{"post_id":"181rag","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Should AskSocialScience enact rules and moderate in a way closer to AskHistorians and AskScience? I've noticed that the signal\/noise ratio in this subreddit has been getting worse for some time. Purely speculative answers dominate, while cited papers or analysis languish at the bottom. In this recent thread for example, the top comment is purely speculative (though IMHO largely correct), there is a highly rated comment that asserts that labor demand is *upward* sloping, and languishing at the bottom is a comment that points to relevant academic articles. I think it's time this subreddit started started implementing a policy similar to AskHistorians official rules or the AskScience FAQ IMHO, 1st level comments should cite a source (preferably an academic paper, but also magazine articles, or even Wikipedia), or be from a credentialed social scientist in the relevant field. What say you all?","c_root_id_A":"c8av2d8","c_root_id_B":"c8avl56","created_at_utc_A":1360219912,"created_at_utc_B":1360222894,"score_A":35,"score_B":148,"human_ref_A":"Well, we already have similar rules to \/r\/AskHistorians, we just need some changes and fixes. I know it looks like the mods haven't done anything since the last Meta thread but I assure you that we are working in the changes this subreddit needs. Here's what we've been doing (or planning to do): * I'm hiring more mods, I already added \/u\/besttrousers and \/u\/Integralds and I'm looking for perhaps two more. * We are going to make some fixes to the rules, which can be seen here * We are going to make some changes to the sidebar and to the \"Submit to:\" page * Special weekly posts! I hope we can do it all soon, but some of the these things are still just ideas. I will post a more appropriate Mod Post soon as well, in the meantime keep discussing the things you'd like to see, making suggestions and posting your ideas (so we can steal them), that's highly appreciated.","human_ref_B":"YES. As a panelist on \/r\/AskHistorians, I say bring the hammer down. Rule with the iron fist encased in velvet. Strong moderation is the only way to ensure quality.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2982.0,"score_ratio":4.2285714286} {"post_id":"181rag","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Should AskSocialScience enact rules and moderate in a way closer to AskHistorians and AskScience? I've noticed that the signal\/noise ratio in this subreddit has been getting worse for some time. Purely speculative answers dominate, while cited papers or analysis languish at the bottom. In this recent thread for example, the top comment is purely speculative (though IMHO largely correct), there is a highly rated comment that asserts that labor demand is *upward* sloping, and languishing at the bottom is a comment that points to relevant academic articles. I think it's time this subreddit started started implementing a policy similar to AskHistorians official rules or the AskScience FAQ IMHO, 1st level comments should cite a source (preferably an academic paper, but also magazine articles, or even Wikipedia), or be from a credentialed social scientist in the relevant field. What say you all?","c_root_id_A":"c8ats8e","c_root_id_B":"c8avl56","created_at_utc_A":1360214454,"created_at_utc_B":1360222894,"score_A":8,"score_B":148,"human_ref_A":"If you require a bunch of sources, you will have way less comments. However, the comments will also be more scholarly. I don't have much of an opinion I guess about which is better. I probably wouldn't post or read a lot of the comments if they were just links to 20 page academic papers. I have shit to do. However, as the subreddit grows, the proportion and popularity of \"noise comments\" will grow. If this subreddit hit 200k subs, it would probably look like \/r\/politics if there was no change in policy. That is basically what happened in \/r\/economics. At first it was pretty good discussion among somewhat knowledgeable people while there was only 10k subs. However, after it got to about 50k, it wasn't even worth reading anymore. There were always at least 200 comments, so post generally got buried, and in addition 80% of the posts were basically useless information about evils of central banking or something. If I was a moderator, I would gradually reduce the type of posts allowed so that most articles had between 10 and 60 comments. That seems to be the sweet spot. Every time comments start getting higher than that, make the posting criteria stricter. If the comments are lower, allow more opinion based stuff.","human_ref_B":"YES. As a panelist on \/r\/AskHistorians, I say bring the hammer down. Rule with the iron fist encased in velvet. Strong moderation is the only way to ensure quality.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8440.0,"score_ratio":18.5} {"post_id":"181rag","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Should AskSocialScience enact rules and moderate in a way closer to AskHistorians and AskScience? I've noticed that the signal\/noise ratio in this subreddit has been getting worse for some time. Purely speculative answers dominate, while cited papers or analysis languish at the bottom. In this recent thread for example, the top comment is purely speculative (though IMHO largely correct), there is a highly rated comment that asserts that labor demand is *upward* sloping, and languishing at the bottom is a comment that points to relevant academic articles. I think it's time this subreddit started started implementing a policy similar to AskHistorians official rules or the AskScience FAQ IMHO, 1st level comments should cite a source (preferably an academic paper, but also magazine articles, or even Wikipedia), or be from a credentialed social scientist in the relevant field. What say you all?","c_root_id_A":"c8av58q","c_root_id_B":"c8avl56","created_at_utc_A":1360220324,"created_at_utc_B":1360222894,"score_A":7,"score_B":148,"human_ref_A":"Well, to an extent. We could certainly use more moderation, but you have to strike a balance. Most of us don't generally produce \"hard\" answers akin to the \"hard\" sciences. There is going to be some speculation. That said, it should be done by those with expertise, which people should be better able to express whether officially accredited by the mods or not. I'm a cultural anthropologist. We don't even have an agreed upon definition of what \"culture\" is. Nonetheless, I think I, along with everyone else, ought to be able to set our own flair (not the official colored mod tags) to indicate our areas of interest and expertise. When I speculate on a topic, there is some weight behind it that others should more easily be able to identify.","human_ref_B":"YES. As a panelist on \/r\/AskHistorians, I say bring the hammer down. Rule with the iron fist encased in velvet. Strong moderation is the only way to ensure quality.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2570.0,"score_ratio":21.1428571429} {"post_id":"181rag","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Should AskSocialScience enact rules and moderate in a way closer to AskHistorians and AskScience? I've noticed that the signal\/noise ratio in this subreddit has been getting worse for some time. Purely speculative answers dominate, while cited papers or analysis languish at the bottom. In this recent thread for example, the top comment is purely speculative (though IMHO largely correct), there is a highly rated comment that asserts that labor demand is *upward* sloping, and languishing at the bottom is a comment that points to relevant academic articles. I think it's time this subreddit started started implementing a policy similar to AskHistorians official rules or the AskScience FAQ IMHO, 1st level comments should cite a source (preferably an academic paper, but also magazine articles, or even Wikipedia), or be from a credentialed social scientist in the relevant field. What say you all?","c_root_id_A":"c8ats8e","c_root_id_B":"c8av2d8","created_at_utc_A":1360214454,"created_at_utc_B":1360219912,"score_A":8,"score_B":35,"human_ref_A":"If you require a bunch of sources, you will have way less comments. However, the comments will also be more scholarly. I don't have much of an opinion I guess about which is better. I probably wouldn't post or read a lot of the comments if they were just links to 20 page academic papers. I have shit to do. However, as the subreddit grows, the proportion and popularity of \"noise comments\" will grow. If this subreddit hit 200k subs, it would probably look like \/r\/politics if there was no change in policy. That is basically what happened in \/r\/economics. At first it was pretty good discussion among somewhat knowledgeable people while there was only 10k subs. However, after it got to about 50k, it wasn't even worth reading anymore. There were always at least 200 comments, so post generally got buried, and in addition 80% of the posts were basically useless information about evils of central banking or something. If I was a moderator, I would gradually reduce the type of posts allowed so that most articles had between 10 and 60 comments. That seems to be the sweet spot. Every time comments start getting higher than that, make the posting criteria stricter. If the comments are lower, allow more opinion based stuff.","human_ref_B":"Well, we already have similar rules to \/r\/AskHistorians, we just need some changes and fixes. I know it looks like the mods haven't done anything since the last Meta thread but I assure you that we are working in the changes this subreddit needs. Here's what we've been doing (or planning to do): * I'm hiring more mods, I already added \/u\/besttrousers and \/u\/Integralds and I'm looking for perhaps two more. * We are going to make some fixes to the rules, which can be seen here * We are going to make some changes to the sidebar and to the \"Submit to:\" page * Special weekly posts! I hope we can do it all soon, but some of the these things are still just ideas. I will post a more appropriate Mod Post soon as well, in the meantime keep discussing the things you'd like to see, making suggestions and posting your ideas (so we can steal them), that's highly appreciated.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5458.0,"score_ratio":4.375} {"post_id":"181rag","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Should AskSocialScience enact rules and moderate in a way closer to AskHistorians and AskScience? I've noticed that the signal\/noise ratio in this subreddit has been getting worse for some time. Purely speculative answers dominate, while cited papers or analysis languish at the bottom. In this recent thread for example, the top comment is purely speculative (though IMHO largely correct), there is a highly rated comment that asserts that labor demand is *upward* sloping, and languishing at the bottom is a comment that points to relevant academic articles. I think it's time this subreddit started started implementing a policy similar to AskHistorians official rules or the AskScience FAQ IMHO, 1st level comments should cite a source (preferably an academic paper, but also magazine articles, or even Wikipedia), or be from a credentialed social scientist in the relevant field. What say you all?","c_root_id_A":"c8ay2m6","c_root_id_B":"c8awfrv","created_at_utc_A":1360244328,"created_at_utc_B":1360229632,"score_A":21,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"Absolutely we need higher standards. I've grown frustrated with this subreddit for this very reason. In particular, I've answered questions on economics \/ econometrics and had baseless accusation thrown against me from non-flaired posters which then received more upvotes, despite the retorts being factually incorrect.","human_ref_B":">IMHO, 1st level comments should cite a source (preferably an academic paper, but also magazine articles, or even Wikipedia), or be from a credentialed social scientist in the relevant field. I agree completely. This is what stands behind the success of \/r\/AskHistorians and \/r\/askscience. I don't think there's anything wrong with speculation, but it must come from a person who is an expert in the topic.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":14696.0,"score_ratio":1.9090909091} {"post_id":"181rag","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Should AskSocialScience enact rules and moderate in a way closer to AskHistorians and AskScience? I've noticed that the signal\/noise ratio in this subreddit has been getting worse for some time. Purely speculative answers dominate, while cited papers or analysis languish at the bottom. In this recent thread for example, the top comment is purely speculative (though IMHO largely correct), there is a highly rated comment that asserts that labor demand is *upward* sloping, and languishing at the bottom is a comment that points to relevant academic articles. I think it's time this subreddit started started implementing a policy similar to AskHistorians official rules or the AskScience FAQ IMHO, 1st level comments should cite a source (preferably an academic paper, but also magazine articles, or even Wikipedia), or be from a credentialed social scientist in the relevant field. What say you all?","c_root_id_A":"c8ay2m6","c_root_id_B":"c8ats8e","created_at_utc_A":1360244328,"created_at_utc_B":1360214454,"score_A":21,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Absolutely we need higher standards. I've grown frustrated with this subreddit for this very reason. In particular, I've answered questions on economics \/ econometrics and had baseless accusation thrown against me from non-flaired posters which then received more upvotes, despite the retorts being factually incorrect.","human_ref_B":"If you require a bunch of sources, you will have way less comments. However, the comments will also be more scholarly. I don't have much of an opinion I guess about which is better. I probably wouldn't post or read a lot of the comments if they were just links to 20 page academic papers. I have shit to do. However, as the subreddit grows, the proportion and popularity of \"noise comments\" will grow. If this subreddit hit 200k subs, it would probably look like \/r\/politics if there was no change in policy. That is basically what happened in \/r\/economics. At first it was pretty good discussion among somewhat knowledgeable people while there was only 10k subs. However, after it got to about 50k, it wasn't even worth reading anymore. There were always at least 200 comments, so post generally got buried, and in addition 80% of the posts were basically useless information about evils of central banking or something. If I was a moderator, I would gradually reduce the type of posts allowed so that most articles had between 10 and 60 comments. That seems to be the sweet spot. Every time comments start getting higher than that, make the posting criteria stricter. If the comments are lower, allow more opinion based stuff.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":29874.0,"score_ratio":2.625} {"post_id":"181rag","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Should AskSocialScience enact rules and moderate in a way closer to AskHistorians and AskScience? I've noticed that the signal\/noise ratio in this subreddit has been getting worse for some time. Purely speculative answers dominate, while cited papers or analysis languish at the bottom. In this recent thread for example, the top comment is purely speculative (though IMHO largely correct), there is a highly rated comment that asserts that labor demand is *upward* sloping, and languishing at the bottom is a comment that points to relevant academic articles. I think it's time this subreddit started started implementing a policy similar to AskHistorians official rules or the AskScience FAQ IMHO, 1st level comments should cite a source (preferably an academic paper, but also magazine articles, or even Wikipedia), or be from a credentialed social scientist in the relevant field. What say you all?","c_root_id_A":"c8ay2m6","c_root_id_B":"c8av58q","created_at_utc_A":1360244328,"created_at_utc_B":1360220324,"score_A":21,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Absolutely we need higher standards. I've grown frustrated with this subreddit for this very reason. In particular, I've answered questions on economics \/ econometrics and had baseless accusation thrown against me from non-flaired posters which then received more upvotes, despite the retorts being factually incorrect.","human_ref_B":"Well, to an extent. We could certainly use more moderation, but you have to strike a balance. Most of us don't generally produce \"hard\" answers akin to the \"hard\" sciences. There is going to be some speculation. That said, it should be done by those with expertise, which people should be better able to express whether officially accredited by the mods or not. I'm a cultural anthropologist. We don't even have an agreed upon definition of what \"culture\" is. Nonetheless, I think I, along with everyone else, ought to be able to set our own flair (not the official colored mod tags) to indicate our areas of interest and expertise. When I speculate on a topic, there is some weight behind it that others should more easily be able to identify.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":24004.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"181rag","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Should AskSocialScience enact rules and moderate in a way closer to AskHistorians and AskScience? I've noticed that the signal\/noise ratio in this subreddit has been getting worse for some time. Purely speculative answers dominate, while cited papers or analysis languish at the bottom. In this recent thread for example, the top comment is purely speculative (though IMHO largely correct), there is a highly rated comment that asserts that labor demand is *upward* sloping, and languishing at the bottom is a comment that points to relevant academic articles. I think it's time this subreddit started started implementing a policy similar to AskHistorians official rules or the AskScience FAQ IMHO, 1st level comments should cite a source (preferably an academic paper, but also magazine articles, or even Wikipedia), or be from a credentialed social scientist in the relevant field. What say you all?","c_root_id_A":"c8ax1un","c_root_id_B":"c8ay2m6","created_at_utc_A":1360236143,"created_at_utc_B":1360244328,"score_A":6,"score_B":21,"human_ref_A":"I'd like nice symbols next to each of the fields and then a summary of subfields like Ask Science has, a scale next to law or a stock market ticker for economics for instance","human_ref_B":"Absolutely we need higher standards. I've grown frustrated with this subreddit for this very reason. In particular, I've answered questions on economics \/ econometrics and had baseless accusation thrown against me from non-flaired posters which then received more upvotes, despite the retorts being factually incorrect.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8185.0,"score_ratio":3.5} {"post_id":"181rag","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Should AskSocialScience enact rules and moderate in a way closer to AskHistorians and AskScience? I've noticed that the signal\/noise ratio in this subreddit has been getting worse for some time. Purely speculative answers dominate, while cited papers or analysis languish at the bottom. In this recent thread for example, the top comment is purely speculative (though IMHO largely correct), there is a highly rated comment that asserts that labor demand is *upward* sloping, and languishing at the bottom is a comment that points to relevant academic articles. I think it's time this subreddit started started implementing a policy similar to AskHistorians official rules or the AskScience FAQ IMHO, 1st level comments should cite a source (preferably an academic paper, but also magazine articles, or even Wikipedia), or be from a credentialed social scientist in the relevant field. What say you all?","c_root_id_A":"c8ay2li","c_root_id_B":"c8ay2m6","created_at_utc_A":1360244325,"created_at_utc_B":1360244328,"score_A":7,"score_B":21,"human_ref_A":"I'm not sure how well-trafficked this subreddit is, but the mods should do another round of advertising in other social science subreddits, asking for panelists. It's very rare to see a flaired answer here. That being said, the mods should get rid of their real-life verification rule, as I think that spooked a lot of people (myself included) from seeking flair and sticking around for answers. While speculative answers will invariably show up on their own, they're not helped by poorly-worded, biased, and leading questions. Many questions will have a lot of political baggage, so there should be a guide for formatting posts.","human_ref_B":"Absolutely we need higher standards. I've grown frustrated with this subreddit for this very reason. In particular, I've answered questions on economics \/ econometrics and had baseless accusation thrown against me from non-flaired posters which then received more upvotes, despite the retorts being factually incorrect.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"181rag","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Should AskSocialScience enact rules and moderate in a way closer to AskHistorians and AskScience? I've noticed that the signal\/noise ratio in this subreddit has been getting worse for some time. Purely speculative answers dominate, while cited papers or analysis languish at the bottom. In this recent thread for example, the top comment is purely speculative (though IMHO largely correct), there is a highly rated comment that asserts that labor demand is *upward* sloping, and languishing at the bottom is a comment that points to relevant academic articles. I think it's time this subreddit started started implementing a policy similar to AskHistorians official rules or the AskScience FAQ IMHO, 1st level comments should cite a source (preferably an academic paper, but also magazine articles, or even Wikipedia), or be from a credentialed social scientist in the relevant field. What say you all?","c_root_id_A":"c8ay2m6","c_root_id_B":"c8axrfh","created_at_utc_A":1360244328,"created_at_utc_B":1360242334,"score_A":21,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Absolutely we need higher standards. I've grown frustrated with this subreddit for this very reason. In particular, I've answered questions on economics \/ econometrics and had baseless accusation thrown against me from non-flaired posters which then received more upvotes, despite the retorts being factually incorrect.","human_ref_B":"I'm not in much position to judge the other threads, but the linguistics threads in this subreddit are so fucking terrible that they absolutely beggar belief. You need to cut out layman speculation and make it easier for people with knowledge to get a flair because at the moment, anyone who comes here seeking answers to linguistics questions comes out more ignorant than they came in.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1994.0,"score_ratio":7.0} {"post_id":"181rag","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Should AskSocialScience enact rules and moderate in a way closer to AskHistorians and AskScience? I've noticed that the signal\/noise ratio in this subreddit has been getting worse for some time. Purely speculative answers dominate, while cited papers or analysis languish at the bottom. In this recent thread for example, the top comment is purely speculative (though IMHO largely correct), there is a highly rated comment that asserts that labor demand is *upward* sloping, and languishing at the bottom is a comment that points to relevant academic articles. I think it's time this subreddit started started implementing a policy similar to AskHistorians official rules or the AskScience FAQ IMHO, 1st level comments should cite a source (preferably an academic paper, but also magazine articles, or even Wikipedia), or be from a credentialed social scientist in the relevant field. What say you all?","c_root_id_A":"c8axrrr","c_root_id_B":"c8ay2m6","created_at_utc_A":1360242397,"created_at_utc_B":1360244328,"score_A":3,"score_B":21,"human_ref_A":"I love this question simply because the social sciences always want to be taken as seriously as the other sciences. I say yes. Let's get serious here!","human_ref_B":"Absolutely we need higher standards. I've grown frustrated with this subreddit for this very reason. In particular, I've answered questions on economics \/ econometrics and had baseless accusation thrown against me from non-flaired posters which then received more upvotes, despite the retorts being factually incorrect.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1931.0,"score_ratio":7.0} {"post_id":"181rag","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Should AskSocialScience enact rules and moderate in a way closer to AskHistorians and AskScience? I've noticed that the signal\/noise ratio in this subreddit has been getting worse for some time. Purely speculative answers dominate, while cited papers or analysis languish at the bottom. In this recent thread for example, the top comment is purely speculative (though IMHO largely correct), there is a highly rated comment that asserts that labor demand is *upward* sloping, and languishing at the bottom is a comment that points to relevant academic articles. I think it's time this subreddit started started implementing a policy similar to AskHistorians official rules or the AskScience FAQ IMHO, 1st level comments should cite a source (preferably an academic paper, but also magazine articles, or even Wikipedia), or be from a credentialed social scientist in the relevant field. What say you all?","c_root_id_A":"c8ay2m6","c_root_id_B":"c8aww7y","created_at_utc_A":1360244328,"created_at_utc_B":1360234447,"score_A":21,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Absolutely we need higher standards. I've grown frustrated with this subreddit for this very reason. In particular, I've answered questions on economics \/ econometrics and had baseless accusation thrown against me from non-flaired posters which then received more upvotes, despite the retorts being factually incorrect.","human_ref_B":"Can we also talk about the process of how to get flair? I would like to contribute regularly to this subreddit and have several posts here and in other subreddits to prove that I sometimes actually know what I'm talking about, but I do not wish to give away my identity and send an e-mail from my university address. The system from \/r\/AskHistorians works fine in my opinion and they do not require the disclosure of your identity, just that you link to at least three posts where you wrote about your area of expertise.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9881.0,"score_ratio":10.5} {"post_id":"181rag","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Should AskSocialScience enact rules and moderate in a way closer to AskHistorians and AskScience? I've noticed that the signal\/noise ratio in this subreddit has been getting worse for some time. Purely speculative answers dominate, while cited papers or analysis languish at the bottom. In this recent thread for example, the top comment is purely speculative (though IMHO largely correct), there is a highly rated comment that asserts that labor demand is *upward* sloping, and languishing at the bottom is a comment that points to relevant academic articles. I think it's time this subreddit started started implementing a policy similar to AskHistorians official rules or the AskScience FAQ IMHO, 1st level comments should cite a source (preferably an academic paper, but also magazine articles, or even Wikipedia), or be from a credentialed social scientist in the relevant field. What say you all?","c_root_id_A":"c8ay2m6","c_root_id_B":"c8ax3xl","created_at_utc_A":1360244328,"created_at_utc_B":1360236721,"score_A":21,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Absolutely we need higher standards. I've grown frustrated with this subreddit for this very reason. In particular, I've answered questions on economics \/ econometrics and had baseless accusation thrown against me from non-flaired posters which then received more upvotes, despite the retorts being factually incorrect.","human_ref_B":"Yes.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7607.0,"score_ratio":10.5} {"post_id":"181rag","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Should AskSocialScience enact rules and moderate in a way closer to AskHistorians and AskScience? I've noticed that the signal\/noise ratio in this subreddit has been getting worse for some time. Purely speculative answers dominate, while cited papers or analysis languish at the bottom. In this recent thread for example, the top comment is purely speculative (though IMHO largely correct), there is a highly rated comment that asserts that labor demand is *upward* sloping, and languishing at the bottom is a comment that points to relevant academic articles. I think it's time this subreddit started started implementing a policy similar to AskHistorians official rules or the AskScience FAQ IMHO, 1st level comments should cite a source (preferably an academic paper, but also magazine articles, or even Wikipedia), or be from a credentialed social scientist in the relevant field. What say you all?","c_root_id_A":"c8awfrv","c_root_id_B":"c8b0ruf","created_at_utc_A":1360229632,"created_at_utc_B":1360254864,"score_A":11,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":">IMHO, 1st level comments should cite a source (preferably an academic paper, but also magazine articles, or even Wikipedia), or be from a credentialed social scientist in the relevant field. I agree completely. This is what stands behind the success of \/r\/AskHistorians and \/r\/askscience. I don't think there's anything wrong with speculation, but it must come from a person who is an expert in the topic.","human_ref_B":"Yes please! Not everyone is a social scientist, but everyone has an opinion\/ personal theory. You've gotta back up your argument.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":25232.0,"score_ratio":1.6363636364} {"post_id":"181rag","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Should AskSocialScience enact rules and moderate in a way closer to AskHistorians and AskScience? I've noticed that the signal\/noise ratio in this subreddit has been getting worse for some time. Purely speculative answers dominate, while cited papers or analysis languish at the bottom. In this recent thread for example, the top comment is purely speculative (though IMHO largely correct), there is a highly rated comment that asserts that labor demand is *upward* sloping, and languishing at the bottom is a comment that points to relevant academic articles. I think it's time this subreddit started started implementing a policy similar to AskHistorians official rules or the AskScience FAQ IMHO, 1st level comments should cite a source (preferably an academic paper, but also magazine articles, or even Wikipedia), or be from a credentialed social scientist in the relevant field. What say you all?","c_root_id_A":"c8ats8e","c_root_id_B":"c8b0ruf","created_at_utc_A":1360214454,"created_at_utc_B":1360254864,"score_A":8,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"If you require a bunch of sources, you will have way less comments. However, the comments will also be more scholarly. I don't have much of an opinion I guess about which is better. I probably wouldn't post or read a lot of the comments if they were just links to 20 page academic papers. I have shit to do. However, as the subreddit grows, the proportion and popularity of \"noise comments\" will grow. If this subreddit hit 200k subs, it would probably look like \/r\/politics if there was no change in policy. That is basically what happened in \/r\/economics. At first it was pretty good discussion among somewhat knowledgeable people while there was only 10k subs. However, after it got to about 50k, it wasn't even worth reading anymore. There were always at least 200 comments, so post generally got buried, and in addition 80% of the posts were basically useless information about evils of central banking or something. If I was a moderator, I would gradually reduce the type of posts allowed so that most articles had between 10 and 60 comments. That seems to be the sweet spot. Every time comments start getting higher than that, make the posting criteria stricter. If the comments are lower, allow more opinion based stuff.","human_ref_B":"Yes please! Not everyone is a social scientist, but everyone has an opinion\/ personal theory. You've gotta back up your argument.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":40410.0,"score_ratio":2.25} {"post_id":"181rag","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Should AskSocialScience enact rules and moderate in a way closer to AskHistorians and AskScience? I've noticed that the signal\/noise ratio in this subreddit has been getting worse for some time. Purely speculative answers dominate, while cited papers or analysis languish at the bottom. In this recent thread for example, the top comment is purely speculative (though IMHO largely correct), there is a highly rated comment that asserts that labor demand is *upward* sloping, and languishing at the bottom is a comment that points to relevant academic articles. I think it's time this subreddit started started implementing a policy similar to AskHistorians official rules or the AskScience FAQ IMHO, 1st level comments should cite a source (preferably an academic paper, but also magazine articles, or even Wikipedia), or be from a credentialed social scientist in the relevant field. What say you all?","c_root_id_A":"c8b0ruf","c_root_id_B":"c8av58q","created_at_utc_A":1360254864,"created_at_utc_B":1360220324,"score_A":18,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Yes please! Not everyone is a social scientist, but everyone has an opinion\/ personal theory. You've gotta back up your argument.","human_ref_B":"Well, to an extent. We could certainly use more moderation, but you have to strike a balance. Most of us don't generally produce \"hard\" answers akin to the \"hard\" sciences. There is going to be some speculation. That said, it should be done by those with expertise, which people should be better able to express whether officially accredited by the mods or not. I'm a cultural anthropologist. We don't even have an agreed upon definition of what \"culture\" is. Nonetheless, I think I, along with everyone else, ought to be able to set our own flair (not the official colored mod tags) to indicate our areas of interest and expertise. When I speculate on a topic, there is some weight behind it that others should more easily be able to identify.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":34540.0,"score_ratio":2.5714285714} {"post_id":"181rag","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Should AskSocialScience enact rules and moderate in a way closer to AskHistorians and AskScience? I've noticed that the signal\/noise ratio in this subreddit has been getting worse for some time. Purely speculative answers dominate, while cited papers or analysis languish at the bottom. In this recent thread for example, the top comment is purely speculative (though IMHO largely correct), there is a highly rated comment that asserts that labor demand is *upward* sloping, and languishing at the bottom is a comment that points to relevant academic articles. I think it's time this subreddit started started implementing a policy similar to AskHistorians official rules or the AskScience FAQ IMHO, 1st level comments should cite a source (preferably an academic paper, but also magazine articles, or even Wikipedia), or be from a credentialed social scientist in the relevant field. What say you all?","c_root_id_A":"c8b0ruf","c_root_id_B":"c8ax1un","created_at_utc_A":1360254864,"created_at_utc_B":1360236143,"score_A":18,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Yes please! Not everyone is a social scientist, but everyone has an opinion\/ personal theory. You've gotta back up your argument.","human_ref_B":"I'd like nice symbols next to each of the fields and then a summary of subfields like Ask Science has, a scale next to law or a stock market ticker for economics for instance","labels":1,"seconds_difference":18721.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"181rag","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Should AskSocialScience enact rules and moderate in a way closer to AskHistorians and AskScience? I've noticed that the signal\/noise ratio in this subreddit has been getting worse for some time. Purely speculative answers dominate, while cited papers or analysis languish at the bottom. In this recent thread for example, the top comment is purely speculative (though IMHO largely correct), there is a highly rated comment that asserts that labor demand is *upward* sloping, and languishing at the bottom is a comment that points to relevant academic articles. I think it's time this subreddit started started implementing a policy similar to AskHistorians official rules or the AskScience FAQ IMHO, 1st level comments should cite a source (preferably an academic paper, but also magazine articles, or even Wikipedia), or be from a credentialed social scientist in the relevant field. What say you all?","c_root_id_A":"c8b0ruf","c_root_id_B":"c8ay2li","created_at_utc_A":1360254864,"created_at_utc_B":1360244325,"score_A":18,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Yes please! Not everyone is a social scientist, but everyone has an opinion\/ personal theory. You've gotta back up your argument.","human_ref_B":"I'm not sure how well-trafficked this subreddit is, but the mods should do another round of advertising in other social science subreddits, asking for panelists. It's very rare to see a flaired answer here. That being said, the mods should get rid of their real-life verification rule, as I think that spooked a lot of people (myself included) from seeking flair and sticking around for answers. While speculative answers will invariably show up on their own, they're not helped by poorly-worded, biased, and leading questions. Many questions will have a lot of political baggage, so there should be a guide for formatting posts.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10539.0,"score_ratio":2.5714285714} {"post_id":"181rag","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Should AskSocialScience enact rules and moderate in a way closer to AskHistorians and AskScience? I've noticed that the signal\/noise ratio in this subreddit has been getting worse for some time. Purely speculative answers dominate, while cited papers or analysis languish at the bottom. In this recent thread for example, the top comment is purely speculative (though IMHO largely correct), there is a highly rated comment that asserts that labor demand is *upward* sloping, and languishing at the bottom is a comment that points to relevant academic articles. I think it's time this subreddit started started implementing a policy similar to AskHistorians official rules or the AskScience FAQ IMHO, 1st level comments should cite a source (preferably an academic paper, but also magazine articles, or even Wikipedia), or be from a credentialed social scientist in the relevant field. What say you all?","c_root_id_A":"c8ayt1p","c_root_id_B":"c8b0ruf","created_at_utc_A":1360247968,"created_at_utc_B":1360254864,"score_A":5,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"Yes, It makes no sense to have expert comments which cite relevant literature on the bottom.","human_ref_B":"Yes please! Not everyone is a social scientist, but everyone has an opinion\/ personal theory. You've gotta back up your argument.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6896.0,"score_ratio":3.6} {"post_id":"181rag","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Should AskSocialScience enact rules and moderate in a way closer to AskHistorians and AskScience? I've noticed that the signal\/noise ratio in this subreddit has been getting worse for some time. Purely speculative answers dominate, while cited papers or analysis languish at the bottom. In this recent thread for example, the top comment is purely speculative (though IMHO largely correct), there is a highly rated comment that asserts that labor demand is *upward* sloping, and languishing at the bottom is a comment that points to relevant academic articles. I think it's time this subreddit started started implementing a policy similar to AskHistorians official rules or the AskScience FAQ IMHO, 1st level comments should cite a source (preferably an academic paper, but also magazine articles, or even Wikipedia), or be from a credentialed social scientist in the relevant field. What say you all?","c_root_id_A":"c8b0ruf","c_root_id_B":"c8b0oty","created_at_utc_A":1360254864,"created_at_utc_B":1360254602,"score_A":18,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Yes please! Not everyone is a social scientist, but everyone has an opinion\/ personal theory. You've gotta back up your argument.","human_ref_B":"God, yes. I joined this subreddit thinking that it would be at the same level as other Ask subs. So far it hasn't held up to the legacy. Not saying that I don't like this sub but it could be so much better.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":262.0,"score_ratio":9.0} {"post_id":"181rag","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Should AskSocialScience enact rules and moderate in a way closer to AskHistorians and AskScience? I've noticed that the signal\/noise ratio in this subreddit has been getting worse for some time. Purely speculative answers dominate, while cited papers or analysis languish at the bottom. In this recent thread for example, the top comment is purely speculative (though IMHO largely correct), there is a highly rated comment that asserts that labor demand is *upward* sloping, and languishing at the bottom is a comment that points to relevant academic articles. I think it's time this subreddit started started implementing a policy similar to AskHistorians official rules or the AskScience FAQ IMHO, 1st level comments should cite a source (preferably an academic paper, but also magazine articles, or even Wikipedia), or be from a credentialed social scientist in the relevant field. What say you all?","c_root_id_A":"c8b0ruf","c_root_id_B":"c8axrfh","created_at_utc_A":1360254864,"created_at_utc_B":1360242334,"score_A":18,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Yes please! Not everyone is a social scientist, but everyone has an opinion\/ personal theory. You've gotta back up your argument.","human_ref_B":"I'm not in much position to judge the other threads, but the linguistics threads in this subreddit are so fucking terrible that they absolutely beggar belief. You need to cut out layman speculation and make it easier for people with knowledge to get a flair because at the moment, anyone who comes here seeking answers to linguistics questions comes out more ignorant than they came in.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":12530.0,"score_ratio":6.0} {"post_id":"181rag","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Should AskSocialScience enact rules and moderate in a way closer to AskHistorians and AskScience? I've noticed that the signal\/noise ratio in this subreddit has been getting worse for some time. Purely speculative answers dominate, while cited papers or analysis languish at the bottom. In this recent thread for example, the top comment is purely speculative (though IMHO largely correct), there is a highly rated comment that asserts that labor demand is *upward* sloping, and languishing at the bottom is a comment that points to relevant academic articles. I think it's time this subreddit started started implementing a policy similar to AskHistorians official rules or the AskScience FAQ IMHO, 1st level comments should cite a source (preferably an academic paper, but also magazine articles, or even Wikipedia), or be from a credentialed social scientist in the relevant field. What say you all?","c_root_id_A":"c8axrrr","c_root_id_B":"c8b0ruf","created_at_utc_A":1360242397,"created_at_utc_B":1360254864,"score_A":3,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"I love this question simply because the social sciences always want to be taken as seriously as the other sciences. I say yes. Let's get serious here!","human_ref_B":"Yes please! Not everyone is a social scientist, but everyone has an opinion\/ personal theory. You've gotta back up your argument.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12467.0,"score_ratio":6.0} {"post_id":"181rag","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Should AskSocialScience enact rules and moderate in a way closer to AskHistorians and AskScience? I've noticed that the signal\/noise ratio in this subreddit has been getting worse for some time. Purely speculative answers dominate, while cited papers or analysis languish at the bottom. In this recent thread for example, the top comment is purely speculative (though IMHO largely correct), there is a highly rated comment that asserts that labor demand is *upward* sloping, and languishing at the bottom is a comment that points to relevant academic articles. I think it's time this subreddit started started implementing a policy similar to AskHistorians official rules or the AskScience FAQ IMHO, 1st level comments should cite a source (preferably an academic paper, but also magazine articles, or even Wikipedia), or be from a credentialed social scientist in the relevant field. What say you all?","c_root_id_A":"c8b0ruf","c_root_id_B":"c8azhyj","created_at_utc_A":1360254864,"created_at_utc_B":1360250643,"score_A":18,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Yes please! Not everyone is a social scientist, but everyone has an opinion\/ personal theory. You've gotta back up your argument.","human_ref_B":"I like the idea of citing sources, however if we are talking about \"social sciences\" I don't know if this is always going to work. Say I make a comment. If you want me to find a paper agreeing with me, I can probably do that. If you want me to find a paper disagreeing with me, I can probably do that too. So in some cases citing sources on a topic that supports my opinion may be something I'm only doing to please the masses. Whether I'm right or wrong is up for debate, but I find it to be a waste of time to spend 30 minutes looking to comment. That being said I like the idea of not speculative answers. By this I mean bullshit answers, not speculative in a scientific manner. Many scientific ideas were largely \"down-voted\" by the community when they were proposed and they had sources too but it wasn't the popular opinion. How do we know that people citing sources will automatically lead to others saying, \"By Jove bring that man to the top his idea makes since\". I think that flaired users should be encouraged to present their sources, but they shouldn't be required to. I think if someone else wants to answer, they can and should post sources and should state their field. 1.The flair system needs modernized and continuously updated 2.Moderators should not be people who frequent the forum as much as people who are VARIED. If we have moderators specializing in few areas how can we be effective at ensuring \"appropriate\" comments. 3.We need to find ways to make the community more respected and diverse. Many people have left and given up. In addition to AMA's I have an idea that would help gain respect back. For a while at least we should have the moderators seek out \"Experts\" (define that how you'd like) and they can post relevant topics for people to discuss. They could present their own research as well as maybe an interpretation for a current issue. I know this is ASKsocial science, but right now we do not have many excellent ASKS because people don't frequent. Moreover, the top posts are ALL economics. Not that I don't like economics, but I just wish there was more topics I wanted to read. I want to discuss relevant issues in my own field, we all do.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4221.0,"score_ratio":6.0} {"post_id":"181rag","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Should AskSocialScience enact rules and moderate in a way closer to AskHistorians and AskScience? I've noticed that the signal\/noise ratio in this subreddit has been getting worse for some time. Purely speculative answers dominate, while cited papers or analysis languish at the bottom. In this recent thread for example, the top comment is purely speculative (though IMHO largely correct), there is a highly rated comment that asserts that labor demand is *upward* sloping, and languishing at the bottom is a comment that points to relevant academic articles. I think it's time this subreddit started started implementing a policy similar to AskHistorians official rules or the AskScience FAQ IMHO, 1st level comments should cite a source (preferably an academic paper, but also magazine articles, or even Wikipedia), or be from a credentialed social scientist in the relevant field. What say you all?","c_root_id_A":"c8b0ruf","c_root_id_B":"c8aww7y","created_at_utc_A":1360254864,"created_at_utc_B":1360234447,"score_A":18,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Yes please! Not everyone is a social scientist, but everyone has an opinion\/ personal theory. You've gotta back up your argument.","human_ref_B":"Can we also talk about the process of how to get flair? I would like to contribute regularly to this subreddit and have several posts here and in other subreddits to prove that I sometimes actually know what I'm talking about, but I do not wish to give away my identity and send an e-mail from my university address. The system from \/r\/AskHistorians works fine in my opinion and they do not require the disclosure of your identity, just that you link to at least three posts where you wrote about your area of expertise.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":20417.0,"score_ratio":9.0} {"post_id":"181rag","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Should AskSocialScience enact rules and moderate in a way closer to AskHistorians and AskScience? I've noticed that the signal\/noise ratio in this subreddit has been getting worse for some time. Purely speculative answers dominate, while cited papers or analysis languish at the bottom. In this recent thread for example, the top comment is purely speculative (though IMHO largely correct), there is a highly rated comment that asserts that labor demand is *upward* sloping, and languishing at the bottom is a comment that points to relevant academic articles. I think it's time this subreddit started started implementing a policy similar to AskHistorians official rules or the AskScience FAQ IMHO, 1st level comments should cite a source (preferably an academic paper, but also magazine articles, or even Wikipedia), or be from a credentialed social scientist in the relevant field. What say you all?","c_root_id_A":"c8ax3xl","c_root_id_B":"c8b0ruf","created_at_utc_A":1360236721,"created_at_utc_B":1360254864,"score_A":2,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"Yes.","human_ref_B":"Yes please! Not everyone is a social scientist, but everyone has an opinion\/ personal theory. You've gotta back up your argument.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":18143.0,"score_ratio":9.0} {"post_id":"181rag","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Should AskSocialScience enact rules and moderate in a way closer to AskHistorians and AskScience? I've noticed that the signal\/noise ratio in this subreddit has been getting worse for some time. Purely speculative answers dominate, while cited papers or analysis languish at the bottom. In this recent thread for example, the top comment is purely speculative (though IMHO largely correct), there is a highly rated comment that asserts that labor demand is *upward* sloping, and languishing at the bottom is a comment that points to relevant academic articles. I think it's time this subreddit started started implementing a policy similar to AskHistorians official rules or the AskScience FAQ IMHO, 1st level comments should cite a source (preferably an academic paper, but also magazine articles, or even Wikipedia), or be from a credentialed social scientist in the relevant field. What say you all?","c_root_id_A":"c8ayj4d","c_root_id_B":"c8b0ruf","created_at_utc_A":1360246731,"created_at_utc_B":1360254864,"score_A":2,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"You mean actually moderate? Yes.","human_ref_B":"Yes please! Not everyone is a social scientist, but everyone has an opinion\/ personal theory. You've gotta back up your argument.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8133.0,"score_ratio":9.0} {"post_id":"181rag","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Should AskSocialScience enact rules and moderate in a way closer to AskHistorians and AskScience? I've noticed that the signal\/noise ratio in this subreddit has been getting worse for some time. Purely speculative answers dominate, while cited papers or analysis languish at the bottom. In this recent thread for example, the top comment is purely speculative (though IMHO largely correct), there is a highly rated comment that asserts that labor demand is *upward* sloping, and languishing at the bottom is a comment that points to relevant academic articles. I think it's time this subreddit started started implementing a policy similar to AskHistorians official rules or the AskScience FAQ IMHO, 1st level comments should cite a source (preferably an academic paper, but also magazine articles, or even Wikipedia), or be from a credentialed social scientist in the relevant field. What say you all?","c_root_id_A":"c8awfrv","c_root_id_B":"c8ats8e","created_at_utc_A":1360229632,"created_at_utc_B":1360214454,"score_A":11,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":">IMHO, 1st level comments should cite a source (preferably an academic paper, but also magazine articles, or even Wikipedia), or be from a credentialed social scientist in the relevant field. I agree completely. This is what stands behind the success of \/r\/AskHistorians and \/r\/askscience. I don't think there's anything wrong with speculation, but it must come from a person who is an expert in the topic.","human_ref_B":"If you require a bunch of sources, you will have way less comments. However, the comments will also be more scholarly. I don't have much of an opinion I guess about which is better. I probably wouldn't post or read a lot of the comments if they were just links to 20 page academic papers. I have shit to do. However, as the subreddit grows, the proportion and popularity of \"noise comments\" will grow. If this subreddit hit 200k subs, it would probably look like \/r\/politics if there was no change in policy. That is basically what happened in \/r\/economics. At first it was pretty good discussion among somewhat knowledgeable people while there was only 10k subs. However, after it got to about 50k, it wasn't even worth reading anymore. There were always at least 200 comments, so post generally got buried, and in addition 80% of the posts were basically useless information about evils of central banking or something. If I was a moderator, I would gradually reduce the type of posts allowed so that most articles had between 10 and 60 comments. That seems to be the sweet spot. Every time comments start getting higher than that, make the posting criteria stricter. If the comments are lower, allow more opinion based stuff.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":15178.0,"score_ratio":1.375} {"post_id":"181rag","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Should AskSocialScience enact rules and moderate in a way closer to AskHistorians and AskScience? I've noticed that the signal\/noise ratio in this subreddit has been getting worse for some time. Purely speculative answers dominate, while cited papers or analysis languish at the bottom. In this recent thread for example, the top comment is purely speculative (though IMHO largely correct), there is a highly rated comment that asserts that labor demand is *upward* sloping, and languishing at the bottom is a comment that points to relevant academic articles. I think it's time this subreddit started started implementing a policy similar to AskHistorians official rules or the AskScience FAQ IMHO, 1st level comments should cite a source (preferably an academic paper, but also magazine articles, or even Wikipedia), or be from a credentialed social scientist in the relevant field. What say you all?","c_root_id_A":"c8awfrv","c_root_id_B":"c8av58q","created_at_utc_A":1360229632,"created_at_utc_B":1360220324,"score_A":11,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":">IMHO, 1st level comments should cite a source (preferably an academic paper, but also magazine articles, or even Wikipedia), or be from a credentialed social scientist in the relevant field. I agree completely. This is what stands behind the success of \/r\/AskHistorians and \/r\/askscience. I don't think there's anything wrong with speculation, but it must come from a person who is an expert in the topic.","human_ref_B":"Well, to an extent. We could certainly use more moderation, but you have to strike a balance. Most of us don't generally produce \"hard\" answers akin to the \"hard\" sciences. There is going to be some speculation. That said, it should be done by those with expertise, which people should be better able to express whether officially accredited by the mods or not. I'm a cultural anthropologist. We don't even have an agreed upon definition of what \"culture\" is. Nonetheless, I think I, along with everyone else, ought to be able to set our own flair (not the official colored mod tags) to indicate our areas of interest and expertise. When I speculate on a topic, there is some weight behind it that others should more easily be able to identify.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9308.0,"score_ratio":1.5714285714} {"post_id":"181rag","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Should AskSocialScience enact rules and moderate in a way closer to AskHistorians and AskScience? I've noticed that the signal\/noise ratio in this subreddit has been getting worse for some time. Purely speculative answers dominate, while cited papers or analysis languish at the bottom. In this recent thread for example, the top comment is purely speculative (though IMHO largely correct), there is a highly rated comment that asserts that labor demand is *upward* sloping, and languishing at the bottom is a comment that points to relevant academic articles. I think it's time this subreddit started started implementing a policy similar to AskHistorians official rules or the AskScience FAQ IMHO, 1st level comments should cite a source (preferably an academic paper, but also magazine articles, or even Wikipedia), or be from a credentialed social scientist in the relevant field. What say you all?","c_root_id_A":"c8ax1un","c_root_id_B":"c8ay2li","created_at_utc_A":1360236143,"created_at_utc_B":1360244325,"score_A":6,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"I'd like nice symbols next to each of the fields and then a summary of subfields like Ask Science has, a scale next to law or a stock market ticker for economics for instance","human_ref_B":"I'm not sure how well-trafficked this subreddit is, but the mods should do another round of advertising in other social science subreddits, asking for panelists. It's very rare to see a flaired answer here. That being said, the mods should get rid of their real-life verification rule, as I think that spooked a lot of people (myself included) from seeking flair and sticking around for answers. While speculative answers will invariably show up on their own, they're not helped by poorly-worded, biased, and leading questions. Many questions will have a lot of political baggage, so there should be a guide for formatting posts.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8182.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667} {"post_id":"181rag","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Should AskSocialScience enact rules and moderate in a way closer to AskHistorians and AskScience? I've noticed that the signal\/noise ratio in this subreddit has been getting worse for some time. Purely speculative answers dominate, while cited papers or analysis languish at the bottom. In this recent thread for example, the top comment is purely speculative (though IMHO largely correct), there is a highly rated comment that asserts that labor demand is *upward* sloping, and languishing at the bottom is a comment that points to relevant academic articles. I think it's time this subreddit started started implementing a policy similar to AskHistorians official rules or the AskScience FAQ IMHO, 1st level comments should cite a source (preferably an academic paper, but also magazine articles, or even Wikipedia), or be from a credentialed social scientist in the relevant field. What say you all?","c_root_id_A":"c8aww7y","c_root_id_B":"c8ax1un","created_at_utc_A":1360234447,"created_at_utc_B":1360236143,"score_A":2,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Can we also talk about the process of how to get flair? I would like to contribute regularly to this subreddit and have several posts here and in other subreddits to prove that I sometimes actually know what I'm talking about, but I do not wish to give away my identity and send an e-mail from my university address. The system from \/r\/AskHistorians works fine in my opinion and they do not require the disclosure of your identity, just that you link to at least three posts where you wrote about your area of expertise.","human_ref_B":"I'd like nice symbols next to each of the fields and then a summary of subfields like Ask Science has, a scale next to law or a stock market ticker for economics for instance","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1696.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"181rag","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Should AskSocialScience enact rules and moderate in a way closer to AskHistorians and AskScience? I've noticed that the signal\/noise ratio in this subreddit has been getting worse for some time. Purely speculative answers dominate, while cited papers or analysis languish at the bottom. In this recent thread for example, the top comment is purely speculative (though IMHO largely correct), there is a highly rated comment that asserts that labor demand is *upward* sloping, and languishing at the bottom is a comment that points to relevant academic articles. I think it's time this subreddit started started implementing a policy similar to AskHistorians official rules or the AskScience FAQ IMHO, 1st level comments should cite a source (preferably an academic paper, but also magazine articles, or even Wikipedia), or be from a credentialed social scientist in the relevant field. What say you all?","c_root_id_A":"c8ay2li","c_root_id_B":"c8axrfh","created_at_utc_A":1360244325,"created_at_utc_B":1360242334,"score_A":7,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I'm not sure how well-trafficked this subreddit is, but the mods should do another round of advertising in other social science subreddits, asking for panelists. It's very rare to see a flaired answer here. That being said, the mods should get rid of their real-life verification rule, as I think that spooked a lot of people (myself included) from seeking flair and sticking around for answers. While speculative answers will invariably show up on their own, they're not helped by poorly-worded, biased, and leading questions. Many questions will have a lot of political baggage, so there should be a guide for formatting posts.","human_ref_B":"I'm not in much position to judge the other threads, but the linguistics threads in this subreddit are so fucking terrible that they absolutely beggar belief. You need to cut out layman speculation and make it easier for people with knowledge to get a flair because at the moment, anyone who comes here seeking answers to linguistics questions comes out more ignorant than they came in.