academically/literarily inclined public? I find the google search definition does not fit the purpose, and my notes folder on it is way too long. I’m not even a full time academic either, so commentary on the validity of Ur-Fascism as a resource and your favorite alternative readings for understanding fascism would be much appreciated. Be blessed✌️

I studied sociology at university, and I would like some reading recommendations in the fields of social psychology and the sociology of administration.

What event, trends and other factors (economical, social, etc) lead to the rise of this branch of the republican party?

As the title says.

I’m genuinely interested in the views of people who study sociology, psychology, anthropology, economics, gender studies, evolutionary psychology, or related fields.

I’m not part of the Red Pill or Black Pill communities. I have a family, I’m happy with my life, and I’m not asking from a position of personal grievance. But I don’t think those facts, by themselves, invalidate their theoretical claims. For example, someone could argue that men like me simply accepted a “beta” role or adapted to the dynamics described by the theory.

What I would really appreciate is a steelman of the strongest version of the Red Pill/Black Pill position before criticizing it. How much of their descriptive account of sex differences, mate selection, status, sexual competition, relationship dynamics, etc. is actually supported by the evidence? And where does the theory go beyond what the evidence can justify?

Coming from a philosophy background, my own suspicion is that the biggest problem may not necessarily be the descriptive claims, but the axiological conclusions sometimes attached to them: e.g. the idea that being a “beta male,” if such a category even has meaningful descriptive validity, somehow makes a man inferior, less worthy, or doomed to an inferior life.

I also suspect that psychological and attitudinal factors may explain much more than these theories acknowledge. But perhaps I’m giving their descriptive framework too much credit, and the empirical foundation is much weaker than I assume.

So, from an academic perspective: what survives of Red Pill/Black Pill theory after separating its strongest empirical claims from its value judgments, rhetorical framing, and broader worldview?

For example south korea currently has a fertility rate of about 0.8, do you think it ever recovers from a slump like this in say 50 years or does the country actually just collapse completely?

Wikipedia makes those four concepts sound very similar. I'm not sure I understand them or the differences between them correctly, and I'm not sure if people use the term social conditioning correctly.