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1991.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333} {"post_id":"181rag","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Should AskSocialScience enact rules and moderate in a way closer to AskHistorians and AskScience? I've noticed that the signal\/noise ratio in this subreddit has been getting worse for some time. Purely speculative answers dominate, while cited papers or analysis languish at the bottom. In this recent thread for example, the top comment is purely speculative (though IMHO largely correct), there is a highly rated comment that asserts that labor demand is *upward* sloping, and languishing at the bottom is a comment that points to relevant academic articles. I think it's time this subreddit started started implementing a policy similar to AskHistorians official rules or the AskScience FAQ IMHO, 1st level comments should cite a source (preferably an academic paper, but also magazine articles, or even Wikipedia), or be from a credentialed social scientist in the relevant field. What say you all?","c_root_id_A":"c8ay2li","c_root_id_B":"c8axrrr","created_at_utc_A":1360244325,"created_at_utc_B":1360242397,"score_A":7,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I'm not sure how well-trafficked this subreddit is, but the mods should do another round of advertising in other social science subreddits, asking for panelists. It's very rare to see a flaired answer here. That being said, the mods should get rid of their real-life verification rule, as I think that spooked a lot of people (myself included) from seeking flair and sticking around for answers. While speculative answers will invariably show up on their own, they're not helped by poorly-worded, biased, and leading questions. Many questions will have a lot of political baggage, so there should be a guide for formatting posts.","human_ref_B":"I love this question simply because the social sciences always want to be taken as seriously as the other sciences. I say yes. Let's get serious here!","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1928.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333} {"post_id":"181rag","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Should AskSocialScience enact rules and moderate in a way closer to AskHistorians and AskScience? I've noticed that the signal\/noise ratio in this subreddit has been getting worse for some time. Purely speculative answers dominate, while cited papers or analysis languish at the bottom. In this recent thread for example, the top comment is purely speculative (though IMHO largely correct), there is a highly rated comment that asserts that labor demand is *upward* sloping, and languishing at the bottom is a comment that points to relevant academic articles. I think it's time this subreddit started started implementing a policy similar to AskHistorians official rules or the AskScience FAQ IMHO, 1st level comments should cite a source (preferably an academic paper, but also magazine articles, or even Wikipedia), or be from a credentialed social scientist in the relevant field. What say you all?","c_root_id_A":"c8ay2li","c_root_id_B":"c8aww7y","created_at_utc_A":1360244325,"created_at_utc_B":1360234447,"score_A":7,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I'm not sure how well-trafficked this subreddit is, but the mods should do another round of advertising in other social science subreddits, asking for panelists. It's very rare to see a flaired answer here. That being said, the mods should get rid of their real-life verification rule, as I think that spooked a lot of people (myself included) from seeking flair and sticking around for answers. While speculative answers will invariably show up on their own, they're not helped by poorly-worded, biased, and leading questions. Many questions will have a lot of political baggage, so there should be a guide for formatting posts.","human_ref_B":"Can we also talk about the process of how to get flair? I would like to contribute regularly to this subreddit and have several posts here and in other subreddits to prove that I sometimes actually know what I'm talking about, but I do not wish to give away my identity and send an e-mail from my university address. The system from \/r\/AskHistorians works fine in my opinion and they do not require the disclosure of your identity, just that you link to at least three posts where you wrote about your area of expertise.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9878.0,"score_ratio":3.5} {"post_id":"181rag","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Should AskSocialScience enact rules and moderate in a way closer to AskHistorians and AskScience? I've noticed that the signal\/noise ratio in this subreddit has been getting worse for some time. Purely speculative answers dominate, while cited papers or analysis languish at the bottom. In this recent thread for example, the top comment is purely speculative (though IMHO largely correct), there is a highly rated comment that asserts that labor demand is *upward* sloping, and languishing at the bottom is a comment that points to relevant academic articles. I think it's time this subreddit started started implementing a policy similar to AskHistorians official rules or the AskScience FAQ IMHO, 1st level comments should cite a source (preferably an academic paper, but also magazine articles, or even Wikipedia), or be from a credentialed social scientist in the relevant field. What say you all?","c_root_id_A":"c8ax3xl","c_root_id_B":"c8ay2li","created_at_utc_A":1360236721,"created_at_utc_B":1360244325,"score_A":2,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Yes.","human_ref_B":"I'm not sure how well-trafficked this subreddit is, but the mods should do another round of advertising in other social science subreddits, asking for panelists. It's very rare to see a flaired answer here. That being said, the mods should get rid of their real-life verification rule, as I think that spooked a lot of people (myself included) from seeking flair and sticking around for answers. While speculative answers will invariably show up on their own, they're not helped by poorly-worded, biased, and leading questions. Many questions will have a lot of political baggage, so there should be a guide for formatting posts.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7604.0,"score_ratio":3.5} {"post_id":"181rag","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Should AskSocialScience enact rules and moderate in a way closer to AskHistorians and AskScience? I've noticed that the signal\/noise ratio in this subreddit has been getting worse for some time. Purely speculative answers dominate, while cited papers or analysis languish at the bottom. In this recent thread for example, the top comment is purely speculative (though IMHO largely correct), there is a highly rated comment that asserts that labor demand is *upward* sloping, and languishing at the bottom is a comment that points to relevant academic articles. I think it's time this subreddit started started implementing a policy similar to AskHistorians official rules or the AskScience FAQ IMHO, 1st level comments should cite a source (preferably an academic paper, but also magazine articles, or even Wikipedia), or be from a credentialed social scientist in the relevant field. What say you all?","c_root_id_A":"c8ayt1p","c_root_id_B":"c8axrfh","created_at_utc_A":1360247968,"created_at_utc_B":1360242334,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Yes, It makes no sense to have expert comments which cite relevant literature on the bottom.","human_ref_B":"I'm not in much position to judge the other threads, but the linguistics threads in this subreddit are so fucking terrible that they absolutely beggar belief. You need to cut out layman speculation and make it easier for people with knowledge to get a flair because at the moment, anyone who comes here seeking answers to linguistics questions comes out more ignorant than they came in.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5634.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"181rag","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Should AskSocialScience enact rules and moderate in a way closer to AskHistorians and AskScience? I've noticed that the signal\/noise ratio in this subreddit has been getting worse for some time. Purely speculative answers dominate, while cited papers or analysis languish at the bottom. In this recent thread for example, the top comment is purely speculative (though IMHO largely correct), there is a highly rated comment that asserts that labor demand is *upward* sloping, and languishing at the bottom is a comment that points to relevant academic articles. I think it's time this subreddit started started implementing a policy similar to AskHistorians official rules or the AskScience FAQ IMHO, 1st level comments should cite a source (preferably an academic paper, but also magazine articles, or even Wikipedia), or be from a credentialed social scientist in the relevant field. What say you all?","c_root_id_A":"c8ayt1p","c_root_id_B":"c8axrrr","created_at_utc_A":1360247968,"created_at_utc_B":1360242397,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Yes, It makes no sense to have expert comments which cite relevant literature on the bottom.","human_ref_B":"I love this question simply because the social sciences always want to be taken as seriously as the other sciences. I say yes. Let's get serious here!","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5571.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"181rag","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Should AskSocialScience enact rules and moderate in a way closer to AskHistorians and AskScience? I've noticed that the signal\/noise ratio in this subreddit has been getting worse for some time. Purely speculative answers dominate, while cited papers or analysis languish at the bottom. In this recent thread for example, the top comment is purely speculative (though IMHO largely correct), there is a highly rated comment that asserts that labor demand is *upward* sloping, and languishing at the bottom is a comment that points to relevant academic articles. I think it's time this subreddit started started implementing a policy similar to AskHistorians official rules or the AskScience FAQ IMHO, 1st level comments should cite a source (preferably an academic paper, but also magazine articles, or even Wikipedia), or be from a credentialed social scientist in the relevant field. What say you all?","c_root_id_A":"c8ayt1p","c_root_id_B":"c8aww7y","created_at_utc_A":1360247968,"created_at_utc_B":1360234447,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Yes, It makes no sense to have expert comments which cite relevant literature on the bottom.","human_ref_B":"Can we also talk about the process of how to get flair? I would like to contribute regularly to this subreddit and have several posts here and in other subreddits to prove that I sometimes actually know what I'm talking about, but I do not wish to give away my identity and send an e-mail from my university address. The system from \/r\/AskHistorians works fine in my opinion and they do not require the disclosure of your identity, just that you link to at least three posts where you wrote about your area of expertise.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13521.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"181rag","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Should AskSocialScience enact rules and moderate in a way closer to AskHistorians and AskScience? I've noticed that the signal\/noise ratio in this subreddit has been getting worse for some time. Purely speculative answers dominate, while cited papers or analysis languish at the bottom. In this recent thread for example, the top comment is purely speculative (though IMHO largely correct), there is a highly rated comment that asserts that labor demand is *upward* sloping, and languishing at the bottom is a comment that points to relevant academic articles. I think it's time this subreddit started started implementing a policy similar to AskHistorians official rules or the AskScience FAQ IMHO, 1st level comments should cite a source (preferably an academic paper, but also magazine articles, or even Wikipedia), or be from a credentialed social scientist in the relevant field. What say you all?","c_root_id_A":"c8ayt1p","c_root_id_B":"c8ax3xl","created_at_utc_A":1360247968,"created_at_utc_B":1360236721,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Yes, It makes no sense to have expert comments which cite relevant literature on the bottom.","human_ref_B":"Yes.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11247.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"181rag","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Should AskSocialScience enact rules and moderate in a way closer to AskHistorians and AskScience? I've noticed that the signal\/noise ratio in this subreddit has been getting worse for some time. Purely speculative answers dominate, while cited papers or analysis languish at the bottom. In this recent thread for example, the top comment is purely speculative (though IMHO largely correct), there is a highly rated comment that asserts that labor demand is *upward* sloping, and languishing at the bottom is a comment that points to relevant academic articles. I think it's time this subreddit started started implementing a policy similar to AskHistorians official rules or the AskScience FAQ IMHO, 1st level comments should cite a source (preferably an academic paper, but also magazine articles, or even Wikipedia), or be from a credentialed social scientist in the relevant field. What say you all?","c_root_id_A":"c8ayj4d","c_root_id_B":"c8ayt1p","created_at_utc_A":1360246731,"created_at_utc_B":1360247968,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"You mean actually moderate? Yes.","human_ref_B":"Yes, It makes no sense to have expert comments which cite relevant literature on the bottom.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1237.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"181rag","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Should AskSocialScience enact rules and moderate in a way closer to AskHistorians and AskScience? I've noticed that the signal\/noise ratio in this subreddit has been getting worse for some time. Purely speculative answers dominate, while cited papers or analysis languish at the bottom. In this recent thread for example, the top comment is purely speculative (though IMHO largely correct), there is a highly rated comment that asserts that labor demand is *upward* sloping, and languishing at the bottom is a comment that points to relevant academic articles. I think it's time this subreddit started started implementing a policy similar to AskHistorians official rules or the AskScience FAQ IMHO, 1st level comments should cite a source (preferably an academic paper, but also magazine articles, or even Wikipedia), or be from a credentialed social scientist in the relevant field. What say you all?","c_root_id_A":"c8aww7y","c_root_id_B":"c8axrfh","created_at_utc_A":1360234447,"created_at_utc_B":1360242334,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Can we also talk about the process of how to get flair? I would like to contribute regularly to this subreddit and have several posts here and in other subreddits to prove that I sometimes actually know what I'm talking about, but I do not wish to give away my identity and send an e-mail from my university address. The system from \/r\/AskHistorians works fine in my opinion and they do not require the disclosure of your identity, just that you link to at least three posts where you wrote about your area of expertise.","human_ref_B":"I'm not in much position to judge the other threads, but the linguistics threads in this subreddit are so fucking terrible that they absolutely beggar belief. You need to cut out layman speculation and make it easier for people with knowledge to get a flair because at the moment, anyone who comes here seeking answers to linguistics questions comes out more ignorant than they came in.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7887.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"181rag","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Should AskSocialScience enact rules and moderate in a way closer to AskHistorians and AskScience? I've noticed that the signal\/noise ratio in this subreddit has been getting worse for some time. Purely speculative answers dominate, while cited papers or analysis languish at the bottom. In this recent thread for example, the top comment is purely speculative (though IMHO largely correct), there is a highly rated comment that asserts that labor demand is *upward* sloping, and languishing at the bottom is a comment that points to relevant academic articles. I think it's time this subreddit started started implementing a policy similar to AskHistorians official rules or the AskScience FAQ IMHO, 1st level comments should cite a source (preferably an academic paper, but also magazine articles, or even Wikipedia), or be from a credentialed social scientist in the relevant field. What say you all?","c_root_id_A":"c8axrfh","c_root_id_B":"c8ax3xl","created_at_utc_A":1360242334,"created_at_utc_B":1360236721,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I'm not in much position to judge the other threads, but the linguistics threads in this subreddit are so fucking terrible that they absolutely beggar belief. You need to cut out layman speculation and make it easier for people with knowledge to get a flair because at the moment, anyone who comes here seeking answers to linguistics questions comes out more ignorant than they came in.","human_ref_B":"Yes.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5613.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"181rag","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Should AskSocialScience enact rules and moderate in a way closer to AskHistorians and AskScience? I've noticed that the signal\/noise ratio in this subreddit has been getting worse for some time. Purely speculative answers dominate, while cited papers or analysis languish at the bottom. In this recent thread for example, the top comment is purely speculative (though IMHO largely correct), there is a highly rated comment that asserts that labor demand is *upward* sloping, and languishing at the bottom is a comment that points to relevant academic articles. I think it's time this subreddit started started implementing a policy similar to AskHistorians official rules or the AskScience FAQ IMHO, 1st level comments should cite a source (preferably an academic paper, but also magazine articles, or even Wikipedia), or be from a credentialed social scientist in the relevant field. What say you all?","c_root_id_A":"c8aww7y","c_root_id_B":"c8axrrr","created_at_utc_A":1360234447,"created_at_utc_B":1360242397,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Can we also talk about the process of how to get flair? I would like to contribute regularly to this subreddit and have several posts here and in other subreddits to prove that I sometimes actually know what I'm talking about, but I do not wish to give away my identity and send an e-mail from my university address. The system from \/r\/AskHistorians works fine in my opinion and they do not require the disclosure of your identity, just that you link to at least three posts where you wrote about your area of expertise.","human_ref_B":"I love this question simply because the social sciences always want to be taken as seriously as the other sciences. I say yes. Let's get serious here!","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7950.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"181rag","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Should AskSocialScience enact rules and moderate in a way closer to AskHistorians and AskScience? I've noticed that the signal\/noise ratio in this subreddit has been getting worse for some time. Purely speculative answers dominate, while cited papers or analysis languish at the bottom. In this recent thread for example, the top comment is purely speculative (though IMHO largely correct), there is a highly rated comment that asserts that labor demand is *upward* sloping, and languishing at the bottom is a comment that points to relevant academic articles. I think it's time this subreddit started started implementing a policy similar to AskHistorians official rules or the AskScience FAQ IMHO, 1st level comments should cite a source (preferably an academic paper, but also magazine articles, or even Wikipedia), or be from a credentialed social scientist in the relevant field. What say you all?","c_root_id_A":"c8axrrr","c_root_id_B":"c8ax3xl","created_at_utc_A":1360242397,"created_at_utc_B":1360236721,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I love this question simply because the social sciences always want to be taken as seriously as the other sciences. I say yes. Let's get serious here!","human_ref_B":"Yes.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5676.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"181rag","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Should AskSocialScience enact rules and moderate in a way closer to AskHistorians and AskScience? I've noticed that the signal\/noise ratio in this subreddit has been getting worse for some time. Purely speculative answers dominate, while cited papers or analysis languish at the bottom. In this recent thread for example, the top comment is purely speculative (though IMHO largely correct), there is a highly rated comment that asserts that labor demand is *upward* sloping, and languishing at the bottom is a comment that points to relevant academic articles. I think it's time this subreddit started started implementing a policy similar to AskHistorians official rules or the AskScience FAQ IMHO, 1st level comments should cite a source (preferably an academic paper, but also magazine articles, or even Wikipedia), or be from a credentialed social scientist in the relevant field. What say you all?","c_root_id_A":"c8aww7y","c_root_id_B":"c8azhyj","created_at_utc_A":1360234447,"created_at_utc_B":1360250643,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Can we also talk about the process of how to get flair? I would like to contribute regularly to this subreddit and have several posts here and in other subreddits to prove that I sometimes actually know what I'm talking about, but I do not wish to give away my identity and send an e-mail from my university address. The system from \/r\/AskHistorians works fine in my opinion and they do not require the disclosure of your identity, just that you link to at least three posts where you wrote about your area of expertise.","human_ref_B":"I like the idea of citing sources, however if we are talking about \"social sciences\" I don't know if this is always going to work. Say I make a comment. If you want me to find a paper agreeing with me, I can probably do that. If you want me to find a paper disagreeing with me, I can probably do that too. So in some cases citing sources on a topic that supports my opinion may be something I'm only doing to please the masses. Whether I'm right or wrong is up for debate, but I find it to be a waste of time to spend 30 minutes looking to comment. That being said I like the idea of not speculative answers. By this I mean bullshit answers, not speculative in a scientific manner. Many scientific ideas were largely \"down-voted\" by the community when they were proposed and they had sources too but it wasn't the popular opinion. How do we know that people citing sources will automatically lead to others saying, \"By Jove bring that man to the top his idea makes since\". I think that flaired users should be encouraged to present their sources, but they shouldn't be required to. I think if someone else wants to answer, they can and should post sources and should state their field. 1.The flair system needs modernized and continuously updated 2.Moderators should not be people who frequent the forum as much as people who are VARIED. If we have moderators specializing in few areas how can we be effective at ensuring \"appropriate\" comments. 3.We need to find ways to make the community more respected and diverse. Many people have left and given up. In addition to AMA's I have an idea that would help gain respect back. For a while at least we should have the moderators seek out \"Experts\" (define that how you'd like) and they can post relevant topics for people to discuss. They could present their own research as well as maybe an interpretation for a current issue. I know this is ASKsocial science, but right now we do not have many excellent ASKS because people don't frequent. Moreover, the top posts are ALL economics. Not that I don't like economics, but I just wish there was more topics I wanted to read. I want to discuss relevant issues in my own field, we all do.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":16196.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"181rag","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Should AskSocialScience enact rules and moderate in a way closer to AskHistorians and AskScience? I've noticed that the signal\/noise ratio in this subreddit has been getting worse for some time. Purely speculative answers dominate, while cited papers or analysis languish at the bottom. In this recent thread for example, the top comment is purely speculative (though IMHO largely correct), there is a highly rated comment that asserts that labor demand is *upward* sloping, and languishing at the bottom is a comment that points to relevant academic articles. I think it's time this subreddit started started implementing a policy similar to AskHistorians official rules or the AskScience FAQ IMHO, 1st level comments should cite a source (preferably an academic paper, but also magazine articles, or even Wikipedia), or be from a credentialed social scientist in the relevant field. What say you all?","c_root_id_A":"c8ax3xl","c_root_id_B":"c8azhyj","created_at_utc_A":1360236721,"created_at_utc_B":1360250643,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Yes.","human_ref_B":"I like the idea of citing sources, however if we are talking about \"social sciences\" I don't know if this is always going to work. Say I make a comment. If you want me to find a paper agreeing with me, I can probably do that. If you want me to find a paper disagreeing with me, I can probably do that too. So in some cases citing sources on a topic that supports my opinion may be something I'm only doing to please the masses. Whether I'm right or wrong is up for debate, but I find it to be a waste of time to spend 30 minutes looking to comment. That being said I like the idea of not speculative answers. By this I mean bullshit answers, not speculative in a scientific manner. Many scientific ideas were largely \"down-voted\" by the community when they were proposed and they had sources too but it wasn't the popular opinion. How do we know that people citing sources will automatically lead to others saying, \"By Jove bring that man to the top his idea makes since\". I think that flaired users should be encouraged to present their sources, but they shouldn't be required to. I think if someone else wants to answer, they can and should post sources and should state their field. 1.The flair system needs modernized and continuously updated 2.Moderators should not be people who frequent the forum as much as people who are VARIED. If we have moderators specializing in few areas how can we be effective at ensuring \"appropriate\" comments. 3.We need to find ways to make the community more respected and diverse. Many people have left and given up. In addition to AMA's I have an idea that would help gain respect back. For a while at least we should have the moderators seek out \"Experts\" (define that how you'd like) and they can post relevant topics for people to discuss. They could present their own research as well as maybe an interpretation for a current issue. I know this is ASKsocial science, but right now we do not have many excellent ASKS because people don't frequent. Moreover, the top posts are ALL economics. Not that I don't like economics, but I just wish there was more topics I wanted to read. I want to discuss relevant issues in my own field, we all do.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":13922.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"181rag","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Should AskSocialScience enact rules and moderate in a way closer to AskHistorians and AskScience? I've noticed that the signal\/noise ratio in this subreddit has been getting worse for some time. Purely speculative answers dominate, while cited papers or analysis languish at the bottom. In this recent thread for example, the top comment is purely speculative (though IMHO largely correct), there is a highly rated comment that asserts that labor demand is *upward* sloping, and languishing at the bottom is a comment that points to relevant academic articles. I think it's time this subreddit started started implementing a policy similar to AskHistorians official rules or the AskScience FAQ IMHO, 1st level comments should cite a source (preferably an academic paper, but also magazine articles, or even Wikipedia), or be from a credentialed social scientist in the relevant field. What say you all?","c_root_id_A":"c8ayj4d","c_root_id_B":"c8azhyj","created_at_utc_A":1360246731,"created_at_utc_B":1360250643,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"You mean actually moderate? Yes.","human_ref_B":"I like the idea of citing sources, however if we are talking about \"social sciences\" I don't know if this is always going to work. Say I make a comment. If you want me to find a paper agreeing with me, I can probably do that. If you want me to find a paper disagreeing with me, I can probably do that too. So in some cases citing sources on a topic that supports my opinion may be something I'm only doing to please the masses. Whether I'm right or wrong is up for debate, but I find it to be a waste of time to spend 30 minutes looking to comment. That being said I like the idea of not speculative answers. By this I mean bullshit answers, not speculative in a scientific manner. Many scientific ideas were largely \"down-voted\" by the community when they were proposed and they had sources too but it wasn't the popular opinion. How do we know that people citing sources will automatically lead to others saying, \"By Jove bring that man to the top his idea makes since\". I think that flaired users should be encouraged to present their sources, but they shouldn't be required to. I think if someone else wants to answer, they can and should post sources and should state their field. 1.The flair system needs modernized and continuously updated 2.Moderators should not be people who frequent the forum as much as people who are VARIED. If we have moderators specializing in few areas how can we be effective at ensuring \"appropriate\" comments. 3.We need to find ways to make the community more respected and diverse. Many people have left and given up. In addition to AMA's I have an idea that would help gain respect back. For a while at least we should have the moderators seek out \"Experts\" (define that how you'd like) and they can post relevant topics for people to discuss. They could present their own research as well as maybe an interpretation for a current issue. I know this is ASKsocial science, but right now we do not have many excellent ASKS because people don't frequent. Moreover, the top posts are ALL economics. Not that I don't like economics, but I just wish there was more topics I wanted to read. I want to discuss relevant issues in my own field, we all do.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3912.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"ihgrpy","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Is this Tumblr post accurate in claiming that if Walmart paid its employees a living wage, the family that owns it would have to take an 2% cut to their yearly profits, meaning they\u2019d make only 294 million a year instead of 300 million a year? https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/tumblr\/comments\/ihgn6s\/if_walmart_paid_its_employees_a_living_wage_the\/ Is this Tumblr post accurate in claiming that if Walmart paid its employees a living wage, the family that owns it would have to take an 2% cut to their yearly profits, meaning they\u2019d make only 294 million a year instead of 300 million a year? https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=vAcaeLmybCY This is the video linked in the post. It defines living wage as enough no longer qualifying for food stamps. It says that to do this, Walmart would have to raise prices by about 1.4%. It says it's based on data analysis by researchers and statisticians at the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education, but the link is broken.","c_root_id_A":"g30xpzt","c_root_id_B":"g301kt8","created_at_utc_A":1598538858,"created_at_utc_B":1598513757,"score_A":11,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"> It says it's based on data analysis by researchers and statisticians at the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education, but the link is broken. Without comment on the substance of the issue, from this reference the relevant study appears to date from 2007: \"Living Wage Policies and Wal-Mart: How a Higher Wage Standard Would Impact Wal-Mart Workers and Shoppers\" by Arindrajit Dube, Ken Jacobs, Dave Graham-Squire, and Stephanie Luce.","human_ref_B":"Thanks for your question to \/r\/AskSocialScience. All posters, please remember that this subreddit requires peer-reviewed, cited sources (Please see Rule 1 and 3). All posts that do not have citations will be removed by AutoMod. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](\/message\/compose\/?to=\/r\/AskSocialScience) if you have any questions or concerns.*","labels":1,"seconds_difference":25101.0,"score_ratio":5.5} {"post_id":"4he0d3","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Can someone explain to me what happened to Venezuela's economy?","c_root_id_A":"d2pa4uf","c_root_id_B":"d2pcsra","created_at_utc_A":1462162721,"created_at_utc_B":1462169010,"score_A":5,"score_B":275,"human_ref_A":"Piggybacking on the post to request books related to the subject.","human_ref_B":"Price controls are near universally frowned upon by economists. It's where the government says, by decree, that something must be traded for \"exactly X\" (or more than X, or less than X). It somewhat defeats the market process - instead of something getting more expensive as it gets scarcer or increases in demand, it simply runs out of stock. Or vice versa, you end up with more for sale than can be sold, with the producers unable to sell their wares. Everyone price controls to some degree though - a minimum wage is an example, rent control in some markets are another example. There are academic defences of the minimum wage, but we'd all be lying if we were to say there's no disadvantages\/problems caused by it. The point of all this, is that Venezuela for a long time has been attempting to price control *everything*. From the price of toilet paper, through to wages, through to electricity, through to even the currency itself. The latter is a huge one. In Venezuela, the currency must be exchanged for USD at a price decreed by the government. This isn't a fixed exchange rate in the traditional sense (where the central bank builds up \"reserves\" and then sells them at a fixed price) - Venezuela has attempted to do the same purely through decree. The problem with this, is that they overvalue the currency so much that you can't actually trade at the official rate. Nobody (or few) will sell you USD for the price the government says they must. Markets are all incredibly interconnected, we all depend on foreign trade for prosperity - but even operating a business in Venezuela you're shut out from all of this. Only well connected individuals can buy USD from the government at the official rate, otherwise you're stuck applying for \"allowances\" through application processes that take who-knows-how-long. This means the only way to actually import en-masse in Venezuela is by breaking the law. Using black market currency traders. Can you imagine running a business like that? Oh. Not that you'd want to operate a business - as per the toilet paper article, if the government feels you're not running with the country's interests at heart, it'll just seize it. This makes everyone incredibly suspicious about investing in the country, and avoiding it completely. So you have inability to export, inability to import, inability to set your own prices, a government that will seize your company on a whim... all acting to reduce \"aggregate supply\". There's chokes on absolutely everything - you cannot buy foreign stuff, you cannot employ workers except at wages decreed by government, and then you can't even sell your goods except at prices also decreed by the government. Anyway. With trashed supply, come shortages and\/or raising prices (price controls be damned). The government attempts to address all these by bringing in tougher price controls, but they're doomed to fail too. Their economy is choked from top to bottom by controls on everything, people can't produce stuff, can't sell stuff, etc. And with a weak economy comes a low (and falling) exchange rate. Well, it would, except that's price controlled too (so read: falling black market exchange rate). Then hit oil price crashes. Venezuela has more oil than anyone else (which goes to show how spectacularly shockingly they're being run), which accounts for nearly all their exports - again no doubt largely due to the illegality of currency exchange. So oil price crashes, and their entirely non-diversified economy sinks with it. Adding on to all of these (even with terrible management economies tend to persevere until there's a combination of things - they're nowhere near as fragile as we think), they've been hit by the worst drought in 47 years. With the drought 3 years running, their dams are now on the brink of empty. For a country that depends on hydro for 73% of their power generation, that's a *huge problem*. One that undoubtedly could have been avoided with better management and contingency planning, but Venezuela has anything but good management. So what do they do? Well, reduce the number of workdays. Send people home from public sector jobs. Roll blackouts. All things further constricting aggregate supply, further making it harder\/impossible to run a business. With reduced aggregate supply, you can basically either take measures to reduce aggregate demand (like raising taxes), or let inflation erode people's living standards for you. The latter can be extra problematic, as inflation means lower real interest rates, encouraging people to spend further: it can *increase* aggregate demand and trigger all kinds of terrible feedback loops (like getting wage increases due to inflation due to wage increase, etc). Venezuela has all that, but then also a bunch of price controlled stuff experiencing shortages, and just generally the economy is undergoing a slow collapse. It's fascinating to watch. Oh. And I forgot another big one: they happen to owe a lot of foreign currencies. Somehow, the country needs to bring in USD to repay those public debts. Combine that with the collapse in the export sector, collapse in the electricity sector, massive inflation and shortages out of the wazoo... and yeh, good luck to them with that. If you ask me (and I'm definitely no authority on the matter), one of the biggest mistakes they made was price controlling their currency. Currencies should be free floating, fixed or managed if you absolutely must, but making it illegal to trade except at a government-determined rate is just the worst possible system excusable never. Argentina until last year had the same system and there is just really not a single thing to recommend it for. Well, that and\/or deciding to seize businesses willy-nilly. Actually, that latter one's probably even worse. Sigh.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6289.0,"score_ratio":55.0} {"post_id":"4he0d3","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Can someone explain to me what happened to Venezuela's economy?","c_root_id_A":"d2pl82y","c_root_id_B":"d2pf2rh","created_at_utc_A":1462195179,"created_at_utc_B":1462176298,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"A follow-up question: The oil price crashed in the 1980s, too. Venezuela suffered deeply in that period, too, including the Caracazo clashes of 1989 and the coup attempts in the early 90s. Is there anything meaningful comparison between these crises and the current one? Why did the country not manage to move away from overreliance on oil after the last time?","human_ref_B":"Might find something here https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/NeutralPolitics\/comments\/4hch0p\/venezuelas_crisis_what_happened\/ I dont know if linking to other posts is common fashion but this thread is being updated at the same time as yours so I think its cool","labels":1,"seconds_difference":18881.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"g9y4zy","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"What research is there on the psychological tools Fox News uses to convince its audience to believe in conspiracies? Thought about this after reading about these anecdotes identifying Fox News viewership as the common factor in discounting public health information: https:\/\/www.thedailybeast.com\/fox-loving-parents-are-driving-coronavirus-paranoid-kids-insane","c_root_id_A":"foy43qq","c_root_id_B":"foy45xw","created_at_utc_A":1588164838,"created_at_utc_B":1588164879,"score_A":7,"score_B":25,"human_ref_A":"They are not as much psychological tools as the work of conservative think tanks, such as The Heritage Foundation. They are paid to devise strategies and talking points with the aim of manipulating voters into believing things they otherwise wouldn't. But the primary \"tool\" is our innate tendency towards tribalism. Loyalty to the in-group. Disgust at the out-group. In-group members can be trusted. Out-group members cannot. And to Fox News viewers, scientists are, generally speaking, out-group members. Take climate change as an instructive example. As laid out in Merchants of Doubt, conservative think tanks recruited scientists to lie on their behalf. Fred Singer is a notable example. Not only did he publicly deny climate change, he also defended passive smoking and acid rain. By presenting these scientists as noble \"traitors\" to their in-group, it also reinforces the idea that the rest of the scientists are part of the out-group \"cabal\". By amplifying this innate tendency towards tribalism, you start seeing rapid polarization: >For example, people selectively approach information that supports their tribe\u2019s interests and avoid information that has potential to harm their tribe (by watching particular news networks, or by forming \u201cecho chambers\u201d in their social environments; Stroud, 2010). And people evaluate information they are exposed to in a biased manner by being uncritically accepting of information that supports their tribe\u2019s agenda and more skeptical of information that opposes it (Ditto et al., 2018). > >Clark, C. J., Liu, B. S., Winegard, B. M., & Ditto, P. H. (2019). Tribalism Is Human Nature. *Current Directions in Psychological Science*, 096372141986228. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/0963721419862289 When Fox News has the power to dictate in-group beliefs\u200c, it's not going to be easy convincing their audience otherwise. When out-group members attack these beliefs, they're only adding fuel to the fire.","human_ref_B":"First, a note on terms: I think you're conflating misinformation and conspiracy thinking. The two are related but not identical. The way I explain it to students is a person can believe there are 26 Justices on the Supreme Court and they would be wrong, but they don't have to believe there is some grand conspiracy hiding the true number of Justices to be wrong. They're misinformed. And a person in, say, September 1972 could think that this whole Watergate break-in is kind of fishy and maybe some government higher-ups were involved. They believe a conspiracy is a afoot and they also happen to be right (i.e. not misinformed). The two often do go hand-in-hand (NBA player Kyrie Irving has on several occasions suggested the world is flat. He is misinformed and also necessarily believes a cabal of governments and scientists have been secretly trying to trick everyone into thinking the world is round for...reasons...so he also believes a conspiracy theory). There's also the differences between misinformation and disinformation (there's a known maliciousness to the latter). I think we can mostly set aside disinformation for this specific example, however. Let's start with your initial point about conspiracy theories and Fox News. There are examples of conspiracy beliefs about COVID-19, for example that it was manufactured in a lab by Chinese scientists. Why does anyone, and especially Republicans (the Pew data doesn't include Fox News viewership so we don't have that specifically), believe such a thing? Because they are predisposed to believe conspiracy theories and because this particular one has aligned with their political beliefs. Some people appear more susceptible to conspiracy theories and there's nothing right or left about it. But such people will be much more likely to believe a conspiracy if it also aligns with their political identity. Liberals\/Democrats don't make up the Pizzagate rank and file. So Fox News viewers are more likely to subscribe to such conspiracy theories because they're a group with highly salient political identities and because Fox News serves as a conduit for the political elites who represent those identities to stress why believing such a conspiracy theory would align with their politics. I also recommend this book for more on the subject of conspiracy theories in general. That said, I think what we're really discussing here is misinformation. The engine that makes misinformation run is motivated reasoning. All reasoning is motivated, but sometimes it is motivated to achieve partisanship goals (i.e. to make yourself feel good\/smug about your political identity) and sometimes it is motivated to achieve accuracy goals (to get the right answer). When motivated by partisanship, people: a) search out information that conforms to their preexisting beliefs (confirmation bias), b) rank congruent arguments as more credible (prior attitude effect), and c) expend more cognitive resources counter-arguing incongruent arguments (disconfirmation bias). The last two are really key for misinformation. When a person encounters a bit of misinformation (let's say that social distancing doesn't work), if that would make them feel better about their politics (then we should start the economy back up which will help Trump get reelected) they will rank it as credible. When they encounter corrective information that tells them they're wrong (actually it does work), they will then work harder to find a reason not to accept this new information. Under both conspiracy theories and misinformation, Fox News doesn't need any special psychological tricks to mislead their audience. All they need is a clear alignment between the partisanship of what they're saying and the partisanship of their audience. Once that's present, the information spread is easy regardless of the accuracy of the information. That's the answer I'd give, but I also would like to caveat this by saying I'm no super sold on the whole point. I'm trying to find the actual survey and having little luck, but they discussed the self-reporting of preventative behavior (i.e. wearing a mask when going out) on a recent 538 Politics podcast and the gaps by partisanship weren't all that big. Honestly, I think most Republicans are taking this only slightly less seriously as Democrats and the article you linked to is anecdotal and overstating the real differences. Also, Leticia Bode makes the point that we should really think of the quality of information as a hierarchy rather than purely right or wrong. Because this disease is so new, there aren't real scientific consensus around anything. We don't know what the truth is regarding, well, just about anything having to do with COVID-19. We have well-informed guesses. Keeping some modicum of skepticism strikes me as what a reasonable person should do in this situation. Trust the experts, but don't assume they're infallible.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":41.0,"score_ratio":3.5714285714} {"post_id":"3rcnoa","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Why are \"gay meccas\" usually larger cities, while \"lesbian meccas\" are usually smaller towns? (In the United States, at least.)","c_root_id_A":"cwmywqo","c_root_id_B":"cwmx2c3","created_at_utc_A":1446566668,"created_at_utc_B":1446563820,"score_A":121,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"Here's an Autostraddle article entitled \"Where Do the Lesbians Live?\". Essentially; * lesbians are more likely to start families, which is easier\/cheaper in rural areas * the inevitable gentrification of gay meccas tends to force out lesbians before it ousts gay men because of systematic factors such as the wage gap * historical associations with butch identities has a tendency to tie lesbians to rural\/farming areas and rural women\/lesbian communes and farming cooperatives are very popular in the community > \u201cLesbian couples are more likely than gay ones to live in rural areas, in part because they seek different things from their hometowns,\u201d Francie Diep writes in The Geography of Queer Folks, summarizing Lisa Wade\u2019s conclusions. \u201cFor example, lesbian couples are much more likely than gay couples to be raising children, the costs of which might be lower outside of cities.\u201d This is perhaps consistent with a recent survey that showed most same-sex couples raising children are doing so in the South. Or, as Lisa Wade summed up one theory on why lesbians might be more comfortable in the rural south than gay men: \u201cIf being \u201cbutch\u201d is normative for people living in rural environments, lesbians who perform masculinity might fit in better than gay men who don\u2019t.\u201d There\u2019s also a strong tradition of rural lesbian communes and rural queer women\u2019s lands, which continues today.","human_ref_B":"I'm not an expert, but can anyone tell me if 'islands of acceptance' are an actual phenomenon? My first thought was that areas where social homosexual acceptance is the norm might exist in rural and urban areas. I thought it also might be more easily advertised\/remembered\/memified (I don't know the word) if it were a specific town instead of a few streets in San Francisco, but I feel that's tenuous speculation on top of another tenuous speculation, which is why I am asking instead of just expositing.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2848.0,"score_ratio":11.0} {"post_id":"3rcnoa","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Why are \"gay meccas\" usually larger cities, while \"lesbian meccas\" are usually smaller towns? (In the United States, at least.)","c_root_id_A":"cwmywqo","c_root_id_B":"cwmwqof","created_at_utc_A":1446566668,"created_at_utc_B":1446563292,"score_A":121,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Here's an Autostraddle article entitled \"Where Do the Lesbians Live?\". Essentially; * lesbians are more likely to start families, which is easier\/cheaper in rural areas * the inevitable gentrification of gay meccas tends to force out lesbians before it ousts gay men because of systematic factors such as the wage gap * historical associations with butch identities has a tendency to tie lesbians to rural\/farming areas and rural women\/lesbian communes and farming cooperatives are very popular in the community > \u201cLesbian couples are more likely than gay ones to live in rural areas, in part because they seek different things from their hometowns,\u201d Francie Diep writes in The Geography of Queer Folks, summarizing Lisa Wade\u2019s conclusions. \u201cFor example, lesbian couples are much more likely than gay couples to be raising children, the costs of which might be lower outside of cities.\u201d This is perhaps consistent with a recent survey that showed most same-sex couples raising children are doing so in the South. Or, as Lisa Wade summed up one theory on why lesbians might be more comfortable in the rural south than gay men: \u201cIf being \u201cbutch\u201d is normative for people living in rural environments, lesbians who perform masculinity might fit in better than gay men who don\u2019t.\u201d There\u2019s also a strong tradition of rural lesbian communes and rural queer women\u2019s lands, which continues today.","human_ref_B":"I'd recommend reading Dan Black \"Why do gay men live in san francisco\". Data on lesbian womenis much more paltry than for gay men, there are really not that many studies on them. https:\/\/ideas.repec.org\/a\/eee\/juecon\/v51y2002i1p54-76.html","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3376.0,"score_ratio":40.3333333333} {"post_id":"3rcnoa","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Why are \"gay meccas\" usually larger cities, while \"lesbian meccas\" are usually smaller towns? (In the United States, at least.)","c_root_id_A":"cwmwqof","c_root_id_B":"cwmx2c3","created_at_utc_A":1446563292,"created_at_utc_B":1446563820,"score_A":3,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"I'd recommend reading Dan Black \"Why do gay men live in san francisco\". Data on lesbian womenis much more paltry than for gay men, there are really not that many studies on them. https:\/\/ideas.repec.org\/a\/eee\/juecon\/v51y2002i1p54-76.html","human_ref_B":"I'm not an expert, but can anyone tell me if 'islands of acceptance' are an actual phenomenon? My first thought was that areas where social homosexual acceptance is the norm might exist in rural and urban areas. I thought it also might be more easily advertised\/remembered\/memified (I don't know the word) if it were a specific town instead of a few streets in San Francisco, but I feel that's tenuous speculation on top of another tenuous speculation, which is why I am asking instead of just expositing.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":528.0,"score_ratio":3.6666666667} {"post_id":"1qteeq","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Why aren't the so called \"terrorists\" of the world using nuclear weapons? I don't want them to, but what is the real reason?","c_root_id_A":"cdgagxo","c_root_id_B":"cdgallk","created_at_utc_A":1384683009,"created_at_utc_B":1384683934,"score_A":20,"score_B":363,"human_ref_A":"The simplest answer, because they don't have them. Nuclear weapons are not easy to develop. Only 8 or 9 countries have had the technical expertise and resources to produce them. None of the stable countries with nuclear arsenals would want a nuclear weapon to be detonated due to the fear of retribution and an all out nuclear war. That leaves the only real sources as less than stable countries that have nuclear arsenals. That is pretty much just limited North Korea, the Soviet Union\/Russia (only available in a few year window centered on the collapse of the USSR), and maybe Pakistan (depending on your opinion of their government). A few sources that discuss the topic: http:\/\/www.cfr.org\/weapons-of-mass-destruction\/terrorists-nuclear-capabilities\/p9550 http:\/\/www.mitpressjournals.org\/doi\/pdfplus\/10.1162\/ISEC_a_00127 http:\/\/www2.gwu.edu\/~nsarchiv\/nukevault\/ebb388\/","human_ref_B":"There are three ways for a terrorist group to obtain a nuclear weapon: * By developing them. * By stealing them. * By being gifted them. According to this study (edit: try this if the other link doesnt work), well-organized terrorists should both be capable of developing nuclear weapons and launching them. The reasons why they haven't developed nuclear weapons is because it is difficult (both Al-Qaeda and Aum Shinrikyo (a Japanese terrorist group trying to achieve a nuclear Armageddon) have tried). Reasons why (p. 146): * Al Qaeda recruits \"have **little technical sophistication and expertise**\" (\"al Qaeda reportedly concluded that its attempt to make nerve gas weapons by relying on the group\u2019s own expertise had \u201cresulted in a waste of effort and money\u201d) * \"Others assert that a group with al Qaeda\u2019s structure of **small cells would not be well suited for an arguably large, long-term project like making a nuclear bomb**, particularly given the substantial operational disruptions sustained since 9\/11\" * \"In the absence of a **stable sanctuary with large fixed facilities**, it would be nearly impossible for a terrorist group to make a nuclear bomb.\" As for being gifted nuclear weapons, an article in the summer edition of International Security (here is a summary of the article) brilliantly explained why governments with nuclear weapons are not in the business of giving them to terrorist groups: Using terrorists to launch your nukes for you only makes sense if you want to use nukes without getting the blame for it: P. 85: > The calculated, \u201cback-door\u201d approach of transferring weapons to terrorists makes sense only if a state fears retaliation. **The core of the nuclearattack- by-proxy argument is that a state otherwise deterred by the threat of retaliation might conduct an attack if it could do so surreptitiously by passing nuclear weapons to terrorists**. Giving nuclear capability to a terrorist group with which the state enjoys close relations and substantial trust could allow the state to conduct the attack while avoiding devastating punishment. That does not make sense though since it would be fairly easy to trace the nukes back to the terrorist sponsoring state: P. 83-84: > We conclude that **neither a terror group nor a state sponsor would remain anonymous after a nuclear terror attack**. We draw this conclusion on the basis of four main \u00aandings. First, data on a decade of terrorist incidents reveal a strong positive relationship between the number of fatalities caused in a terror attack and the likelihood of attribution. Roughly three-quarters of the attacks that kill 100 people or more are **traced back to the perpetrators**. Second, attribution rates are far higher for attacks on the U.S. homeland or the territory of a major U.S. ally\u201497 percent (thirty-six of thirty-seven) for incidents that killed ten or more people. Third, **tracing culpability from a guilty terrorist group back to its state sponsor is not likely to be difficult**: few countries sponsor terrorism; few terrorist groups have state sponsors; each sponsored terror group has few sponsors (typically one); and only one country that sponsors terrorism, Pakistan, has nuclear weapons or enough fissile material to manufacture a weapon. In sum, attribution of nuclear terror incidents would be easier than is typically suggested, and passing weapons to terrorists would not offer countries an escape from the constraints of deterrence. Other reasons why a state would not give nukes to a terrorist organization: > Some analysts are skeptical about such sponsored nuclear terrorism, arguing that a state may not be willing to deplete its small nuclear arsenal or stock of precious nuclear materials. More important, a state sponsor would fear that a terrorist organization might use the weapons or materials in ways the state never intended, provoking retaliation that would destroy the regime.14 Nuclear weapons are the most powerful weapons a state can acquire, and handing that power to an actor over which the state has less than complete control would be an enormous, epochal decision\u2014one unlikely to be taken by regimes that are typically obsessed with power and their own survival. So to conclude, the reason why terrorists haven't obtained nuclear weapons is because it is hard to obtain them (at least through development or gifting) and trying to do so would be a waste of resources. edit: Note that I didn't adress the buying\/stealing of nuclear weapons (which is relevant to the \"loose nukes\" question) as I forgot. I can not provide an answer that satisfies the criteria to that specific question, so I encourage someone in the know to adress that one.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":925.0,"score_ratio":18.15} {"post_id":"ae0h8a","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"What is the best social science paper that you have read in 2018 and why?","c_root_id_A":"edlxydj","c_root_id_B":"edm1jqa","created_at_utc_A":1547004325,"created_at_utc_B":1547007425,"score_A":8,"score_B":22,"human_ref_A":"Coping with Economic Hardship in Argentina: How Material Interests Affect Individuals\u2019 Political Interests.","human_ref_B":"Can I cheat and give an essay collection? Jackie Wang's *Carceral Capitalism* is a great exploration of the novel ways our economy dispossesses people. If you're interested in mass incarceration or identity\/class politics definitely give it a look.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3100.0,"score_ratio":2.75} {"post_id":"8fbrit","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"What keeps so many people from internalizing sociology and psychology? No matter if you go politically left or right, people always seem to not be able to really grasp the consequences of psychological\/sociological imagination. They always think they know the basics and agree with those disciplines on a shallow level, but then go into tangents that show how they do not really see social or personal phenomena through the lens of those sciences. It often means they will switch to antiscientific, hyper-individualist perspective (regardless if they are talking about nationalism or gender identity) and shut you off. Is there any literature on the topic? Some comparisons between societies or countries? Or maybe even essays by famous sociologists or psychologists on the popular \"understanding\" of their disciplines?","c_root_id_A":"dy2jw8c","c_root_id_B":"dy2asws","created_at_utc_A":1524849660,"created_at_utc_B":1524842015,"score_A":100,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"This is a great question that I have thought about a million times. I have actually spent a lot of time trying to find a book on it, but I have not come across one that is *specifically* about Sociology or Psychology. I first started to think about this when I was getting my masters degree (in Sociology). Often times I was super excited to share the things I would learn with my family and friends, and how the things I was (and still am) learning are often in contradiction to the things I was told\/learned growing up. For context, I'm a white girl who grew up in an upper-middle class politically conservative suburb in a large city with successful parents, and I was always given everything I wanted\/needed. I considered myself a Christian and I told people that I was a republican (although I knew nothing about politics and was just identifying with my parents). Then I started studying Soci and my entire perspective on the world changed. It opened my eyes and forced me to look beyond my tunnel vision of society. It was really hard at times to come to terms with things that I thought I already understood, especially social issues that I had never thought about before or issues that had always been presented to me in a one-sided, biased manner. A good example of this is the trope of the Welfare Queen. I was told that poor people, esp. poor black people, were moochers and only wanted handouts because they were lazy and didn't want to get a job. Of course, I learned that the Welfare Queen (and welfare \"fraud\") is a myth that was promulgated by Ronald Regan in order to stigmatize people in poverty so that he could convince Americans that rolling back the social safety net was justified because it was only being used by poor black (read: undeserving) citizens. The truth is that most people on welfare *do* have jobs (i.e. the 'working poor'). Also, the welfare reforms of 1996 created a 5-year maximum lifetime cap on benefits so that welfare \"cheaters\" (which did not exist anywhere near the level that we're often told) were literally unable to collect benefits for life (also, contrary to popular opinion, women do not have more babies to get more benefits. In fact, if a woman has a child *while* receiving benefits, she and her family will be removed from the rolls). Welfare is probably one of the least understood\/mischaracterized social issue in American society. Science in general is often met with the sting of anti-intellectualism, which is part of the answer to your question. However, I think *social* science in particular gets it worse than the 'natural' sciences like Biology and Chemistry. I used to say that it was because people were generally more suspect of social sciences, but I think it's more than that. People like to dismiss facts about social issues that they don't agree with or have a different view on because it's much easier to disagree that we live in a post-racial society (we don't) than it is to disagree on the functions of bodily organs. People also tend to conflate their individual life experiences with overall reality (i.e. \"well, i've never experienced blank] so it must not be true or its exaggerated\" or \"well, I know someone who is [blank] but [blank] doesn't happen to them\"). You get what I am saying here? Most people don't question or critically think about social norms or commonsense 'truths' because these 'truths' are so embedded in our milieu that its hard to imagine otherwise. So instead of thinking critically, people dismiss sociological knowledge as either \"elitist\" or \"not real science\" so that they can remain undisturbed in their own little worlds. Once I saw a question on r\/askreddit that asked what the slogan of your college major or job would be. I would say, \"Sociology: reminding people of uncomfortable truths since 1838\" or \"Sociology: everything you were taught about society was a big lie\" lol. I'm sorry I can't find any literature for you, but I can recommend these instead: [Anti-Intellectualism in American Life The Death of Expertise: The Campaign Against Established Knowledge and Why it Matters.","human_ref_B":"I don't have a short answer to this question, but Daniel Kahneman's book Thinking Fast and Slow really gets into the issues between knowing about psychological phenomena, and actually applying the concepts day to day. Basically, knowing about bias and how they affect social phenomena doesn't necessarily make an individual better at internalizing the introspective evaluation necessary to evaluate one's own biases. This can become especially obvious when the bias is an ideological belief.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7645.0,"score_ratio":7.1428571429} {"post_id":"8fbrit","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"What keeps so many people from internalizing sociology and psychology? No matter if you go politically left or right, people always seem to not be able to really grasp the consequences of psychological\/sociological imagination. They always think they know the basics and agree with those disciplines on a shallow level, but then go into tangents that show how they do not really see social or personal phenomena through the lens of those sciences. It often means they will switch to antiscientific, hyper-individualist perspective (regardless if they are talking about nationalism or gender identity) and shut you off. Is there any literature on the topic? Some comparisons between societies or countries? Or maybe even essays by famous sociologists or psychologists on the popular \"understanding\" of their disciplines?","c_root_id_A":"dy2jw8c","c_root_id_B":"dy2i4sg","created_at_utc_A":1524849660,"created_at_utc_B":1524848170,"score_A":100,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"This is a great question that I have thought about a million times. I have actually spent a lot of time trying to find a book on it, but I have not come across one that is *specifically* about Sociology or Psychology. I first started to think about this when I was getting my masters degree (in Sociology). Often times I was super excited to share the things I would learn with my family and friends, and how the things I was (and still am) learning are often in contradiction to the things I was told\/learned growing up. For context, I'm a white girl who grew up in an upper-middle class politically conservative suburb in a large city with successful parents, and I was always given everything I wanted\/needed. I considered myself a Christian and I told people that I was a republican (although I knew nothing about politics and was just identifying with my parents). Then I started studying Soci and my entire perspective on the world changed. It opened my eyes and forced me to look beyond my tunnel vision of society. It was really hard at times to come to terms with things that I thought I already understood, especially social issues that I had never thought about before or issues that had always been presented to me in a one-sided, biased manner. A good example of this is the trope of the Welfare Queen. I was told that poor people, esp. poor black people, were moochers and only wanted handouts because they were lazy and didn't want to get a job. Of course, I learned that the Welfare Queen (and welfare \"fraud\") is a myth that was promulgated by Ronald Regan in order to stigmatize people in poverty so that he could convince Americans that rolling back the social safety net was justified because it was only being used by poor black (read: undeserving) citizens. The truth is that most people on welfare *do* have jobs (i.e. the 'working poor'). Also, the welfare reforms of 1996 created a 5-year maximum lifetime cap on benefits so that welfare \"cheaters\" (which did not exist anywhere near the level that we're often told) were literally unable to collect benefits for life (also, contrary to popular opinion, women do not have more babies to get more benefits. In fact, if a woman has a child *while* receiving benefits, she and her family will be removed from the rolls). Welfare is probably one of the least understood\/mischaracterized social issue in American society. Science in general is often met with the sting of anti-intellectualism, which is part of the answer to your question. However, I think *social* science in particular gets it worse than the 'natural' sciences like Biology and Chemistry. I used to say that it was because people were generally more suspect of social sciences, but I think it's more than that. People like to dismiss facts about social issues that they don't agree with or have a different view on because it's much easier to disagree that we live in a post-racial society (we don't) than it is to disagree on the functions of bodily organs. People also tend to conflate their individual life experiences with overall reality (i.e. \"well, i've never experienced blank] so it must not be true or its exaggerated\" or \"well, I know someone who is [blank] but [blank] doesn't happen to them\"). You get what I am saying here? Most people don't question or critically think about social norms or commonsense 'truths' because these 'truths' are so embedded in our milieu that its hard to imagine otherwise. So instead of thinking critically, people dismiss sociological knowledge as either \"elitist\" or \"not real science\" so that they can remain undisturbed in their own little worlds. Once I saw a question on r\/askreddit that asked what the slogan of your college major or job would be. I would say, \"Sociology: reminding people of uncomfortable truths since 1838\" or \"Sociology: everything you were taught about society was a big lie\" lol. I'm sorry I can't find any literature for you, but I can recommend these instead: [Anti-Intellectualism in American Life The Death of Expertise: The Campaign Against Established Knowledge and Why it Matters.","human_ref_B":"\"the righteous mind\" is a fantastic book that you should check out","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1490.0,"score_ratio":9.0909090909} {"post_id":"95g362","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"What is the current scientific consensus about the pros and cons of homeschooling?","c_root_id_A":"e3t44yd","c_root_id_B":"e3tp4un","created_at_utc_A":1533704160,"created_at_utc_B":1533736848,"score_A":13,"score_B":19,"human_ref_A":"There is an extensive recent review publicly accessible here: https:\/\/othereducation.org\/index.php\/OE\/article\/view\/10\/55","human_ref_B":"I think you are going to struggle to find a solid consensus because so many variable factors confound the model. Parents homeschool for dramatically different reasons, with dramatically different qualifications and under very different regulations. For example, a young, high school educated couple who is homeschooling for religious purposes. vs. a college educated couple who is homeschooling because they have the economic resources for one parent to stay home and provide an education that they hope is superior to public school. These two couples are going to use different homeschool programs, are going to have different standards of achievement for their children, are going to have different depths of understanding of the material even before you add in the normal educational variability of individual students. Some parents homeschool literally just to be able to control their children\u2019s exposure to outside influences completely. There\u2019s a push in some states to mandate a yearly doctor\u2019s visit for homeschool children just to ensure there is regular contact between the kids and a mandatory reporter. It\u2019s gained steam in recent months after the child abuse case in Fairfield, CA. There is also a fairly wide variability in state oversight in terms of standardized testing, parent qualifications and formalization of the homeschooling process. When I was homeschooled in Texas, in the mid to late 1990s, there was basically 0 oversight. I never took a standardized test or had to do anything to prove my mother was actually teaching me anything. There\u2019s a reason most of the practicers of the \u201csovereign citizen\u201d movement are in Texas. This article does a good job of summing it up, but it focuses within a single curriculum and doesn\u2019t compare to outside educated kids. The lit review has some other great sources though! Parents who are motivated by being critical of the school and conservative political values (not religious) tended to have significantly better performing children. http:\/\/majorsmatter.net\/schools\/Readings\/Collom%20EUS2005.pdf","labels":0,"seconds_difference":32688.0,"score_ratio":1.4615384615} {"post_id":"1u485v","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"How would you structure a Semester-long High School Sociology class? I myself just inherited one and I start in six days. So, yeah. change in faculty means I've picked up my first ever High School Sociology class which Starts next week. I'm not at square one, I know the field a bit, took classes in it back in college, thought I had a pretty good handle on it back in the day, but yikes... I'm an AP European History teacher who doesn't want to phone in this recent singleton. I really, honestly want to construct a valid and valuable course for these kids, but I am a bit behind the eight ball here. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Any Syllabus will be perused and doted over. And honestly, any ideas would be super helpful at this point. Wish me luck.","c_root_id_A":"ceech3p","c_root_id_B":"ceedzcz","created_at_utc_A":1388525083,"created_at_utc_B":1388529152,"score_A":30,"score_B":43,"human_ref_A":"Break the class down into 18 weeks. The first week or two should be an introduction to sociology, including historical and modern uses and a brief outlne of the \"greatest hits\" over the centuies, including the big names. These first two weeks could be videos supplemented with your talking (testing) points both before and after. Use the videos for further in-class planning time. Multi-task. Then, after your introduction, hit the highlights you mentioned in greater detail. A week or two on each, then a quiz. Give a midterm and a non-comprehensive final. Also, given that you teach history, use what you know and point out the correlation between history's major points and sociological changes. Work that ass! Ta da! A class.","human_ref_B":"I'm going to encourage our moderators (myself included) to allow non-cited and sourced answers to this rather unique question.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4069.0,"score_ratio":1.4333333333} {"post_id":"1u485v","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"How would you structure a Semester-long High School Sociology class? I myself just inherited one and I start in six days. So, yeah. change in faculty means I've picked up my first ever High School Sociology class which Starts next week. I'm not at square one, I know the field a bit, took classes in it back in college, thought I had a pretty good handle on it back in the day, but yikes... I'm an AP European History teacher who doesn't want to phone in this recent singleton. I really, honestly want to construct a valid and valuable course for these kids, but I am a bit behind the eight ball here. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Any Syllabus will be perused and doted over. And honestly, any ideas would be super helpful at this point. Wish me luck.","c_root_id_A":"ceedzcz","c_root_id_B":"ceedczo","created_at_utc_A":1388529152,"created_at_utc_B":1388527447,"score_A":43,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"I'm going to encourage our moderators (myself included) to allow non-cited and sourced answers to this rather unique question.","human_ref_B":"It might sound a bit weird but I took a sociology 101 class in college called \"The Sociology of Star Trek\". Each week we watched a new Star Trek: The Next Generation episode. Since we were discussing sociological concepts that are cross cultural, we simply used the STNG culture in place of our own when pointing out the basic concepts of sociology. It kept the class very interesting while we still covered all the basic concepts in an introductory course. I'm not sure if that helps a lot, but that was a great way (for me) to learn about the subject.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1705.0,"score_ratio":3.3076923077} {"post_id":"1u485v","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"How would you structure a Semester-long High School Sociology class? I myself just inherited one and I start in six days. So, yeah. change in faculty means I've picked up my first ever High School Sociology class which Starts next week. I'm not at square one, I know the field a bit, took classes in it back in college, thought I had a pretty good handle on it back in the day, but yikes... I'm an AP European History teacher who doesn't want to phone in this recent singleton. I really, honestly want to construct a valid and valuable course for these kids, but I am a bit behind the eight ball here. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Any Syllabus will be perused and doted over. And honestly, any ideas would be super helpful at this point. Wish me luck.","c_root_id_A":"ceedyov","c_root_id_B":"ceedzcz","created_at_utc_A":1388529103,"created_at_utc_B":1388529152,"score_A":7,"score_B":43,"human_ref_A":"Apart from what the_ouskull has said, you can make use of resources such as the site Sociological Images to make your students get used to sociological thinking and writing in small, approachable ways.","human_ref_B":"I'm going to encourage our moderators (myself included) to allow non-cited and sourced answers to this rather unique question.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":49.0,"score_ratio":6.1428571429} {"post_id":"1u485v","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"How would you structure a Semester-long High School Sociology class? I myself just inherited one and I start in six days. So, yeah. change in faculty means I've picked up my first ever High School Sociology class which Starts next week. I'm not at square one, I know the field a bit, took classes in it back in college, thought I had a pretty good handle on it back in the day, but yikes... I'm an AP European History teacher who doesn't want to phone in this recent singleton. I really, honestly want to construct a valid and valuable course for these kids, but I am a bit behind the eight ball here. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Any Syllabus will be perused and doted over. And honestly, any ideas would be super helpful at this point. Wish me luck.","c_root_id_A":"ceedaqz","c_root_id_B":"ceedzcz","created_at_utc_A":1388527278,"created_at_utc_B":1388529152,"score_A":5,"score_B":43,"human_ref_A":"What an interesting class! I'm not an educator, but I would recommend anything that would encourage a dialogue with your students. A few ideas: * How people deal with grief * Societies perception of mental illness * Different cultural perspectives domestic and abroad * Ask your students to talk about what brings them joy in life * Social Media and it's impact on our lives (How it can often lead to making one feel inadequate because they're comparing their everyday to someone else's highlight reel)","human_ref_B":"I'm going to encourage our moderators (myself included) to allow non-cited and sourced answers to this rather unique question.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1874.0,"score_ratio":8.6} {"post_id":"1u485v","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"How would you structure a Semester-long High School Sociology class? I myself just inherited one and I start in six days. So, yeah. change in faculty means I've picked up my first ever High School Sociology class which Starts next week. I'm not at square one, I know the field a bit, took classes in it back in college, thought I had a pretty good handle on it back in the day, but yikes... I'm an AP European History teacher who doesn't want to phone in this recent singleton. I really, honestly want to construct a valid and valuable course for these kids, but I am a bit behind the eight ball here. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Any Syllabus will be perused and doted over. And honestly, any ideas would be super helpful at this point. Wish me luck.","c_root_id_A":"ceedvgs","c_root_id_B":"ceedzcz","created_at_utc_A":1388528858,"created_at_utc_B":1388529152,"score_A":3,"score_B":43,"human_ref_A":"Gosh, what a great assignment and what a great opportunity! Good move to ask here for some tips. If you're in the U.S., I expect that your state has a curriculum frameworks document of some sort for approved courses. If it exists, then naturally you'll be obligated to follow it. Does one exist for this course or are you really on your own? Looking forward to reading the advice you get here. Be sure to let us know what you decide to do, and how it works out.","human_ref_B":"I'm going to encourage our moderators (myself included) to allow non-cited and sourced answers to this rather unique question.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":294.0,"score_ratio":14.3333333333} {"post_id":"1u485v","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"How would you structure a Semester-long High School Sociology class? I myself just inherited one and I start in six days. So, yeah. change in faculty means I've picked up my first ever High School Sociology class which Starts next week. I'm not at square one, I know the field a bit, took classes in it back in college, thought I had a pretty good handle on it back in the day, but yikes... I'm an AP European History teacher who doesn't want to phone in this recent singleton. I really, honestly want to construct a valid and valuable course for these kids, but I am a bit behind the eight ball here. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Any Syllabus will be perused and doted over. And honestly, any ideas would be super helpful at this point. Wish me luck.","c_root_id_A":"ceedaqz","c_root_id_B":"ceedczo","created_at_utc_A":1388527278,"created_at_utc_B":1388527447,"score_A":5,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"What an interesting class! I'm not an educator, but I would recommend anything that would encourage a dialogue with your students. A few ideas: * How people deal with grief * Societies perception of mental illness * Different cultural perspectives domestic and abroad * Ask your students to talk about what brings them joy in life * Social Media and it's impact on our lives (How it can often lead to making one feel inadequate because they're comparing their everyday to someone else's highlight reel)","human_ref_B":"It might sound a bit weird but I took a sociology 101 class in college called \"The Sociology of Star Trek\". Each week we watched a new Star Trek: The Next Generation episode. Since we were discussing sociological concepts that are cross cultural, we simply used the STNG culture in place of our own when pointing out the basic concepts of sociology. It kept the class very interesting while we still covered all the basic concepts in an introductory course. I'm not sure if that helps a lot, but that was a great way (for me) to learn about the subject.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":169.0,"score_ratio":2.6} {"post_id":"1u485v","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"How would you structure a Semester-long High School Sociology class? I myself just inherited one and I start in six days. So, yeah. change in faculty means I've picked up my first ever High School Sociology class which Starts next week. I'm not at square one, I know the field a bit, took classes in it back in college, thought I had a pretty good handle on it back in the day, but yikes... I'm an AP European History teacher who doesn't want to phone in this recent singleton. I really, honestly want to construct a valid and valuable course for these kids, but I am a bit behind the eight ball here. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Any Syllabus will be perused and doted over. And honestly, any ideas would be super helpful at this point. Wish me luck.","c_root_id_A":"ceefcxv","c_root_id_B":"ceedyov","created_at_utc_A":1388533105,"created_at_utc_B":1388529103,"score_A":9,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"I taught for two years while in graduate school. The courses I taught were basically in my subject area, but I hadn't taken those exact courses myself as an undergraduate. I relied heavily on two sources for course design: 1) Department\/peer resources 2) The textbook(s) I used for the course As it sounds like you don't have a lot of mandated curricula to cover, I'd recommend finding an extremely good H.S. Sociology textbook and structuring your course around it (1 chapter per week with extra time built in for tests, review, projects, etc.). Many textbooks will even have built-in assignments and projects that you could adapt to your purposes. This suggestion is not based on my knowledge of sociology so much as on the survival skills I picked up while teaching. You could, of course, decide which parts of the book you're most interested in covering during the semester. TL;DR: If you can find a good H.S.-level Sociology textbook, let that book do a lot of your course planning for you. (I'll leave it to the Sociology experts to recommend any specific textbooks\/authors.) Good luck!","human_ref_B":"Apart from what the_ouskull has said, you can make use of resources such as the site Sociological Images to make your students get used to sociological thinking and writing in small, approachable ways.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4002.0,"score_ratio":1.2857142857} {"post_id":"1u485v","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"How would you structure a Semester-long High School Sociology class? I myself just inherited one and I start in six days. So, yeah. change in faculty means I've picked up my first ever High School Sociology class which Starts next week. I'm not at square one, I know the field a bit, took classes in it back in college, thought I had a pretty good handle on it back in the day, but yikes... I'm an AP European History teacher who doesn't want to phone in this recent singleton. I really, honestly want to construct a valid and valuable course for these kids, but I am a bit behind the eight ball here. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Any Syllabus will be perused and doted over. And honestly, any ideas would be super helpful at this point. Wish me luck.","c_root_id_A":"ceedaqz","c_root_id_B":"ceefcxv","created_at_utc_A":1388527278,"created_at_utc_B":1388533105,"score_A":5,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"What an interesting class! I'm not an educator, but I would recommend anything that would encourage a dialogue with your students. A few ideas: * How people deal with grief * Societies perception of mental illness * Different cultural perspectives domestic and abroad * Ask your students to talk about what brings them joy in life * Social Media and it's impact on our lives (How it can often lead to making one feel inadequate because they're comparing their everyday to someone else's highlight reel)","human_ref_B":"I taught for two years while in graduate school. The courses I taught were basically in my subject area, but I hadn't taken those exact courses myself as an undergraduate. I relied heavily on two sources for course design: 1) Department\/peer resources 2) The textbook(s) I used for the course As it sounds like you don't have a lot of mandated curricula to cover, I'd recommend finding an extremely good H.S. Sociology textbook and structuring your course around it (1 chapter per week with extra time built in for tests, review, projects, etc.). Many textbooks will even have built-in assignments and projects that you could adapt to your purposes. This suggestion is not based on my knowledge of sociology so much as on the survival skills I picked up while teaching. You could, of course, decide which parts of the book you're most interested in covering during the semester. TL;DR: If you can find a good H.S.-level Sociology textbook, let that book do a lot of your course planning for you. (I'll leave it to the Sociology experts to recommend any specific textbooks\/authors.) Good luck!","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5827.0,"score_ratio":1.8} {"post_id":"1u485v","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"How would you structure a Semester-long High School Sociology class? I myself just inherited one and I start in six days. So, yeah. change in faculty means I've picked up my first ever High School Sociology class which Starts next week. I'm not at square one, I know the field a bit, took classes in it back in college, thought I had a pretty good handle on it back in the day, but yikes... I'm an AP European History teacher who doesn't want to phone in this recent singleton. I really, honestly want to construct a valid and valuable course for these kids, but I am a bit behind the eight ball here. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Any Syllabus will be perused and doted over. And honestly, any ideas would be super helpful at this point. Wish me luck.","c_root_id_A":"ceedvgs","c_root_id_B":"ceefcxv","created_at_utc_A":1388528858,"created_at_utc_B":1388533105,"score_A":3,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"Gosh, what a great assignment and what a great opportunity! Good move to ask here for some tips. If you're in the U.S., I expect that your state has a curriculum frameworks document of some sort for approved courses. If it exists, then naturally you'll be obligated to follow it. Does one exist for this course or are you really on your own? Looking forward to reading the advice you get here. Be sure to let us know what you decide to do, and how it works out.","human_ref_B":"I taught for two years while in graduate school. The courses I taught were basically in my subject area, but I hadn't taken those exact courses myself as an undergraduate. I relied heavily on two sources for course design: 1) Department\/peer resources 2) The textbook(s) I used for the course As it sounds like you don't have a lot of mandated curricula to cover, I'd recommend finding an extremely good H.S. Sociology textbook and structuring your course around it (1 chapter per week with extra time built in for tests, review, projects, etc.). Many textbooks will even have built-in assignments and projects that you could adapt to your purposes. This suggestion is not based on my knowledge of sociology so much as on the survival skills I picked up while teaching. You could, of course, decide which parts of the book you're most interested in covering during the semester. TL;DR: If you can find a good H.S.-level Sociology textbook, let that book do a lot of your course planning for you. (I'll leave it to the Sociology experts to recommend any specific textbooks\/authors.) Good luck!","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4247.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"1u485v","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"How would you structure a Semester-long High School Sociology class? I myself just inherited one and I start in six days. So, yeah. change in faculty means I've picked up my first ever High School Sociology class which Starts next week. I'm not at square one, I know the field a bit, took classes in it back in college, thought I had a pretty good handle on it back in the day, but yikes... I'm an AP European History teacher who doesn't want to phone in this recent singleton. I really, honestly want to construct a valid and valuable course for these kids, but I am a bit behind the eight ball here. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Any Syllabus will be perused and doted over. And honestly, any ideas would be super helpful at this point. Wish me luck.","c_root_id_A":"ceedaqz","c_root_id_B":"ceedyov","created_at_utc_A":1388527278,"created_at_utc_B":1388529103,"score_A":5,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"What an interesting class! I'm not an educator, but I would recommend anything that would encourage a dialogue with your students. A few ideas: * How people deal with grief * Societies perception of mental illness * Different cultural perspectives domestic and abroad * Ask your students to talk about what brings them joy in life * Social Media and it's impact on our lives (How it can often lead to making one feel inadequate because they're comparing their everyday to someone else's highlight reel)","human_ref_B":"Apart from what the_ouskull has said, you can make use of resources such as the site Sociological Images to make your students get used to sociological thinking and writing in small, approachable ways.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1825.0,"score_ratio":1.4} {"post_id":"1u485v","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"How would you structure a Semester-long High School Sociology class? I myself just inherited one and I start in six days. So, yeah. change in faculty means I've picked up my first ever High School Sociology class which Starts next week. I'm not at square one, I know the field a bit, took classes in it back in college, thought I had a pretty good handle on it back in the day, but yikes... I'm an AP European History teacher who doesn't want to phone in this recent singleton. I really, honestly want to construct a valid and valuable course for these kids, but I am a bit behind the eight ball here. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Any Syllabus will be perused and doted over. And honestly, any ideas would be super helpful at this point. Wish me luck.","c_root_id_A":"ceedvgs","c_root_id_B":"ceedyov","created_at_utc_A":1388528858,"created_at_utc_B":1388529103,"score_A":3,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Gosh, what a great assignment and what a great opportunity! Good move to ask here for some tips. If you're in the U.S., I expect that your state has a curriculum frameworks document of some sort for approved courses. If it exists, then naturally you'll be obligated to follow it. Does one exist for this course or are you really on your own? Looking forward to reading the advice you get here. Be sure to let us know what you decide to do, and how it works out.","human_ref_B":"Apart from what the_ouskull has said, you can make use of resources such as the site Sociological Images to make your students get used to sociological thinking and writing in small, approachable ways.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":245.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333} {"post_id":"1u485v","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"How would you structure a Semester-long High School Sociology class? I myself just inherited one and I start in six days. So, yeah. change in faculty means I've picked up my first ever High School Sociology class which Starts next week. I'm not at square one, I know the field a bit, took classes in it back in college, thought I had a pretty good handle on it back in the day, but yikes... I'm an AP European History teacher who doesn't want to phone in this recent singleton. I really, honestly want to construct a valid and valuable course for these kids, but I am a bit behind the eight ball here. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Any Syllabus will be perused and doted over. And honestly, any ideas would be super helpful at this point. Wish me luck.","c_root_id_A":"ceeg691","c_root_id_B":"ceegrmi","created_at_utc_A":1388535529,"created_at_utc_B":1388537291,"score_A":4,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"I would suggest asking r\/teaching or r\/teacher these subs have a lot to offer. Dont forget its a high school class. Too much detail and you will lose them. Show them how it is useful and great science to apply. Wake some people up. Just be careful that students dont confuse your material for your own opinion.","human_ref_B":"This is the way that my adviser went over Sociological Theory, and may be useful for you: -Started with Durkheim's Functionalism -Marxism -Weber's biggest theory -Social interactionism Those four are the major schools of thought that really provide the basis for others. Other subgroups I highly recommend covering after that are: -Race Theory -Gender Theory -Elite Theory And if you have time AFTER that, try to cover post modernism, but Baudrillard might be a little too much for highschoolers to handle. But it's really important for them to get the basics down (Functionalism, Symbolic Interactionism, etc), and I personally believe it's very important for highschoolers to learn about social justice theories that handle racism, sexism, and classicism. I hope this helps!","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1762.0,"score_ratio":1.75} {"post_id":"1u485v","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"How would you structure a Semester-long High School Sociology class? I myself just inherited one and I start in six days. So, yeah. change in faculty means I've picked up my first ever High School Sociology class which Starts next week. I'm not at square one, I know the field a bit, took classes in it back in college, thought I had a pretty good handle on it back in the day, but yikes... I'm an AP European History teacher who doesn't want to phone in this recent singleton. I really, honestly want to construct a valid and valuable course for these kids, but I am a bit behind the eight ball here. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Any Syllabus will be perused and doted over. And honestly, any ideas would be super helpful at this point. Wish me luck.","c_root_id_A":"ceedaqz","c_root_id_B":"ceegrmi","created_at_utc_A":1388527278,"created_at_utc_B":1388537291,"score_A":5,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"What an interesting class! I'm not an educator, but I would recommend anything that would encourage a dialogue with your students. A few ideas: * How people deal with grief * Societies perception of mental illness * Different cultural perspectives domestic and abroad * Ask your students to talk about what brings them joy in life * Social Media and it's impact on our lives (How it can often lead to making one feel inadequate because they're comparing their everyday to someone else's highlight reel)","human_ref_B":"This is the way that my adviser went over Sociological Theory, and may be useful for you: -Started with Durkheim's Functionalism -Marxism -Weber's biggest theory -Social interactionism Those four are the major schools of thought that really provide the basis for others. Other subgroups I highly recommend covering after that are: -Race Theory -Gender Theory -Elite Theory And if you have time AFTER that, try to cover post modernism, but Baudrillard might be a little too much for highschoolers to handle. But it's really important for them to get the basics down (Functionalism, Symbolic Interactionism, etc), and I personally believe it's very important for highschoolers to learn about social justice theories that handle racism, sexism, and classicism. I hope this helps!","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10013.0,"score_ratio":1.4} {"post_id":"1u485v","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"How would you structure a Semester-long High School Sociology class? I myself just inherited one and I start in six days. So, yeah. change in faculty means I've picked up my first ever High School Sociology class which Starts next week. I'm not at square one, I know the field a bit, took classes in it back in college, thought I had a pretty good handle on it back in the day, but yikes... I'm an AP European History teacher who doesn't want to phone in this recent singleton. I really, honestly want to construct a valid and valuable course for these kids, but I am a bit behind the eight ball here. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Any Syllabus will be perused and doted over. And honestly, any ideas would be super helpful at this point. Wish me luck.","c_root_id_A":"ceegjzq","c_root_id_B":"ceegrmi","created_at_utc_A":1388536650,"created_at_utc_B":1388537291,"score_A":4,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"I just took a class over the Psychology of Grief and really enjoyed the class. Specifically how we have constructed society to not have to deal with dying up close and personal anymore due to the institutionalizations of death. I am a Philosophy major though and concentrate a lot on modernity stuff from Adorno and the other Frankfurters. I have no clue how I would make a high school level class with that information in it though. Assumes understanding of Marx. It is a very very interesting topic and depending on composition of students can be a huge hit! (Hipsters eat up proletariat stuff).","human_ref_B":"This is the way that my adviser went over Sociological Theory, and may be useful for you: -Started with Durkheim's Functionalism -Marxism -Weber's biggest theory -Social interactionism Those four are the major schools of thought that really provide the basis for others. Other subgroups I highly recommend covering after that are: -Race Theory -Gender Theory -Elite Theory And if you have time AFTER that, try to cover post modernism, but Baudrillard might be a little too much for highschoolers to handle. But it's really important for them to get the basics down (Functionalism, Symbolic Interactionism, etc), and I personally believe it's very important for highschoolers to learn about social justice theories that handle racism, sexism, and classicism. I hope this helps!","labels":0,"seconds_difference":641.0,"score_ratio":1.75} {"post_id":"1u485v","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"How would you structure a Semester-long High School Sociology class? I myself just inherited one and I start in six days. So, yeah. change in faculty means I've picked up my first ever High School Sociology class which Starts next week. I'm not at square one, I know the field a bit, took classes in it back in college, thought I had a pretty good handle on it back in the day, but yikes... I'm an AP European History teacher who doesn't want to phone in this recent singleton. I really, honestly want to construct a valid and valuable course for these kids, but I am a bit behind the eight ball here. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Any Syllabus will be perused and doted over. And honestly, any ideas would be super helpful at this point. Wish me luck.","c_root_id_A":"ceedvgs","c_root_id_B":"ceegrmi","created_at_utc_A":1388528858,"created_at_utc_B":1388537291,"score_A":3,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Gosh, what a great assignment and what a great opportunity! Good move to ask here for some tips. If you're in the U.S., I expect that your state has a curriculum frameworks document of some sort for approved courses. If it exists, then naturally you'll be obligated to follow it. Does one exist for this course or are you really on your own? Looking forward to reading the advice you get here. Be sure to let us know what you decide to do, and how it works out.","human_ref_B":"This is the way that my adviser went over Sociological Theory, and may be useful for you: -Started with Durkheim's Functionalism -Marxism -Weber's biggest theory -Social interactionism Those four are the major schools of thought that really provide the basis for others. Other subgroups I highly recommend covering after that are: -Race Theory -Gender Theory -Elite Theory And if you have time AFTER that, try to cover post modernism, but Baudrillard might be a little too much for highschoolers to handle. But it's really important for them to get the basics down (Functionalism, Symbolic Interactionism, etc), and I personally believe it's very important for highschoolers to learn about social justice theories that handle racism, sexism, and classicism. I hope this helps!","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8433.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333} {"post_id":"1u485v","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"How would you structure a Semester-long High School Sociology class? I myself just inherited one and I start in six days. So, yeah. change in faculty means I've picked up my first ever High School Sociology class which Starts next week. I'm not at square one, I know the field a bit, took classes in it back in college, thought I had a pretty good handle on it back in the day, but yikes... I'm an AP European History teacher who doesn't want to phone in this recent singleton. I really, honestly want to construct a valid and valuable course for these kids, but I am a bit behind the eight ball here. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Any Syllabus will be perused and doted over. And honestly, any ideas would be super helpful at this point. Wish me luck.","c_root_id_A":"ceegrmi","c_root_id_B":"ceefey7","created_at_utc_A":1388537291,"created_at_utc_B":1388533263,"score_A":7,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"This is the way that my adviser went over Sociological Theory, and may be useful for you: -Started with Durkheim's Functionalism -Marxism -Weber's biggest theory -Social interactionism Those four are the major schools of thought that really provide the basis for others. Other subgroups I highly recommend covering after that are: -Race Theory -Gender Theory -Elite Theory And if you have time AFTER that, try to cover post modernism, but Baudrillard might be a little too much for highschoolers to handle. But it's really important for them to get the basics down (Functionalism, Symbolic Interactionism, etc), and I personally believe it's very important for highschoolers to learn about social justice theories that handle racism, sexism, and classicism. I hope this helps!","human_ref_B":"im currently a high schooler and in my school the sociology class is known as a joke. i dont know what i could add to this discussion but i hope you do a great job teaching the class.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4028.0,"score_ratio":3.5} {"post_id":"1u485v","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"How would you structure a Semester-long High School Sociology class? I myself just inherited one and I start in six days. So, yeah. change in faculty means I've picked up my first ever High School Sociology class which Starts next week. I'm not at square one, I know the field a bit, took classes in it back in college, thought I had a pretty good handle on it back in the day, but yikes... I'm an AP European History teacher who doesn't want to phone in this recent singleton. I really, honestly want to construct a valid and valuable course for these kids, but I am a bit behind the eight ball here. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Any Syllabus will be perused and doted over. And honestly, any ideas would be super helpful at this point. Wish me luck.","c_root_id_A":"ceeg691","c_root_id_B":"ceek1xn","created_at_utc_A":1388535529,"created_at_utc_B":1388548048,"score_A":4,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"I would suggest asking r\/teaching or r\/teacher these subs have a lot to offer. Dont forget its a high school class. Too much detail and you will lose them. Show them how it is useful and great science to apply. Wake some people up. Just be careful that students dont confuse your material for your own opinion.","human_ref_B":"Try to research the syllabus of Cambridge GCSE Examination system! I took Sociology in highschool that was deemed equivalent of 1st year University Sociology at a Canadian University (Transfer credit). The last I recall Cambridge GCSE publishes it's syllabi online. The Cambridge versions of the GCSE are administered all over the British Commonwealth (O and A Level). I was personally happy with the experience I got with that syllabus, covered me well for upper level courses for Sociology ending up being one of my BA's.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12519.0,"score_ratio":1.75} {"post_id":"1u485v","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"How would you structure a Semester-long High School Sociology class? I myself just inherited one and I start in six days. So, yeah. change in faculty means I've picked up my first ever High School Sociology class which Starts next week. I'm not at square one, I know the field a bit, took classes in it back in college, thought I had a pretty good handle on it back in the day, but yikes... I'm an AP European History teacher who doesn't want to phone in this recent singleton. I really, honestly want to construct a valid and valuable course for these kids, but I am a bit behind the eight ball here. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Any Syllabus will be perused and doted over. And honestly, any ideas would be super helpful at this point. Wish me luck.","c_root_id_A":"ceek1xn","c_root_id_B":"ceedaqz","created_at_utc_A":1388548048,"created_at_utc_B":1388527278,"score_A":7,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Try to research the syllabus of Cambridge GCSE Examination system! I took Sociology in highschool that was deemed equivalent of 1st year University Sociology at a Canadian University (Transfer credit). The last I recall Cambridge GCSE publishes it's syllabi online. The Cambridge versions of the GCSE are administered all over the British Commonwealth (O and A Level). I was personally happy with the experience I got with that syllabus, covered me well for upper level courses for Sociology ending up being one of my BA's.","human_ref_B":"What an interesting class! I'm not an educator, but I would recommend anything that would encourage a dialogue with your students. A few ideas: * How people deal with grief * Societies perception of mental illness * Different cultural perspectives domestic and abroad * Ask your students to talk about what brings them joy in life * Social Media and it's impact on our lives (How it can often lead to making one feel inadequate because they're comparing their everyday to someone else's highlight reel)","labels":1,"seconds_difference":20770.0,"score_ratio":1.4} {"post_id":"1u485v","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"How would you structure a Semester-long High School Sociology class? I myself just inherited one and I start in six days. So, yeah. change in faculty means I've picked up my first ever High School Sociology class which Starts next week. I'm not at square one, I know the field a bit, took classes in it back in college, thought I had a pretty good handle on it back in the day, but yikes... I'm an AP European History teacher who doesn't want to phone in this recent singleton. I really, honestly want to construct a valid and valuable course for these kids, but I am a bit behind the eight ball here. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Any Syllabus will be perused and doted over. And honestly, any ideas would be super helpful at this point. Wish me luck.","c_root_id_A":"ceek1xn","c_root_id_B":"ceegjzq","created_at_utc_A":1388548048,"created_at_utc_B":1388536650,"score_A":7,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Try to research the syllabus of Cambridge GCSE Examination system! I took Sociology in highschool that was deemed equivalent of 1st year University Sociology at a Canadian University (Transfer credit). The last I recall Cambridge GCSE publishes it's syllabi online. The Cambridge versions of the GCSE are administered all over the British Commonwealth (O and A Level). I was personally happy with the experience I got with that syllabus, covered me well for upper level courses for Sociology ending up being one of my BA's.","human_ref_B":"I just took a class over the Psychology of Grief and really enjoyed the class. Specifically how we have constructed society to not have to deal with dying up close and personal anymore due to the institutionalizations of death. I am a Philosophy major though and concentrate a lot on modernity stuff from Adorno and the other Frankfurters. I have no clue how I would make a high school level class with that information in it though. Assumes understanding of Marx. It is a very very interesting topic and depending on composition of students can be a huge hit! (Hipsters eat up proletariat stuff).","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11398.0,"score_ratio":1.75} {"post_id":"1u485v","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"How would you structure a Semester-long High School Sociology class? I myself just inherited one and I start in six days. So, yeah. change in faculty means I've picked up my first ever High School Sociology class which Starts next week. I'm not at square one, I know the field a bit, took classes in it back in college, thought I had a pretty good handle on it back in the day, but yikes... I'm an AP European History teacher who doesn't want to phone in this recent singleton. I really, honestly want to construct a valid and valuable course for these kids, but I am a bit behind the eight ball here. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Any Syllabus will be perused and doted over. And honestly, any ideas would be super helpful at this point. Wish me luck.","c_root_id_A":"ceek1xn","c_root_id_B":"ceedvgs","created_at_utc_A":1388548048,"created_at_utc_B":1388528858,"score_A":7,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Try to research the syllabus of Cambridge GCSE Examination system! I took Sociology in highschool that was deemed equivalent of 1st year University Sociology at a Canadian University (Transfer credit). The last I recall Cambridge GCSE publishes it's syllabi online. The Cambridge versions of the GCSE are administered all over the British Commonwealth (O and A Level). I was personally happy with the experience I got with that syllabus, covered me well for upper level courses for Sociology ending up being one of my BA's.","human_ref_B":"Gosh, what a great assignment and what a great opportunity! Good move to ask here for some tips. If you're in the U.S., I expect that your state has a curriculum frameworks document of some sort for approved courses. If it exists, then naturally you'll be obligated to follow it. Does one exist for this course or are you really on your own? Looking forward to reading the advice you get here. Be sure to let us know what you decide to do, and how it works out.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":19190.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333} {"post_id":"1u485v","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"How would you structure a Semester-long High School Sociology class? I myself just inherited one and I start in six days. So, yeah. change in faculty means I've picked up my first ever High School Sociology class which Starts next week. I'm not at square one, I know the field a bit, took classes in it back in college, thought I had a pretty good handle on it back in the day, but yikes... I'm an AP European History teacher who doesn't want to phone in this recent singleton. I really, honestly want to construct a valid and valuable course for these kids, but I am a bit behind the eight ball here. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Any Syllabus will be perused and doted over. And honestly, any ideas would be super helpful at this point. Wish me luck.","c_root_id_A":"ceek1xn","c_root_id_B":"ceefey7","created_at_utc_A":1388548048,"created_at_utc_B":1388533263,"score_A":7,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Try to research the syllabus of Cambridge GCSE Examination system! I took Sociology in highschool that was deemed equivalent of 1st year University Sociology at a Canadian University (Transfer credit). The last I recall Cambridge GCSE publishes it's syllabi online. The Cambridge versions of the GCSE are administered all over the British Commonwealth (O and A Level). I was personally happy with the experience I got with that syllabus, covered me well for upper level courses for Sociology ending up being one of my BA's.","human_ref_B":"im currently a high schooler and in my school the sociology class is known as a joke. i dont know what i could add to this discussion but i hope you do a great job teaching the class.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":14785.0,"score_ratio":3.5} {"post_id":"1u485v","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"How would you structure a Semester-long High School Sociology class? I myself just inherited one and I start in six days. So, yeah. change in faculty means I've picked up my first ever High School Sociology class which Starts next week. I'm not at square one, I know the field a bit, took classes in it back in college, thought I had a pretty good handle on it back in the day, but yikes... I'm an AP European History teacher who doesn't want to phone in this recent singleton. I really, honestly want to construct a valid and valuable course for these kids, but I am a bit behind the eight ball here. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Any Syllabus will be perused and doted over. And honestly, any ideas would be super helpful at this point. Wish me luck.","c_root_id_A":"ceeg691","c_root_id_B":"ceedvgs","created_at_utc_A":1388535529,"created_at_utc_B":1388528858,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I would suggest asking r\/teaching or r\/teacher these subs have a lot to offer. Dont forget its a high school class. Too much detail and you will lose them. Show them how it is useful and great science to apply. Wake some people up. Just be careful that students dont confuse your material for your own opinion.","human_ref_B":"Gosh, what a great assignment and what a great opportunity! Good move to ask here for some tips. If you're in the U.S., I expect that your state has a curriculum frameworks document of some sort for approved courses. If it exists, then naturally you'll be obligated to follow it. Does one exist for this course or are you really on your own? Looking forward to reading the advice you get here. Be sure to let us know what you decide to do, and how it works out.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6671.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"1u485v","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"How would you structure a Semester-long High School Sociology class? I myself just inherited one and I start in six days. So, yeah. change in faculty means I've picked up my first ever High School Sociology class which Starts next week. I'm not at square one, I know the field a bit, took classes in it back in college, thought I had a pretty good handle on it back in the day, but yikes... I'm an AP European History teacher who doesn't want to phone in this recent singleton. I really, honestly want to construct a valid and valuable course for these kids, but I am a bit behind the eight ball here. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Any Syllabus will be perused and doted over. And honestly, any ideas would be super helpful at this point. Wish me luck.","c_root_id_A":"ceeg691","c_root_id_B":"ceefey7","created_at_utc_A":1388535529,"created_at_utc_B":1388533263,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I would suggest asking r\/teaching or r\/teacher these subs have a lot to offer. Dont forget its a high school class. Too much detail and you will lose them. Show them how it is useful and great science to apply. Wake some people up. Just be careful that students dont confuse your material for your own opinion.","human_ref_B":"im currently a high schooler and in my school the sociology class is known as a joke. i dont know what i could add to this discussion but i hope you do a great job teaching the class.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2266.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"1u485v","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"How would you structure a Semester-long High School Sociology class? I myself just inherited one and I start in six days. So, yeah. change in faculty means I've picked up my first ever High School Sociology class which Starts next week. I'm not at square one, I know the field a bit, took classes in it back in college, thought I had a pretty good handle on it back in the day, but yikes... I'm an AP European History teacher who doesn't want to phone in this recent singleton. I really, honestly want to construct a valid and valuable course for these kids, but I am a bit behind the eight ball here. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Any Syllabus will be perused and doted over. And honestly, any ideas would be super helpful at this point. Wish me luck.","c_root_id_A":"ceedvgs","c_root_id_B":"ceegjzq","created_at_utc_A":1388528858,"created_at_utc_B":1388536650,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Gosh, what a great assignment and what a great opportunity! Good move to ask here for some tips. If you're in the U.S., I expect that your state has a curriculum frameworks document of some sort for approved courses. If it exists, then naturally you'll be obligated to follow it. Does one exist for this course or are you really on your own? Looking forward to reading the advice you get here. Be sure to let us know what you decide to do, and how it works out.","human_ref_B":"I just took a class over the Psychology of Grief and really enjoyed the class. Specifically how we have constructed society to not have to deal with dying up close and personal anymore due to the institutionalizations of death. I am a Philosophy major though and concentrate a lot on modernity stuff from Adorno and the other Frankfurters. I have no clue how I would make a high school level class with that information in it though. Assumes understanding of Marx. It is a very very interesting topic and depending on composition of students can be a huge hit! (Hipsters eat up proletariat stuff).","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7792.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"1u485v","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"How would you structure a Semester-long High School Sociology class? I myself just inherited one and I start in six days. So, yeah. change in faculty means I've picked up my first ever High School Sociology class which Starts next week. I'm not at square one, I know the field a bit, took classes in it back in college, thought I had a pretty good handle on it back in the day, but yikes... I'm an AP European History teacher who doesn't want to phone in this recent singleton. I really, honestly want to construct a valid and valuable course for these kids, but I am a bit behind the eight ball here. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Any Syllabus will be perused and doted over. And honestly, any ideas would be super helpful at this point. Wish me luck.","c_root_id_A":"ceegjzq","c_root_id_B":"ceefey7","created_at_utc_A":1388536650,"created_at_utc_B":1388533263,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I just took a class over the Psychology of Grief and really enjoyed the class. Specifically how we have constructed society to not have to deal with dying up close and personal anymore due to the institutionalizations of death. I am a Philosophy major though and concentrate a lot on modernity stuff from Adorno and the other Frankfurters. I have no clue how I would make a high school level class with that information in it though. Assumes understanding of Marx. It is a very very interesting topic and depending on composition of students can be a huge hit! (Hipsters eat up proletariat stuff).","human_ref_B":"im currently a high schooler and in my school the sociology class is known as a joke. i dont know what i could add to this discussion but i hope you do a great job teaching the class.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3387.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"1u485v","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"How would you structure a Semester-long High School Sociology class? I myself just inherited one and I start in six days. So, yeah. change in faculty means I've picked up my first ever High School Sociology class which Starts next week. I'm not at square one, I know the field a bit, took classes in it back in college, thought I had a pretty good handle on it back in the day, but yikes... I'm an AP European History teacher who doesn't want to phone in this recent singleton. I really, honestly want to construct a valid and valuable course for these kids, but I am a bit behind the eight ball here. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Any Syllabus will be perused and doted over. And honestly, any ideas would be super helpful at this point. Wish me luck.","c_root_id_A":"ceek9mb","c_root_id_B":"ceefey7","created_at_utc_A":1388548832,"created_at_utc_B":1388533263,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I'm still in High School but I took sociology so I guess I can kind of answer this. I don't have the syllabus anymore so sorry about that. We went over the history of sociology first, then talked about freuds id, ego, superego. We then went on to talk about normalcy, and what is abnormal and how those values change across cultures. We did a short unit on pop culture how things have changed in what is acceptable. Specifically we watched an episode of All in the Family called Lionels engagement. We then had to find examples of things that might be considered racist in modern television. This was really fun for us because we had time to find clips from TV shows we enjoyed. We also did a unit on serial killers where we watched documentaries on Dahmer, Gein, Gacy, and Aileen Wuornos and talked about societies influence on their actions, etc. We also watched some travel documentaries that examine things that are abnormal in our culture but not others. That is all I can think of hope I can help. My best advice is try to make it fun, encourage class discussion, and do some interesting topics like popculture, serial killers, etc.","human_ref_B":"im currently a high schooler and in my school the sociology class is known as a joke. i dont know what i could add to this discussion but i hope you do a great job teaching the class.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":15569.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"1u485v","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"How would you structure a Semester-long High School Sociology class? I myself just inherited one and I start in six days. So, yeah. change in faculty means I've picked up my first ever High School Sociology class which Starts next week. I'm not at square one, I know the field a bit, took classes in it back in college, thought I had a pretty good handle on it back in the day, but yikes... I'm an AP European History teacher who doesn't want to phone in this recent singleton. I really, honestly want to construct a valid and valuable course for these kids, but I am a bit behind the eight ball here. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Any Syllabus will be perused and doted over. And honestly, any ideas would be super helpful at this point. Wish me luck.","c_root_id_A":"ceefey7","c_root_id_B":"ceeo7l2","created_at_utc_A":1388533263,"created_at_utc_B":1388565927,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"im currently a high schooler and in my school the sociology class is known as a joke. i dont know what i could add to this discussion but i hope you do a great job teaching the class.","human_ref_B":"This is some practical advise, I hope it helps. In Ontario, (Canada) there is a combined Anthro\/Psych\/Soc class. Google the class code \"HSP3M\". Ontario is a big province with lots of teachers who put their stuff online. It could give a general idea what to do with your class. BUT! as a high school student pointed out - some schools treat it as a joke class, where others treat it quite seriously. Generally, I start with an intro to Soc., then a quick history and then social class and then Marx, Weber and Durkheim and their main theories\/ideas. Slate.com also has a few articles dealing with class that can be used in class. Hope this helps.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":32664.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"hqktb8","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Why have stereotypes from young urban black males in poorer communities seem to have been co-opted to define the entire African American community I understand how stereotypes are inherently incorrect. But, I was wondering about how stereotypes from young black males in poorer urban communities have been used to define the entire african American community. LIke why specifically from young black males?","c_root_id_A":"fxyqc92","c_root_id_B":"fxymno8","created_at_utc_A":1594671128,"created_at_utc_B":1594669392,"score_A":12,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"First, it is important to know that stereotypes are not \u201cinherently incorrect\u201d. A large body of research has now shown that, in general, many stereotypes actually have high levels of accuracy. Humans are naturally inclined towards categorization. From a young age, individuals begin to form associations that help them to identify and categorize different aspects of the world around them (Packer & Cole, 2015). Through this process, we soon learn to regard objects that look, feel, or act similarly as being in a similar category. Most of the time, we are probably right. This process is evolutionarily advantageous because it makes it so that we do not have to use a lot of mental resources any time we encounter something new. We can rapidly make a guess about an object based on our past experience and we are usually correct. These processes also work for social categorization. We have differing ideas about what various groups are like (often called stereotypes). If we define stereotypes as people\u2019s beliefs about groups and their individual members (Ashmore & Del Boca, 1981), research has found that inaccurate stereotypes are the exception and that most stereotypes have moderate to high levels of accuracy (Campbell, 1967; Jussim et al., 2016, 2018, 2019; Mackie, 1973; Ryan, 2003). This means that (like with any other form of category) if stereotypes are accurate, they should represent a generalized belief that is accurate for most members of a group most of the time. This means that stereotypes themselves are not the issue. Instead the issue comes when we are unwilling to look past stereotypes. The stereotypes of \u201cyoung urban black males in poorer communities\u201d probably accurately represent many aspects of members of that group. Additionally, this stereotype probably overlaps a lot with stereotypes for black males in general. So in answer to your question >why specifically from young black males First, this topic is popular in the world right now (as another poster has stated) and so there is going to be a lot of selective reporting in what you see. Not all people likely use the young black male stereotype to apply to the \u201centire African American community\u201d. Second, even before this year, black males make up the largest percentage of reported crime (this is an FBI database, there is a lot of information here so let me know if you have trouble navigating it) and so they are also more likely to be featured in news stories and through anecdotal evidence. This makes them a likely candidate for the availability heuristic and so people may be more likely to make \u201cyoung black male\u201d consistent judgments when judging other black males. This on only one explanation though. In order to better answer your questions, I would need to know some specific examples of what you are talking about. Please reply to this message and let me know what you think. \\------------------------------------------------------------ Ashmore, R. D., & Del Boca, F. K. (1981). Conceptual approaches to stereotypes and stereotyping. Cognitive Processes in Stereotyping and Intergroup Behavior, 1, 35. Campbell, D. T. (1967). Stereotypes and the perception of group differences. American Psychologist, 22(10), 817\u2013829. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1037\/h0025079 Jussim, L., Crawford, J. T., Anglin, S. M., Chambers, J. R., Stevens, S. T., Cohen, F., & Nelson, T. D. (2016). Stereotype accuracy: One of the largest and most replicable effects in all of social psychology. In Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 31\u201363). Jussim, L., Stevens, S. T., & Honeycutt, N. (2018). Unasked questions about stereotype accuracy. Archives of Scientific Psychology, 6(1), 214\u2013229. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1037\/arc0000055 Jussim, L., Stevens, S. T., & Honeycutt, N. (2019). The Accuracy of Stereotypes About Personality. In T. D. Letzring & J. S. Spain (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Accurate Personality Judgment. Oxford University Press. Mackie, M. (1973). Arriving at \u201ctruth\u201d by definition: The case of stereotype inaccuracy. Social Problems, 20(4), 431\u2013447. Packer, M., & Cole, M. (2015). Culture in Development. In M. Bronstein & M. E. Lamb (Eds.), Developmental science: An advanced textbook (7th ed., pp. 43\u2013111). Psychology Press. Ryan, C. (2003). Stereotype accuracy. European Review of Social Psychology, 13(1), 75\u2013109. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/10463280240000037","human_ref_B":"What specific stereotypes are you referring to?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1736.0,"score_ratio":6.0} {"post_id":"2c9b3o","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"We've heard of Italian mafia, Russian gangs, the Turks, etc. Why are organized crimes and gangs organized based on ethnicity? Both in popular depiction and media we've heard of this Italian mafia, Russian gang, the Turks, the Chinese triads, the Japanese yakuza, etc. Why is ethnicity important for them? I mean, if gangs and organized crimes are just illegal corporations, why does ethnicity matter? Companies wouldn't limit their employers based on their ethnicity if it could be profitable for them, ain't it? Which leads me to another question. Is it true that those organized crimes are composed of single ethnicity? Like, are there no blacks in a Yakuza gang, or no Italians in a Russian gang? Or is it just a fictional depiction?","c_root_id_A":"cjddhiw","c_root_id_B":"cjdhkgf","created_at_utc_A":1406840772,"created_at_utc_B":1406849231,"score_A":6,"score_B":45,"human_ref_A":"Please provide sources for top-level comments. Thank you!","human_ref_B":"Trust. Whether rationally or not, people are more likely to trust someone from their own ethnic group. In any criminal conspiracy, trust between the conspirators plays a huge role. > if gangs and organized crimes are just illegal corporations, why does ethnicity matter? Because where there is no recourse to the legal system to settle disputes, trust is essential. And though the situation is different today in the developed world, for much of history legitimate businesses were indeed segregated according to ethnicity. This also had to do with trust.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8459.0,"score_ratio":7.5} {"post_id":"2c9b3o","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"We've heard of Italian mafia, Russian gangs, the Turks, etc. Why are organized crimes and gangs organized based on ethnicity? Both in popular depiction and media we've heard of this Italian mafia, Russian gang, the Turks, the Chinese triads, the Japanese yakuza, etc. Why is ethnicity important for them? I mean, if gangs and organized crimes are just illegal corporations, why does ethnicity matter? Companies wouldn't limit their employers based on their ethnicity if it could be profitable for them, ain't it? Which leads me to another question. Is it true that those organized crimes are composed of single ethnicity? Like, are there no blacks in a Yakuza gang, or no Italians in a Russian gang? Or is it just a fictional depiction?","c_root_id_A":"cjdhkgf","c_root_id_B":"cjdewlk","created_at_utc_A":1406849231,"created_at_utc_B":1406843515,"score_A":45,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Trust. Whether rationally or not, people are more likely to trust someone from their own ethnic group. In any criminal conspiracy, trust between the conspirators plays a huge role. > if gangs and organized crimes are just illegal corporations, why does ethnicity matter? Because where there is no recourse to the legal system to settle disputes, trust is essential. And though the situation is different today in the developed world, for much of history legitimate businesses were indeed segregated according to ethnicity. This also had to do with trust.","human_ref_B":"The Jewish Mafia also called Kosher Nostra. Here is a list of notable Jewish mobsters I didnt know they were still active in the US but the article says \"In more recent years, Jewish-American organized crime has reappeared in the forms of both Israeli and Jewish-Russian mafia criminal groups. The Soviet and Russian \u00e9migr\u00e9 community in New York's Brighton Beach contains a large Jewish presence, as does its criminal element. Some of these newer American-based Jewish gangsters, such as Ludwig Fainberg (who has lived in Ukraine, Israel and the United States but never Russia), share more in common culturally with Russia and the Soviet republics than their predecessors such as Meyer Lansky. Israeli mobsters also have had a presence in the United States. The Israeli mafia (such as the Abergil crime family) is heavily involved in ecstasy trafficking in America.\"","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5716.0,"score_ratio":7.5} {"post_id":"2c9b3o","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"We've heard of Italian mafia, Russian gangs, the Turks, etc. Why are organized crimes and gangs organized based on ethnicity? Both in popular depiction and media we've heard of this Italian mafia, Russian gang, the Turks, the Chinese triads, the Japanese yakuza, etc. Why is ethnicity important for them? I mean, if gangs and organized crimes are just illegal corporations, why does ethnicity matter? Companies wouldn't limit their employers based on their ethnicity if it could be profitable for them, ain't it? Which leads me to another question. Is it true that those organized crimes are composed of single ethnicity? Like, are there no blacks in a Yakuza gang, or no Italians in a Russian gang? Or is it just a fictional depiction?","c_root_id_A":"cjddhiw","c_root_id_B":"cjdidu7","created_at_utc_A":1406840772,"created_at_utc_B":1406851100,"score_A":6,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"Please provide sources for top-level comments. Thank you!","human_ref_B":"This might not apply to the organized crime groups that originated in more ethnically homogeneous environments, as it is specific to black gangs in the US, but one factor to consider is the role that racial identity may have played in actually causing gangs to form in the first place. In \u201cRacialized Identities and the Formation of Black Gangs in Los Angeles,\u201d Alonso provides a narrative that describes the formation of gangs as being driven by racially motivated violence, police brutality, and discrimination.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10328.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"2c9b3o","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"We've heard of Italian mafia, Russian gangs, the Turks, etc. Why are organized crimes and gangs organized based on ethnicity? Both in popular depiction and media we've heard of this Italian mafia, Russian gang, the Turks, the Chinese triads, the Japanese yakuza, etc. Why is ethnicity important for them? I mean, if gangs and organized crimes are just illegal corporations, why does ethnicity matter? Companies wouldn't limit their employers based on their ethnicity if it could be profitable for them, ain't it? Which leads me to another question. Is it true that those organized crimes are composed of single ethnicity? Like, are there no blacks in a Yakuza gang, or no Italians in a Russian gang? Or is it just a fictional depiction?","c_root_id_A":"cjdidu7","c_root_id_B":"cjdewlk","created_at_utc_A":1406851100,"created_at_utc_B":1406843515,"score_A":12,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"This might not apply to the organized crime groups that originated in more ethnically homogeneous environments, as it is specific to black gangs in the US, but one factor to consider is the role that racial identity may have played in actually causing gangs to form in the first place. In \u201cRacialized Identities and the Formation of Black Gangs in Los Angeles,\u201d Alonso provides a narrative that describes the formation of gangs as being driven by racially motivated violence, police brutality, and discrimination.","human_ref_B":"The Jewish Mafia also called Kosher Nostra. Here is a list of notable Jewish mobsters I didnt know they were still active in the US but the article says \"In more recent years, Jewish-American organized crime has reappeared in the forms of both Israeli and Jewish-Russian mafia criminal groups. The Soviet and Russian \u00e9migr\u00e9 community in New York's Brighton Beach contains a large Jewish presence, as does its criminal element. Some of these newer American-based Jewish gangsters, such as Ludwig Fainberg (who has lived in Ukraine, Israel and the United States but never Russia), share more in common culturally with Russia and the Soviet republics than their predecessors such as Meyer Lansky. Israeli mobsters also have had a presence in the United States. The Israeli mafia (such as the Abergil crime family) is heavily involved in ecstasy trafficking in America.\"","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7585.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"2c9b3o","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"We've heard of Italian mafia, Russian gangs, the Turks, etc. Why are organized crimes and gangs organized based on ethnicity? Both in popular depiction and media we've heard of this Italian mafia, Russian gang, the Turks, the Chinese triads, the Japanese yakuza, etc. Why is ethnicity important for them? I mean, if gangs and organized crimes are just illegal corporations, why does ethnicity matter? Companies wouldn't limit their employers based on their ethnicity if it could be profitable for them, ain't it? Which leads me to another question. Is it true that those organized crimes are composed of single ethnicity? Like, are there no blacks in a Yakuza gang, or no Italians in a Russian gang? Or is it just a fictional depiction?","c_root_id_A":"cjdidu7","c_root_id_B":"cjdhos0","created_at_utc_A":1406851100,"created_at_utc_B":1406849504,"score_A":12,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"This might not apply to the organized crime groups that originated in more ethnically homogeneous environments, as it is specific to black gangs in the US, but one factor to consider is the role that racial identity may have played in actually causing gangs to form in the first place. In \u201cRacialized Identities and the Formation of Black Gangs in Los Angeles,\u201d Alonso provides a narrative that describes the formation of gangs as being driven by racially motivated violence, police brutality, and discrimination.","human_ref_B":"It functions as a way to maintain group cohesion. Having common ethnic background creates ties within the group. The fact of illicit trade is that no contracts or agreements are enforceable in courts. This often results in the use of violence or intimidation to enforce the agreements. While hard power can help to keep the group together, using soft power and social ties is also highly effective. Many of the powerful cartels of Mexico are based on alliances between certain families. Since they are based on families of the region, there tends to be an ethnic component. I can't speak to your last question though. Source: Kan, Paul. *Cartels at War.* Washington DC: Potomac Books, 2012.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1596.0,"score_ratio":2.4} {"post_id":"kebp6u","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Is it possible for a legal system to be a mixture of common law and civil law? These are the two main legal systems of the world and they're often presented as mutually exclusive systems. But would it be possible for a legal system to be based on both statutes and codes from the government, as well as case law and precedent made by judges\/lawyers?","c_root_id_A":"gg389t1","c_root_id_B":"gg2c824","created_at_utc_A":1608165031,"created_at_utc_B":1608148988,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Attorney here. That is the US legal system in a nutshell. Most legal systems are not \"pure\" civil or common law anyway. The federal and most state systems are a mix of statutes (civil law) and cases (common law). I would not feel comfortable giving a general statement that the US leans more towards one or the other. However, the Louisiana state system is modelled more strongly after the French civil law model. You can read more generally here (PDF warning). Some more in depth discussion of civil vs common law here. There are numerous articles on this topic in comparative law journals. However, your post is so broad that it wouldn't really help to list a bunch of them without trying to narrow it to a specific issue.","human_ref_B":"This is not my area of expertise but I hope this can be a starting point for further research. From the paper: \"This is not too different from the modern definition of a mixed legal system given by Robin EVANS-JONES: \"What I describe by the use of this term in relation to modern Scotland is a legal system which, to an extensive degree, exhibits characteristics of both the civilian and the English common law traditions.\" Both Walton and Evans-Jones are referring to common law \/ civil law mixed legal systems which stem from two or more legal traditions. Mixed jurisdictions are really political units (countries or their political subdivisions) which have mixed legal systems. Common law \/ civil law mixed jurisdictions include Louisiana, Qu\u00e9bec, St. Lucia, Puerto Rico, South Africa, Zimbabwe (formerly Southern Rhodesia), Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland, Namibia, the Philippines, Sri Lanka (formerly Ceylon), and Scotland. It goes without saying that some mixed jurisdictions are also derived partly from non-occidental legal traditions: the North African countries, Iran, Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Indonesia, for instance.\" https:\/\/www.cisg.law.pace.edu\/cisg\/biblio\/tetley.html","labels":1,"seconds_difference":16043.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"11fcir","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"What are some of the most costly externalities in the world? Just curious, I figure antibiotics and the spread of disease and invasive species could be a huge one I don't really hear much about. I'd also like to hear anything about mitigation.","c_root_id_A":"c6lzqoh","c_root_id_B":"c6m442k","created_at_utc_A":1350162242,"created_at_utc_B":1350182076,"score_A":5,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Accurate and unbiased media has huge externalities. These are externalities since it's unclear that being unbiased maximizes the media company's revenue. I think this is huge because this can prevent us from dealing with other problems.","human_ref_B":"Car travel, especially with congestion. The generalised cost per mile is far far higher than the private costs. Throw both cost curves on a graph and then throw on the demand curve. Say F1 is the equilibrium with the accepted private costs. Draw a vertical line on the graph at F1. F2 is where the demand curve bisects the generalised cost (the equilibrium if the costs were internalised). Now integrate for the area bounded by the demand curve, the generalised cost curve, and the F1 line.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":19834.0,"score_ratio":1.4} {"post_id":"11fcir","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"What are some of the most costly externalities in the world? Just curious, I figure antibiotics and the spread of disease and invasive species could be a huge one I don't really hear much about. I'd also like to hear anything about mitigation.","c_root_id_A":"c6m442k","c_root_id_B":"c6m0v88","created_at_utc_A":1350182076,"created_at_utc_B":1350167658,"score_A":7,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Car travel, especially with congestion. The generalised cost per mile is far far higher than the private costs. Throw both cost curves on a graph and then throw on the demand curve. Say F1 is the equilibrium with the accepted private costs. Draw a vertical line on the graph at F1. F2 is where the demand curve bisects the generalised cost (the equilibrium if the costs were internalised). Now integrate for the area bounded by the demand curve, the generalised cost curve, and the F1 line.","human_ref_B":"Bad policy's from decision-makers everywhere because of commercial interests, random lobby's and agenda driven media farming the masses.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":14418.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333} {"post_id":"11fcir","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"What are some of the most costly externalities in the world? Just curious, I figure antibiotics and the spread of disease and invasive species could be a huge one I don't really hear much about. I'd also like to hear anything about mitigation.","c_root_id_A":"c6m59ph","c_root_id_B":"c6m4lpl","created_at_utc_A":1350187181,"created_at_utc_B":1350184253,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I am not sure everyone here understands the idea of an externality.","human_ref_B":"Closed borders. They cost about $70 trillion dollars and millions of lives every year. I can't see how anything could possibly top that.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2928.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"11fcir","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"What are some of the most costly externalities in the world? Just curious, I figure antibiotics and the spread of disease and invasive species could be a huge one I don't really hear much about. I'd also like to hear anything about mitigation.","c_root_id_A":"c6m59ph","c_root_id_B":"c6m0v88","created_at_utc_A":1350187181,"created_at_utc_B":1350167658,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I am not sure everyone here understands the idea of an externality.","human_ref_B":"Bad policy's from decision-makers everywhere because of commercial interests, random lobby's and agenda driven media farming the masses.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":19523.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"1dh75x","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"Mod \/ Meta] Question for eligible panelists who have not applied for flair, a few subreddit stats, and a friendly reminder to report bad answers! Hi everybody, I'd like to share a few stats with you first. Right now, we're averaging between 50 and 80 new subscribers each day, which is great! However.. we are presently only receiving applications for flair once or twice a week. This means that for every 250 or so new subscribers, we only have 1 or 2 people applying for flair. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but the subreddit's subscription rate is outpacing the growth of our panelists by a significant margin. So, it would help us out quite a bit if you could answer the following questions: 1. Are you an expert in one of the social science's but haven't applied for flair? 2. If yes to the first question, what is stopping you from applying? 3. What do you think we can do to attract more active panelists\/contributors? On an unrelated note, I want to remind people that this is AskSocialScience, *not* AskSocialOpinions or AskSocialAnecdotes. Although anecdotes and opinions can help further a discussion, they alone are not suitable for an answer here. As you may have noticed, the mod-team has really cracked down on top-tiered comments that aren't up to the standards that we (the mods) and our users would like to see in the subreddit. You can help us out a lot by reporting bad answers! If you have any confusion about what is encouraged and what is discouraged here.. **[Please check the rules page**.","c_root_id_A":"c9qgaxi","c_root_id_B":"c9qg6l7","created_at_utc_A":1367433412,"created_at_utc_B":1367433117,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I don't want to risk my tenure just because I like to call out other economists for talking drivel.","human_ref_B":"I haven't applied for flair because I have only just received my bachelor's degree (in politics and law), because the kind of question I would feel comfortable answering does not come up often (international relations theory, security studies, European Union), and because I would rather not disclose any information and\/or certification about my identity. I am happy with the direction this sub has been taking though and want to thank the mods for their work. I feel it is actively improving everything about this sub, please keep it up!","labels":1,"seconds_difference":295.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"1dh75x","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"Mod \/ Meta] Question for eligible panelists who have not applied for flair, a few subreddit stats, and a friendly reminder to report bad answers! Hi everybody, I'd like to share a few stats with you first. Right now, we're averaging between 50 and 80 new subscribers each day, which is great! However.. we are presently only receiving applications for flair once or twice a week. This means that for every 250 or so new subscribers, we only have 1 or 2 people applying for flair. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but the subreddit's subscription rate is outpacing the growth of our panelists by a significant margin. So, it would help us out quite a bit if you could answer the following questions: 1. Are you an expert in one of the social science's but haven't applied for flair? 2. If yes to the first question, what is stopping you from applying? 3. What do you think we can do to attract more active panelists\/contributors? On an unrelated note, I want to remind people that this is AskSocialScience, *not* AskSocialOpinions or AskSocialAnecdotes. Although anecdotes and opinions can help further a discussion, they alone are not suitable for an answer here. As you may have noticed, the mod-team has really cracked down on top-tiered comments that aren't up to the standards that we (the mods) and our users would like to see in the subreddit. You can help us out a lot by reporting bad answers! If you have any confusion about what is encouraged and what is discouraged here.. **[Please check the rules page**.","c_root_id_A":"c9qg6l7","c_root_id_B":"c9qr0bu","created_at_utc_A":1367433117,"created_at_utc_B":1367462651,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I haven't applied for flair because I have only just received my bachelor's degree (in politics and law), because the kind of question I would feel comfortable answering does not come up often (international relations theory, security studies, European Union), and because I would rather not disclose any information and\/or certification about my identity. I am happy with the direction this sub has been taking though and want to thank the mods for their work. I feel it is actively improving everything about this sub, please keep it up!","human_ref_B":"I'm a social psychologist, PhD candidate. I haven't flailed up because I didn't know it was needed. I'll do it soon.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":29534.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"1dh75x","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"Mod \/ Meta] Question for eligible panelists who have not applied for flair, a few subreddit stats, and a friendly reminder to report bad answers! Hi everybody, I'd like to share a few stats with you first. Right now, we're averaging between 50 and 80 new subscribers each day, which is great! However.. we are presently only receiving applications for flair once or twice a week. This means that for every 250 or so new subscribers, we only have 1 or 2 people applying for flair. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but the subreddit's subscription rate is outpacing the growth of our panelists by a significant margin. So, it would help us out quite a bit if you could answer the following questions: 1. Are you an expert in one of the social science's but haven't applied for flair? 2. If yes to the first question, what is stopping you from applying? 3. What do you think we can do to attract more active panelists\/contributors? On an unrelated note, I want to remind people that this is AskSocialScience, *not* AskSocialOpinions or AskSocialAnecdotes. Although anecdotes and opinions can help further a discussion, they alone are not suitable for an answer here. As you may have noticed, the mod-team has really cracked down on top-tiered comments that aren't up to the standards that we (the mods) and our users would like to see in the subreddit. You can help us out a lot by reporting bad answers! If you have any confusion about what is encouraged and what is discouraged here.. **[Please check the rules page**.","c_root_id_A":"c9qox91","c_root_id_B":"c9qr0bu","created_at_utc_A":1367456743,"created_at_utc_B":1367462651,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I haven't applied for flair due to the qualifications focus on academia. I am several years removed from my degrees and through the course of a few job changes I have moved further and further away from my academic background. This has left me with a job title that has no obvious connection to my degrees. The mods do provide the option of forwarding over photos of diplomas as proof. Considering that would actually be the first time that the physical diplomas have had any use, they have spent the last few years packed away in some box in my parent's basement on the other side of the country. I don't have any ideas for a possible solution to this problem and I wouldn't really consider jumping through too many hoops for what amounts to a hobby, but I just wanted to voice my experiences.","human_ref_B":"I'm a social psychologist, PhD candidate. I haven't flailed up because I didn't know it was needed. I'll do it soon.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5908.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"ua74g","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Should we be worried about the student debt bubble? There is a lot of info out there that implies that higher education costs and debts are getting to the point where they are (or ought to be) a public policy concern. For one, the Washington Post today said that student debt in the US is now over $1 trillion, default percentages are rising, but a college degree is ostensibly less valuable now than ever. What seems like the biggest concern is that you can't go bankrupt from student loans, which is great for banks, horrible for debtors. [More can be said here, but I'll avoid the block o' text and let the discussion happen below.] But despite all I've read that says its bad, I haven't come across anything that explicitly suggests that it will cause the sort of catastrophic damage to the economy that the housing bubble did or even the dot com bubble. What's going on here? And how worried should we be?","c_root_id_A":"c4tqppx","c_root_id_B":"c4trnbe","created_at_utc_A":1338316704,"created_at_utc_B":1338320627,"score_A":3,"score_B":19,"human_ref_A":"Clarifying question: How about the university bubble, period? Are many universities assuming growth, when in reality there might be a constriction in enrollment because of the (lack of) economic viability?","human_ref_B":"There's very little evidence that there is a student loan bubble - and in fact, it doesn't even make sense in theory. 1. A bubble is a term with a specific meaning - \"Bubbles refer to asset prices that exceed an asset's fundamental value because current owners believe they can resell the asset at an even higher price. \". There is no mechanism for which this can work in the education market. 2. The last 30 years have been characterized by a huge increase in the college wage premium. In 1979, a college educated worker made 35% more than an HS graduate on average, by 1999, they would be making 80% more. The Race Between Education and Technology is a great overview of this. A college education is still a really good investment. This isn't because of selection effects - see The Caual Effect of Education on Earnings. 3. Virtually no one pays market price for a college education. The financial aid process allows universities to practice almost-perfect price discrimination. They can effectively charge a different price for every student, so that the market just follows the demand curve up until their maximum tuition level. 4. The is definitely is a sheepskin effect - http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Signalling_(economics)#A_basic_job-market_signalling_model - for college diplomas. But this is extremely well understood (Spence shared the economics Nobel with Akerlof for signalling theory). I think that separating bright, talented and hard working 18 year olds from bright, talented and lazy 18 year olds is a non-trivial process. 5. Tons of articles imply that you don't need higher education, because you can take classes online. If this was the case, why did the university lecture have survived the invention of the printing press? Books reduced the cost to the diffusion of knowledge far more than the internet did, without ending the university system. This implies that there is something else going on to me.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3923.0,"score_ratio":6.3333333333} {"post_id":"aj8r5m","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Why do communities in small towns tend to be more conservative and more religious? Is there a relationship between the two? As a citizen of a small town, I was wondering why this seems to be the case in every small town I visit, especially my town! Thanks in advance for sharing your insight!","c_root_id_A":"eetm5vj","c_root_id_B":"eetv8qw","created_at_utc_A":1548304879,"created_at_utc_B":1548314721,"score_A":13,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"Maybe read *FantasyLand* which describes a 500-year history of the U.S., as waves of immigrants on Hopium coming to establish communities of \"Faith\" and consequently allowing others to do the same. Folk in the country may be more likely to be a single community (example Amish), while cities may be more diverse and tolerant of others.","human_ref_B":"Not trying to explain it, just adding an observation - the rural \/ conservative, urban \/ progressive correlation is not limited to any country or even to the present day. In Germany in the 1930s, rural areas were clearly more conservative, and voted much more in favor of Hitler and his xenophobic policies. Source: The Third Reich trilogy by Richard J. Evans.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9842.0,"score_ratio":1.0769230769} {"post_id":"1g7gdk","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.69,"history":"Can someone explain contemporary race laws and race-based policies in North America (USA and Canada), such as affirmative action and tax exemption for native Americans? Why are these laws not considered racist\/discriminatory? (Not intended to be inflammatory, respectful discussion please) I'm not sure if this is the right subreddit, so please shoot me down if I'm ruining your wonderful sub (although if you could point me in the right direction first, I'd greatly appreciate it). My question is not intended to be racist or inflammatory, and at the risk of sounding condescending I'd like to plead for discussion to be civil and for upvotes etc. to be alloted by reason rather than emotion. I'd also like to clarify that I am not North American, but recently visited a relative of mine in Canada and learnt, in broad strokes, about the race laws there. I'd like to share the experience as it adds context to my question; feel free to skip to the end to see my question on its own. I visited my cousin when he got married in Toronto. He's white and Irish (1st gen immigrant), and his girlfriend is also white, originally from the Ukraine. They had lived there for about 10 years. She worked as a teacher on a Native American (or American Indian, I'm afraid I don't know what term is appropriate, apologies if I cause offense) reservation (I think she used a better name for it, apologies again). I was quite surprised by many things I learnt. According to her, many people in the native community are exempt from various taxes, and receive free education up to and including University (unlike other Canadians in that prefecture), and also benefit from various other favoritist policies based on race. However, to qualify for the full benefits (which could include ownership of land), you had to be at least n% American Indian - if your bloodline was too watered down, you no longer qualified. I was quite surprised by this, because it didn't seem fair at all. First of all, there's something a bit grim about your birth (and your % indigenous blood) determining your relationship to the state etc.; I like to think that in a developed country, the law, rights, and duties should apply to all equally regardless of race. I was also distressed by my relative's reaction to my surprise. They reasoned that since they were white, it was fair - they'd oppressed the Indians in their own day, and it was time to pay reparations. However, this argument didn't make sense to me. First of all, many taxpayers (who are footing the bill for indigenous privilege) are non-white. They might be Japanese Canadians, who were hideously mistreated very recently, or just recent immigrants from China or Bangladesh who've never done anything wrong to the indigenous people. I also pointed out that a Ukrainian and an Irishman have also probably done nothing wrong (historically speaking) - heck, almost no-one suffered so much at the hands of the British as the Irish, and Ukraine hasn't exactly had a fun 150 years either. Finally, I pointed out that really, guilt shouldn't be inherited, and race laws don't really have a place in a first world country. My relatives reaction is what surprised me the most, and what lead me to ask this question. They became very defensive and actually angry at me. I honestly felt as if they'd been brainwashed. I must admit, I don't understand the Canadian educational system at all, but it seems like it's trying to make people feel guilt - or worse, actually BE guilty - of crimes they have not committed. What is also strange is that they objected to my use of the term 'race law' in reference to laws which specifically stipulate different treatment by the law based on race. I am given to understand that the USA has similar policies, for instance permitting Native Americans to circumvent various state and federal laws, again based on bloodline (Casinos spring to mind). I was surprised to discover that Canada and the USA have different legal treatment for different races, and I have the impression that mainstream society doesn't question this much. Am I correct in that impression? What is the discussion in the field of social science of the validity of having 'preferred' races, 'tax exempt' races, etc.? Doesn't serious social science frown upon 'race' as a construct anyway, and if so, why hasn't that attitude permeated society as a whole? Finally, is opposing such policies considered racist? TL;DR: Explain race laws in Canada and the USA, affirmative action, and social attitudes towards the same; please remain civil! (although obviously if you think I'm a monstrous racist, please tell me! I'm moving to the USA soon and want to be careful not to offend anyone in that country.) PS: apologies for grammar problems, English is not my first language.","c_root_id_A":"cahjtz9","c_root_id_B":"cahh9bs","created_at_utc_A":1371065419,"created_at_utc_B":1371058961,"score_A":18,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"On very basic terms the difference between Canadian and American Natives is that in Canada, from day one, they were negotiated with - NOT conquered. They have Treaties that were signed between their tribes and the Government of Canada which laid out both sides of the deal - what they got in exchange for moving to a designated area and completely changing their way of life. These are still legal documents just like a Constitution - they are valid as long as 'rivers flow and grass grows'. At no point do the First Nations rights suddenly expire. In America, this might have happened occasionally but American Indians fought back and were conquered. Agreements were made after the fact. After those Treaties were signed, the problems have largely stemmed from interpretations. The Indians couldn't necessarily read, they have a different culture and different understanding. The translations were murky at best. The Indian Act is another factor which is where all the laws associated with Indian treatment are laid out. They are pretty harsh. While they may not have to pay income tax (while working on the reservation) they also cannot build their own house on that land, they are essentially rented. Any buildings or businesses need Indian Agent approval. Also look up Residential Schools. Everyone who has immigrated to Canada since day 1 has come after it was already established by the Indians and Inuit. We are all living on their land (Turtle Island), according to signed legal documents, and everyone should respect that. Time doesn't erase everything. (On my phone so I can't get as detailed as I would like!)","human_ref_B":"They are simple attempts at levelling the playing field for those at a disadvantage. Not perfect, but a step in the right direction. While the Asian populace had problems, they were more temporary. The natives were here first, and the Africans were brought by force.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6458.0,"score_ratio":4.5} {"post_id":"1g7gdk","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.69,"history":"Can someone explain contemporary race laws and race-based policies in North America (USA and Canada), such as affirmative action and tax exemption for native Americans? Why are these laws not considered racist\/discriminatory? (Not intended to be inflammatory, respectful discussion please) I'm not sure if this is the right subreddit, so please shoot me down if I'm ruining your wonderful sub (although if you could point me in the right direction first, I'd greatly appreciate it). My question is not intended to be racist or inflammatory, and at the risk of sounding condescending I'd like to plead for discussion to be civil and for upvotes etc. to be alloted by reason rather than emotion. I'd also like to clarify that I am not North American, but recently visited a relative of mine in Canada and learnt, in broad strokes, about the race laws there. I'd like to share the experience as it adds context to my question; feel free to skip to the end to see my question on its own. I visited my cousin when he got married in Toronto. He's white and Irish (1st gen immigrant), and his girlfriend is also white, originally from the Ukraine. They had lived there for about 10 years. She worked as a teacher on a Native American (or American Indian, I'm afraid I don't know what term is appropriate, apologies if I cause offense) reservation (I think she used a better name for it, apologies again). I was quite surprised by many things I learnt. According to her, many people in the native community are exempt from various taxes, and receive free education up to and including University (unlike other Canadians in that prefecture), and also benefit from various other favoritist policies based on race. However, to qualify for the full benefits (which could include ownership of land), you had to be at least n% American Indian - if your bloodline was too watered down, you no longer qualified. I was quite surprised by this, because it didn't seem fair at all. First of all, there's something a bit grim about your birth (and your % indigenous blood) determining your relationship to the state etc.; I like to think that in a developed country, the law, rights, and duties should apply to all equally regardless of race. I was also distressed by my relative's reaction to my surprise. They reasoned that since they were white, it was fair - they'd oppressed the Indians in their own day, and it was time to pay reparations. However, this argument didn't make sense to me. First of all, many taxpayers (who are footing the bill for indigenous privilege) are non-white. They might be Japanese Canadians, who were hideously mistreated very recently, or just recent immigrants from China or Bangladesh who've never done anything wrong to the indigenous people. I also pointed out that a Ukrainian and an Irishman have also probably done nothing wrong (historically speaking) - heck, almost no-one suffered so much at the hands of the British as the Irish, and Ukraine hasn't exactly had a fun 150 years either. Finally, I pointed out that really, guilt shouldn't be inherited, and race laws don't really have a place in a first world country. My relatives reaction is what surprised me the most, and what lead me to ask this question. They became very defensive and actually angry at me. I honestly felt as if they'd been brainwashed. I must admit, I don't understand the Canadian educational system at all, but it seems like it's trying to make people feel guilt - or worse, actually BE guilty - of crimes they have not committed. What is also strange is that they objected to my use of the term 'race law' in reference to laws which specifically stipulate different treatment by the law based on race. I am given to understand that the USA has similar policies, for instance permitting Native Americans to circumvent various state and federal laws, again based on bloodline (Casinos spring to mind). I was surprised to discover that Canada and the USA have different legal treatment for different races, and I have the impression that mainstream society doesn't question this much. Am I correct in that impression? What is the discussion in the field of social science of the validity of having 'preferred' races, 'tax exempt' races, etc.? Doesn't serious social science frown upon 'race' as a construct anyway, and if so, why hasn't that attitude permeated society as a whole? Finally, is opposing such policies considered racist? TL;DR: Explain race laws in Canada and the USA, affirmative action, and social attitudes towards the same; please remain civil! (although obviously if you think I'm a monstrous racist, please tell me! I'm moving to the USA soon and want to be careful not to offend anyone in that country.) PS: apologies for grammar problems, English is not my first language.","c_root_id_A":"cahh9bs","c_root_id_B":"cahjuoz","created_at_utc_A":1371058961,"created_at_utc_B":1371065469,"score_A":4,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"They are simple attempts at levelling the playing field for those at a disadvantage. Not perfect, but a step in the right direction. While the Asian populace had problems, they were more temporary. The natives were here first, and the Africans were brought by force.","human_ref_B":"At least in the United States, the government's relationship with indigenous tribes is unique; the tribes are still considered sovereign by the federal government, and have certain rights that were negotiated in treaties and such. The reservations are remnants of indigenous ancestral land; the Native Americans govern these autonomously just as any nation would govern its land (well, not exactly; the legal situation is more complex than that).","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6508.0,"score_ratio":1.75} {"post_id":"vfsj6","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"Can someone explain why U.S. gas prices weren't higher in 2008? Given how high crude oil prices rose, it seems like gas prices should have been even higher than they were. Is it just because U.S. reserves were used, or is there more to it? Chart of crude vs. U.S. gas prices: http:\/\/www.gasbuddy.com\/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx?city1=USA%20Average&city2=&city3=&crude=y&tme=96&units=us","c_root_id_A":"c5478rz","c_root_id_B":"c548kga","created_at_utc_A":1340393334,"created_at_utc_B":1340398313,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I believe the accepted reason atm is demand. China wants it too, we have to compete for it.","human_ref_B":"I thought the accepted answer was \"because the recession.\" The drop coincides with the fall of Lehman brothers in Sept 08, which is when the recession really got bad, and thus demand dropped. http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/2008%E2%80%932012_global_recession I do not have definitive proof of this in the form of economic analysis. Closest I could find was this. http:\/\/blog.gasbuddy.com\/posts\/Economic-troubles-show-in-oil-demand-statistics\/1715-402212-248.aspx","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4979.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"em43xf","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Are there many examples of harsh economic sanctions successfully resulting in the voluntary cessation or reversal of actions or practices targeted by the sanctions? Particularly state - to - state sanctions. It seems to be a common measure taken by the US but I don't know of any contemporary examples where it has clearly had the desired effect. Do they exist?","c_root_id_A":"fdov72o","c_root_id_B":"fdotm52","created_at_utc_A":1578613615,"created_at_utc_B":1578612589,"score_A":9,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Freakonomics podcast did an episode focusing on this. According to the podcast, the short answer is not really. The sanctions are more likely to create resentment in the population of the sanctioned country towards the imposing country. Calling the country out in a sort of public shaming was cited as the more effective approach. http:\/\/freakonomics.com\/podcast\/chicago-live\/","human_ref_B":"There is some argument around the impact of sanctions on South Africa during the apartheid era ​ https:\/\/www.aeaweb.org\/articles?id=10.1257\/aer.89.2.415 etc.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1026.0,"score_ratio":1.125} {"post_id":"6xfo55","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"Why are the right\/left factions in so many countries seemingly in roughly the same proportions? It appears that in democracies, and not just Western democracies, there is a rather similar equipoise between voters who are right-leaning and left-leaning. The center of the political discussion in a great many countries around the world seems to be in a similar place. On a host of issues such as same-sex marriage, taxation, defense spending, labor and business regulation, pornography regulation, etc., many countries seem to have the same policy debates contemporaneously. Countries as different as Canada, Israel, India, the U.S., France, Mexico, Australia, Chile, Poland, or Greece all seem to be debating in a roughly similar place. There are some outliers (e.g. the U.S. doesn't have universal health care vs. Scandanavia has a much more robust welfare state). But in general, although there are many individual *people* in each of these countries who have extreme views on these subjects, there don't seem to be any democracies in which the population as a whole has a view that is wildly out of step with the center of the policy debate in other countries. I guess what I'm getting at here is that I'm guessing that there might be an \"innate\" tendency for human societies to generate a right-left split in politics that is roughly evenly matched. Is there any evidence for or against such a proposition?","c_root_id_A":"dmgej1c","c_root_id_B":"dmfpw1t","created_at_utc_A":1504322970,"created_at_utc_B":1504291527,"score_A":29,"score_B":21,"human_ref_A":"The most common explanation is the Median Voter Theorem, based on Anthony Downs' *An Economic Theory of Democracy* (1937). Assume that you can reduce the complexity of political opinion down to a single-dimensional spectrum. This spectrum is culturally-dependent and ultimately arbitrary; all that matters is the fact that voters in a particular political space place themselves relative to other voters according to this spectrum. Second, note that to win an election, the basic threshold is quite literally 50%+1 of the vote. Given this logic, political parties (or coalitions) will try to position themselves in such a way as to appeal to that 50%+1 voter--i.e. the voter directly in the middle of the political space, or \"Median Voter\". In this way, parties tend toward policy convergence--if the Republicans are winning the median voter on taxes, Democrats are forced to respond, even if they would prefer not to, or risk losing. The single-dimensionality to politics is essential here because it allows the parties to moderate their platforms more than they would otherwise be able. As Paul Frymer (1999) shows in *Uneasy Alliances*, many groups on the party fringes, who would tend to extremes, risk becoming completely irrelevant if they defect. Just look at how Nader voters in 2000 probably led to a Republican victory or how Progressive voters in 1912 led to a Wilson victory. This gives parties the flexibility they need to ignore their own fringes and move more toward the center than they otherwise would. Parties know that these extremes have nowhere else to go. Now, let's go back to the 50%+1 standard. Certainly parties often hope for landslides that show that the median voter is moving in their direction. But landslides aren't what they're cracked up to be. They can reflect a candidate's weakness (Sarkozy vs Le Pen in France), the legacy of imperialist\/historical division (the ANC in South Africa), manipulation of the election (the PRI in Mexico in the 1970s), or even poor campaigning (Goldwater in the US in 1964). Political parties are not looking for long-term supermajorities--that means fewer benefits for their core voters. Ultimately this gives voting blocs an incentive to look at the other party, and for the other party to offer something to potential voters to bring it to victory, thus reestablishing a 50\/50 equilibrium between the two parties. In sum, the logic of elections is to have a coalition that is perfectly half of the population to maximize the benefits you can distribute. This leads to two, just about equally-sized coalitions or parties. In general, \"right\" and \"left\" are fairly arbitrary--and for the purposes of the Median Voter Theorem are completely arbitrary. But the reason for the substantive policy sphere is similar in most of the countries you list (India is a bit different) is most likely because of policy convergence (Krill 2005), a fancy way of saying that politics doesn't happen in a vacuum, and that countries look toward each other to see what they're debating and dealing with. Globalization and harmonization of economic (and\/or social) regulation may be accelerating this process.","human_ref_B":"I'd suggest that you try to find out yourself! This tool by the Manifesto Project allows you to visualise their data. This is what they have to say themselves about the tool: > The third dashboard plots country averages over parties' programmatic features and parties' positions for one or more countries during a selectable time period. Thereby, the dashboard allows you to compare programmatic trends in multiple countries over a longer time period.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":31443.0,"score_ratio":1.380952381} {"post_id":"azsnkp","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"Is there a term, or process, for being able to broach discussion about a social subject in a way that is inclusive and acknowledging of the complexity and even contradictory components that fall within the subject? Please forgive the amateur attempt to articulate this. Say Person A is supportive of a movement, lets say Revolutionary Feudalism, and makes a statement to that effect, almost immediately there will be Person B with \"Yes, But\" and a list of examples of where the cause creates negative outcomes. Both are true. One will be 'more right' than the other if we could weigh every sub-argument objectively, but that's a lot of rabbit holes, and it doesn't invalidate the contrary truths that do exist within the shadow of the main subject at hand. And we find i think in order to protect the important point from being diminished that we are tempted to sail close to a kind of 'no true scotsman' approach via omission - arguing only for the strengths of the position and ignoring or downplaying the importance of counter-arguments. either the discussions are approached with: 1) All broad generalized statements are immediately followed with caveats acknowledging likely contrarian positions or 2) both parties are agreed ahead of time for the sake of simplicity not to pursue contrarian points on statements that are broadly true. not sure where to post - perhaps i should be over in a \/r\/debate ?","c_root_id_A":"ei9sl70","c_root_id_B":"ei9y9lp","created_at_utc_A":1552307086,"created_at_utc_B":1552312580,"score_A":2,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"As a premise, I am unable to fully grasp your example and what you are describing. Something cannot be both true and false, thus if there are contradictory results *something* should have been falsified. Now, an outcome might be observed only under certain circumstances, according to the influence of other factors (their absence or presence and their strength). That is an acceptable assertion. For now, what I can say is that when I read something like: >arguing only for the strengths of the position and ignoring or downplaying the importance of counter-arguments. That sounds like confirmation bias to me: > Our natural tendency seems to be to look for evidence that is directly supportive of hypotheses we favor and even, in some instances, of those we are entertaining but about which are indifferent. We may look for evidence that is embarrassing to hypotheses we disbelieve or especially dislike, but this can be seen as looking for evidence that is supportive of the complementary hypotheses. The point is that we seldom seem to seek evidence naturally that would show a hypothesis to be wrong and to do so because we understand this to be an effective way to show it to be right if it really is right. On the side I would keep in mind cognitive dissonance \"[...] a negative drive state that occurs whenever an individual simultaneously holds two cognitions that are psychologically inconsistent\" which can make people attempt to reduce this disagreeable feeling by (for example) search for new information that allows them to dismiss the cause of dissonance (aha! this study says there is no conclusive evidence) or to reduce the importance of the dissonant belief. But these two psychological phenomena are not a \"process to be able to broach discussion in an inclusive way\". That would be something *integrative*...if we leave out \"acknowledging contradictory components\".","human_ref_B":"Dialectic might be a good place to look. It's a different manner of conversation\/dialogue that could be said to stand in contrast with debate and polemic, where those focus on contrasting strengths of opposing perspectives and attacking those who hold the opposing perspectives, respectively. Dialectic focuses on establishing mutual truths and commonality between the interlocutors, which definitely seems to fall in line with what you're talking about.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5494.0,"score_ratio":6.0} {"post_id":"azsnkp","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"Is there a term, or process, for being able to broach discussion about a social subject in a way that is inclusive and acknowledging of the complexity and even contradictory components that fall within the subject? Please forgive the amateur attempt to articulate this. Say Person A is supportive of a movement, lets say Revolutionary Feudalism, and makes a statement to that effect, almost immediately there will be Person B with \"Yes, But\" and a list of examples of where the cause creates negative outcomes. Both are true. One will be 'more right' than the other if we could weigh every sub-argument objectively, but that's a lot of rabbit holes, and it doesn't invalidate the contrary truths that do exist within the shadow of the main subject at hand. And we find i think in order to protect the important point from being diminished that we are tempted to sail close to a kind of 'no true scotsman' approach via omission - arguing only for the strengths of the position and ignoring or downplaying the importance of counter-arguments. either the discussions are approached with: 1) All broad generalized statements are immediately followed with caveats acknowledging likely contrarian positions or 2) both parties are agreed ahead of time for the sake of simplicity not to pursue contrarian points on statements that are broadly true. not sure where to post - perhaps i should be over in a \/r\/debate ?","c_root_id_A":"ei9sl70","c_root_id_B":"eiblac7","created_at_utc_A":1552307086,"created_at_utc_B":1552354112,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"As a premise, I am unable to fully grasp your example and what you are describing. Something cannot be both true and false, thus if there are contradictory results *something* should have been falsified. Now, an outcome might be observed only under certain circumstances, according to the influence of other factors (their absence or presence and their strength). That is an acceptable assertion. For now, what I can say is that when I read something like: >arguing only for the strengths of the position and ignoring or downplaying the importance of counter-arguments. That sounds like confirmation bias to me: > Our natural tendency seems to be to look for evidence that is directly supportive of hypotheses we favor and even, in some instances, of those we are entertaining but about which are indifferent. We may look for evidence that is embarrassing to hypotheses we disbelieve or especially dislike, but this can be seen as looking for evidence that is supportive of the complementary hypotheses. The point is that we seldom seem to seek evidence naturally that would show a hypothesis to be wrong and to do so because we understand this to be an effective way to show it to be right if it really is right. On the side I would keep in mind cognitive dissonance \"[...] a negative drive state that occurs whenever an individual simultaneously holds two cognitions that are psychologically inconsistent\" which can make people attempt to reduce this disagreeable feeling by (for example) search for new information that allows them to dismiss the cause of dissonance (aha! this study says there is no conclusive evidence) or to reduce the importance of the dissonant belief. But these two psychological phenomena are not a \"process to be able to broach discussion in an inclusive way\". That would be something *integrative*...if we leave out \"acknowledging contradictory components\".","human_ref_B":"I immediately thought of Systems-Centered Therapy (SCT) when reading your question. SCT is derived from General Systems Theory, and states that the goal of a living human system (anything from one person to a giant group of people) is to survive, develop, and transform through the process of discriminating and integrating differences. Side note: The best metaphor I've found for the integration of differences is from Daniel Siegel's \"Neurobiology of We\", where he describes singers on a stage. First, they all sing the same note (no differentiation) and it is boring. Then, they all sing random notes (no integration) and it is chaos. Then, they are told to sing a song that they all know, they naturally harmonize (differentiation + integration), and it is a neat and meaningful experience. The idea is that people (and groups) are at their best when they have multiple different parts (like notes in a cord) all working together. We want to be in a sort of middle ground between order and chaos, with flexibility of response as a key attribute. SCT pays a lot of attention to boundaries, which can be open or closed, and notes that closing boundaries can help us survive and maintain stability, but also stops us from learning (because learning means breaking down what we already know and can activate our threat response systems). The main tool here is something called 'functional subgrouping', where you get the folks who think alike together as subgroups within the larger conversation to help them feel safe and open to new information. The typical\/generic subgroups are 'excited' and 'anxious'. Using your example, Persons A and B are a group that is responding to new information (something about revolutionary feudalism). Person A is the excited subgroup and person B the anxious. The initial impulse is to try and convert each other, but this doesn't usually work (see modern U.S. Politics). If persuasion fails, then frustration and irritation lead to criticism. The focus isn't on why the other should change, but rather what is wrong with them. If allowed to continue, it will lead to scapegoating and potentially group split. The trick to SCT is to interrupt this pattern (\"Yes, but\" is literally the que to jump in and redirect). The facilitator identifies and orients like others to their subgroups (As and Bs) and allows each to discuss their 'similarity' until differences in those similarities emerge (so 2 As who support revolutionary feudalism but disagree about some particular component or the historical importance of some fact), and then helps the groups to identify the differences in the originally similar (eroding the construct of some monolithic pro-Rev. Feud. agreement). This can lead to boundary opening, and potentially allow them to also identify similarities with the originally different (which is where As and Bs start talking with each other instead of at each other). A and B are now both part of some big, complicated group discussing Rev. Feudalism instead of 2 clear, separate parties with opposed views on the subject. There is a lot of skill involved in avoiding the triggering of defense mechanisms - maintaining calm, promoting active listening (and the feeling of being heard), creating a feeling of safety and curiosity, and then allowing the group to slowly bring in the new\/change as their comfort level grows and they become ready for the unknown. https:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pubmed\/21028975 is a good article if you are interested in more info. Yvonne Agazarian is the big name here.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":47026.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"3wozku","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"Why does it seem like every time an economist speaks, they come out in support of the status quo? There seems to be a dearth of radical economists. Is this merely my perception? From what I know of heterodox economists, mainstream economics has somewhat of a \"one of us, one of us\" culture problem and seems to have difficulty with dissent?","c_root_id_A":"cxxwkiz","c_root_id_B":"cxxwnqn","created_at_utc_A":1450042499,"created_at_utc_B":1450042633,"score_A":12,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"\"Dearth of radicals\" is a little bit an issue of perception, but it depends how you think about economics. The science is extremely tied to quantifiable models. So far, Marxian approaches haven't found the equivalent kind of empirical support. I'm not saying modern economics necessarily precludes all Marxian ideas. But I think any such understanding occurs at a \"higher\" level of economic theory than most work is being performed. For ex: An economics professor, is going to teach their econometrics or macroeconomics class the same whether they were a Monetarist, Keynesian or Marxian. That being said, there have been \"heterodox\" theories that have made significant changes in the recent past; behavioral economics, for instance. Finally, you have to remember that \"status-quo\" is also relative. The application of Monetarist theories in central banking was pretty big and disruptive to the field. But if your thought process is status quo == free market capitalism, then you will not register any difference.","human_ref_B":"I don't think that that is an entirely fair question. There are lots of different schools of thought in economics (just like in other disciplines), though there are also things that virtually everyone in the field takes for granted. After all, that is how science (in the broadest sense of the term) gets done (see generally T. Kuhn The Structure of Scientific Revolutions 1962). No one would suggest that there is a \"dearth of radical biologists\" because everyone in biology takes the theory of evolution for granted. What constitutes \"mainstream economics\" changes over time in response to new work--Keynesians were incorporated into the neoclassical mainstream thanks to Hicks and Samuelson, for instance. Why does consensus on certain issues constitute a \"culture problem\"? I think that there is a natural tendency in human life, as well as in academia specifically, to want to silence other viewpoints: Perhaps Justice Holmes described it best in his dissent in Abrams v. United States 250 U.S. 616 (1919), \"[Censorship] seems perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power, and want a certain result with all your heart, you naturally express your wish [to] sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition...seems to indicate...that you do not care whole-heartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises.\" Economists, like everyone else, want to be right and believe that they are, and academia is a power structure that imposes certain orthodoxies as a condition for advancement. But I don't think that this is a problem for economics as such but for every discipline to some degree.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":134.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667} {"post_id":"3wozku","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"Why does it seem like every time an economist speaks, they come out in support of the status quo? There seems to be a dearth of radical economists. Is this merely my perception? From what I know of heterodox economists, mainstream economics has somewhat of a \"one of us, one of us\" culture problem and seems to have difficulty with dissent?","c_root_id_A":"cxyhxzr","c_root_id_B":"cxybn6n","created_at_utc_A":1450083084,"created_at_utc_B":1450066715,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I can think of a few ways to turn this question around. 1) Maybe the status quo is better at finding economists to support their conclusions. 2) Or maybe they do actually listen to economists and define themselves that way. I'm focusing here on \"seem like every time an economist speaks\" rather than the content of the question because many mainstream economists have endorsed positions much too wacky to be considered by the political system. For instance, see Milton Friedman's \"helicopter money.\" This term gets mocked by the mainstream press pretty much every time it comes, yet one can practically define mainstream economics by the distance to Friedman. Often times in the MSM you will see traders masquerading as economists, but real academic economists can be as disconnected from society as the rest of academia.","human_ref_B":"When the experts disagree with your political beliefs about the economy, perhaps the problem is with your opinions and not a personality failure of the experts in that field.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":16369.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"ssi2i1","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Is the Barter economy really a myth? I was reading this article by the Atlantic: https:\/\/www.theatlantic.com\/business\/archive\/2016\/02\/barter-society-myth\/471051\/ Where it is supported that according to anthropological research the barter economy has never existed and is only believed by economists. I only have knowledge of economics and a rather limited one I may admit. Other social scientists, is this really true, is the barter economy really fake or just some specific anthropologists say so?","c_root_id_A":"hwyso59","c_root_id_B":"hwypoba","created_at_utc_A":1644880010,"created_at_utc_B":1644877593,"score_A":25,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"Historically, economists assumed that barter pre-dated money. Money was abstracted barter, so the story went. Going back to Malinowski's kula ring, Marcel Mauss's \"the Gift\"), the North American potlatch, up through Marshall Sahlins's very influence essay \"The Original Affluent Society\" (later expanded into the book *Stone Age Economics*) make a pretty strong argument that internal to most small scale communities, we don't see barter. We don't see trade. We see what people (following Mauss) called \"gift economies\". David Graeber, in his very influential *Fragments of An Anarchist Anthropology*: >Before Marcel] Mauss, the universal assumption had been that economies without money or markets had operated by means of \u201cbarter\u201d; they were trying to engage in market behavior (acquire useful goods and services at the least cost to themselves, get rich if possible...), they just hadn\u2019t yet developed very sophisticated ways of going about it. Mauss demonstrated that in fact, such economies were really \u201cgift economies.\u201d They were not based on calculation, but on a refusal to calculate; they were rooted in an ethical system which consciously rejected most of what we would consider the basic principles of economics. It was not that they had not yet learned to seek profit through the most efficient means. They would have found the very premise that the point of an economic transaction\u2014at least, one with someone who was not your enemy\u2014was to seek the greatest profit deeply offensive. (pg. 21) Earlier in the book, he gives a little more history of Mauss's idea: >[Mauss's] most famous work was written in response to the crisis of socialism he saw in Lenin\u2019s reintroduction of the market in the Soviet Union in the \u201820s: If it was impossible to simply legislate the money economy away, even in Russia, the least monetarized society in Europe, then perhaps revolutionaries needed to start looking at the ethnographic record to see what sort of creature the market really was, and what viable alter- natives to capitalism might look like. Hence his \u201cEssay on the Gift,\u201d written in 1925, which argued (among other things) that the origin of all contracts lies in communism, an unconditional commitment to another\u2019s needs, and that despite endless economic textbooks to the contrary, there has never been an economy based on barter: that actually-existing societies which do not employ money have instead been gift economies in which the distinctions we now make between interest and altruism, person and property, freedom and obligation, simply did not exist. (pg. 17) Later, in his book *Debt*, Graeber argues pretty convincingly (at least to me, a non-specialist in Mesopotamia economics) that the origin of money is not abstracted barter but debt, to over simplify somewhat, based on rationalized gifts. Nothing here, I think, would be particularly controversial within anthropology or sociology or even, to some degree, within economics. Many economists, including Stiglitz, Cowen, and others, recommended reading *Debt* (while having very obvious disagreements about some of its core conclusions, but not necessarily its interpretation of the early historical data). I go through many of the reactions in this older [\/r\/AskAnthropology post. Which is to say, I think it's entirely convincing that for internal exchange, the modal (perhaps even \"overwhelming\") form exchange was some form of gift exchange. Please note that gift exchange does *not* mean complete equality as there was still accumulation and inequality in gift economies. In fact, this has been recognized (going all the way back to Mauss) as a consistent feature of gift economies. However, what I'm much less convinced based on the readings of the above, is that gift economies was as overwhelming for *external* exchange. Think of it this way: the family you grew up in was a gift economy. Your father or mother (hopefully) never charged you for breakfast in high school. This does not mean, necessarily, that outside of your family there were no other forms exchange, i.e. money or barter. In fact, one consistent features of actually existing gift economies today is that they are often enmeshed with other forms of trade and in some context we'll see gifts and in some contexts we'll see market exchange and in some contexts it'll be a little unclear what we're seeing because one will have the veneer of the other. Even in our very market-based societies, we have lots of gift economies for things. College parties is one that I always explained to my students (the one who gives away the most by throwing a college party with free flowing cheap beer gains the most prestige). The trade of blood and organs is another (two academics have written books about these, Kieran Healy's *Last Best Gifts: Altruism and the Market for Human Blood and Organs* and the older *The Gift Relationship: from Human Blood to Social Policy* by Richard Titmuss). Certainly, there are external gift exchanges\u2014gift exchanges with outsiders. I love the guest-host relationships theorized to exist in early Indo-European society. I think the kula ring is a particularly famous example. But the kula exchange existed along side market\/barter exchange, called *gimwali* (as both Malinowski and Mauss actually emphasize). This isn't my area, but I haven't seen a fully articulated discussions of this in relationship to the origin of barter. So yes, this line is true if read in a certain way: >But various anthropologists have pointed out that this barter economy has never been witnessed as researchers have traveled to undeveloped parts of the globe. \u201cNo example of a barter economy, pure and simple, has ever been described, let alone the emergence from it of money,\u201d wrote the Cambridge anthropology professor Caroline Humphrey in a 1985 paper. \u201cAll available ethnography suggests that there never has been such a thing.\u201d There has never been a *pure and simple* barter economy. But there have existed barter systems that exist along side, and complimentary to (arguably part of), of gift economies. It's been a while since I've read Mauss or Malinowski, but I don't think they argue that *gimwali* barter emerged from money. Within the society, there was very little *explicit* quid-pro-quo, but there was a ton of implicit quid-pro-quo. Though it's an external example, in the kula ring, as Wikipedia helpfully summarizes: >Participants travel at times hundreds of miles by canoe in order to exchange Kula valuables which consist of red shell-disc necklaces (veigun or soulava) that are traded to the north (circling the ring in clockwise direction) and white shell armbands (mwali) that are traded in the southern direction (circling counterclockwise). *If the opening gift was an armband, then the closing gift must be a necklace and vice versa.* Similar unspoken rules and assumptions are often present in gift exchanges (just as today if I loan a neighbor my lawn mower, I expect he'll give it back\u2014and let me borrow his chainsaw when I need it). But Mauss and Graeber emphasize, what I think that article misses, is that these exchanges are always unequal. The relationships can never be \"zeroed\", the debts and values never fully calculated, which ensures the continuity of the relationship. However, in relationships that were not as continuous\u2014that is, certain external relationships\u2014it does seem like various forms of barter exist. Anthropologist Anne Chapman even has an article called \"Barter as a Universal Mode of Exchange\", where she argues that it is a universal mode of exchange alongside gift exchanges. And while she doesn't make the internal\/external distinction I'm making, that's where all her examples come from (\"Bushmen\" and Bantus or Europeans; Munchi and Jukum in Central Sudan; various long distance trade in Australia, etc). She emphasizes instead that while gifts engender good feelings, friendliness (continuity, in my terms), barter engenders competition, hostility, and force (the potential for this to be a one off relationship, in my terms). Barter exchanges, as Chapman puts it and all the others agree, fundamentally differs from gift exchanges in that \"it is a purely economic transaction involving no mutual obligation between the partners.\" In some of the barter exchanges\u2014like those in the kula ring\u2014gift exchanges are layered with barter exchanges which facilitates continued relationships while also circulating desired goods between groups. It seems like your article somewhat conflates this, and takes the internal situation as the universal situation. Now, what this does not mean is that barter is the precursor to money. But it also doesn't mean that barter isn't part of external exchange in non-state societies. However, I do think that Graeber is right in arguing that where we see \"pure and simple\" barter economies for in-group exchange (that is, without a heavy dose of gift economies) is after the breakdown of once robust market economies (during war, etc.), rather than non-state economies.","human_ref_B":"So, I present the below as a non-economist, non-anthropologist, and I can imagine that there will be economists and anthropologists of all sorts who can provide further detail on any of these points. I would suggest not tarring all economists with the same brush - there is quite a bit of diversity across fields within economics. While neoclassical economics is dominant, even neoclassical economists are probably not unaware of these arguments. Probably it is also worth thinking about the fact that most economists will not be historians of economics, so the substantial investment in barter as a concept is likely to be low. It may well serve as one of those disciplinary joke concepts about the origins of a field that we laugh about, rather than having a great centrality in most discussions and occasionally being addressed seriously. As a corollary, it is worth looking at Yanis Varoufakis' work from around 2013 on the bartering and deal-making processes within the TF2 economy. Varoufakis looked at the way that some resources (specifically, hats) become types of proxy currency. Anyway, to continue: >Where it is supported that according to anthropological research the barter economy has never existed and is only believed by economists I believe the popularisation of this argument comes from David Graeber's work. I think he framed it in less absolutist terms than the authors here, but he is an anthropologist and he does discuss the reception of barter as a concept in economic terms, including classical, neoclassical, and Marxist economic perspectives. Graeber's argument is more specific than simply saying that it is a myth: he saying that barter exchange **between individuals** has no historical record that **he could find** and yet he sees it as a foundational justification for some economic principles around the origins of money (as a concept, not regarding the money creation process) and the management of resources. In short, he sees early modern economists as assuming that barter is the only way that people could manage goods before money, and accuses economics of running with this idea across the centuries despite a lack of evidence to the fact. His argument has two parts: **Economic straw argument** The argument here is that barter, as presented in economics scholarship, is a convenient fiction with no evidence. Graeber, in his work on the origins of money, worked through a great deal of historic literature on how money is justified. The main argument that he encounters is this idea that money was invented to overcome the barter paradox (there is a more specific term he uses, but I forget it). The barter paradox is the idea that if I am someone who is hyperspecialised in creating ploughshares and I just churn them out over and over and over and do nothing else, then I'll need to trade these to people who can give me what I need to survive. A house, food, a partner, medical care, etc. But this leaves me in the circumstance that I will need to find a landlord who wants a steady supply of ploughshares, a family that is willing to trade one of their offspring for some quantity of ploughshares, a doctor who has a pressing ploughshare addiction, and a series of farmers and ranchers who like displaying ploughshares on their walls or somesuch. However, Graeber points out that the assumption that barter is the mode of exchange prior to capital markets has zero evidence. It just emerges in the literature as the only way that early economists could imagine people living without money, and without reference to any actually observed exchange processes. Rather than imagining other ways of organising resources, he suggests that these scholars assume that people will specialise and will produce goods in excess of what they need in order to be able to get other goods from other specialists, but be stuck as everyone wanders around with their ploughshares, hematite ore, wool bales, jewellery, toga, wheelrims, etc, all desperately looking for someone selling bread. For Graeber, the way barter is used as a concept here is as a straw argument. Effectively, it's pretty easy to imagine that a society would never get to the point where it's stuck in a barter paradox. No one would get to the point where they make themselves a second ploughshare, be unable to trade it, and then continue making more, for instance. No community would organise itself to the point where they overproduce in the idea that they can store and then trade these resources, and he sees this as something that only really emerges with the idea of markets and monetary trade, where it becomes possible to think about strategically storing value to trade at a later point. I should note that, by memory he does not claim that barter does never takes place, but rather that its inclusion in economics scholarship has no justification. The importance of this is that the barter myth is central to a second myth that he is seeking to undermine: that the idea of money emerges naturally\/sensibly from human interaction in marketplaces. Instead, he argues (but I won't go into this, but is addressed elsewhere on this and related subreddits) that money is effectively a state-created system for governing populations. **Individual\/community** For Graeber, barter worked as an intercommunity exchange system, not an intracommunity exchange system. The idea of barter is only necessary if you have an economic structure that requires individuals to exert labour to get resources that are exclusively theirs. If you have an economic system where resources are simply accessible to the community or centrally managed - the example he gives by memory is a women's circle - then there is no idea of individual barter. In these circumstances, why would you want to barter with your community ? If you need something, you simply go get it or you are apportioned some. There would be no idea of holding onto a tool if you aren't immediately using it, so why prevent someone else from contributing to the common resources that you all have access to? If you wanted to use something others would just do other things or make new tools. If you encounter another group with spices that you liked and you had religious icons, you could simply trade these between communities through some barter system, but this was not at an individual level. This was about the group, and allowed the process of economic exchange to work at a sort of proto-macro level. The individual, however, never did this. Anthropological work observes that in many cases, colonial encounters with non-capitalist societies did tend to force individual representation and barter onto these communities. Communities that wanted to collectively discuss trade and opportunities would be required to have a representative or king who would have to meet one on one with the colonisers, and effectively barter at an individual level. The myth of barter that was assumed **Conclusion, of sorts** Graeber is, I think, the origin of this claim. He sees barter as being used as a straw argument as a part of naturalist arguments for markets that makes its claims from assumptions about how non-capitalist societies work; these assumptions were taken as granted during colonial encounters; and that it is effectively not well understood in some of the foundational economics literature. In any case, just to address a final question >Other social scientists, is this really true, is the barter economy really fake or just some specific anthropologists say so? Barter occurs in different settings, including notably in games that avoid a direct currency system. This isn't fake - it is barter - but it's not a historically located way for managing real resources. There are also stories of people bartering up scales of value. Barter can work. Barter has problems too, but so do all economic systems. ​ Graber, D. (2011) Debt. Penguin.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2417.0,"score_ratio":1.5625} {"post_id":"ssi2i1","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Is the Barter economy really a myth? I was reading this article by the Atlantic: https:\/\/www.theatlantic.com\/business\/archive\/2016\/02\/barter-society-myth\/471051\/ Where it is supported that according to anthropological research the barter economy has never existed and is only believed by economists. I only have knowledge of economics and a rather limited one I may admit. Other social scientists, is this really true, is the barter economy really fake or just some specific anthropologists say so?","c_root_id_A":"hwyso59","c_root_id_B":"hwys800","created_at_utc_A":1644880010,"created_at_utc_B":1644879782,"score_A":25,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Historically, economists assumed that barter pre-dated money. Money was abstracted barter, so the story went. Going back to Malinowski's kula ring, Marcel Mauss's \"the Gift\"), the North American potlatch, up through Marshall Sahlins's very influence essay \"The Original Affluent Society\" (later expanded into the book *Stone Age Economics*) make a pretty strong argument that internal to most small scale communities, we don't see barter. We don't see trade. We see what people (following Mauss) called \"gift economies\". David Graeber, in his very influential *Fragments of An Anarchist Anthropology*: >Before Marcel] Mauss, the universal assumption had been that economies without money or markets had operated by means of \u201cbarter\u201d; they were trying to engage in market behavior (acquire useful goods and services at the least cost to themselves, get rich if possible...), they just hadn\u2019t yet developed very sophisticated ways of going about it. Mauss demonstrated that in fact, such economies were really \u201cgift economies.\u201d They were not based on calculation, but on a refusal to calculate; they were rooted in an ethical system which consciously rejected most of what we would consider the basic principles of economics. It was not that they had not yet learned to seek profit through the most efficient means. They would have found the very premise that the point of an economic transaction\u2014at least, one with someone who was not your enemy\u2014was to seek the greatest profit deeply offensive. (pg. 21) Earlier in the book, he gives a little more history of Mauss's idea: >[Mauss's] most famous work was written in response to the crisis of socialism he saw in Lenin\u2019s reintroduction of the market in the Soviet Union in the \u201820s: If it was impossible to simply legislate the money economy away, even in Russia, the least monetarized society in Europe, then perhaps revolutionaries needed to start looking at the ethnographic record to see what sort of creature the market really was, and what viable alter- natives to capitalism might look like. Hence his \u201cEssay on the Gift,\u201d written in 1925, which argued (among other things) that the origin of all contracts lies in communism, an unconditional commitment to another\u2019s needs, and that despite endless economic textbooks to the contrary, there has never been an economy based on barter: that actually-existing societies which do not employ money have instead been gift economies in which the distinctions we now make between interest and altruism, person and property, freedom and obligation, simply did not exist. (pg. 17) Later, in his book *Debt*, Graeber argues pretty convincingly (at least to me, a non-specialist in Mesopotamia economics) that the origin of money is not abstracted barter but debt, to over simplify somewhat, based on rationalized gifts. Nothing here, I think, would be particularly controversial within anthropology or sociology or even, to some degree, within economics. Many economists, including Stiglitz, Cowen, and others, recommended reading *Debt* (while having very obvious disagreements about some of its core conclusions, but not necessarily its interpretation of the early historical data). I go through many of the reactions in this older [\/r\/AskAnthropology post. Which is to say, I think it's entirely convincing that for internal exchange, the modal (perhaps even \"overwhelming\") form exchange was some form of gift exchange. Please note that gift exchange does *not* mean complete equality as there was still accumulation and inequality in gift economies. In fact, this has been recognized (going all the way back to Mauss) as a consistent feature of gift economies. However, what I'm much less convinced based on the readings of the above, is that gift economies was as overwhelming for *external* exchange. Think of it this way: the family you grew up in was a gift economy. Your father or mother (hopefully) never charged you for breakfast in high school. This does not mean, necessarily, that outside of your family there were no other forms exchange, i.e. money or barter. In fact, one consistent features of actually existing gift economies today is that they are often enmeshed with other forms of trade and in some context we'll see gifts and in some contexts we'll see market exchange and in some contexts it'll be a little unclear what we're seeing because one will have the veneer of the other. Even in our very market-based societies, we have lots of gift economies for things. College parties is one that I always explained to my students (the one who gives away the most by throwing a college party with free flowing cheap beer gains the most prestige). The trade of blood and organs is another (two academics have written books about these, Kieran Healy's *Last Best Gifts: Altruism and the Market for Human Blood and Organs* and the older *The Gift Relationship: from Human Blood to Social Policy* by Richard Titmuss). Certainly, there are external gift exchanges\u2014gift exchanges with outsiders. I love the guest-host relationships theorized to exist in early Indo-European society. I think the kula ring is a particularly famous example. But the kula exchange existed along side market\/barter exchange, called *gimwali* (as both Malinowski and Mauss actually emphasize). This isn't my area, but I haven't seen a fully articulated discussions of this in relationship to the origin of barter. So yes, this line is true if read in a certain way: >But various anthropologists have pointed out that this barter economy has never been witnessed as researchers have traveled to undeveloped parts of the globe. \u201cNo example of a barter economy, pure and simple, has ever been described, let alone the emergence from it of money,\u201d wrote the Cambridge anthropology professor Caroline Humphrey in a 1985 paper. \u201cAll available ethnography suggests that there never has been such a thing.\u201d There has never been a *pure and simple* barter economy. But there have existed barter systems that exist along side, and complimentary to (arguably part of), of gift economies. It's been a while since I've read Mauss or Malinowski, but I don't think they argue that *gimwali* barter emerged from money. Within the society, there was very little *explicit* quid-pro-quo, but there was a ton of implicit quid-pro-quo. Though it's an external example, in the kula ring, as Wikipedia helpfully summarizes: >Participants travel at times hundreds of miles by canoe in order to exchange Kula valuables which consist of red shell-disc necklaces (veigun or soulava) that are traded to the north (circling the ring in clockwise direction) and white shell armbands (mwali) that are traded in the southern direction (circling counterclockwise). *If the opening gift was an armband, then the closing gift must be a necklace and vice versa.* Similar unspoken rules and assumptions are often present in gift exchanges (just as today if I loan a neighbor my lawn mower, I expect he'll give it back\u2014and let me borrow his chainsaw when I need it). But Mauss and Graeber emphasize, what I think that article misses, is that these exchanges are always unequal. The relationships can never be \"zeroed\", the debts and values never fully calculated, which ensures the continuity of the relationship. However, in relationships that were not as continuous\u2014that is, certain external relationships\u2014it does seem like various forms of barter exist. Anthropologist Anne Chapman even has an article called \"Barter as a Universal Mode of Exchange\", where she argues that it is a universal mode of exchange alongside gift exchanges. And while she doesn't make the internal\/external distinction I'm making, that's where all her examples come from (\"Bushmen\" and Bantus or Europeans; Munchi and Jukum in Central Sudan; various long distance trade in Australia, etc). She emphasizes instead that while gifts engender good feelings, friendliness (continuity, in my terms), barter engenders competition, hostility, and force (the potential for this to be a one off relationship, in my terms). Barter exchanges, as Chapman puts it and all the others agree, fundamentally differs from gift exchanges in that \"it is a purely economic transaction involving no mutual obligation between the partners.\" In some of the barter exchanges\u2014like those in the kula ring\u2014gift exchanges are layered with barter exchanges which facilitates continued relationships while also circulating desired goods between groups. It seems like your article somewhat conflates this, and takes the internal situation as the universal situation. Now, what this does not mean is that barter is the precursor to money. But it also doesn't mean that barter isn't part of external exchange in non-state societies. However, I do think that Graeber is right in arguing that where we see \"pure and simple\" barter economies for in-group exchange (that is, without a heavy dose of gift economies) is after the breakdown of once robust market economies (during war, etc.), rather than non-state economies.","human_ref_B":"You may want to take a look at the first paper cited in the essay, by Caroline Humphreys, as well as her references, where she argues that: \"As far as the economists' argument is concerned, we know from the accumulated evidence of ethnogra-phy that barter was indeed very rare as a system dominating primitive economies.' Money of various kinds has been aroupd forover two millennia, and in the last century, in its purest, non 'commodity-money' form, has pen-etrated virtually every economy on earth, and yet barter is common today in economies which also know money. I shall propose in this article that barter in the present world is, in the vast majority of cases, a post-monetary phenomenon(i.e. it coexists with money), and that it characterises economies which are, or have become, de-coupled from monetary markets.\" As she says, there is no evidence of barter as the precursor of money, from which money evolved. No pure pre-monetary economies have been found, but barter can under certain very specific conditions become predominant, namely in post-monetary economies in conditions of disintegration. That would be a good way to describe, for example, barter economies in prisons or POW camps, which is sometimes erroneously offered as proof of the classical economic story of the origin of money in barter. (I remember reading that in a high school textbook.) The Atlantic essay also cites Graeber's book Debt. Debt is really long (and well worth the read), but you can also simply skip to one of the first chapters, which deals directly with the myth of barter and the origins of money. He also wrote a long blog post responding to the arguments of Austrian economists which is very useful because of the concrete examples offered from ethnographies of gifts and exchange and how little they resemble the classical economic story, and the evidence of money originating in ancient bureaucracies. Or skip to the bottom for the anthropological\/archaeological\/historical works cited by Graeber dealing directly with these questions.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":228.0,"score_ratio":12.5} {"post_id":"ssi2i1","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Is the Barter economy really a myth? I was reading this article by the Atlantic: https:\/\/www.theatlantic.com\/business\/archive\/2016\/02\/barter-society-myth\/471051\/ Where it is supported that according to anthropological research the barter economy has never existed and is only believed by economists. I only have knowledge of economics and a rather limited one I may admit. Other social scientists, is this really true, is the barter economy really fake or just some specific anthropologists say so?","c_root_id_A":"hwys800","c_root_id_B":"hx4sufr","created_at_utc_A":1644879782,"created_at_utc_B":1644985678,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"You may want to take a look at the first paper cited in the essay, by Caroline Humphreys, as well as her references, where she argues that: \"As far as the economists' argument is concerned, we know from the accumulated evidence of ethnogra-phy that barter was indeed very rare as a system dominating primitive economies.' Money of various kinds has been aroupd forover two millennia, and in the last century, in its purest, non 'commodity-money' form, has pen-etrated virtually every economy on earth, and yet barter is common today in economies which also know money. I shall propose in this article that barter in the present world is, in the vast majority of cases, a post-monetary phenomenon(i.e. it coexists with money), and that it characterises economies which are, or have become, de-coupled from monetary markets.\" As she says, there is no evidence of barter as the precursor of money, from which money evolved. No pure pre-monetary economies have been found, but barter can under certain very specific conditions become predominant, namely in post-monetary economies in conditions of disintegration. That would be a good way to describe, for example, barter economies in prisons or POW camps, which is sometimes erroneously offered as proof of the classical economic story of the origin of money in barter. (I remember reading that in a high school textbook.) The Atlantic essay also cites Graeber's book Debt. Debt is really long (and well worth the read), but you can also simply skip to one of the first chapters, which deals directly with the myth of barter and the origins of money. He also wrote a long blog post responding to the arguments of Austrian economists which is very useful because of the concrete examples offered from ethnographies of gifts and exchange and how little they resemble the classical economic story, and the evidence of money originating in ancient bureaucracies. Or skip to the bottom for the anthropological\/archaeological\/historical works cited by Graeber dealing directly with these questions.","human_ref_B":"For an economist take: My understanding is, while Graeber may be true about history (I have no qualification to dispute that), he overplays it as some killing blow to modern economics (Eg \/u\/rdef1984\u2019s reference to \u201cfoundational justification\u201d). While it perhaps merits updating some textbooks, the nature of money is not foundational to most of economics\u2014in fact, it doesn\u2019t exist at all in some foundations (Eg there is no money in the derivations of the welfare theorems). Most economists would respond the way Beggs does in that article\u2014with a shrug. Of course money matters in certain parts of economics. The classic take is Kocherlakota 1998, \u201cMoney is Memory.\u201d Basically: Money is no better than the debt\/gift-driven society Graeber describes if memory is *perfect*, ie, if society has access to a technology that credible records everything. Of course this doesn\u2019t exist in real life, generally; with us instead using informal approximations. As \u201csociety\u201d grows, it seems intuitive why memory will serve as a poorer and poorer tool. In a world with more and more trading partners, societal memory requirements grow larger and larger, as that article\u2019s author kind of vaguely alludes to after a lot of speculation that is overly favorable to Graeber. (Not just for the partners for themselves but for third parties too, because someone needs to adjudicate who\u2019s in the right if there\u2019s a dispute. Centralized mechanisms become more important as trade happens between more distant parties\u2014see Greif-Milgrom-Weingast 1994 on the merchants guild for another example about the importance of formal institutions for establishing memory.) (As an aside, I am obligated to say that Graeber\u2019s picture of economics is always rather tainted by his politics, and when he attempts to encroach on economists\u2019 turf it\u2019s usually in a way that fundamentally lacks much empirical support and mostly relies on argument by assertion\u2014cf Farrell on Graeber\u2019s theory of coercion in international relations or this paper on \u201cbullshit jobs\u201d)","labels":0,"seconds_difference":105896.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"ssi2i1","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Is the Barter economy really a myth? I was reading this article by the Atlantic: https:\/\/www.theatlantic.com\/business\/archive\/2016\/02\/barter-society-myth\/471051\/ Where it is supported that according to anthropological research the barter economy has never existed and is only believed by economists. I only have knowledge of economics and a rather limited one I may admit. Other social scientists, is this really true, is the barter economy really fake or just some specific anthropologists say so?","c_root_id_A":"hwys800","c_root_id_B":"hx7ryct","created_at_utc_A":1644879782,"created_at_utc_B":1645041986,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"You may want to take a look at the first paper cited in the essay, by Caroline Humphreys, as well as her references, where she argues that: \"As far as the economists' argument is concerned, we know from the accumulated evidence of ethnogra-phy that barter was indeed very rare as a system dominating primitive economies.' Money of various kinds has been aroupd forover two millennia, and in the last century, in its purest, non 'commodity-money' form, has pen-etrated virtually every economy on earth, and yet barter is common today in economies which also know money. I shall propose in this article that barter in the present world is, in the vast majority of cases, a post-monetary phenomenon(i.e. it coexists with money), and that it characterises economies which are, or have become, de-coupled from monetary markets.\" As she says, there is no evidence of barter as the precursor of money, from which money evolved. No pure pre-monetary economies have been found, but barter can under certain very specific conditions become predominant, namely in post-monetary economies in conditions of disintegration. That would be a good way to describe, for example, barter economies in prisons or POW camps, which is sometimes erroneously offered as proof of the classical economic story of the origin of money in barter. (I remember reading that in a high school textbook.) The Atlantic essay also cites Graeber's book Debt. Debt is really long (and well worth the read), but you can also simply skip to one of the first chapters, which deals directly with the myth of barter and the origins of money. He also wrote a long blog post responding to the arguments of Austrian economists which is very useful because of the concrete examples offered from ethnographies of gifts and exchange and how little they resemble the classical economic story, and the evidence of money originating in ancient bureaucracies. Or skip to the bottom for the anthropological\/archaeological\/historical works cited by Graeber dealing directly with these questions.","human_ref_B":"This has been an interesting thread. I'll just point one important thing. Economist discuss barter in two different contexts. In this thread people are talking about the argument that money arose from barter. That idea came from Carl Menger1]. It is not particularly important for Economics overall. Not very much *follows from* the origin of money. What matters in the vast majority of cases is that we have money now. Much more important in Economics is the other discussion of barter. That is the idea of *reasoning* about barter. In that case we're not talking about actual barter that exists in the real world. It's a way of hypothesising, a thought-experiment. For example, Adam Smith describes the problem of the double-coincidence of wants in \"Wealth of Nations\"[2]. He doesn't really say that barter evolves into money. Rather he draws us a picture of a barter society with division-of-labour and points to how inefficient it would be. It is Menger who thought that barter evolved into money and suggested a process by which that may take place. The same thing can be done for more complex problems. For example, we can imagine a world that is like the modern world, but there is no money. Everyone uses barter and somehow, perhaps magically, the problems of barter are removed. Now, in this world there would be no monetary effects. There would be no inflation or deflation. This can act as a theoretical comparison point to real economies. There are arguments for and against this sort of theorising. I think that lots of people from the Anthropology side of this debate confuse these two uses. [1] - See [this. 2] - Book 1 chapter 4, [here. \/u\/isntanywhere \/u\/Mpomposs","labels":0,"seconds_difference":162204.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"4nas5s","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"How do the Swiss maintain cohesion when they have so many referendums? I ask because I saw how divisive the Scottish secession campaign ended up and I'm starting to see the same with the EU referendum campaign here in the UK at the moment. Do the Swiss go through the same kind of social trauma or do they take a different approach? Does having so many referendums moderate how people debate and behave in public environments?","c_root_id_A":"d42js30","c_root_id_B":"d42hg1t","created_at_utc_A":1465493899,"created_at_utc_B":1465490929,"score_A":22,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I am a student of political science and swiss. First I tried to find some relevant sources, concerning cohesion and referendums, which failed. People usually don't really link the two. Are the two things comparable? Switzerland votes very often, alone last sunday there were two referendums and three initiatives (changes of the constitution initiated by collecting signatures ). And the some of the votes are really not very important topics, for example about the change of the value added tax for restaurants. Also important to note: Switzerland has this referendums since over 100 years, the people are used to it. *^(\"The referendum: direct democracy in Switzerland - KW Kobach - 1993\")* On the other hand in Scotland there are usually no Referendum. The topic they voted about is probably one of the most important vote you can make as a region. So you would expect it to be very polarizing. If we look at a very important vote in Switzerland, which might be the closest to the importance of the Scottish referendum, are the ones concerning relations to the EU. These votes too are very polarizing and cause huge discussions long after they happened. A good example is the vote about joining the EEA (European Economic Area) in 1992. The vote was really close and showed huge divides in the population and also between the different language regions. There is still discussion today about this vote, due to change in EU relations. ^(^20 ^Jahre ^EWR-Volksabstimmung: ^Was ^haben ^wir ^damals ^entschieden? ^- ^Claude ^Longchamp ^, ^gfs ) Also the trauma you are talking about. One I am not sure if you might overrate it. And I don't think that just applies to referendums. Just look at the US elections now. To answer your question: It isn't really the referendum which polarizes society, but the gravity of the question asked. Additionally it might be that Switzerland is just used to having referendums and adapted its behavior.","human_ref_B":"What puzzles me is, how do the Swiss maintain cohesion when they have so many languages?!","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2970.0,"score_ratio":7.3333333333} {"post_id":"4nas5s","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"How do the Swiss maintain cohesion when they have so many referendums? I ask because I saw how divisive the Scottish secession campaign ended up and I'm starting to see the same with the EU referendum campaign here in the UK at the moment. Do the Swiss go through the same kind of social trauma or do they take a different approach? Does having so many referendums moderate how people debate and behave in public environments?","c_root_id_A":"d42gxg5","c_root_id_B":"d42js30","created_at_utc_A":1465490267,"created_at_utc_B":1465493899,"score_A":2,"score_B":22,"human_ref_A":"Are the Swiss referenda as consequential as the two examples you gave for comparison?","human_ref_B":"I am a student of political science and swiss. First I tried to find some relevant sources, concerning cohesion and referendums, which failed. People usually don't really link the two. Are the two things comparable? Switzerland votes very often, alone last sunday there were two referendums and three initiatives (changes of the constitution initiated by collecting signatures ). And the some of the votes are really not very important topics, for example about the change of the value added tax for restaurants. Also important to note: Switzerland has this referendums since over 100 years, the people are used to it. *^(\"The referendum: direct democracy in Switzerland - KW Kobach - 1993\")* On the other hand in Scotland there are usually no Referendum. The topic they voted about is probably one of the most important vote you can make as a region. So you would expect it to be very polarizing. If we look at a very important vote in Switzerland, which might be the closest to the importance of the Scottish referendum, are the ones concerning relations to the EU. These votes too are very polarizing and cause huge discussions long after they happened. A good example is the vote about joining the EEA (European Economic Area) in 1992. The vote was really close and showed huge divides in the population and also between the different language regions. There is still discussion today about this vote, due to change in EU relations. ^(^20 ^Jahre ^EWR-Volksabstimmung: ^Was ^haben ^wir ^damals ^entschieden? ^- ^Claude ^Longchamp ^, ^gfs ) Also the trauma you are talking about. One I am not sure if you might overrate it. And I don't think that just applies to referendums. Just look at the US elections now. To answer your question: It isn't really the referendum which polarizes society, but the gravity of the question asked. Additionally it might be that Switzerland is just used to having referendums and adapted its behavior.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3632.0,"score_ratio":11.0} {"post_id":"4nas5s","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"How do the Swiss maintain cohesion when they have so many referendums? I ask because I saw how divisive the Scottish secession campaign ended up and I'm starting to see the same with the EU referendum campaign here in the UK at the moment. Do the Swiss go through the same kind of social trauma or do they take a different approach? Does having so many referendums moderate how people debate and behave in public environments?","c_root_id_A":"d43lzxl","c_root_id_B":"d42hg1t","created_at_utc_A":1465566381,"created_at_utc_B":1465490929,"score_A":7,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Another Swiss polisci student here. I agree with many points in previous comments, but I think something is missing: Political cleavages in Switzerland do not overlap. In the words of Linder (2010, p.29): > The Swiss case is characterised by cross-cutting cleavages. Among French-speakers, for example, there are both Catholic and Protestant cantons. Among socioeconomically poor cantons, there are both German and French-speaking states. [...] In practice, political majorities differ and vary from issue to issue. Most of the cultural groups have at the same time experienced being part of a minority, and this has been very important for the development of a culture of tolerance and pluralism. This means that when we vote on different issues, we have changing alliances and majorities. Yesterday's opponent is today's ally in voting and campaigning. Of course certain cleavages are clearly more salient than others sometimes, or some issues (such as our relationship to the EU) coining the political debates - and as a consequence, these social divides can be felt more clearly. But so far, none has dominated for a long time. Linder, W. (2010) Possible Solutions to Conflict in Multicultural Societies (3rd Edition). Basingstoke, GB: Palgrave Macmillan.","human_ref_B":"What puzzles me is, how do the Swiss maintain cohesion when they have so many languages?!","labels":1,"seconds_difference":75452.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333} {"post_id":"4nas5s","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"How do the Swiss maintain cohesion when they have so many referendums? I ask because I saw how divisive the Scottish secession campaign ended up and I'm starting to see the same with the EU referendum campaign here in the UK at the moment. Do the Swiss go through the same kind of social trauma or do they take a different approach? Does having so many referendums moderate how people debate and behave in public environments?","c_root_id_A":"d42gxg5","c_root_id_B":"d43lzxl","created_at_utc_A":1465490267,"created_at_utc_B":1465566381,"score_A":2,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Are the Swiss referenda as consequential as the two examples you gave for comparison?","human_ref_B":"Another Swiss polisci student here. I agree with many points in previous comments, but I think something is missing: Political cleavages in Switzerland do not overlap. In the words of Linder (2010, p.29): > The Swiss case is characterised by cross-cutting cleavages. Among French-speakers, for example, there are both Catholic and Protestant cantons. Among socioeconomically poor cantons, there are both German and French-speaking states. [...] In practice, political majorities differ and vary from issue to issue. Most of the cultural groups have at the same time experienced being part of a minority, and this has been very important for the development of a culture of tolerance and pluralism. This means that when we vote on different issues, we have changing alliances and majorities. Yesterday's opponent is today's ally in voting and campaigning. Of course certain cleavages are clearly more salient than others sometimes, or some issues (such as our relationship to the EU) coining the political debates - and as a consequence, these social divides can be felt more clearly. But so far, none has dominated for a long time. Linder, W. (2010) Possible Solutions to Conflict in Multicultural Societies (3rd Edition). Basingstoke, GB: Palgrave Macmillan.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":76114.0,"score_ratio":3.5} {"post_id":"4nas5s","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"How do the Swiss maintain cohesion when they have so many referendums? I ask because I saw how divisive the Scottish secession campaign ended up and I'm starting to see the same with the EU referendum campaign here in the UK at the moment. Do the Swiss go through the same kind of social trauma or do they take a different approach? Does having so many referendums moderate how people debate and behave in public environments?","c_root_id_A":"d42gxg5","c_root_id_B":"d42hg1t","created_at_utc_A":1465490267,"created_at_utc_B":1465490929,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Are the Swiss referenda as consequential as the two examples you gave for comparison?","human_ref_B":"What puzzles me is, how do the Swiss maintain cohesion when they have so many languages?!","labels":0,"seconds_difference":662.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"1ntmvp","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.63,"history":"What is it about Reddit that makes it lean left? Could anyone speculate on a right-leaning website of the same style with similar magnitude\/scale? Or does it exist already?","c_root_id_A":"ccm0swr","c_root_id_B":"ccm0igc","created_at_utc_A":1381049387,"created_at_utc_B":1381047111,"score_A":13,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"Remember to answer questions based on the social sciences, not personal opinion.","human_ref_B":"I think this question says at least as much about NotFuzz's personal preconceptions as it does about reddit. It doesn't lean left as far as I'm concerned. Of course it's left of 80% of US politics but then that's not a useful indicator, is it?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2276.0,"score_ratio":1.3} {"post_id":"yrekw","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"What do trained economists think about trickle-down economics? Why? I did some google searching and could find very little that wasn't deeply politically charged. What does the economics field think of trickle-down economics?","c_root_id_A":"c5y688k","c_root_id_B":"c5y62v3","created_at_utc_A":1345831520,"created_at_utc_B":1345830998,"score_A":41,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Trickle-down economics isn't really a thing in economics. It is a political quip used to discredit people. The idea is basically a corruption of supply-side economics, which again isn't exactly what I'd call a \"field\" of economics, but whatever. If you are going to do any searching, I'd use that phrase instead though. One of the \"controversial\" ideas is that cutting taxes will spur economic growth to the point that the government will collect more revenue even with the lower tax rate. I don't know of any empirical evidence supporting it, though it seems theoretically plausible. The Laffer Curve deals with this, though most people use it in the context that *raising* taxes may *lower* tax revenue. I think most economists would agree that in general, assuming just a regular market in equilibrium, cutting taxes would increase growth and that growth is generally good. But one must differentiate between the idea of a permanent tax cut and a temporary tax cut. According to Milton Friedman's Permanent Income Hypothesis, consumers will not respond very much to what they perceive as a temporary change in income, i.e., a temporary tax cut will do little to stimulate an economy because consumers expect the taxes to rise again and they'd eventually have to pay more taxes to make up for the deficit. This is, of course, just a hypothesis. I'd say this is a thorough write-up on the topic that I found on Google. EDIT:: Changed the wording of whether or not the Laffer Curve has empirical evidence so it doesn't sound like there is none, just that I don't know if there is any.","human_ref_B":"That it works only in very specific macroeconomic situations, usually when there is pent-up demand held back by high interest rates, high taxes and moderate to high inflation. Basically, if government or central bank actions are keeping people from spending and investors from investing, removing those barriers will kickstart growth, and the growth will move to all sectors of the economy. There is some argument as to whether we have ever been in a situation where these factors have had a dominant effect on GDP growth. People tend to point to the mid-late 70s as being like this, but in hindsight, it appears that a manufactured home construction and buying boom, fueled by credit was more responsible for \"Morning in America\" than lower demand barriers, which were actually much higher in Reagan's day than they are now.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":522.0,"score_ratio":5.8571428571} {"post_id":"yrekw","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"What do trained economists think about trickle-down economics? Why? I did some google searching and could find very little that wasn't deeply politically charged. What does the economics field think of trickle-down economics?","c_root_id_A":"c5y9ub2","c_root_id_B":"c5y62v3","created_at_utc_A":1345844422,"created_at_utc_B":1345830998,"score_A":16,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"I would say that trickle-down economics, by which one really means supply-side economics, is broadly decomposable into two ideas: 1. Cutting taxes can stimulate economic growth in the short run. The original idea was that cutting taxes on suppliers, i.e. corporations, would lead to economic growth. Many don't think of this as part of supply side economics any more, and characterize it as having to do with the demand for investment; it's certainly hard to separate the effect on a Keynes-like Aggregate Supply and Demand because the effect is more about the dynamic effect on investment when you get right down to it. I think that's why there's some confusion when someone asks an economist about supply-side economics and they jump straight to number 2 below. Another important thing to realize is that it's reasonable to expect the effect on growth of a temporary tax to be small due to Ricardian Equivalence, and this could mitigate the effect substantially if the tax is temporary. Anyway, the empirical evidence on this question is weakly positive for short-run growth (Romer and Romer 2010, Bergh and Henriksen's survey and book, Ed Prescott Eli Lecture 2002). Meaning we don't have great evidence because effects on growth are damn hard to do convincingly, but what evidence we do have suggests that there might be some merit to the hypothesis. Another interesting paper on this topic is Desai and Goolsbee's 2004 Brookings Paper, which provides some evidence that the Bush Tax Cuts (which, remember were justified by some supply-sidey language) didn't have much of an effect on investment because excess bonus depreciation was too small of an incentive to affect much and dividend tax cuts don't affect investment like corporate tax cuts do (which is consistent with the New View of dividend taxation...I could really go off on several tangents here because I'm studying for a massive exam on this stuff). Which I would say suggests that maybe we ought to reduce the deficit to give ourselves the leeway to make bigger tax cuts when we want to stimulate the economy. Edit: Also, Edgerton, JPuBE 2010, shows that firms experiencing losses don't respond to investment incentives because they won't have tax liability anyway, which makes sense when you think about it. Another reason to think that the \"stimulus\" effect of tax incentives for corporations should be small precisely when stimulus would tend to be desirable\/Edit. 2. The Laffer curvey idea that you would stimulate *so much* economic activity that you could cut taxes and *increase* revenue. It's probably true that at very, very high tax rates this would hold. But historically there is no evidence that we were above the revenue-maximizing tax rate, and tax rates are lower now than they used to be. Mankiw and Feldstein is the standard citation for this, but there are others (Gruber and Saez estimate inelastic responses to income taxation, for example, which would lead to decreases in revenue). Another important insight is that the responsiveness to rate changes is also influenced by other policy, like avoidance loopholes (Slemrod\/Kopzuk's Optimal Elasticity of Taxable Income paper, also some of the papers in The Economics of Taxing the Rich, I forget which). Finally, here's a poll of economists about these two issues. Edit: as some have pointed out, the terms trickle-down and supply side more refers to a set of ideas used by politicians to justify policy. But that doesn't mean we can't study the hypotheses advanced by trickle down economics. Quite the opposite, actually. If policymakers advance certain assumptions, regardless of whether they come from (outdated) economics or out their asses, it's our job to test those assumptions.","human_ref_B":"That it works only in very specific macroeconomic situations, usually when there is pent-up demand held back by high interest rates, high taxes and moderate to high inflation. Basically, if government or central bank actions are keeping people from spending and investors from investing, removing those barriers will kickstart growth, and the growth will move to all sectors of the economy. There is some argument as to whether we have ever been in a situation where these factors have had a dominant effect on GDP growth. People tend to point to the mid-late 70s as being like this, but in hindsight, it appears that a manufactured home construction and buying boom, fueled by credit was more responsible for \"Morning in America\" than lower demand barriers, which were actually much higher in Reagan's day than they are now.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13424.0,"score_ratio":2.2857142857} {"post_id":"yrekw","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"What do trained economists think about trickle-down economics? Why? I did some google searching and could find very little that wasn't deeply politically charged. What does the economics field think of trickle-down economics?","c_root_id_A":"c5y9ub2","c_root_id_B":"c5y78bo","created_at_utc_A":1345844422,"created_at_utc_B":1345835012,"score_A":16,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"I would say that trickle-down economics, by which one really means supply-side economics, is broadly decomposable into two ideas: 1. Cutting taxes can stimulate economic growth in the short run. The original idea was that cutting taxes on suppliers, i.e. corporations, would lead to economic growth. Many don't think of this as part of supply side economics any more, and characterize it as having to do with the demand for investment; it's certainly hard to separate the effect on a Keynes-like Aggregate Supply and Demand because the effect is more about the dynamic effect on investment when you get right down to it. I think that's why there's some confusion when someone asks an economist about supply-side economics and they jump straight to number 2 below. Another important thing to realize is that it's reasonable to expect the effect on growth of a temporary tax to be small due to Ricardian Equivalence, and this could mitigate the effect substantially if the tax is temporary. Anyway, the empirical evidence on this question is weakly positive for short-run growth (Romer and Romer 2010, Bergh and Henriksen's survey and book, Ed Prescott Eli Lecture 2002). Meaning we don't have great evidence because effects on growth are damn hard to do convincingly, but what evidence we do have suggests that there might be some merit to the hypothesis. Another interesting paper on this topic is Desai and Goolsbee's 2004 Brookings Paper, which provides some evidence that the Bush Tax Cuts (which, remember were justified by some supply-sidey language) didn't have much of an effect on investment because excess bonus depreciation was too small of an incentive to affect much and dividend tax cuts don't affect investment like corporate tax cuts do (which is consistent with the New View of dividend taxation...I could really go off on several tangents here because I'm studying for a massive exam on this stuff). Which I would say suggests that maybe we ought to reduce the deficit to give ourselves the leeway to make bigger tax cuts when we want to stimulate the economy. Edit: Also, Edgerton, JPuBE 2010, shows that firms experiencing losses don't respond to investment incentives because they won't have tax liability anyway, which makes sense when you think about it. Another reason to think that the \"stimulus\" effect of tax incentives for corporations should be small precisely when stimulus would tend to be desirable\/Edit. 2. The Laffer curvey idea that you would stimulate *so much* economic activity that you could cut taxes and *increase* revenue. It's probably true that at very, very high tax rates this would hold. But historically there is no evidence that we were above the revenue-maximizing tax rate, and tax rates are lower now than they used to be. Mankiw and Feldstein is the standard citation for this, but there are others (Gruber and Saez estimate inelastic responses to income taxation, for example, which would lead to decreases in revenue). Another important insight is that the responsiveness to rate changes is also influenced by other policy, like avoidance loopholes (Slemrod\/Kopzuk's Optimal Elasticity of Taxable Income paper, also some of the papers in The Economics of Taxing the Rich, I forget which). Finally, here's a poll of economists about these two issues. Edit: as some have pointed out, the terms trickle-down and supply side more refers to a set of ideas used by politicians to justify policy. But that doesn't mean we can't study the hypotheses advanced by trickle down economics. Quite the opposite, actually. If policymakers advance certain assumptions, regardless of whether they come from (outdated) economics or out their asses, it's our job to test those assumptions.","human_ref_B":"The fact remains that our economy, and almost all capitalistic systems, are driven by supply and demand. If there is no demand, then there can not be any reason to supply. The reason that people support Trickle Down Economics (TDE) is that they believe that a tax break for business at the top allows for businesses to hire more employees. The problem with TDE is that a business that can produce enough demand to meet supply does not need to hire any more employees, so a tax break for the business does not produce any positions at the bottom. If a business in the top 2.5% cannot afford to hire employees at 35% then they have a flawed business model. It is very rare to find an independent economist who believe that TDE is a viable economic model.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9410.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667} {"post_id":"1t1mq1","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"[Education] What studies demonstrate the most efficient or successful ways to study?","c_root_id_A":"ce3fvr4","c_root_id_B":"ce3g6bv","created_at_utc_A":1387240076,"created_at_utc_B":1387240764,"score_A":3,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"I'm not a psychologist, but I read this recently in preparation for finals: http:\/\/psi.sagepub.com\/content\/14\/1\/4.full.pdf+html?ijkey=Z10jaVH\/60XQM&keytype=ref&siteid=sppsi Not necessarily a study, but I have a hunch it's along the lines of what you're looking for, and it also links plenty of studies.","human_ref_B":"This provides an overview of spaced repetition. This site has other articles that are similarly well-researched that might also be of interest. I use a piece of software recommended by that article, Mnemosyne.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":688.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"1t1mq1","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"[Education] What studies demonstrate the most efficient or successful ways to study?","c_root_id_A":"ce3mdep","c_root_id_B":"ce3fvr4","created_at_utc_A":1387254514,"created_at_utc_B":1387240076,"score_A":6,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"There are lots of recent reviews on this topic. This one is good but not great: Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willinghamd, D. T. (2013). Improving students' learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14, 4-58. Henry Roediger, Robert Bjork, Hal Pashler, and Jeff Karpicke are memory researchers who are working heavily in this space. You can get their publications from their homepages, and this will lead you to secondary players (Rohrer, Carpenter, Storm). A lot of this work is too narrow IMO. Before these guys came along, an earlier generation of memory researchers looked at what was being published in the cognitive psychology literature, found it wanting, and began conducting research on memory and learning in *real* contexts. An early guide to this work is Bransford and Brown's (2002) book \"How People Learn.\" This book is masterful. It's cheap in paperback, but the kicker is that the PDF is floating around the internets. (Don't feel too bad about scoring it for free -- it's published by the National Academy of Sciences, is 14+ years old, and I'm sure Bransford would want you to have it if it turns you on to this field.)","human_ref_B":"I'm not a psychologist, but I read this recently in preparation for finals: http:\/\/psi.sagepub.com\/content\/14\/1\/4.full.pdf+html?ijkey=Z10jaVH\/60XQM&keytype=ref&siteid=sppsi Not necessarily a study, but I have a hunch it's along the lines of what you're looking for, and it also links plenty of studies.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":14438.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"10g1ih","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"Will the children born today write by hand and own (physical) books when they grow up? So, we had a bit of an interesting debate around the lunch table at work today, about the impact that technology in general and iPads and the like in particular is having and will have on those growing up today. During this discussion, a colleague of mine made the following claims: - Children born today won't really learn to write by hand, since they'll never have reason to do so, and will exclusively type as adults. - Amongst children born today having one bookcase full with books in your home when you are in your 20s-30s will be a rarity. - Public libraries will disappear rather rapidly because no-one will read printed books anymore but simply use electronic readers. Now, we didn't have time to go into it in detail, but his stance seemed to be based mostly on the idea that electronic tools like this are more practical and now widely available and that there simply won't be a reason to keep writing by hand and reading printed books. Although I do think that electronic readers and the like will have a big impact on people's reading habits, I felt his claims were rather rash on the following grounds: - Technology changes things, but not always as quickly as people predict. When I was a kid and computers had just become\/were just becoming a common household object everyone was on about \"the paper-free office\" which was bound to soon become a reality. As an administrator, I can verify that very large amounts of papers are still being shuffled around offices. - Electronics of this sort are only affordable (or at least, affordable on a scale where each child in a family has their own in addition to those owned by the parents) to certain demographics in certain societies (that is, financially stable people in industrial societies). This still leaves many, many people depending wholly or partially on \"old school\" pen and paper, and it seems to be that a complete switch would only be plausible if it effected an entire society. I feel that affordability will remain an issue for quite some time, even if prices are bound to decrease gradually. - Electricity is fickle. My own country has very stable electricity and generally good internet coverage, but blackouts still do happen occasionally. Additionally, leaving your charger at the house by accident happens so unless battery life goes up a LOT or public charging stations or somesuch become widely available, it's still likely that people would occasionally end up in situations were scribbling something on a piece of paper will be the best\/only way of leaving someone a message or retaining information or a reminder to yourself. - It seems to me that most kids are introduced to pens\/pencils not by writing but by drawing! Although drawing on electronic mediums can be fun for users of all ages, but drawing with pen and paper strikes me as stimulating in a different way (physically selecting colors, being able to cut and paste and get the whole 3D thing that you can't get on a screen). Additionally, even while drawing on a tablet, most people (in my experience anyway) still use a stylus which, let's face it, is basically a pen so even a child growing up in a crayon-free house would be somewhat accustomed to the mechanics of working a pen\/pencil. - Practicality\/durability. Tablets and the like can probably be great tools for learning and entertainment for kids, if used right, but they simply cannot take the same abuse (at the same cost) as a plain piece of paper or a kids' books (I'm thinking particularly of those cardboard books for young toddlers who don't yet read). In order for something to replace pen and paper for kids, I think it would need to be possible to be used without parental supervision or perhaps rather, with intermittent parental supervision. Although electronics seems to gradually be getting more durable, I have a feeling that it'll be a long time before a tablet can be drooled on, dropped, bitten, flung across the room, ripped at and juggled with at as low a cost (and as low a risk of personal injury) as a sheet of paper can. - And, lastly, that human behavior to such a large part is transmitted down through the generations. Even if a 20-something 30 years from now wouldn't have any *practical* reason to write by hand and read paper books, they would still have parents, relatives, teachers, bosses etc who were doing it and chances are that would mean that they would've learned to do it too. For this reason, if non-electronic text ever falls completely out of fashion, I think it will take a lot longer than the time it'll take for children being born today to grow up. Okay, sorry for that little wall of text, I got a tad carried away! What I wanted to ask you kind and knowledgeable people is: what do you think about these arguments (on both sides)? Will people stop writing by hand? Will books become an entirely electronic thing? And, if so, what sort of time-span are we talking about here? Really I'm just curious about the topic in general, whether any studies have been made on it so far and what the predictions of those in relevant fields are on the topic? Thanks for reading!","c_root_id_A":"c6d5qfi","c_root_id_B":"c6d5xiz","created_at_utc_A":1348577597,"created_at_utc_B":1348578832,"score_A":6,"score_B":25,"human_ref_A":"Excellent question. I can't thank you enough for taking the time to write up such a thoroughly detailed post to share with the reddit community. I don't have an answer as a professional social scientist, but I would like to chime in as a parent. First, I think you've covered the major bases: cost \/ durability \/ supervision is a big factor for kids who are learning (let's say, 3 to 8 years old). Paper and pencil will be around for a long time if only in that context; children will learn to write by hand and understand how to produce the characters they see on the keyboard. Ask any educator about the importance of \"hands on\" learning methods. You raise an interesting point, though, about how this might blend into drawing \/ illustration \/ art. Second, reading occurs in *so many* contexts outside of computers, that we take for granted (and writing, as its natural compliment, as well): for example, my kids like to learn what the signs say in the subway system, or on the street, or on packages at the grocery store. They see me write notes on a post-it to leave for the mail carrier; they see me grab a pen to write while someone dictates a phone number or some instructions or something. They see me label the leftovers before they go into the freezer. :D They want to do these things that their parents can do; they can see the utility of this skill and want to be able to do it too. Finally, I have to say (with a bit of pride) that my kids *love* books. They treasure them. They enjoy carrying them around, reading them on the bed or on the couch, taking them on the subway, etc. They also enjoy learning to use a computer (see my point about utility, above), but are still years away from the point where they'll want to go through the process of deciding on a subject, finding suitable reading material on said subject, and staring at a screen while reading the material they've found. It's a whole different activity from picking up a book (with pictures!) and reading.","human_ref_B":"It's unlikely that handwriting or books will disappear anytime soon. Many books for young children also include tactile components (fur, scales, sandpaper, etc.) that, as far as I know, is good for a child's development and not really reproducible with a tablet. There's also the fact that many children's books are made to be beaten up, so to speak. I don't see very many parents letting their young ones chew on, poke, and step on a tablet---they would have to be rugged which isn't a problem in principle, I guess, but still not practical. Many people take great pleasure in collecting books and displaying them on bookshelves---they look nice. I don't see this going away anytime soon either. Plus, there are many practical reasons to keep books around---they are way more durable than electronic versions. There are books around that are hundreds of years old (and stone tablets which are thousands of years old). It will be some time before we can make electronic devices which are still usable when they are 500 or more years old. Plus, even if we make machines which can retain data after 500 or more years, there's still the problem of getting the then-modern machines to be able to read it. Many computers today can't read files produced with old software, for example. Have you ever tried to read a 20 year old Word Perfect file? Good luck! These problems are not insurmountable, but it's hard to imagine how it will ever be more practical than just printing a book. As far as handwriting goes, I don't see how I could have the skill to read and type and not have the skill to write. That is, if I recognize the letters, what's to stop me from being able to write them down myself on a piece of paper? Nothing, I'd imagine. So, as long as people can read and type, they will be able to write. Perhaps they won't need to write very often, but they'll be able to if they want.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1235.0,"score_ratio":4.1666666667} {"post_id":"10g1ih","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"Will the children born today write by hand and own (physical) books when they grow up? So, we had a bit of an interesting debate around the lunch table at work today, about the impact that technology in general and iPads and the like in particular is having and will have on those growing up today. During this discussion, a colleague of mine made the following claims: - Children born today won't really learn to write by hand, since they'll never have reason to do so, and will exclusively type as adults. - Amongst children born today having one bookcase full with books in your home when you are in your 20s-30s will be a rarity. - Public libraries will disappear rather rapidly because no-one will read printed books anymore but simply use electronic readers. Now, we didn't have time to go into it in detail, but his stance seemed to be based mostly on the idea that electronic tools like this are more practical and now widely available and that there simply won't be a reason to keep writing by hand and reading printed books. Although I do think that electronic readers and the like will have a big impact on people's reading habits, I felt his claims were rather rash on the following grounds: - Technology changes things, but not always as quickly as people predict. When I was a kid and computers had just become\/were just becoming a common household object everyone was on about \"the paper-free office\" which was bound to soon become a reality. As an administrator, I can verify that very large amounts of papers are still being shuffled around offices. - Electronics of this sort are only affordable (or at least, affordable on a scale where each child in a family has their own in addition to those owned by the parents) to certain demographics in certain societies (that is, financially stable people in industrial societies). This still leaves many, many people depending wholly or partially on \"old school\" pen and paper, and it seems to be that a complete switch would only be plausible if it effected an entire society. I feel that affordability will remain an issue for quite some time, even if prices are bound to decrease gradually. - Electricity is fickle. My own country has very stable electricity and generally good internet coverage, but blackouts still do happen occasionally. Additionally, leaving your charger at the house by accident happens so unless battery life goes up a LOT or public charging stations or somesuch become widely available, it's still likely that people would occasionally end up in situations were scribbling something on a piece of paper will be the best\/only way of leaving someone a message or retaining information or a reminder to yourself. - It seems to me that most kids are introduced to pens\/pencils not by writing but by drawing! Although drawing on electronic mediums can be fun for users of all ages, but drawing with pen and paper strikes me as stimulating in a different way (physically selecting colors, being able to cut and paste and get the whole 3D thing that you can't get on a screen). Additionally, even while drawing on a tablet, most people (in my experience anyway) still use a stylus which, let's face it, is basically a pen so even a child growing up in a crayon-free house would be somewhat accustomed to the mechanics of working a pen\/pencil. - Practicality\/durability. Tablets and the like can probably be great tools for learning and entertainment for kids, if used right, but they simply cannot take the same abuse (at the same cost) as a plain piece of paper or a kids' books (I'm thinking particularly of those cardboard books for young toddlers who don't yet read). In order for something to replace pen and paper for kids, I think it would need to be possible to be used without parental supervision or perhaps rather, with intermittent parental supervision. Although electronics seems to gradually be getting more durable, I have a feeling that it'll be a long time before a tablet can be drooled on, dropped, bitten, flung across the room, ripped at and juggled with at as low a cost (and as low a risk of personal injury) as a sheet of paper can. - And, lastly, that human behavior to such a large part is transmitted down through the generations. Even if a 20-something 30 years from now wouldn't have any *practical* reason to write by hand and read paper books, they would still have parents, relatives, teachers, bosses etc who were doing it and chances are that would mean that they would've learned to do it too. For this reason, if non-electronic text ever falls completely out of fashion, I think it will take a lot longer than the time it'll take for children being born today to grow up. Okay, sorry for that little wall of text, I got a tad carried away! What I wanted to ask you kind and knowledgeable people is: what do you think about these arguments (on both sides)? Will people stop writing by hand? Will books become an entirely electronic thing? And, if so, what sort of time-span are we talking about here? Really I'm just curious about the topic in general, whether any studies have been made on it so far and what the predictions of those in relevant fields are on the topic? Thanks for reading!","c_root_id_A":"c6d5qfi","c_root_id_B":"c6d7lca","created_at_utc_A":1348577597,"created_at_utc_B":1348586104,"score_A":6,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"Excellent question. I can't thank you enough for taking the time to write up such a thoroughly detailed post to share with the reddit community. I don't have an answer as a professional social scientist, but I would like to chime in as a parent. First, I think you've covered the major bases: cost \/ durability \/ supervision is a big factor for kids who are learning (let's say, 3 to 8 years old). Paper and pencil will be around for a long time if only in that context; children will learn to write by hand and understand how to produce the characters they see on the keyboard. Ask any educator about the importance of \"hands on\" learning methods. You raise an interesting point, though, about how this might blend into drawing \/ illustration \/ art. Second, reading occurs in *so many* contexts outside of computers, that we take for granted (and writing, as its natural compliment, as well): for example, my kids like to learn what the signs say in the subway system, or on the street, or on packages at the grocery store. They see me write notes on a post-it to leave for the mail carrier; they see me grab a pen to write while someone dictates a phone number or some instructions or something. They see me label the leftovers before they go into the freezer. :D They want to do these things that their parents can do; they can see the utility of this skill and want to be able to do it too. Finally, I have to say (with a bit of pride) that my kids *love* books. They treasure them. They enjoy carrying them around, reading them on the bed or on the couch, taking them on the subway, etc. They also enjoy learning to use a computer (see my point about utility, above), but are still years away from the point where they'll want to go through the process of deciding on a subject, finding suitable reading material on said subject, and staring at a screen while reading the material they've found. It's a whole different activity from picking up a book (with pictures!) and reading.","human_ref_B":"Not a social scientist, but someone who has worked in education and whose parents have been in education for a number of years. Currently there isn't any equivalent in keyboarding that matches the learning process around letters and handwriting. Children can interact with tablets in an intuative way, navigate them easily, locate and launch apps, play games and the like; but take a look at your keyboard ... or even the abridged keyboard on your smart phone. It's an incredibly complex and abstract tool that we take for granted as people who already know their letters. Now take a look at the way that letters are introduced to children and the introductory interaction kids have with letters. Imagine a kindergartener trying to really navigate your keyboard with the wealth of information already present on it. Apps could be designed to streamline the process with an interface that is similarly limitted in scope to the exercise above, but at that point we've reached a place where we're trying to fix what isn't broken. The cost of designing the app and ensuring that every kid has a tablet that it can run on will always be significantly higher than pencils and paper ... without any real added value and with a whole lot of added logistical issues that need to be overcome (how do you turn that \"paper\" in for review? Does that require extra processes and steps that the kids will have to learn? How do you reward those kids and return their papers to them? How will those papers be stored or digitally \"hung up on the fridge\" or displayed on the bulletin board when your kid gets a gold star?) We're analog animals. Kids are incredibly malleable, but they like to have concrete things. Pencil and paper will be better than digital equivalents at filling basic education needs for a long time. You have to learn to walk before you can run.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8507.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"10g1ih","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"Will the children born today write by hand and own (physical) books when they grow up? So, we had a bit of an interesting debate around the lunch table at work today, about the impact that technology in general and iPads and the like in particular is having and will have on those growing up today. During this discussion, a colleague of mine made the following claims: - Children born today won't really learn to write by hand, since they'll never have reason to do so, and will exclusively type as adults. - Amongst children born today having one bookcase full with books in your home when you are in your 20s-30s will be a rarity. - Public libraries will disappear rather rapidly because no-one will read printed books anymore but simply use electronic readers. Now, we didn't have time to go into it in detail, but his stance seemed to be based mostly on the idea that electronic tools like this are more practical and now widely available and that there simply won't be a reason to keep writing by hand and reading printed books. Although I do think that electronic readers and the like will have a big impact on people's reading habits, I felt his claims were rather rash on the following grounds: - Technology changes things, but not always as quickly as people predict. When I was a kid and computers had just become\/were just becoming a common household object everyone was on about \"the paper-free office\" which was bound to soon become a reality. As an administrator, I can verify that very large amounts of papers are still being shuffled around offices. - Electronics of this sort are only affordable (or at least, affordable on a scale where each child in a family has their own in addition to those owned by the parents) to certain demographics in certain societies (that is, financially stable people in industrial societies). This still leaves many, many people depending wholly or partially on \"old school\" pen and paper, and it seems to be that a complete switch would only be plausible if it effected an entire society. I feel that affordability will remain an issue for quite some time, even if prices are bound to decrease gradually. - Electricity is fickle. My own country has very stable electricity and generally good internet coverage, but blackouts still do happen occasionally. Additionally, leaving your charger at the house by accident happens so unless battery life goes up a LOT or public charging stations or somesuch become widely available, it's still likely that people would occasionally end up in situations were scribbling something on a piece of paper will be the best\/only way of leaving someone a message or retaining information or a reminder to yourself. - It seems to me that most kids are introduced to pens\/pencils not by writing but by drawing! Although drawing on electronic mediums can be fun for users of all ages, but drawing with pen and paper strikes me as stimulating in a different way (physically selecting colors, being able to cut and paste and get the whole 3D thing that you can't get on a screen). Additionally, even while drawing on a tablet, most people (in my experience anyway) still use a stylus which, let's face it, is basically a pen so even a child growing up in a crayon-free house would be somewhat accustomed to the mechanics of working a pen\/pencil. - Practicality\/durability. Tablets and the like can probably be great tools for learning and entertainment for kids, if used right, but they simply cannot take the same abuse (at the same cost) as a plain piece of paper or a kids' books (I'm thinking particularly of those cardboard books for young toddlers who don't yet read). In order for something to replace pen and paper for kids, I think it would need to be possible to be used without parental supervision or perhaps rather, with intermittent parental supervision. Although electronics seems to gradually be getting more durable, I have a feeling that it'll be a long time before a tablet can be drooled on, dropped, bitten, flung across the room, ripped at and juggled with at as low a cost (and as low a risk of personal injury) as a sheet of paper can. - And, lastly, that human behavior to such a large part is transmitted down through the generations. Even if a 20-something 30 years from now wouldn't have any *practical* reason to write by hand and read paper books, they would still have parents, relatives, teachers, bosses etc who were doing it and chances are that would mean that they would've learned to do it too. For this reason, if non-electronic text ever falls completely out of fashion, I think it will take a lot longer than the time it'll take for children being born today to grow up. Okay, sorry for that little wall of text, I got a tad carried away! What I wanted to ask you kind and knowledgeable people is: what do you think about these arguments (on both sides)? Will people stop writing by hand? Will books become an entirely electronic thing? And, if so, what sort of time-span are we talking about here? Really I'm just curious about the topic in general, whether any studies have been made on it so far and what the predictions of those in relevant fields are on the topic? Thanks for reading!","c_root_id_A":"c6d7lca","c_root_id_B":"c6d7ctw","created_at_utc_A":1348586104,"created_at_utc_B":1348585182,"score_A":9,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Not a social scientist, but someone who has worked in education and whose parents have been in education for a number of years. Currently there isn't any equivalent in keyboarding that matches the learning process around letters and handwriting. Children can interact with tablets in an intuative way, navigate them easily, locate and launch apps, play games and the like; but take a look at your keyboard ... or even the abridged keyboard on your smart phone. It's an incredibly complex and abstract tool that we take for granted as people who already know their letters. Now take a look at the way that letters are introduced to children and the introductory interaction kids have with letters. Imagine a kindergartener trying to really navigate your keyboard with the wealth of information already present on it. Apps could be designed to streamline the process with an interface that is similarly limitted in scope to the exercise above, but at that point we've reached a place where we're trying to fix what isn't broken. The cost of designing the app and ensuring that every kid has a tablet that it can run on will always be significantly higher than pencils and paper ... without any real added value and with a whole lot of added logistical issues that need to be overcome (how do you turn that \"paper\" in for review? Does that require extra processes and steps that the kids will have to learn? How do you reward those kids and return their papers to them? How will those papers be stored or digitally \"hung up on the fridge\" or displayed on the bulletin board when your kid gets a gold star?) We're analog animals. Kids are incredibly malleable, but they like to have concrete things. Pencil and paper will be better than digital equivalents at filling basic education needs for a long time. You have to learn to walk before you can run.","human_ref_B":"A typewriter is the *only* crash-proof word processor.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":922.0,"score_ratio":1.8} {"post_id":"td055","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"Why is there a shortage of nurses (at least in the US)? The shortage doesn't just seem to be in nursing, but in nursing education as well. This doesn't make sense to me: in a market, when there's a shortage, we usually see prices rise to reduce demand, which then pulls more people into the industry sending prices back down. Same with nursing education - a shortage should pull people in. The only way this makes sense to me is: 1) this is transitional, and people don't expect the high demand for nurses to persist and thus don't enter, 2) there's some legal quota in place in certain states, or 3) some institutional framework prevents the variation in prices that communicates information (like college tuition being the same regardless of specialty). Which is it? Or something else?","c_root_id_A":"c4lk7ur","c_root_id_B":"c4llozy","created_at_utc_A":1336492613,"created_at_utc_B":1336499070,"score_A":4,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Could it possibly be that Nursing is a difficult career and\/or the process of becoming a Nurse is difficult? I've heard stories of the stuff you have to know\/remember from Nursing students at my local college and I sure as hell couldn't do it.","human_ref_B":"I know in my area there is the problem of a lack of people teaching nursing. They have to limit the number of nursing students they accept each year, because they don't have enough teachers to have more students. Then the program is very difficult and not 100% of people graduate after their two years. So there are limits in the 'production' of nurses, if you will.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6457.0,"score_ratio":1.75} {"post_id":"2btmu3","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"What would be the hypothetical result of taxing wealth instead of income? Say each year, you had to pay taxes on your _unspent_ money, as opposed to income. You could buy whatever you wanted and only pay taxes on whatever was left over (unarguably, the money you don't need). It would promote spending - i.e. economic stimulation - albeit also promoting spending for the poor who should instead save. Maybe if it were bracketed like the current US system. But in short, are there any cons to this? Pros? Countries that have done it and succeeded or failed?","c_root_id_A":"cj9c8hv","c_root_id_B":"cj90mlw","created_at_utc_A":1406489094,"created_at_utc_B":1406450114,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Excellent question. I think I can give you some useful information. So my research covers taxation. I recently read Piketty's book, in which he proposes a global tax on wealth, and I've been following the debate around the book pretty closely. So most of what I know comes from that. Before we talk about the impact on things like consumption and savings, it's important to talk about what the tax would actually look like, how it would be administered. A wealth tax that is easily avoided would have a strong impact on accounting practices and the salaries of financial advisors, but very little impact on savings. The key administrative concerns are avoidance and evasion, which are basically the same thing except the former is legal and the latter is illegal. But they're both about moving money around or changing how you fill out a form to keep from paying a tax. Avoidance consists of engaging in legal accounting and legal practices to reduce your tax burden. In the US, for example, the estate tax is a form of wealth taxation. It's a tax you pay when you die if you have a lot (a LOT) of wealth you're leaving to your heirs. But the estate tax is easily avoided through the use of trusts. Trusts can do more or less the same thing as bequests subject to the estate tax, but involve fancier legal procedures and allow people to avoid paying taxes on their estates. So that's not a very effective way to tax wealth. Another major problem with the administration of a wealth tax is the movement of wealth to different countries. Whether this is avoidance or evasion depends exactly on how the law is written and enforced, but the basic problem is that if I move my wealth to some country with no wealth tax and\/or strong banking secrecy laws, then there's no way for the country I live in to tax my wealth. What Piketty and others supporting a wealth tax propose to deal with this problem is 1) making the tax global, and 2) subjecting banks to strong information reporting. The first would ensure that you can't legally move your wealth offshore, the second would ensure that you can't illegally move your wealth offshore. The first is not the different from the way we tax income in the US: you're supposed to pay US tax on your income earned in other countries (the law deals with double taxation but I'm not going to go into how here). Countries have also been making progress toward information reporting that would make a wealth tax more feasible, see for example the Foreign Acounts Tax Compliance Act in the US. But there are serious political hurdles to be overcome before a global, enforceable wealth tax could possibly become a reality. The experience of most European countries seems to be that the wealth tax causes much more evasion and avoidance than real responses, see for example this paper. There's also a large number of recent studies on the effects of income taxes on the rich by Henrik Kleven, Emmanuel Saez, and many coauthors (I can dig them up if you're really interested) that suggest that avoidance and evasion responses are where most of the action is, rather than real responses like changing consumption or labor supply or saving. So that's where the wealth tax as it currently stands is. Now, suppose that we make a ton of progress and get much better at keeping avoidance and evasion to a minimum. Then would the wealth tax discourage savings? It's *still not clear*. It all depends on how you think people decide to save. A well-known recent study of *subsidies* to savings here found that a lot of people are paying so little attention to their savings that we'd expect the behavioral responses to something like a wealth tax to be small. But things could be different with a wealth tax than with a wealth subsidy, and they could be different for really wealthy people, compared to people of more typical means, who are the subject of the study linked above. So it could discourage saving, it could discourage growth. I don't think we know how big the impact could be, in part because powerful enough wealth taxes to even potentially affect savings and growth do not exist. Anyone who knows about something I left out, please feel free to provide some more evidence or whatever.","human_ref_B":"It's not as though taxes haven't been this way before (or similar). An example that comes to mind is taxation in Amsterdam. People were taxed by the width of their house\/how many windows they had. So what happened? We now have some of the thinnest and deepest houses in the world in Amsterdam. People will find some stupid way to get around your tax system, and although that happens quite a bit today it's really only the wealthy that have a possibility to skirt the taxes. The system does a pretty good job of collecting from the majority of people now.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":38980.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"2btmu3","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"What would be the hypothetical result of taxing wealth instead of income? Say each year, you had to pay taxes on your _unspent_ money, as opposed to income. You could buy whatever you wanted and only pay taxes on whatever was left over (unarguably, the money you don't need). It would promote spending - i.e. economic stimulation - albeit also promoting spending for the poor who should instead save. Maybe if it were bracketed like the current US system. But in short, are there any cons to this? Pros? Countries that have done it and succeeded or failed?","c_root_id_A":"cj9c8hv","c_root_id_B":"cj9c1tr","created_at_utc_A":1406489094,"created_at_utc_B":1406488673,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Excellent question. I think I can give you some useful information. So my research covers taxation. I recently read Piketty's book, in which he proposes a global tax on wealth, and I've been following the debate around the book pretty closely. So most of what I know comes from that. Before we talk about the impact on things like consumption and savings, it's important to talk about what the tax would actually look like, how it would be administered. A wealth tax that is easily avoided would have a strong impact on accounting practices and the salaries of financial advisors, but very little impact on savings. The key administrative concerns are avoidance and evasion, which are basically the same thing except the former is legal and the latter is illegal. But they're both about moving money around or changing how you fill out a form to keep from paying a tax. Avoidance consists of engaging in legal accounting and legal practices to reduce your tax burden. In the US, for example, the estate tax is a form of wealth taxation. It's a tax you pay when you die if you have a lot (a LOT) of wealth you're leaving to your heirs. But the estate tax is easily avoided through the use of trusts. Trusts can do more or less the same thing as bequests subject to the estate tax, but involve fancier legal procedures and allow people to avoid paying taxes on their estates. So that's not a very effective way to tax wealth. Another major problem with the administration of a wealth tax is the movement of wealth to different countries. Whether this is avoidance or evasion depends exactly on how the law is written and enforced, but the basic problem is that if I move my wealth to some country with no wealth tax and\/or strong banking secrecy laws, then there's no way for the country I live in to tax my wealth. What Piketty and others supporting a wealth tax propose to deal with this problem is 1) making the tax global, and 2) subjecting banks to strong information reporting. The first would ensure that you can't legally move your wealth offshore, the second would ensure that you can't illegally move your wealth offshore. The first is not the different from the way we tax income in the US: you're supposed to pay US tax on your income earned in other countries (the law deals with double taxation but I'm not going to go into how here). Countries have also been making progress toward information reporting that would make a wealth tax more feasible, see for example the Foreign Acounts Tax Compliance Act in the US. But there are serious political hurdles to be overcome before a global, enforceable wealth tax could possibly become a reality. The experience of most European countries seems to be that the wealth tax causes much more evasion and avoidance than real responses, see for example this paper. There's also a large number of recent studies on the effects of income taxes on the rich by Henrik Kleven, Emmanuel Saez, and many coauthors (I can dig them up if you're really interested) that suggest that avoidance and evasion responses are where most of the action is, rather than real responses like changing consumption or labor supply or saving. So that's where the wealth tax as it currently stands is. Now, suppose that we make a ton of progress and get much better at keeping avoidance and evasion to a minimum. Then would the wealth tax discourage savings? It's *still not clear*. It all depends on how you think people decide to save. A well-known recent study of *subsidies* to savings here found that a lot of people are paying so little attention to their savings that we'd expect the behavioral responses to something like a wealth tax to be small. But things could be different with a wealth tax than with a wealth subsidy, and they could be different for really wealthy people, compared to people of more typical means, who are the subject of the study linked above. So it could discourage saving, it could discourage growth. I don't think we know how big the impact could be, in part because powerful enough wealth taxes to even potentially affect savings and growth do not exist. Anyone who knows about something I left out, please feel free to provide some more evidence or whatever.","human_ref_B":"I think that it would depend on how it was done. If for example the tax was on Cash, then it would lead to wealth being stored in alternate ways, such as in stocks and bonds, which may or may not be a good thing for the economy at large. As I understand it, US inheritance taxes work that way, and the result is that estate planning often involves bequests of financial assets rather than cash. On pondering the effects of this, one really has to ponder the role that financial markets play in the economy at large, and what effect seeing more stored wealth accumulated there will mean (different schools of thought see this differently)","labels":1,"seconds_difference":421.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"1o1nzq","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.78,"history":"What will happen if the US government defaults on its debt? Somebody had to ask it. Don't get political. Let's be scientists. Describe what would happen and why. I am flaired but I know there are contributors here who will give a much more complete answer than I.","c_root_id_A":"cco6u6t","c_root_id_B":"ccogau4","created_at_utc_A":1381330629,"created_at_utc_B":1381354360,"score_A":3,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"> Somebody had to ask it. And somebody did ask it :P http:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/AskSocialScience\/comments\/1nxsrx\/how_bad_would_it_be_if_the_us_government_defaults\/","human_ref_B":"I would like to approach this carefully. **Let's first talk about mechanics** The US hit its debt ceiling in May 2013. (Source: Wiki). Since then, the Treasury has used \"extraordinary measures\" to avoid default. We can talk about those if you like. By the middle of this month, Treasury estimates that it will run out of \"extraordinary measures\" and that the debt limit will bind. What does that mean? The Treasury raises revenue each week by holding bond auctions and by collecting tax receipts. The bond auctions allow the Treasury to fund expenditures over and above the tax revenues that flow in each week. With the debt ceiling reached, new bond issues are unavailable and the government must fund itself through cash-flow alone. What does that mean? It means that government spending a given week must be prioritized if revenues are insufficient to cover expenditures. That means prioritizing who gets paid, what programs get funded, and importantly, whether bondholders get paid when their bonds come due. **Now let's talk about substance** The government will need to prioritize who gets paid, which expenditures get funded, and to what extent bondholders are paid. If bondholders are not paid, one would very likely see a loss of confidence in US debt instruments. Bondholders would demand a higher interest rate on US debt instruments. This would hamper the Fed's ability to control long-run interest rates via QE. Given the importance of US debt as a safe asset in international markets, there could be negative spillovers abroad. If government employees aren't paid...well, that wouldn't be much different from what's already going on with the shutdown. The government could prioritize bondholders, and hence reduce Social Security payments, Medicare payments, or government purchases of goods and services. These would have the usual effects of depressing aggregate demand. If the Fed is limited in its ability to prop up aggregate demand, output and inflation will fall. One very scary scenario, which I don't have numbers on right now, is whether the Treasury's cash-flow is sufficient to pay back all maturing bonds. If Treasury can't even pay back all of its bondholders, we would be in the worst of all worlds: US default, and domestic problems due to insufficient funding of domestic social insurance programs. Here's one way to think about it. Ignore the debt ceiling part and the possibility of default, and just think about the likely effects of an immediate fiscal consolidation of about 3-4% of GDP. That is, starting in the middle of the month, the government *must* run a balanced budget. That's essentially what we're looking at, so the macro consequences will be at least that bad. Even I don't think the Fed has the power to immediately stabilize a 4%-of-GDP fiscal contraction. Would output decline by 4%? Probably not that much, but maybe 2% is a good back-of-the-envelope guess. We're looking at a mild recession, and unemployment rising from (current) 7.3% to maybe 8.5%-10% over the course of about six months. If you believe in a government multiplier greater than one, then the 3-4% drop in government spending would lead to a 5-6% drop in GDP. **International issues** The IMF doesn't have the resources to bail out the US. I don't know what happens with respect to debt restructuring when a country this large defaults. If US interest rates rise and confidence in US debt instruments falters, other countries would likely shift into other reserve assets. Euros come to mind, but the Eurozone isn't particularly stable either right now. We really don't want interest rates on the world's key safe asset to rise. Spillovers are likely. I will edit this with sources\/further reading as desired. One can read this short piece from Krugman.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":23731.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333} {"post_id":"2x4zkx","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.67,"history":"If patriarchy is so wrong, how did it become the norm? Were we ever equal? Let me preface this by saying I support equality for all, but I'm curious as to how we wound up with the inequality we have. Why aren't women seen as superior? Why aren't we equal? Why are gender rolls wrong? Would they be OK if we attributed the same value to men's\/women's rolls?","c_root_id_A":"coxvqcr","c_root_id_B":"coxibtl","created_at_utc_A":1424966338,"created_at_utc_B":1424925010,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"We've had to nuke every top level comment in this thread. If you're leaving a top level comment IT MUST HAVE SOURCES. You must support your claims with citations to relevant academic material.","human_ref_B":"You are asking a lot of questions here, I will try to answer them individually. How did patriarchy become the norm? Highly debated, answers range from the patriarchy being an outgrowth from the division of labor in early human societies to the patriarchy being a manifestation of capitalist values. Regardless, there a long history (thousands of years) of male dominance and female oppression in western culture\/religion\/governance. Were we (men and women) ever equal. Equal in what sense? In terms of citizenship rights? The social value of our gender rolls? The opportunities afforded to men\/women? The short answer is \"probably not.\" Why aren't women seen as superior & why aren't we equal? In short, because of patriarchy. Why are gender rolls wrong? This one is trickier, they are not 'wrong' so much as their traditional expression is becoming (at best) outmoded and problematic. Would they be OK if we attributed the same value to men's\/women's rolls? Attributing the same value to men's\/women's rolls is a part of what feminists mean when they talk about destroying the patriarchy, and it would help a lot, but it would not negate the toxic expression of traditional gender rolls e.g. men cannot be emotional. To further your own understanding of patriarchy as an academic concept, I would highly recommend 'Patriarchy, The System' by Allan G. Johnson which informed how I answered this question. Johnson, Allan G. \"Patriarchy, the System.\" G. Kirk, & M. Okazawa-Rey, Women's Lives: Multicultural Perspectives 3 (2004): 25-32.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":41328.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"11mavg","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"Why is the US so dominating in entertainment and culture? I'm from Norway, not the largest country in the world, and I was thinking about where my entertainment comes from. Speaking a small language, I'm accustomed to speaking or listening to another language when I interact online or watch\/listen to other entertainment mediums, and I'd guess that most non-english speaking people would do the same. But it seems like most of my entertainment comes from the US, something that I find weird when I think about the size of the country. Europe has more than double the population, and by that logic why isn't 2\/3 of my entertainment from the continent? In global terms, the US is roughly 5% of the world population, yet it's dramatically overrepresented in most media. If I turn on my television, most - if not all - foreign shows are made by the US, with the exception of Top Gear and a few select other British shows. Almost every move I see is made in the US, even though the UK also has a sizable movie industry. I sometime see French movies, but I can't remember the last time I saw a German or Italian movie, for example. Even the Internet seems to be dominated by the US (I'd guess that at least half of Reddit is from the US), as I only seem to visit American sites unless it's in Norwegian. Does anybody have an idea why this is the case?","c_root_id_A":"c6nq1mc","c_root_id_B":"c6nsu1z","created_at_utc_A":1350469024,"created_at_utc_B":1350486559,"score_A":7,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"US has 5% of the world's population but with countries that have English as a first language? That figure rockets up. Canada, UK, America, NZ, Australia, Ireland, South Africa - English speaking countries (as a first language). US dominates that in terms of population. Now, given that English is a very desirable language for many in the world to learn, it's no surprise that you'd watch The Simpson in India or Futurama in Thailand.","human_ref_B":"First: The Division of Labor is limited by the extent of the market. English language extends to a much larger number of wealthy people than any other language, which means there can be more differentiation within the English language market than other language markets. If there are 500 million English speaking people who will pay for content (or who advertisers will pay to reach), and 80 million German speakers, a movie that appeals to 10% of the German population only need appeal to 2.5% of the English-speaking population. The types of art that will appeal to 2.5% of the population are much more numerous than the types of art that require 10% of the population to be sustained. Second: Agglomeration effects and economies of scale*. Certain types of art thrive by being done at a place where other types of that art are being done. Obviously, if I want to make a movie the cheapest place to produce it will be Hollywood (filming it is a different question), because there are people and equipment there who specialize in making movies. Need an editor for your screenplay? In Hollywood you could probably find one in the phonebook; but probably not anywhere else. Similar effects lead to Hollywood having great advantages over other locations--even shows set in NYC or DC will be shot in LA. To compare, almost 90% of carpet in the world is produced in or around Dalton, Georgia. Why? Agglomeration effects make it so that it is cheaper to make carpet in GA and ship it to Moscow than it is to make carpet in Moscow. Why is most of your carpet made in Dalton? No really good reason, it just happened someone started making carpet there and it snowballed. Hollywood, to some extent, can be explained by that. It could have been Vancouver, or London, and then Americans would consume a lot more Canadian and British culture. Note: the arguments apply to other art forms than movies, just to a lesser extent. Why, if I consume postmodern literature, is most of it from Paris? The community of writers that developed there was a resource in production unique to Paris. *Agglomeration effects mean that if someone is producing X at a certain location, it becomes cheaper to produce X at that location. It's cheaper to write good software in Silicon Valley than the middle of nowhere, because Silicon Valley has programmers and an infrastructure that a software company requires. Land may be cheaper in BFE, but internet and programmers aren't. In addition, you're more likely to run into someone at the bar who has good ideas about software that you can then benefit from in Silicon Valley than in rural nowhere. Economies of Scale indicate the range of production where average cost is decreasing. It's cheaper per-meal for me to make 4 servings for dinner than it is for me to make 2 servings, because there are a lot of fixed costs when I go to make dinner that are paid regardless of the number of servings. These are related to agglomeration effects (and, in fact, are an agglomeration effect).","labels":0,"seconds_difference":17535.0,"score_ratio":2.2857142857} {"post_id":"11mavg","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"Why is the US so dominating in entertainment and culture? I'm from Norway, not the largest country in the world, and I was thinking about where my entertainment comes from. Speaking a small language, I'm accustomed to speaking or listening to another language when I interact online or watch\/listen to other entertainment mediums, and I'd guess that most non-english speaking people would do the same. But it seems like most of my entertainment comes from the US, something that I find weird when I think about the size of the country. Europe has more than double the population, and by that logic why isn't 2\/3 of my entertainment from the continent? In global terms, the US is roughly 5% of the world population, yet it's dramatically overrepresented in most media. If I turn on my television, most - if not all - foreign shows are made by the US, with the exception of Top Gear and a few select other British shows. Almost every move I see is made in the US, even though the UK also has a sizable movie industry. I sometime see French movies, but I can't remember the last time I saw a German or Italian movie, for example. Even the Internet seems to be dominated by the US (I'd guess that at least half of Reddit is from the US), as I only seem to visit American sites unless it's in Norwegian. Does anybody have an idea why this is the case?","c_root_id_A":"c6nsu1z","c_root_id_B":"c6nqyuy","created_at_utc_A":1350486559,"created_at_utc_B":1350477693,"score_A":16,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"First: The Division of Labor is limited by the extent of the market. English language extends to a much larger number of wealthy people than any other language, which means there can be more differentiation within the English language market than other language markets. If there are 500 million English speaking people who will pay for content (or who advertisers will pay to reach), and 80 million German speakers, a movie that appeals to 10% of the German population only need appeal to 2.5% of the English-speaking population. The types of art that will appeal to 2.5% of the population are much more numerous than the types of art that require 10% of the population to be sustained. Second: Agglomeration effects and economies of scale*. Certain types of art thrive by being done at a place where other types of that art are being done. Obviously, if I want to make a movie the cheapest place to produce it will be Hollywood (filming it is a different question), because there are people and equipment there who specialize in making movies. Need an editor for your screenplay? In Hollywood you could probably find one in the phonebook; but probably not anywhere else. Similar effects lead to Hollywood having great advantages over other locations--even shows set in NYC or DC will be shot in LA. To compare, almost 90% of carpet in the world is produced in or around Dalton, Georgia. Why? Agglomeration effects make it so that it is cheaper to make carpet in GA and ship it to Moscow than it is to make carpet in Moscow. Why is most of your carpet made in Dalton? No really good reason, it just happened someone started making carpet there and it snowballed. Hollywood, to some extent, can be explained by that. It could have been Vancouver, or London, and then Americans would consume a lot more Canadian and British culture. Note: the arguments apply to other art forms than movies, just to a lesser extent. Why, if I consume postmodern literature, is most of it from Paris? The community of writers that developed there was a resource in production unique to Paris. *Agglomeration effects mean that if someone is producing X at a certain location, it becomes cheaper to produce X at that location. It's cheaper to write good software in Silicon Valley than the middle of nowhere, because Silicon Valley has programmers and an infrastructure that a software company requires. Land may be cheaper in BFE, but internet and programmers aren't. In addition, you're more likely to run into someone at the bar who has good ideas about software that you can then benefit from in Silicon Valley than in rural nowhere. Economies of Scale indicate the range of production where average cost is decreasing. It's cheaper per-meal for me to make 4 servings for dinner than it is for me to make 2 servings, because there are a lot of fixed costs when I go to make dinner that are paid regardless of the number of servings. These are related to agglomeration effects (and, in fact, are an agglomeration effect).","human_ref_B":"The US has a little more than half the population of the entirety of Europe and 1.6 times its area. Compare this to, for instance, the UK, whose population is one fifth as large as that of the US. Not only does the US have a much larger pool because of its size, but television is much more profit-driven than in the UK and damn near everyone is involved. Television in the US isn't plagued with advertisements because they think the viewers will like that, but because people are beating down their doors to get ad spots and they stand to make more money with longer commercial breaks. Even in movies there seems to be quite a bit more product placement and the like than I'm used to seeing in anything that doesn't come out of Hollywood. The point is, there's a lot of money in it and a huge audience so it's prolific. As my parents once told me during a long period of unemployment, if you throw enough shit at a wall, some of it's bound to stick. We're constantly churning out 400 channels and a few dozen movie studios worth of material, so obviously a good portion of it is going to get around. As to the internet, that's partially the size issue (even Germany has less than a third of our population), but it's also partially due to linguistic diversity. Most Americans aren't really going to spend time on dumpert.nl because they don't speak Dutch, but there are plenty of Nederlanders on Youtube. I'm sure there's a huge part of the internet I've never been to with all sorts of people I'll never meet because it's all in Chinese, or Russian, or Arabic, or whatever you like. When you spend a lot of time on the English-speaking internet, though, you're going to find a lot of people from the US, the UK, Canada and Australia, because *none* of those people are going to default to a first-language section of the internet that's anything other than English (well, maybe Spanish or French, but that's comparatively rare). And again, the US, of course, is going to be more heavily represented because it's got 2.6 times the population of the other 3 combined. There are also many sites of international appeal that are based in the US, such as Facebook or Reddit, and companies that base their operations here, like Valve or Blizzard.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8866.0,"score_ratio":4.0} {"post_id":"11mavg","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"Why is the US so dominating in entertainment and culture? I'm from Norway, not the largest country in the world, and I was thinking about where my entertainment comes from. Speaking a small language, I'm accustomed to speaking or listening to another language when I interact online or watch\/listen to other entertainment mediums, and I'd guess that most non-english speaking people would do the same. But it seems like most of my entertainment comes from the US, something that I find weird when I think about the size of the country. Europe has more than double the population, and by that logic why isn't 2\/3 of my entertainment from the continent? In global terms, the US is roughly 5% of the world population, yet it's dramatically overrepresented in most media. If I turn on my television, most - if not all - foreign shows are made by the US, with the exception of Top Gear and a few select other British shows. Almost every move I see is made in the US, even though the UK also has a sizable movie industry. I sometime see French movies, but I can't remember the last time I saw a German or Italian movie, for example. Even the Internet seems to be dominated by the US (I'd guess that at least half of Reddit is from the US), as I only seem to visit American sites unless it's in Norwegian. Does anybody have an idea why this is the case?","c_root_id_A":"c6nsu1z","c_root_id_B":"c6nr049","created_at_utc_A":1350486559,"created_at_utc_B":1350477933,"score_A":16,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"First: The Division of Labor is limited by the extent of the market. English language extends to a much larger number of wealthy people than any other language, which means there can be more differentiation within the English language market than other language markets. If there are 500 million English speaking people who will pay for content (or who advertisers will pay to reach), and 80 million German speakers, a movie that appeals to 10% of the German population only need appeal to 2.5% of the English-speaking population. The types of art that will appeal to 2.5% of the population are much more numerous than the types of art that require 10% of the population to be sustained. Second: Agglomeration effects and economies of scale*. Certain types of art thrive by being done at a place where other types of that art are being done. Obviously, if I want to make a movie the cheapest place to produce it will be Hollywood (filming it is a different question), because there are people and equipment there who specialize in making movies. Need an editor for your screenplay? In Hollywood you could probably find one in the phonebook; but probably not anywhere else. Similar effects lead to Hollywood having great advantages over other locations--even shows set in NYC or DC will be shot in LA. To compare, almost 90% of carpet in the world is produced in or around Dalton, Georgia. Why? Agglomeration effects make it so that it is cheaper to make carpet in GA and ship it to Moscow than it is to make carpet in Moscow. Why is most of your carpet made in Dalton? No really good reason, it just happened someone started making carpet there and it snowballed. Hollywood, to some extent, can be explained by that. It could have been Vancouver, or London, and then Americans would consume a lot more Canadian and British culture. Note: the arguments apply to other art forms than movies, just to a lesser extent. Why, if I consume postmodern literature, is most of it from Paris? The community of writers that developed there was a resource in production unique to Paris. *Agglomeration effects mean that if someone is producing X at a certain location, it becomes cheaper to produce X at that location. It's cheaper to write good software in Silicon Valley than the middle of nowhere, because Silicon Valley has programmers and an infrastructure that a software company requires. Land may be cheaper in BFE, but internet and programmers aren't. In addition, you're more likely to run into someone at the bar who has good ideas about software that you can then benefit from in Silicon Valley than in rural nowhere. Economies of Scale indicate the range of production where average cost is decreasing. It's cheaper per-meal for me to make 4 servings for dinner than it is for me to make 2 servings, because there are a lot of fixed costs when I go to make dinner that are paid regardless of the number of servings. These are related to agglomeration effects (and, in fact, are an agglomeration effect).","human_ref_B":"I'm from Russia and puzzled about it as well. Speaking about TV, for example \u2014 I never watch television here, because it's 99% shit, but regurarly download latest episodes of Breaking Bad, Homeland and other great american shows... What I don't understand, personally, is how they ended up making stuff that's so much better than what we have here.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8626.0,"score_ratio":3.2} {"post_id":"11mavg","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"Why is the US so dominating in entertainment and culture? I'm from Norway, not the largest country in the world, and I was thinking about where my entertainment comes from. Speaking a small language, I'm accustomed to speaking or listening to another language when I interact online or watch\/listen to other entertainment mediums, and I'd guess that most non-english speaking people would do the same. But it seems like most of my entertainment comes from the US, something that I find weird when I think about the size of the country. Europe has more than double the population, and by that logic why isn't 2\/3 of my entertainment from the continent? In global terms, the US is roughly 5% of the world population, yet it's dramatically overrepresented in most media. If I turn on my television, most - if not all - foreign shows are made by the US, with the exception of Top Gear and a few select other British shows. Almost every move I see is made in the US, even though the UK also has a sizable movie industry. I sometime see French movies, but I can't remember the last time I saw a German or Italian movie, for example. Even the Internet seems to be dominated by the US (I'd guess that at least half of Reddit is from the US), as I only seem to visit American sites unless it's in Norwegian. Does anybody have an idea why this is the case?","c_root_id_A":"c6nsu1z","c_root_id_B":"c6nrkas","created_at_utc_A":1350486559,"created_at_utc_B":1350481145,"score_A":16,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"First: The Division of Labor is limited by the extent of the market. English language extends to a much larger number of wealthy people than any other language, which means there can be more differentiation within the English language market than other language markets. If there are 500 million English speaking people who will pay for content (or who advertisers will pay to reach), and 80 million German speakers, a movie that appeals to 10% of the German population only need appeal to 2.5% of the English-speaking population. The types of art that will appeal to 2.5% of the population are much more numerous than the types of art that require 10% of the population to be sustained. Second: Agglomeration effects and economies of scale*. Certain types of art thrive by being done at a place where other types of that art are being done. Obviously, if I want to make a movie the cheapest place to produce it will be Hollywood (filming it is a different question), because there are people and equipment there who specialize in making movies. Need an editor for your screenplay? In Hollywood you could probably find one in the phonebook; but probably not anywhere else. Similar effects lead to Hollywood having great advantages over other locations--even shows set in NYC or DC will be shot in LA. To compare, almost 90% of carpet in the world is produced in or around Dalton, Georgia. Why? Agglomeration effects make it so that it is cheaper to make carpet in GA and ship it to Moscow than it is to make carpet in Moscow. Why is most of your carpet made in Dalton? No really good reason, it just happened someone started making carpet there and it snowballed. Hollywood, to some extent, can be explained by that. It could have been Vancouver, or London, and then Americans would consume a lot more Canadian and British culture. Note: the arguments apply to other art forms than movies, just to a lesser extent. Why, if I consume postmodern literature, is most of it from Paris? The community of writers that developed there was a resource in production unique to Paris. *Agglomeration effects mean that if someone is producing X at a certain location, it becomes cheaper to produce X at that location. It's cheaper to write good software in Silicon Valley than the middle of nowhere, because Silicon Valley has programmers and an infrastructure that a software company requires. Land may be cheaper in BFE, but internet and programmers aren't. In addition, you're more likely to run into someone at the bar who has good ideas about software that you can then benefit from in Silicon Valley than in rural nowhere. Economies of Scale indicate the range of production where average cost is decreasing. It's cheaper per-meal for me to make 4 servings for dinner than it is for me to make 2 servings, because there are a lot of fixed costs when I go to make dinner that are paid regardless of the number of servings. These are related to agglomeration effects (and, in fact, are an agglomeration effect).","human_ref_B":"In 2011 total Hollywood box office revenue was 32.6 Billion, 10.2 billion coming from the U.S. So there is no doubt that U.S. movies are flooding the worldwide market. This follows with the idea that an areas culture is heavily defined by a superpower. At the height of Roman Civilization it was their social ideals that defined much of europe and asia. Greece before that. The same can be said for the asian dynasties several millennia ago. This goes all the way back to Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboim, and Bela. Sodom was the major city of the five, and their influence spread throughout the five(This is all based on writings, and the cities have yet to be verified to exist). The idea is that the surrounding cultures imitate the super power to increase standing or assimilate or attempt growth or any number of factors. This is especially true for the high society of the culture. The U.S. was arguably the most powerful country of the second half of the last century, and with the spread of technology the U.S. culture has been able to influence the rest of the world in a major way. We see other counties around the globe wearing clothes styled in the U.S. fashion, U.S. sports teams on hats around the globe, and unsurprisingly huge box office revenues from all over. As super powers change so will the cultural dynamic of the world. As another culture takes power there will be a gradual shift to imitate that culture. Every super power collapses, and there is always another to take its place.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5414.0,"score_ratio":5.3333333333} {"post_id":"11mavg","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"Why is the US so dominating in entertainment and culture? I'm from Norway, not the largest country in the world, and I was thinking about where my entertainment comes from. Speaking a small language, I'm accustomed to speaking or listening to another language when I interact online or watch\/listen to other entertainment mediums, and I'd guess that most non-english speaking people would do the same. But it seems like most of my entertainment comes from the US, something that I find weird when I think about the size of the country. Europe has more than double the population, and by that logic why isn't 2\/3 of my entertainment from the continent? In global terms, the US is roughly 5% of the world population, yet it's dramatically overrepresented in most media. If I turn on my television, most - if not all - foreign shows are made by the US, with the exception of Top Gear and a few select other British shows. Almost every move I see is made in the US, even though the UK also has a sizable movie industry. I sometime see French movies, but I can't remember the last time I saw a German or Italian movie, for example. Even the Internet seems to be dominated by the US (I'd guess that at least half of Reddit is from the US), as I only seem to visit American sites unless it's in Norwegian. Does anybody have an idea why this is the case?","c_root_id_A":"c6nsu1z","c_root_id_B":"c6nprkz","created_at_utc_A":1350486559,"created_at_utc_B":1350465612,"score_A":16,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"First: The Division of Labor is limited by the extent of the market. English language extends to a much larger number of wealthy people than any other language, which means there can be more differentiation within the English language market than other language markets. If there are 500 million English speaking people who will pay for content (or who advertisers will pay to reach), and 80 million German speakers, a movie that appeals to 10% of the German population only need appeal to 2.5% of the English-speaking population. The types of art that will appeal to 2.5% of the population are much more numerous than the types of art that require 10% of the population to be sustained. Second: Agglomeration effects and economies of scale*. Certain types of art thrive by being done at a place where other types of that art are being done. Obviously, if I want to make a movie the cheapest place to produce it will be Hollywood (filming it is a different question), because there are people and equipment there who specialize in making movies. Need an editor for your screenplay? In Hollywood you could probably find one in the phonebook; but probably not anywhere else. Similar effects lead to Hollywood having great advantages over other locations--even shows set in NYC or DC will be shot in LA. To compare, almost 90% of carpet in the world is produced in or around Dalton, Georgia. Why? Agglomeration effects make it so that it is cheaper to make carpet in GA and ship it to Moscow than it is to make carpet in Moscow. Why is most of your carpet made in Dalton? No really good reason, it just happened someone started making carpet there and it snowballed. Hollywood, to some extent, can be explained by that. It could have been Vancouver, or London, and then Americans would consume a lot more Canadian and British culture. Note: the arguments apply to other art forms than movies, just to a lesser extent. Why, if I consume postmodern literature, is most of it from Paris? The community of writers that developed there was a resource in production unique to Paris. *Agglomeration effects mean that if someone is producing X at a certain location, it becomes cheaper to produce X at that location. It's cheaper to write good software in Silicon Valley than the middle of nowhere, because Silicon Valley has programmers and an infrastructure that a software company requires. Land may be cheaper in BFE, but internet and programmers aren't. In addition, you're more likely to run into someone at the bar who has good ideas about software that you can then benefit from in Silicon Valley than in rural nowhere. Economies of Scale indicate the range of production where average cost is decreasing. It's cheaper per-meal for me to make 4 servings for dinner than it is for me to make 2 servings, because there are a lot of fixed costs when I go to make dinner that are paid regardless of the number of servings. These are related to agglomeration effects (and, in fact, are an agglomeration effect).","human_ref_B":"I'm from Romania and absolutely everything you said there goes for me as well, I only have to add some Japanese culture since I watch plenty of anime - but that's also thanks to the Americans since nobody would've subbed anime shows if it wasn't for the Americans to be interested in them and create the demand for English subs. It's great that we all speak English and we're not isolated in our small countries, but then again, we've only broadened our horizons to look at what the Americans and the English create. I'm curious about this as well and will wait for the science behind it and refrain from assumptions.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":20947.0,"score_ratio":3.2} {"post_id":"11mavg","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"Why is the US so dominating in entertainment and culture? I'm from Norway, not the largest country in the world, and I was thinking about where my entertainment comes from. Speaking a small language, I'm accustomed to speaking or listening to another language when I interact online or watch\/listen to other entertainment mediums, and I'd guess that most non-english speaking people would do the same. But it seems like most of my entertainment comes from the US, something that I find weird when I think about the size of the country. Europe has more than double the population, and by that logic why isn't 2\/3 of my entertainment from the continent? In global terms, the US is roughly 5% of the world population, yet it's dramatically overrepresented in most media. If I turn on my television, most - if not all - foreign shows are made by the US, with the exception of Top Gear and a few select other British shows. Almost every move I see is made in the US, even though the UK also has a sizable movie industry. I sometime see French movies, but I can't remember the last time I saw a German or Italian movie, for example. Even the Internet seems to be dominated by the US (I'd guess that at least half of Reddit is from the US), as I only seem to visit American sites unless it's in Norwegian. Does anybody have an idea why this is the case?","c_root_id_A":"c6nsu1z","c_root_id_B":"c6nq6x7","created_at_utc_A":1350486559,"created_at_utc_B":1350470793,"score_A":16,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"First: The Division of Labor is limited by the extent of the market. English language extends to a much larger number of wealthy people than any other language, which means there can be more differentiation within the English language market than other language markets. If there are 500 million English speaking people who will pay for content (or who advertisers will pay to reach), and 80 million German speakers, a movie that appeals to 10% of the German population only need appeal to 2.5% of the English-speaking population. The types of art that will appeal to 2.5% of the population are much more numerous than the types of art that require 10% of the population to be sustained. Second: Agglomeration effects and economies of scale*. Certain types of art thrive by being done at a place where other types of that art are being done. Obviously, if I want to make a movie the cheapest place to produce it will be Hollywood (filming it is a different question), because there are people and equipment there who specialize in making movies. Need an editor for your screenplay? In Hollywood you could probably find one in the phonebook; but probably not anywhere else. Similar effects lead to Hollywood having great advantages over other locations--even shows set in NYC or DC will be shot in LA. To compare, almost 90% of carpet in the world is produced in or around Dalton, Georgia. Why? Agglomeration effects make it so that it is cheaper to make carpet in GA and ship it to Moscow than it is to make carpet in Moscow. Why is most of your carpet made in Dalton? No really good reason, it just happened someone started making carpet there and it snowballed. Hollywood, to some extent, can be explained by that. It could have been Vancouver, or London, and then Americans would consume a lot more Canadian and British culture. Note: the arguments apply to other art forms than movies, just to a lesser extent. Why, if I consume postmodern literature, is most of it from Paris? The community of writers that developed there was a resource in production unique to Paris. *Agglomeration effects mean that if someone is producing X at a certain location, it becomes cheaper to produce X at that location. It's cheaper to write good software in Silicon Valley than the middle of nowhere, because Silicon Valley has programmers and an infrastructure that a software company requires. Land may be cheaper in BFE, but internet and programmers aren't. In addition, you're more likely to run into someone at the bar who has good ideas about software that you can then benefit from in Silicon Valley than in rural nowhere. Economies of Scale indicate the range of production where average cost is decreasing. It's cheaper per-meal for me to make 4 servings for dinner than it is for me to make 2 servings, because there are a lot of fixed costs when I go to make dinner that are paid regardless of the number of servings. These are related to agglomeration effects (and, in fact, are an agglomeration effect).","human_ref_B":"You only talk about movies, and Hollywood is the movie capital of the world. It has been like that since the 1920's or something. But you are forgetting about music. I am pretty sure that the vast majority of music that you listen to, comes from England. It has changed over the years, but if you look back in the last 50 years, you will see that the vast majority of bands comes from England. Just to mention some of the big ones: Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Rolling Stones, Deep Purple and so on. The US certainly have good musicians, but historically they have been very isolated, focusing on the domestic marked as opposed to the European market. They have at the same time been very protecting about their own musicians, preferring them over international acts(of course it is not as black and white as i make it seem like). In my opinion, most US entertainment is \"easily digestible\", so to say. It is easy to swallow, and, at the risk of being labelled as an anti-american, doesn't have the same depth that most European entertainment has. But that is sort of implied in the word \"entertainment\". Film is more of an art form in Europe than it is in the US. There is a big difference between European directors and US directors, where the former has much more focus on creating a vision, while the latter is typically backed by a producer with substantial influence on the project. Film production in the US has obtained a profit focus in the us, where it in Europe is kept more as an art form, with less focus on profit and more focus on the vision of the director. This leads to a focus on making the movie something that as many people as possible can enjoy. Finally, you say you have never seen any German movies. You should really try that. There are many great movies from Germany. To mention a few: Der Untergang(A bit hollywoodish, but still hits you emotionally in a place where no hollywood film could), Der Leben der Anderen, Goodbye Lenin, Der Baader Meinhof Komplex and so on. Also keep in mind that up to the mid-20s, Germany was probably just as big a player in the film industry as Hollywood was. Have a look at Metropolis or M, both by Fritz Lang.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":15766.0,"score_ratio":5.3333333333} {"post_id":"11mavg","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"Why is the US so dominating in entertainment and culture? I'm from Norway, not the largest country in the world, and I was thinking about where my entertainment comes from. Speaking a small language, I'm accustomed to speaking or listening to another language when I interact online or watch\/listen to other entertainment mediums, and I'd guess that most non-english speaking people would do the same. But it seems like most of my entertainment comes from the US, something that I find weird when I think about the size of the country. Europe has more than double the population, and by that logic why isn't 2\/3 of my entertainment from the continent? In global terms, the US is roughly 5% of the world population, yet it's dramatically overrepresented in most media. If I turn on my television, most - if not all - foreign shows are made by the US, with the exception of Top Gear and a few select other British shows. Almost every move I see is made in the US, even though the UK also has a sizable movie industry. I sometime see French movies, but I can't remember the last time I saw a German or Italian movie, for example. Even the Internet seems to be dominated by the US (I'd guess that at least half of Reddit is from the US), as I only seem to visit American sites unless it's in Norwegian. Does anybody have an idea why this is the case?","c_root_id_A":"c6nprkz","c_root_id_B":"c6nq1mc","created_at_utc_A":1350465612,"created_at_utc_B":1350469024,"score_A":5,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"I'm from Romania and absolutely everything you said there goes for me as well, I only have to add some Japanese culture since I watch plenty of anime - but that's also thanks to the Americans since nobody would've subbed anime shows if it wasn't for the Americans to be interested in them and create the demand for English subs. It's great that we all speak English and we're not isolated in our small countries, but then again, we've only broadened our horizons to look at what the Americans and the English create. I'm curious about this as well and will wait for the science behind it and refrain from assumptions.","human_ref_B":"US has 5% of the world's population but with countries that have English as a first language? That figure rockets up. Canada, UK, America, NZ, Australia, Ireland, South Africa - English speaking countries (as a first language). US dominates that in terms of population. Now, given that English is a very desirable language for many in the world to learn, it's no surprise that you'd watch The Simpson in India or Futurama in Thailand.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3412.0,"score_ratio":1.4} {"post_id":"11mavg","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"Why is the US so dominating in entertainment and culture? I'm from Norway, not the largest country in the world, and I was thinking about where my entertainment comes from. Speaking a small language, I'm accustomed to speaking or listening to another language when I interact online or watch\/listen to other entertainment mediums, and I'd guess that most non-english speaking people would do the same. But it seems like most of my entertainment comes from the US, something that I find weird when I think about the size of the country. Europe has more than double the population, and by that logic why isn't 2\/3 of my entertainment from the continent? In global terms, the US is roughly 5% of the world population, yet it's dramatically overrepresented in most media. If I turn on my television, most - if not all - foreign shows are made by the US, with the exception of Top Gear and a few select other British shows. Almost every move I see is made in the US, even though the UK also has a sizable movie industry. I sometime see French movies, but I can't remember the last time I saw a German or Italian movie, for example. Even the Internet seems to be dominated by the US (I'd guess that at least half of Reddit is from the US), as I only seem to visit American sites unless it's in Norwegian. Does anybody have an idea why this is the case?","c_root_id_A":"c6nr049","c_root_id_B":"c6nqyuy","created_at_utc_A":1350477933,"created_at_utc_B":1350477693,"score_A":5,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I'm from Russia and puzzled about it as well. Speaking about TV, for example \u2014 I never watch television here, because it's 99% shit, but regurarly download latest episodes of Breaking Bad, Homeland and other great american shows... What I don't understand, personally, is how they ended up making stuff that's so much better than what we have here.","human_ref_B":"The US has a little more than half the population of the entirety of Europe and 1.6 times its area. Compare this to, for instance, the UK, whose population is one fifth as large as that of the US. Not only does the US have a much larger pool because of its size, but television is much more profit-driven than in the UK and damn near everyone is involved. Television in the US isn't plagued with advertisements because they think the viewers will like that, but because people are beating down their doors to get ad spots and they stand to make more money with longer commercial breaks. Even in movies there seems to be quite a bit more product placement and the like than I'm used to seeing in anything that doesn't come out of Hollywood. The point is, there's a lot of money in it and a huge audience so it's prolific. As my parents once told me during a long period of unemployment, if you throw enough shit at a wall, some of it's bound to stick. We're constantly churning out 400 channels and a few dozen movie studios worth of material, so obviously a good portion of it is going to get around. As to the internet, that's partially the size issue (even Germany has less than a third of our population), but it's also partially due to linguistic diversity. Most Americans aren't really going to spend time on dumpert.nl because they don't speak Dutch, but there are plenty of Nederlanders on Youtube. I'm sure there's a huge part of the internet I've never been to with all sorts of people I'll never meet because it's all in Chinese, or Russian, or Arabic, or whatever you like. When you spend a lot of time on the English-speaking internet, though, you're going to find a lot of people from the US, the UK, Canada and Australia, because *none* of those people are going to default to a first-language section of the internet that's anything other than English (well, maybe Spanish or French, but that's comparatively rare). And again, the US, of course, is going to be more heavily represented because it's got 2.6 times the population of the other 3 combined. There are also many sites of international appeal that are based in the US, such as Facebook or Reddit, and companies that base their operations here, like Valve or Blizzard.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":240.0,"score_ratio":1.25} {"post_id":"11mavg","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"Why is the US so dominating in entertainment and culture? I'm from Norway, not the largest country in the world, and I was thinking about where my entertainment comes from. Speaking a small language, I'm accustomed to speaking or listening to another language when I interact online or watch\/listen to other entertainment mediums, and I'd guess that most non-english speaking people would do the same. But it seems like most of my entertainment comes from the US, something that I find weird when I think about the size of the country. Europe has more than double the population, and by that logic why isn't 2\/3 of my entertainment from the continent? In global terms, the US is roughly 5% of the world population, yet it's dramatically overrepresented in most media. If I turn on my television, most - if not all - foreign shows are made by the US, with the exception of Top Gear and a few select other British shows. Almost every move I see is made in the US, even though the UK also has a sizable movie industry. I sometime see French movies, but I can't remember the last time I saw a German or Italian movie, for example. Even the Internet seems to be dominated by the US (I'd guess that at least half of Reddit is from the US), as I only seem to visit American sites unless it's in Norwegian. Does anybody have an idea why this is the case?","c_root_id_A":"c6nqyuy","c_root_id_B":"c6nq6x7","created_at_utc_A":1350477693,"created_at_utc_B":1350470793,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"The US has a little more than half the population of the entirety of Europe and 1.6 times its area. Compare this to, for instance, the UK, whose population is one fifth as large as that of the US. Not only does the US have a much larger pool because of its size, but television is much more profit-driven than in the UK and damn near everyone is involved. Television in the US isn't plagued with advertisements because they think the viewers will like that, but because people are beating down their doors to get ad spots and they stand to make more money with longer commercial breaks. Even in movies there seems to be quite a bit more product placement and the like than I'm used to seeing in anything that doesn't come out of Hollywood. The point is, there's a lot of money in it and a huge audience so it's prolific. As my parents once told me during a long period of unemployment, if you throw enough shit at a wall, some of it's bound to stick. We're constantly churning out 400 channels and a few dozen movie studios worth of material, so obviously a good portion of it is going to get around. As to the internet, that's partially the size issue (even Germany has less than a third of our population), but it's also partially due to linguistic diversity. Most Americans aren't really going to spend time on dumpert.nl because they don't speak Dutch, but there are plenty of Nederlanders on Youtube. I'm sure there's a huge part of the internet I've never been to with all sorts of people I'll never meet because it's all in Chinese, or Russian, or Arabic, or whatever you like. When you spend a lot of time on the English-speaking internet, though, you're going to find a lot of people from the US, the UK, Canada and Australia, because *none* of those people are going to default to a first-language section of the internet that's anything other than English (well, maybe Spanish or French, but that's comparatively rare). And again, the US, of course, is going to be more heavily represented because it's got 2.6 times the population of the other 3 combined. There are also many sites of international appeal that are based in the US, such as Facebook or Reddit, and companies that base their operations here, like Valve or Blizzard.","human_ref_B":"You only talk about movies, and Hollywood is the movie capital of the world. It has been like that since the 1920's or something. But you are forgetting about music. I am pretty sure that the vast majority of music that you listen to, comes from England. It has changed over the years, but if you look back in the last 50 years, you will see that the vast majority of bands comes from England. Just to mention some of the big ones: Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Rolling Stones, Deep Purple and so on. The US certainly have good musicians, but historically they have been very isolated, focusing on the domestic marked as opposed to the European market. They have at the same time been very protecting about their own musicians, preferring them over international acts(of course it is not as black and white as i make it seem like). In my opinion, most US entertainment is \"easily digestible\", so to say. It is easy to swallow, and, at the risk of being labelled as an anti-american, doesn't have the same depth that most European entertainment has. But that is sort of implied in the word \"entertainment\". Film is more of an art form in Europe than it is in the US. There is a big difference between European directors and US directors, where the former has much more focus on creating a vision, while the latter is typically backed by a producer with substantial influence on the project. Film production in the US has obtained a profit focus in the us, where it in Europe is kept more as an art form, with less focus on profit and more focus on the vision of the director. This leads to a focus on making the movie something that as many people as possible can enjoy. Finally, you say you have never seen any German movies. You should really try that. There are many great movies from Germany. To mention a few: Der Untergang(A bit hollywoodish, but still hits you emotionally in a place where no hollywood film could), Der Leben der Anderen, Goodbye Lenin, Der Baader Meinhof Komplex and so on. Also keep in mind that up to the mid-20s, Germany was probably just as big a player in the film industry as Hollywood was. Have a look at Metropolis or M, both by Fritz Lang.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6900.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"11mavg","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"Why is the US so dominating in entertainment and culture? I'm from Norway, not the largest country in the world, and I was thinking about where my entertainment comes from. Speaking a small language, I'm accustomed to speaking or listening to another language when I interact online or watch\/listen to other entertainment mediums, and I'd guess that most non-english speaking people would do the same. But it seems like most of my entertainment comes from the US, something that I find weird when I think about the size of the country. Europe has more than double the population, and by that logic why isn't 2\/3 of my entertainment from the continent? In global terms, the US is roughly 5% of the world population, yet it's dramatically overrepresented in most media. If I turn on my television, most - if not all - foreign shows are made by the US, with the exception of Top Gear and a few select other British shows. Almost every move I see is made in the US, even though the UK also has a sizable movie industry. I sometime see French movies, but I can't remember the last time I saw a German or Italian movie, for example. Even the Internet seems to be dominated by the US (I'd guess that at least half of Reddit is from the US), as I only seem to visit American sites unless it's in Norwegian. Does anybody have an idea why this is the case?","c_root_id_A":"c6nr049","c_root_id_B":"c6nq6x7","created_at_utc_A":1350477933,"created_at_utc_B":1350470793,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I'm from Russia and puzzled about it as well. Speaking about TV, for example \u2014 I never watch television here, because it's 99% shit, but regurarly download latest episodes of Breaking Bad, Homeland and other great american shows... What I don't understand, personally, is how they ended up making stuff that's so much better than what we have here.","human_ref_B":"You only talk about movies, and Hollywood is the movie capital of the world. It has been like that since the 1920's or something. But you are forgetting about music. I am pretty sure that the vast majority of music that you listen to, comes from England. It has changed over the years, but if you look back in the last 50 years, you will see that the vast majority of bands comes from England. Just to mention some of the big ones: Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Rolling Stones, Deep Purple and so on. The US certainly have good musicians, but historically they have been very isolated, focusing on the domestic marked as opposed to the European market. They have at the same time been very protecting about their own musicians, preferring them over international acts(of course it is not as black and white as i make it seem like). In my opinion, most US entertainment is \"easily digestible\", so to say. It is easy to swallow, and, at the risk of being labelled as an anti-american, doesn't have the same depth that most European entertainment has. But that is sort of implied in the word \"entertainment\". Film is more of an art form in Europe than it is in the US. There is a big difference between European directors and US directors, where the former has much more focus on creating a vision, while the latter is typically backed by a producer with substantial influence on the project. Film production in the US has obtained a profit focus in the us, where it in Europe is kept more as an art form, with less focus on profit and more focus on the vision of the director. This leads to a focus on making the movie something that as many people as possible can enjoy. Finally, you say you have never seen any German movies. You should really try that. There are many great movies from Germany. To mention a few: Der Untergang(A bit hollywoodish, but still hits you emotionally in a place where no hollywood film could), Der Leben der Anderen, Goodbye Lenin, Der Baader Meinhof Komplex and so on. Also keep in mind that up to the mid-20s, Germany was probably just as big a player in the film industry as Hollywood was. Have a look at Metropolis or M, both by Fritz Lang.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7140.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"11mavg","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"Why is the US so dominating in entertainment and culture? I'm from Norway, not the largest country in the world, and I was thinking about where my entertainment comes from. Speaking a small language, I'm accustomed to speaking or listening to another language when I interact online or watch\/listen to other entertainment mediums, and I'd guess that most non-english speaking people would do the same. But it seems like most of my entertainment comes from the US, something that I find weird when I think about the size of the country. Europe has more than double the population, and by that logic why isn't 2\/3 of my entertainment from the continent? In global terms, the US is roughly 5% of the world population, yet it's dramatically overrepresented in most media. If I turn on my television, most - if not all - foreign shows are made by the US, with the exception of Top Gear and a few select other British shows. Almost every move I see is made in the US, even though the UK also has a sizable movie industry. I sometime see French movies, but I can't remember the last time I saw a German or Italian movie, for example. Even the Internet seems to be dominated by the US (I'd guess that at least half of Reddit is from the US), as I only seem to visit American sites unless it's in Norwegian. Does anybody have an idea why this is the case?","c_root_id_A":"c6nrkas","c_root_id_B":"c6ntgrk","created_at_utc_A":1350481145,"created_at_utc_B":1350488877,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"In 2011 total Hollywood box office revenue was 32.6 Billion, 10.2 billion coming from the U.S. So there is no doubt that U.S. movies are flooding the worldwide market. This follows with the idea that an areas culture is heavily defined by a superpower. At the height of Roman Civilization it was their social ideals that defined much of europe and asia. Greece before that. The same can be said for the asian dynasties several millennia ago. This goes all the way back to Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboim, and Bela. Sodom was the major city of the five, and their influence spread throughout the five(This is all based on writings, and the cities have yet to be verified to exist). The idea is that the surrounding cultures imitate the super power to increase standing or assimilate or attempt growth or any number of factors. This is especially true for the high society of the culture. The U.S. was arguably the most powerful country of the second half of the last century, and with the spread of technology the U.S. culture has been able to influence the rest of the world in a major way. We see other counties around the globe wearing clothes styled in the U.S. fashion, U.S. sports teams on hats around the globe, and unsurprisingly huge box office revenues from all over. As super powers change so will the cultural dynamic of the world. As another culture takes power there will be a gradual shift to imitate that culture. Every super power collapses, and there is always another to take its place.","human_ref_B":"wow...really, guys? not one single mention of hegemony?! i am *deeply* disappointed in this sub right now. the particular phenomenon you are describing is an aspect of hegemony called cultural hegemony. the best place to look for the answer to your *why* will be world systems analysis, a school of thought dedicated to the analysis of hegemonic movements throughout the development of global capitalism starting around 1450. tl;dr hegemony is global economic, political and cultural dominance. the US achieved its current place as hegemon after the only competition, japan & western europe, were decimated by two \"world wars\". the only exception, of course, was the USSR. this explains the intensity of their relationship in the 20th century: the USSR was the only thing close to competition the US had to face.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7732.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"11mavg","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"Why is the US so dominating in entertainment and culture? I'm from Norway, not the largest country in the world, and I was thinking about where my entertainment comes from. Speaking a small language, I'm accustomed to speaking or listening to another language when I interact online or watch\/listen to other entertainment mediums, and I'd guess that most non-english speaking people would do the same. But it seems like most of my entertainment comes from the US, something that I find weird when I think about the size of the country. Europe has more than double the population, and by that logic why isn't 2\/3 of my entertainment from the continent? In global terms, the US is roughly 5% of the world population, yet it's dramatically overrepresented in most media. If I turn on my television, most - if not all - foreign shows are made by the US, with the exception of Top Gear and a few select other British shows. Almost every move I see is made in the US, even though the UK also has a sizable movie industry. I sometime see French movies, but I can't remember the last time I saw a German or Italian movie, for example. Even the Internet seems to be dominated by the US (I'd guess that at least half of Reddit is from the US), as I only seem to visit American sites unless it's in Norwegian. Does anybody have an idea why this is the case?","c_root_id_A":"c6nxgks","c_root_id_B":"c6nrkas","created_at_utc_A":1350502795,"created_at_utc_B":1350481145,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Because money.","human_ref_B":"In 2011 total Hollywood box office revenue was 32.6 Billion, 10.2 billion coming from the U.S. So there is no doubt that U.S. movies are flooding the worldwide market. This follows with the idea that an areas culture is heavily defined by a superpower. At the height of Roman Civilization it was their social ideals that defined much of europe and asia. Greece before that. The same can be said for the asian dynasties several millennia ago. This goes all the way back to Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboim, and Bela. Sodom was the major city of the five, and their influence spread throughout the five(This is all based on writings, and the cities have yet to be verified to exist). The idea is that the surrounding cultures imitate the super power to increase standing or assimilate or attempt growth or any number of factors. This is especially true for the high society of the culture. The U.S. was arguably the most powerful country of the second half of the last century, and with the spread of technology the U.S. culture has been able to influence the rest of the world in a major way. We see other counties around the globe wearing clothes styled in the U.S. fashion, U.S. sports teams on hats around the globe, and unsurprisingly huge box office revenues from all over. As super powers change so will the cultural dynamic of the world. As another culture takes power there will be a gradual shift to imitate that culture. Every super power collapses, and there is always another to take its place.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":21650.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"11mavg","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"Why is the US so dominating in entertainment and culture? I'm from Norway, not the largest country in the world, and I was thinking about where my entertainment comes from. Speaking a small language, I'm accustomed to speaking or listening to another language when I interact online or watch\/listen to other entertainment mediums, and I'd guess that most non-english speaking people would do the same. But it seems like most of my entertainment comes from the US, something that I find weird when I think about the size of the country. Europe has more than double the population, and by that logic why isn't 2\/3 of my entertainment from the continent? In global terms, the US is roughly 5% of the world population, yet it's dramatically overrepresented in most media. If I turn on my television, most - if not all - foreign shows are made by the US, with the exception of Top Gear and a few select other British shows. Almost every move I see is made in the US, even though the UK also has a sizable movie industry. I sometime see French movies, but I can't remember the last time I saw a German or Italian movie, for example. Even the Internet seems to be dominated by the US (I'd guess that at least half of Reddit is from the US), as I only seem to visit American sites unless it's in Norwegian. Does anybody have an idea why this is the case?","c_root_id_A":"c6ntgrk","c_root_id_B":"c6nq6x7","created_at_utc_A":1350488877,"created_at_utc_B":1350470793,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"wow...really, guys? not one single mention of hegemony?! i am *deeply* disappointed in this sub right now. the particular phenomenon you are describing is an aspect of hegemony called cultural hegemony. the best place to look for the answer to your *why* will be world systems analysis, a school of thought dedicated to the analysis of hegemonic movements throughout the development of global capitalism starting around 1450. tl;dr hegemony is global economic, political and cultural dominance. the US achieved its current place as hegemon after the only competition, japan & western europe, were decimated by two \"world wars\". the only exception, of course, was the USSR. this explains the intensity of their relationship in the 20th century: the USSR was the only thing close to competition the US had to face.","human_ref_B":"You only talk about movies, and Hollywood is the movie capital of the world. It has been like that since the 1920's or something. But you are forgetting about music. I am pretty sure that the vast majority of music that you listen to, comes from England. It has changed over the years, but if you look back in the last 50 years, you will see that the vast majority of bands comes from England. Just to mention some of the big ones: Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Rolling Stones, Deep Purple and so on. The US certainly have good musicians, but historically they have been very isolated, focusing on the domestic marked as opposed to the European market. They have at the same time been very protecting about their own musicians, preferring them over international acts(of course it is not as black and white as i make it seem like). In my opinion, most US entertainment is \"easily digestible\", so to say. It is easy to swallow, and, at the risk of being labelled as an anti-american, doesn't have the same depth that most European entertainment has. But that is sort of implied in the word \"entertainment\". Film is more of an art form in Europe than it is in the US. There is a big difference between European directors and US directors, where the former has much more focus on creating a vision, while the latter is typically backed by a producer with substantial influence on the project. Film production in the US has obtained a profit focus in the us, where it in Europe is kept more as an art form, with less focus on profit and more focus on the vision of the director. This leads to a focus on making the movie something that as many people as possible can enjoy. Finally, you say you have never seen any German movies. You should really try that. There are many great movies from Germany. To mention a few: Der Untergang(A bit hollywoodish, but still hits you emotionally in a place where no hollywood film could), Der Leben der Anderen, Goodbye Lenin, Der Baader Meinhof Komplex and so on. Also keep in mind that up to the mid-20s, Germany was probably just as big a player in the film industry as Hollywood was. Have a look at Metropolis or M, both by Fritz Lang.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":18084.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"11mavg","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"Why is the US so dominating in entertainment and culture? I'm from Norway, not the largest country in the world, and I was thinking about where my entertainment comes from. Speaking a small language, I'm accustomed to speaking or listening to another language when I interact online or watch\/listen to other entertainment mediums, and I'd guess that most non-english speaking people would do the same. But it seems like most of my entertainment comes from the US, something that I find weird when I think about the size of the country. Europe has more than double the population, and by that logic why isn't 2\/3 of my entertainment from the continent? In global terms, the US is roughly 5% of the world population, yet it's dramatically overrepresented in most media. If I turn on my television, most - if not all - foreign shows are made by the US, with the exception of Top Gear and a few select other British shows. Almost every move I see is made in the US, even though the UK also has a sizable movie industry. I sometime see French movies, but I can't remember the last time I saw a German or Italian movie, for example. Even the Internet seems to be dominated by the US (I'd guess that at least half of Reddit is from the US), as I only seem to visit American sites unless it's in Norwegian. Does anybody have an idea why this is the case?","c_root_id_A":"c6nq6x7","c_root_id_B":"c6nxgks","created_at_utc_A":1350470793,"created_at_utc_B":1350502795,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"You only talk about movies, and Hollywood is the movie capital of the world. It has been like that since the 1920's or something. But you are forgetting about music. I am pretty sure that the vast majority of music that you listen to, comes from England. It has changed over the years, but if you look back in the last 50 years, you will see that the vast majority of bands comes from England. Just to mention some of the big ones: Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Rolling Stones, Deep Purple and so on. The US certainly have good musicians, but historically they have been very isolated, focusing on the domestic marked as opposed to the European market. They have at the same time been very protecting about their own musicians, preferring them over international acts(of course it is not as black and white as i make it seem like). In my opinion, most US entertainment is \"easily digestible\", so to say. It is easy to swallow, and, at the risk of being labelled as an anti-american, doesn't have the same depth that most European entertainment has. But that is sort of implied in the word \"entertainment\". Film is more of an art form in Europe than it is in the US. There is a big difference between European directors and US directors, where the former has much more focus on creating a vision, while the latter is typically backed by a producer with substantial influence on the project. Film production in the US has obtained a profit focus in the us, where it in Europe is kept more as an art form, with less focus on profit and more focus on the vision of the director. This leads to a focus on making the movie something that as many people as possible can enjoy. Finally, you say you have never seen any German movies. You should really try that. There are many great movies from Germany. To mention a few: Der Untergang(A bit hollywoodish, but still hits you emotionally in a place where no hollywood film could), Der Leben der Anderen, Goodbye Lenin, Der Baader Meinhof Komplex and so on. Also keep in mind that up to the mid-20s, Germany was probably just as big a player in the film industry as Hollywood was. Have a look at Metropolis or M, both by Fritz Lang.","human_ref_B":"Because money.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":32002.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"11mavg","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"Why is the US so dominating in entertainment and culture? I'm from Norway, not the largest country in the world, and I was thinking about where my entertainment comes from. Speaking a small language, I'm accustomed to speaking or listening to another language when I interact online or watch\/listen to other entertainment mediums, and I'd guess that most non-english speaking people would do the same. But it seems like most of my entertainment comes from the US, something that I find weird when I think about the size of the country. Europe has more than double the population, and by that logic why isn't 2\/3 of my entertainment from the continent? In global terms, the US is roughly 5% of the world population, yet it's dramatically overrepresented in most media. If I turn on my television, most - if not all - foreign shows are made by the US, with the exception of Top Gear and a few select other British shows. Almost every move I see is made in the US, even though the UK also has a sizable movie industry. I sometime see French movies, but I can't remember the last time I saw a German or Italian movie, for example. Even the Internet seems to be dominated by the US (I'd guess that at least half of Reddit is from the US), as I only seem to visit American sites unless it's in Norwegian. Does anybody have an idea why this is the case?","c_root_id_A":"c6nxgks","c_root_id_B":"c6nuhl1","created_at_utc_A":1350502795,"created_at_utc_B":1350492576,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Because money.","human_ref_B":"I always thought the same. I remember living in Germany and saying, \"WTF?! Why is Yelp not popular out here. Euroville has about the same amount of people, why can't they at least get a similar service out here?!\" This was true for a ton of things I am used to State side. I began to realize it had a lot to do with the cultural fragmentation. The US has a very large population that all speaks the same language and has the same values. We are able to get the 350m people behind the same product and throw massive amounts of money behind it. You can't do that in Europe. A French movie is only going to get 5m dollars in investment, because this film is only going to see potentially 30m different people, whereas in the US, this film is likely going to see a huge amount of people.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10219.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"76f87g","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"What is the current mainstream academic opinion on the best way to handle how mass automation is going to change the workforce?a I keep reading that in the long term, old jobs will be replaced with new ones for humans but that if we don't think about how to structure the system to accomodate mass automation we could suffer hugely in terms of inequality in the long term and unemployment in the short term. Is it simply to do nothing because eventually old jobs will be replaced with new ones? Or have academics already produced hypotheses on the best policy actions to mitigate the potential effects of long term inequality or short term unemployment that mass automation will have? If these papers exist, where would be the best place for me to start reading?","c_root_id_A":"dodriwv","c_root_id_B":"dodp19k","created_at_utc_A":1508033245,"created_at_utc_B":1508029806,"score_A":13,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Whilst u\/wyldcraft has made some good points, I think it's important to be mindful of skill-biased technological change. There's two main ways that technological advances interact with labour markets. On the one hand, technology can act as a substitute to labour. For example, self-serve kiosks at places such as McDonalds, or supermarkets. Workers who can be replaced by these things typically have a pretty rough time when it comes to their wages \/ standard of living. On the other hand, technology can act as a complement to labour. For example, Microsoft Excel and other software has made a lot of accountant's jobs much easier, making them more productive and raising their wages. In recent times, it seems as though a lot of technological advances that are complimentary tend to help out high-skilled workers, whereas ones that act as substitutes for labour mostly hurt low-skilled workers, which is not very ideal if inequality is a concern of yours. As far as solutions go, things such as EITC that u\/wyldcraft has mentioned can be quite helpful, and I've also seen a lot of people suggest subsidised retraining programs to help workers adversely effected by technological advances transition into different types of employment, however I'm unaware of the efficacy of these programs as I havn't read much about them. In terms of relevant papers, I really liked this one, and I'm yet to read it but this one seems relevant.","human_ref_B":"None of the major economic indicators suggest a tailspin in the American workforce. Unemployment is under 5% and there are many industries with wage growth. It's true there's been a shift towards the service industry and many of those jobs are restaurant and other low-paying work. But it also includes high end financial and technology services. Reddit's econ network faq says the biggest problem is \"short run structural unemployment,\" i.e. if driverless cars become legal tomorrow a large segment of truck drivers won't have the resources or opportunity to earn the same wages in another industry right away. America doesn't have the best re-skilling programs outside of tech. People's ability to adapt to future jobs hinges on better (adult) education. Another area the government can help that is popular with economists is expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit - think of it as a Universal Basic Income that actually works.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3439.0,"score_ratio":1.625} {"post_id":"12mdlm","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"[Sociology]Why is it that most older American women seem to prefer short hair styles, while most younger women favor longer hair styles. Why is it is that most older American women (in their 60's and up) seem to prefer shorter hairstyles, while most younger women (teens and 20's) seem to prefer longer hairstyles? What would be the sociological reasons for this?","c_root_id_A":"c6wee3k","c_root_id_B":"c6wec87","created_at_utc_A":1352067016,"created_at_utc_B":1352066814,"score_A":84,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"There are some interesting theories in here, but they all miss the mark in this (borderline middle-aged) woman's opinion. Older women cut their hair shorter because long hair makes an old woman look even older. That's it. Simple. There are exceptions, and some older women can pull off long hair. But to be perfectly blunt about this, when gravity has begun to have its way with your body and everything is sagging downward more than you want it to, having long hair hanging by your face only exaggerates the effect. Short haircuts give your appearance a bit more of a structured, upward-oriented lift. Take an older woman with long hair, cut it off above the shoulder and style it, and she instantly looks ten years younger, or at least more put-together for her age. The other point here is that grey hair is different. It's coarser and tends to curl in strange ways, which makes it ill-suited to the long, silky, flowing thing that we expect from beautiful long hair. Long grey hair tends to make a woman look a bit like an unkempt old crone. Short haircuts keep grey hair craziness as contained as tidy as possible. Nothing to do with what was in style when they were younger, nothing to do with upkeep. They're just trying to groom themselves as flatteringly as possible.","human_ref_B":"My guess that that some amount of pattern baldness is not uncommon in women as they age, so keeping your hair short and curly helps to hide that.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":202.0,"score_ratio":42.0} {"post_id":"12mdlm","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"[Sociology]Why is it that most older American women seem to prefer short hair styles, while most younger women favor longer hair styles. Why is it is that most older American women (in their 60's and up) seem to prefer shorter hairstyles, while most younger women (teens and 20's) seem to prefer longer hairstyles? What would be the sociological reasons for this?","c_root_id_A":"c6wf5gj","c_root_id_B":"c6wec87","created_at_utc_A":1352069772,"created_at_utc_B":1352066814,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"If you're old and you have long hair, you look old and crazy. See witches. Short hair looks young. It's cute. The childlike haircut makes an old woman not look crazy old. In addition, shorter hair is easier to maintain. Once you get old, fuck it. You don't want to waste the little time you have left brushing and washing. Short hair is quick and easy. Long hair is a bitch to maintain, and even more of a bitch to make look good.","human_ref_B":"My guess that that some amount of pattern baldness is not uncommon in women as they age, so keeping your hair short and curly helps to hide that.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2958.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"12mdlm","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"[Sociology]Why is it that most older American women seem to prefer short hair styles, while most younger women favor longer hair styles. Why is it is that most older American women (in their 60's and up) seem to prefer shorter hairstyles, while most younger women (teens and 20's) seem to prefer longer hairstyles? What would be the sociological reasons for this?","c_root_id_A":"c6wgemf","c_root_id_B":"c6wec87","created_at_utc_A":1352074354,"created_at_utc_B":1352066814,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Simple: because long hair on an older woman will usually make her look older.","human_ref_B":"My guess that that some amount of pattern baldness is not uncommon in women as they age, so keeping your hair short and curly helps to hide that.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7540.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"39tuov","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"Is there a Historical explanation\/ theory for how the Cow came to be sacred in Hinduism I've always been taught that in the Abrahamic religions (especially Judaism and Islam), pigs were prohibited from being eaten because there weren't sufficient sanitation technologies to prepare pigs safely for human consumption when these religions formed and established influence. Is there a similar explanation or theory regarding why cows in Hinduism are regarded as sacred (outside of religious teach or mythology)?","c_root_id_A":"cs6f7ak","c_root_id_B":"cs6foad","created_at_utc_A":1434310901,"created_at_utc_B":1434311817,"score_A":6,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"This isn't an answer to your question, but pig prohibition in the Levant is not a settled question, and there's a lot of discussion. Pigs were widely raised and consumed in the Levant and Mesopotamia during the Bronze age, so it's not exactly clear why it became prohibited for some during the Iron age. Here's a cool paper with some discussion on the topic.","human_ref_B":"Marvin Harris had some ideas about why the cow is sacred: http:\/\/anthropology.ua.edu\/bindon\/ant475\/Readings\/r2.pdf He also had some thoughts on the prohibition of pig: http:\/\/etnologija.etnoinfolab.org\/dokumenti\/82\/2\/2009\/harris_1521.pdf His explanations mainly rely on cultural ecology. Basically, he thinks that oxen are highly important for Indian agriculture since all of the plowing needs to happen simultaneously to take advantage of the monsoon season. This means that oxen cannot be shared as in other places. Cows make oxen so they are important. During the drought period the cows often need to supplement their diets by foraging far and wide. He also points out that after they die from natural causes they will be eaten by un-touchables and non-hindus.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":916.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"6zanqq","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"What is the difference between an anthropological ethnography and a sociological ethnography? Is there one? Any examples of either?","c_root_id_A":"dmtx59t","c_root_id_B":"dmtwswh","created_at_utc_A":1505080956,"created_at_utc_B":1505080526,"score_A":6,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I dont know as much about this as I should given my trajectory, but I never took an Anth or Soc class as a BA or MA student. So my short answer will be heavily dependent on the few things I have read. They are probably more similar than they are different, at least in method. But I think the main difference would be largely decided by the nature of the question you are asking. Of course there is much overlap, but my guess is that the difference between the kinds of questions Anths and Socs will be interested in is deeply influenced by the history of those disciplines. If your ethnography is about kinship, identity, etc - it will tend towards the Anth, while if you are asking how people make sense of institutions or social classes, that's more sociological. Annette Lareau and Michael Burawoy are two of the most prominent examples of Sociological Ethnographers. But again, my guess is that they have in a sense grown MORE similar, at least over the last 30-40 years, as anthropologists have become more interested in systems and macro issues (and not just the 'natives on the island'). Likewise, sociological ethnogs would probably be more willing to pay attention to local interactions after the Cultural turn in the 1970s and the distancing from positivist epistemology. But this historical trajectory is a little misleading I think because many of the very earliest sociologists were indeed highly qualitative (and women) and it was only after an obsession with quant data from census etc that qualitative methods fell out of style in Sociology for a while. The Extended Case Method (from Max Gluckman and the Machester school) is an interesting development in itself. It began in anthropology but then fell out of style as the Geertzian interpretivist tradition because the sin qua non of american anthro. But then Burawoy and a few other sociologists picked it up in an attempt to write ethnographies that dealt with local interactions but also took seriously the macro contexts that shaped the local situations. I think the type of question and the assumption about who the 'members' (i.e. the ethnos) are will see an ethnography tend in one or the other direction. If the members are connected by institutional, class, race or other (larger) relationships - and the ethnographer is trying to say something about SOCIETY - then it's more sociological. If the relationships are village\/location, family, etc it may be more anthro. As I am thinking through this, I can probably come up with lots of points that refute what I have said. So I'll leave it there and wait for someone better to clarify.","human_ref_B":"I can't answer your question about the difference between them, but a book I would consider a good example of a sociological ethnography is Matthew Desmond's Evicted (which won the Pulitzer Prize this year).","labels":1,"seconds_difference":430.0,"score_ratio":3.0} {"post_id":"1mp9eo","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.74,"history":"Could a system of voting be effective in which each voter can cast one vote FOR a candidate, and one vote AGAINST another candidate? Has anywhere ever tried such a system? How would the mathematics of such a system pan out? What are the implications of this system for the fairness \/ ethics \/ democratic principles of voting? How would it be likely to affect the outcome of elections for a) mainstream parties, b) minor parties, c) extreme radical parties that may be unpopular with a broad cross-section of people?","c_root_id_A":"ccbbune","c_root_id_B":"ccbbvqu","created_at_utc_A":1379584666,"created_at_utc_B":1379584958,"score_A":8,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"So, you're talking about upvotes and downvotes?! Where have I heard this before? On a more serious note, the underlying principle is called \"Approval Voting\" and the wikipedia article answers some of your questions.","human_ref_B":"Rated voting, where you give each candidate\/issue a score between say +5 and -5, sounds like what you're talking about but as far as I know, this has only been utilized by corporations or small boards like say, a housing association. Here is a link to \"The Tyranny of the Majority\" by Lani Guinier in which she discusses the different methods of voting and their likely repercussions. The related book list on that page looks pretty interesting too. Next to that ... Cumulative voting, where you are given X amount of votes and you distribute them among the candidates\/issues, seems like it might be the closest because you could conceivably have one candidate with zero votes that way. Ranked voting, where you are given say 5 candidates\/issues and you rank them in order of most to least favorite\/important, would also be close. It seems highly likely that either method would eliminate the need for run-off elections as there would be an automatically generated ordered list. Any ramifications beyond that would just be speculation on my part.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":292.0,"score_ratio":1.125} {"post_id":"747dyd","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Are there examples of ethnic\/cultural\/religious\/etc. groups merging in history. In often happens that different groups of people live together in a country or area, but it seems to me that more often than not that these groups try to protect their identity, which leads to ethnic minorities in different countries, groups having their own part of cities (chinatown), etc. More often than not this led to struggles between different groups of people, in different shapes and forms. Are there examples of the opposite happening, that groups of people merged their identities over time, and what are the reasons for this compared to where groups don't merge?","c_root_id_A":"dnw72lp","c_root_id_B":"dnw4isb","created_at_utc_A":1507124694,"created_at_utc_B":1507121283,"score_A":13,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"There are many examples of this! For one, the expansion of the Russian empire from the 15th to 20th centuries eastward from Europe has lead to many Turkic and Finno-urgic people's to identify as ethnically and culturally Russian. Another, is that in Argentina where only 1.6% of Argentines identify as Amerindian and most identify culturally as white European. However in actuality, some studies have shown that much of the population is actually genetically mestizo. The Goths, Vandals and other German ethnolinguistic groups, were eventually subsumed into the modern German ethnicity. The Gauls in pre-Roman Europe were a tribal ethnic group that were subsumed into the invading Roman Empire. Becoming \"Romanized\" (although I hate the use of that word) through imperial conquest and forced subjugation. So yes there are many examples of ethnic groups merging and becoming one, or one being subsumed into the other. It has happened all across the world, but for varying reasons. Yes, there are many ethnic groups that strive to protect their linguistic and cultural heritage but given enough time and proximity, and the right historical circumstances, it is not uncommon to see a merging of ethnic groups. I think the biggest thing to wrap your head around is that these are long term historical events. This isn't something that happens in a few generations. Some Sources: * Corach, D. et. al. (2010). Inferring continental ancestry of Argentineans from autosomal, Y\u2010chromosomal and mitochondrial DNA.\u00a0 * Dawisha, K. & Parr, B. (1996). The end of empire?: the transformation of the USSR in comparative perspective * Leibeschuetz, W. (2015). The Debate about the Ethnogenesis of the Germanic Tribes * Woolf, G. (2000). Becoming Roman: The Origins of the Provincial Civillization of Gaul.","human_ref_B":"This happens all the time! A great example is European countries, where historically, there have been hundreds or thousands of ethnic groups living in a particular country. However, over time, those particular ethnic distinctions have been forgotten, with everyone instead embracing the idea of \"Dutch,\" \"French,\" or \"German.\" This is the product of nationalism, but nationalism can be a powerful force in bringing people together. An example without nationalism is the Ngoni of southern Africa. As the Ngoni conquered surrounding peoples, they absorbed them into their class structure, first as a lower caste, then integrating them more fully. However, in doing so, Ngoni gods, beliefs, and even names would change as Ngoni adopted things they liked from the groups they conquered. This definitely isn't unique in African history either - southern African groups tended to absorb rather than annihilate each other. You can still see this going on with Islam and Christianity in Africa. Rather than the Christianity or Islam you might recognise, the faiths are instead full of recontextualising, with Jesus or Allah taking on a traditional African role and being one among many. It's an extremely common phenomenon for converted peoples to incorporate indigenous beliefs with the converting religion, creating a blend of the two to better contextualise the faith and incorporate it into their identity. It's not quite an example of what you're looking for, but it really highlights why merges happen - people think other people have good ideas and good ways of looking at the world, and blend those ideas together to create a stronger whole.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3411.0,"score_ratio":1.3} {"post_id":"od9qhq","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Can local police actually do much to prevent routine crime? Of course, local police can do their best to enforce conventional criminal laws in conventional ways, by responding to calls, patrolling, investigating and arresting suspects. Also, organizations like the FBI can investigate certain forms of organized crime and sometimes white collar crime. These do make a difference, in the long run. On the other hand, in some places in the U.S., crime rates remain high. Everybody has an opinion about crime prevention, and most of those opinions are pretty much fact-free. Is there actual empirical research about what local police can and can't do to prevent routine local crimes, such as assault, burglary, robbery, car theft, and so on? In other words, does anybody really know how to prevent such crimes? To avoid protracted pointless arguments, let's leave domestic violence, drug-related crimes and \"victimless crimes\" out of the discussion.","c_root_id_A":"h40jat8","c_root_id_B":"h3zot4s","created_at_utc_A":1625399303,"created_at_utc_B":1625372229,"score_A":9,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"The answer to the question of \"Can local police actually do much to prevent routine crime?\" depends on what we consider to be \"do much.\" But broadly speaking, yes. The heart of your question concerns a major topic in the academic fields of criminology and policing^(1). I will begin by sharing some facts about criminology, gradually honing into \"what works?\" in terms of policing. --- A major family of theories which has gained great influence in recent decades within criminology is what Wilcox and Cullen (2018) call **situational opportunity theories of crime** (also see environmental criminology). The basic principles are simple: crime is necessarily the outcome of the intersection in time and space of a motivated offender, an attractive target, and the absence of a capable guardian, and opportunity is a major causal factor (i.e. \"opportunity makes the thief\"). These principles have clear implications for prevention, hence **crime opportunity theories** are foundational to the approach called **situational crime prevention**, which is in turn associated with policing. Clarke (2012) argues that research on crime opportunity has achieved the following: >1. **It has supported the development of situational crime prevention**, a highly effective means of crime control. >1. **It has helped make credible the claim that the cumulative effect of situational prevention,** whether or not implemented under that label, **has brought about widespread drops in crime in Western countries.** >1. It has helped to clarify that most criminological theories are theories of criminality not theories of crime \u2013 in other words, criminological theorizing has been preoccupied with the question of why certain individuals or groups become involved in crime and not the question of why crime occurs. This latter question cannot be answered simply by explaining why some people are more likely to be delinquent or criminal; it must also be explained how situational factors facilitate or encourage the actual commission of criminal acts. >1. It has supported the development of an alternative set of crime (or opportunity) theories that will enable the growth of crime science. And according to Freilich and Newman (2017): >**SCP primarily seeks to solve and reduce crime problems in an action setting.** Newman and Clarke (2003, p. 7) explain that SCP\u2019s approach is similar to that of \u201coperations research\u201d (Wilkins, 1997), in which the researcher works closely with the persons who are actually on the job. Indeed, **SCP\u2019s focus on crime reduction has led to partnerships between academics, police, and practitioners, where SCP principles have been used to guide practice** (see, for example, Braga & Kennedy, 2012; Scott & Goldstein, 2012). **SCP is associated with problem-oriented policing, currently a leading policing strategy** (Eck & Madensen, 2012). **Problem-oriented policing calls for focusing on specific problems to devise proactive strategies to eliminate them** (Clarke & Goldstein, 2002, 2003; see also the extensive collection of Problem-Specific Guides for Police published by the Center for Problem-oriented Policing, many of which are heavily indebted to SCP). --- This leads us to the development of **new models of policing** and of **evidence-led policing**. What you describe at the beginning is associated with what is called the **traditional model of policing**, which is *reactive*. However, there exist other models which have been developed in the past decades, and which are meant to be (more) *preventive*. See for example: * Community policing * Problem-oriented policing * Intelligence-led policing]( https:\/\/www.aic.gov.au\/publications\/tandi\/tandi248) In the USA, these developments can be traced back to the late 60s and the publication of the [Katzenbach Commission's report, i.e. *The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society*. It is also around that time that we have some landmark experiments involving the police, such as The Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment and The Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment which strongly challenged \"common sense\" ideas about policing, and demonstrated the need for what is now known as evidence-based policing. Currently, we do have collaborations between researchers and police to evaluate police strategies, including experimental studies of what works. For illustration, see the British College of Policing's Crime Reduction Toolkit and George Mason University's Center for Evidence-based Crime Policy's What Works? Summarily, there *are* police strategies which are more effective than others at reducing street crimes, including what are called volume crimes (i.e. those crimes which constitute the majority of offenses, such as assaults, theft, etc.). For illustration, according to a recent Campbell Collaboration Systematic Review, the answer to \"Does problem-oriented policing reduce crime and disorder?\" is: >**Yes**. The results of this updated systematic review suggest that **POP is associated with a statistically significant overall reduction in crime and disorder of 34%.** >**There are positive impacts for POP across a wide variety of crime and disorder outcomes, among studies that targeted problem places and problem people, at a variety of different units of analysis and featuring a wide array of types of interventions.** The effect size is smaller in randomized experiments and after accounting for publication bias. >POP had limited impacts on police legitimacy, fear of crime, and collective efficacy. **Few studies incorporated cost-benefit analyses, but those that did suggest POP can be cost-effective and provide substantial savings through prevented calls-for-service and incidents.** --- In conclusion, the answer to the following question: >Is there actual empirical research about what local police can and can't do to prevent routine local crimes, such as assault, burglary, robbery, car theft, and so on? In other words, does anybody really know how to prevent such crimes? Is \"Yes.\" --- Wilcox, P., & Cullen, F. T. (2018). Situational opportunity theories of crime. Annual Review of Criminology, 1, 123-148.","human_ref_B":"Here\u2019s an interesting study that has lots of references that can start you out researching https:\/\/papers.ssrn.com\/sol3\/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3566383 I think an interesting question to ask when measuring things is how do we measure things, and what does that measurement mean. What is prevention\/effectiveness?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":27074.0,"score_ratio":1.125} {"post_id":"od9qhq","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"Can local police actually do much to prevent routine crime? Of course, local police can do their best to enforce conventional criminal laws in conventional ways, by responding to calls, patrolling, investigating and arresting suspects. Also, organizations like the FBI can investigate certain forms of organized crime and sometimes white collar crime. These do make a difference, in the long run. On the other hand, in some places in the U.S., crime rates remain high. Everybody has an opinion about crime prevention, and most of those opinions are pretty much fact-free. Is there actual empirical research about what local police can and can't do to prevent routine local crimes, such as assault, burglary, robbery, car theft, and so on? In other words, does anybody really know how to prevent such crimes? To avoid protracted pointless arguments, let's leave domestic violence, drug-related crimes and \"victimless crimes\" out of the discussion.","c_root_id_A":"h40jat8","c_root_id_B":"h3zvafv","created_at_utc_A":1625399303,"created_at_utc_B":1625377068,"score_A":9,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"The answer to the question of \"Can local police actually do much to prevent routine crime?\" depends on what we consider to be \"do much.\" But broadly speaking, yes. The heart of your question concerns a major topic in the academic fields of criminology and policing^(1). I will begin by sharing some facts about criminology, gradually honing into \"what works?\" in terms of policing. --- A major family of theories which has gained great influence in recent decades within criminology is what Wilcox and Cullen (2018) call **situational opportunity theories of crime** (also see environmental criminology). The basic principles are simple: crime is necessarily the outcome of the intersection in time and space of a motivated offender, an attractive target, and the absence of a capable guardian, and opportunity is a major causal factor (i.e. \"opportunity makes the thief\"). These principles have clear implications for prevention, hence **crime opportunity theories** are foundational to the approach called **situational crime prevention**, which is in turn associated with policing. Clarke (2012) argues that research on crime opportunity has achieved the following: >1. **It has supported the development of situational crime prevention**, a highly effective means of crime control. >1. **It has helped make credible the claim that the cumulative effect of situational prevention,** whether or not implemented under that label, **has brought about widespread drops in crime in Western countries.** >1. It has helped to clarify that most criminological theories are theories of criminality not theories of crime \u2013 in other words, criminological theorizing has been preoccupied with the question of why certain individuals or groups become involved in crime and not the question of why crime occurs. This latter question cannot be answered simply by explaining why some people are more likely to be delinquent or criminal; it must also be explained how situational factors facilitate or encourage the actual commission of criminal acts. >1. It has supported the development of an alternative set of crime (or opportunity) theories that will enable the growth of crime science. And according to Freilich and Newman (2017): >**SCP primarily seeks to solve and reduce crime problems in an action setting.** Newman and Clarke (2003, p. 7) explain that SCP\u2019s approach is similar to that of \u201coperations research\u201d (Wilkins, 1997), in which the researcher works closely with the persons who are actually on the job. Indeed, **SCP\u2019s focus on crime reduction has led to partnerships between academics, police, and practitioners, where SCP principles have been used to guide practice** (see, for example, Braga & Kennedy, 2012; Scott & Goldstein, 2012). **SCP is associated with problem-oriented policing, currently a leading policing strategy** (Eck & Madensen, 2012). **Problem-oriented policing calls for focusing on specific problems to devise proactive strategies to eliminate them** (Clarke & Goldstein, 2002, 2003; see also the extensive collection of Problem-Specific Guides for Police published by the Center for Problem-oriented Policing, many of which are heavily indebted to SCP). --- This leads us to the development of **new models of policing** and of **evidence-led policing**. What you describe at the beginning is associated with what is called the **traditional model of policing**, which is *reactive*. However, there exist other models which have been developed in the past decades, and which are meant to be (more) *preventive*. See for example: * Community policing * Problem-oriented policing * Intelligence-led policing]( https:\/\/www.aic.gov.au\/publications\/tandi\/tandi248) In the USA, these developments can be traced back to the late 60s and the publication of the [Katzenbach Commission's report, i.e. *The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society*. It is also around that time that we have some landmark experiments involving the police, such as The Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment and The Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment which strongly challenged \"common sense\" ideas about policing, and demonstrated the need for what is now known as evidence-based policing. Currently, we do have collaborations between researchers and police to evaluate police strategies, including experimental studies of what works. For illustration, see the British College of Policing's Crime Reduction Toolkit and George Mason University's Center for Evidence-based Crime Policy's What Works? Summarily, there *are* police strategies which are more effective than others at reducing street crimes, including what are called volume crimes (i.e. those crimes which constitute the majority of offenses, such as assaults, theft, etc.). For illustration, according to a recent Campbell Collaboration Systematic Review, the answer to \"Does problem-oriented policing reduce crime and disorder?\" is: >**Yes**. The results of this updated systematic review suggest that **POP is associated with a statistically significant overall reduction in crime and disorder of 34%.** >**There are positive impacts for POP across a wide variety of crime and disorder outcomes, among studies that targeted problem places and problem people, at a variety of different units of analysis and featuring a wide array of types of interventions.** The effect size is smaller in randomized experiments and after accounting for publication bias. >POP had limited impacts on police legitimacy, fear of crime, and collective efficacy. **Few studies incorporated cost-benefit analyses, but those that did suggest POP can be cost-effective and provide substantial savings through prevented calls-for-service and incidents.** --- In conclusion, the answer to the following question: >Is there actual empirical research about what local police can and can't do to prevent routine local crimes, such as assault, burglary, robbery, car theft, and so on? In other words, does anybody really know how to prevent such crimes? Is \"Yes.\" --- Wilcox, P., & Cullen, F. T. (2018). Situational opportunity theories of crime. Annual Review of Criminology, 1, 123-148.","human_ref_B":"i found these articles really interesting: community policing and being more engaged with social services https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/pdf\/10.1080\/23311886.2016.1212636?needAccess=true https:\/\/www.ojp.gov\/pdffiles\/commp.pdf","labels":1,"seconds_difference":22235.0,"score_ratio":2.25} {"post_id":"113mdo","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"Is there a scientific explanation for why we care so much about celebrities beyond their accomplishments (e.g. films, music)?","c_root_id_A":"c6j6hiu","c_root_id_B":"c6j6q5p","created_at_utc_A":1349664429,"created_at_utc_B":1349665369,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I'm gonna through another completely unsupported guess out there. It's entirely possible that we attach our emotional response to the films, music, etc to the characters. So when we see Brad Pitt we also see Tyler Durden and the guy from mission impossible, et al. When we see Gaga, we get the same feeling as we get from her music. So we have an emotional response to the person because we have an emotional response to the work. Then we're attached, then we want to know more.","human_ref_B":"Once again, I'll make the argument that we can't really depend on evo psych explanations. In order for them to work in these circumstances, we'd need to be able to establish that this same celebration of people beyond their cultural accomplishments is present in *all* societies, from aboriginal tribes to modern society. If we can't, than it's difficult to argue that this is somehow based on behaviour 'learned on the African planes\"","labels":0,"seconds_difference":940.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"1jzrts","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"What world alliances are most likely to be formed\/broken in the future?","c_root_id_A":"cbk0jkj","c_root_id_B":"cbk0k3j","created_at_utc_A":1376020615,"created_at_utc_B":1376020656,"score_A":5,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"NATO appears to be weakening. This I think will especially be true as long as the EU is strapped for cash, and the US has a serious aversion to foreign action. This isn't necessarily a break, but it will shift the landscape a little bit. On that point, the EU's future is going to be something to watch. I could see that attenuating quite a bit. Africa-China someone mentioned. That's going to be very interesting if the African countries start showing some serious growth\/ willingness to back Chinese interests. I think there's a lot of stuff going on behind the scenes in SE Asia with the smaller countries like Thailand and Malaysia and others trying to counter-balance China. I'm tempted to throw Australia and the US in there too. China-North Korea also seems to be weakening. China might throw N. Korea under the bus if they keep acting out\/Kim can't keep hold of power. But I think the most interesting area is going to be the Middle East. Af-Pak is going to be very interesting once we're fully out. Iraq and Iran are interesting and appear to be cozier. Iran and Syria are also interesting. Egypt's still very much in the air, esp. on the question of Israel.","human_ref_B":"Look for ASEAN and OAS to get stronger in the coming decades imho: 1. Asian countries have their own sordid histories with one another, but with US power on the wane, they will (imho obviously) continue to strengthen ties to ensure their interests can be defended against China (and possibly Japan, who can go in a number of directions in the near future). 2. South America similarly has their own historical tensions, although arguably to a lesser degree than Asia. But the strides they've made in the past 3 decades, and the fact that their interests are converging vis the rest of the world, bodes well for them combining their strength on the world stage. Personally, I think there is enough \"multipolarity\" (no clear dominant power) for a stable balance to foster further cooperation. Here, American decline means the opposite from in Asia: whereas the latter has enjoyed decades of protection to further US interests, SA will benefit from reduced meddling and disruption. Unfortunately, I think Africa and the Midle East will remain too highly contested among the major powers for the AU to take off. After Gaddafi's unseating, the AU has gone into retreat. (And if anything, been pushed into China's waiting arms). My $0.02","labels":0,"seconds_difference":41.0,"score_ratio":1.2} {"post_id":"x7whb","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"[Economics] Can AskSocialScience recommend lightweight, introductory 'popular science' style books on economics? Hey everyone I've recently become very interested in economics and, rather than pouring over textbooks as an introduction, I'd really like some recommendations for pop-sci style books about economics. I know I can find something like this on amazon: http:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Naked-Economics-Undressing-Dismal-Science\/dp\/0393049825 I'm worried about content and quality though which is why I trust reddit to help :)","c_root_id_A":"c5k18vg","c_root_id_B":"c5k0agd","created_at_utc_A":1343357061,"created_at_utc_B":1343353324,"score_A":6,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Enthusiasm is great, but please understand that unless you actually read textbooks (and work to understand the maths) you will not be educated in the discipline.","human_ref_B":"Naked Economics is great, it's what originally got me interested in economics. Freakonomics is good too. After reading them, I recommend a textbook, such as Mankiw's \"Principles\".","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3737.0,"score_ratio":1.5} {"post_id":"x7whb","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"[Economics] Can AskSocialScience recommend lightweight, introductory 'popular science' style books on economics? Hey everyone I've recently become very interested in economics and, rather than pouring over textbooks as an introduction, I'd really like some recommendations for pop-sci style books about economics. I know I can find something like this on amazon: http:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Naked-Economics-Undressing-Dismal-Science\/dp\/0393049825 I'm worried about content and quality though which is why I trust reddit to help :)","c_root_id_A":"c5k0agd","c_root_id_B":"c5k0scx","created_at_utc_A":1343353324,"created_at_utc_B":1343355289,"score_A":4,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Naked Economics is great, it's what originally got me interested in economics. Freakonomics is good too. After reading them, I recommend a textbook, such as Mankiw's \"Principles\".","human_ref_B":"If tooting my own horn doesn't violate of the rules of this subreddit (and I hope it doesn't), I have a graphic novel coming out soon that you might want to check out. Sample pages are here.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1965.0,"score_ratio":1.25} {"post_id":"x7whb","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"[Economics] Can AskSocialScience recommend lightweight, introductory 'popular science' style books on economics? Hey everyone I've recently become very interested in economics and, rather than pouring over textbooks as an introduction, I'd really like some recommendations for pop-sci style books about economics. I know I can find something like this on amazon: http:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Naked-Economics-Undressing-Dismal-Science\/dp\/0393049825 I'm worried about content and quality though which is why I trust reddit to help :)","c_root_id_A":"c5k5i7m","c_root_id_B":"c5k0agd","created_at_utc_A":1343378654,"created_at_utc_B":1343353324,"score_A":5,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Naked Economics The Undercover Economist Depression Economics The Accidental Economist Do not read: Economics in One Lesson It's old and outdated. Maybe useful as a complement to other economics reading. Honestly though, most intro economics textbooks are petty easy to read and the authors can be fun to read. Check out Krugman's textbook or Mankiw's. Krugman is always fun to read.","human_ref_B":"Naked Economics is great, it's what originally got me interested in economics. Freakonomics is good too. After reading them, I recommend a textbook, such as Mankiw's \"Principles\".","labels":1,"seconds_difference":25330.0,"score_ratio":1.25} {"post_id":"x7whb","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"[Economics] Can AskSocialScience recommend lightweight, introductory 'popular science' style books on economics? Hey everyone I've recently become very interested in economics and, rather than pouring over textbooks as an introduction, I'd really like some recommendations for pop-sci style books about economics. I know I can find something like this on amazon: http:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Naked-Economics-Undressing-Dismal-Science\/dp\/0393049825 I'm worried about content and quality though which is why I trust reddit to help :)","c_root_id_A":"c5k18vg","c_root_id_B":"c5k0scx","created_at_utc_A":1343357061,"created_at_utc_B":1343355289,"score_A":6,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Enthusiasm is great, but please understand that unless you actually read textbooks (and work to understand the maths) you will not be educated in the discipline.","human_ref_B":"If tooting my own horn doesn't violate of the rules of this subreddit (and I hope it doesn't), I have a graphic novel coming out soon that you might want to check out. Sample pages are here.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1772.0,"score_ratio":1.2} {"post_id":"x7whb","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"[Economics] Can AskSocialScience recommend lightweight, introductory 'popular science' style books on economics? Hey everyone I've recently become very interested in economics and, rather than pouring over textbooks as an introduction, I'd really like some recommendations for pop-sci style books about economics. I know I can find something like this on amazon: http:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Naked-Economics-Undressing-Dismal-Science\/dp\/0393049825 I'm worried about content and quality though which is why I trust reddit to help :)","c_root_id_A":"c5k5i7m","c_root_id_B":"c5k40l7","created_at_utc_A":1343378654,"created_at_utc_B":1343369002,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Naked Economics The Undercover Economist Depression Economics The Accidental Economist Do not read: Economics in One Lesson It's old and outdated. Maybe useful as a complement to other economics reading. Honestly though, most intro economics textbooks are petty easy to read and the authors can be fun to read. Check out Krugman's textbook or Mankiw's. Krugman is always fun to read.","human_ref_B":"How an Economy Grows and Why it Crashes is a really good primer for macroeconomics and will set you on the right path. Economics in One Lesson is a great book that will give you a solid theoretical foundation and perspective. I also recommend anything by Thomas Sowell, such as Basic Economics or Applied Economics.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9652.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"2nmazc","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"In most US states, the capitol is not the largest city. Is there any benefit of this? Does this two-city system (especially in a state like Wyoming or Missouri, where there are no other cities) give any benefit to the state, the nation, or the people?","c_root_id_A":"cmf1zou","c_root_id_B":"cmf0qri","created_at_utc_A":1417149995,"created_at_utc_B":1417146817,"score_A":30,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"Isolated state capitols as a predictor of corruption: http:\/\/www.npr.org\/templates\/story\/story.php?storyId=206884484 According to this article (and the study cited), a lot of these capitols were intentionally located away from the financial centers to prevent money influencing politics. This actually has the opposite effect, likely because of less newspaper\/media coverage. They also tend to be managed poorly for the same reason, and voters less aware of what's going on.","human_ref_B":"Just to clarify, OP, what do you mean by Missouri having no other cities? It has both St. Louis and Kansas City which both have metropolitan areas well over two million each. (St. Louis has almost 3) Edit: To actually answer OP's question, in a narrow sense. In Missouri, central location during an era of slow travel was a large part of not being located in the central city of the time, St. Louis (Kansas City not yet having grown into prominence). Instead lawmakers established a commission to find a centrally located area along the Missouri River, which flows through the state and in the early 1820's was the fastest way of crossing the region, that also was available. The town that was picked was barely existent, but became the states second capital (after a temporary stent in the now-St.Louis suburb of St. Charles.) Geographical location was the big benefit, it would be easier to govern from the center during an era where the horse and river barge were the fastest form of inland transport. Source: http:\/\/www.sos.mo.gov\/BlueBook\/2001-2002\/0011-0035.pdf#p12","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3178.0,"score_ratio":1.875} {"post_id":"1418op","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"[Economics] What would be fair, revealing questions that could be asked of advocates of economic policy by a person who knows very little about the field of economics but will be affected by those policies?","c_root_id_A":"c794zxx","c_root_id_B":"c79bo3i","created_at_utc_A":1354289760,"created_at_utc_B":1354313393,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"One important differentiation that often goes overlooked is the difference between a policy (ie. the ideology or set principles that we believe will lead to the desired outcome) and a program (the operational mechanism to put these principles into practice).","human_ref_B":"I work in regulatory issues. I've worked for governments, businesses, and even done some bits of work for the World Bank. I also just got back from a course on international standards in regulatory analysis. This should get you started on how to tear apart any new regulation or law. I'm referencing my documents and notes that I took while taking this international course taught by European professors of public policy, World Bank leaders, and regulatory consultants. A full outline of the current ideal policy development process can be found here. This is the process that is followed in many Western countries to varying degrees of quality and depth. It's frequently not followed for laws, but it makes a useful tool for tearing them apart. The UK, US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, EU, and other countries, regularly produce IA statements for new regulations, so you can see their whole process. The first question that needs to be asked every single time you look at a policy or law and above all before anything else is: What is the problem? A policy should always clearly lay out exactly what the problem is and what are the root causes of the problem. Is it too many people are dying in road accidents? Businesses are unable to compete in a specific market? Too many people are getting sick from tainted food? It's critical that the problem is defined as an adverse affect on people (bad health outcomes, lower wages\/wealth, etc). Mindbogglingly, the problem that the policy is trying to solve is sometimes not clearly defined at all, or even worse the problem as its defined is that there is no policy. Second, you should look at the objective of the policy. The policy should draw a very clear relationship between the problem, the causes of the problem, and the objective of the policy. Do the objectives of the policy actually line up with the identified problem and causes? Again, you would be surprised how often this isn't true. Consider a law\/policy to increase drug possession penalties: Too many people are sick or injured from doing recreational drugs, because access to drugs is too easy, because recreational drugs aren't illegal enough. Is this link actually well identified? Is it supported by evidence at all? So, if the problem is well-defined and the objectives of the policy make sense then you get to look at possible options. Have the policy makers identified a wide range of policy options? Honestly, this basically never happens. Departments and ministries are often constrained to their mandate and other laws, so broader, more effective policies are often completely ignored. Many policies are written with the policy option in mind, so this step is ignored completely. Think of a law that increases penalties for drug possession (e.g. more jail time). The problem is that many adverse health outcomes are the result of some recreational drug use. Governments almost universally just look at increasing penalties for drug possession or trafficking, but its really obvious that they should at least consider other policy options. Why not treat more drug addicts to reduce the impact on human health? Why not spend more educating people on adverse health effects? Okay, so let's say that now we have a problem, objectives to fix the problem, and a number of solutions. If the policy makes sense so far, it's actually doing better than most. But now, the policy makers need to convince you that they've properly captured and weighed all of the benefits and costs of the policy options. There are lots of possible questions here: How sound is the analysis? Was their any analysis at all? Are there lots of unverified assumptions? Are all stakeholders considered? (A stakeholder is any person, industry, or economic actor that may be affected by the policy) Is the analysis transparent enough to know how they weighed the costs and benefits? Did the policy makers undertake sufficient public consultation? Are all of the costs and benefits properly accounted for? Etc. Honestly, this part of regulatory development is an art into itself. Just weighing the costs and benefits of a new law or regulation can be extremely challenging. For lots of regulations, you can actually look at all of these things through the impact assessment documents. Next, did the policy makers choose the right option given their analysis? It should be absolutely crystal clear from their analysis. For many laws, there is no analysis or more frequently only closed-door consultations. Policy makers often do not provide sufficient rational at all for their final option, and do not make even the most basic results from consultations public. So, even if the government has a policy. How will the government enforce the policy? Obviously a new regulation or law needs someone to make sure people\/businesses comply. Also, are the results of the policy\/law going to be tracked to see if its effective? Will the policy be scrapped if it's found to be costly and ineffective? So let's say that increasing recreational drug penalties is a legitimate option. How will the government actually enforce this? Make more jail space? increase police budgets? Is the government going to see if it's an effective policy and drop it if it isn't? ---------------------------------- As you can probably imagine, most laws, even in well-developed countries, will abysmally fail a lot of these questions. EDIT: Holy shit, I wrote a novel.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":23633.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"1418op","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"[Economics] What would be fair, revealing questions that could be asked of advocates of economic policy by a person who knows very little about the field of economics but will be affected by those policies?","c_root_id_A":"c79bo3i","c_root_id_B":"c79784l","created_at_utc_A":1354313393,"created_at_utc_B":1354297875,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I work in regulatory issues. I've worked for governments, businesses, and even done some bits of work for the World Bank. I also just got back from a course on international standards in regulatory analysis. This should get you started on how to tear apart any new regulation or law. I'm referencing my documents and notes that I took while taking this international course taught by European professors of public policy, World Bank leaders, and regulatory consultants. A full outline of the current ideal policy development process can be found here. This is the process that is followed in many Western countries to varying degrees of quality and depth. It's frequently not followed for laws, but it makes a useful tool for tearing them apart. The UK, US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, EU, and other countries, regularly produce IA statements for new regulations, so you can see their whole process. The first question that needs to be asked every single time you look at a policy or law and above all before anything else is: What is the problem? A policy should always clearly lay out exactly what the problem is and what are the root causes of the problem. Is it too many people are dying in road accidents? Businesses are unable to compete in a specific market? Too many people are getting sick from tainted food? It's critical that the problem is defined as an adverse affect on people (bad health outcomes, lower wages\/wealth, etc). Mindbogglingly, the problem that the policy is trying to solve is sometimes not clearly defined at all, or even worse the problem as its defined is that there is no policy. Second, you should look at the objective of the policy. The policy should draw a very clear relationship between the problem, the causes of the problem, and the objective of the policy. Do the objectives of the policy actually line up with the identified problem and causes? Again, you would be surprised how often this isn't true. Consider a law\/policy to increase drug possession penalties: Too many people are sick or injured from doing recreational drugs, because access to drugs is too easy, because recreational drugs aren't illegal enough. Is this link actually well identified? Is it supported by evidence at all? So, if the problem is well-defined and the objectives of the policy make sense then you get to look at possible options. Have the policy makers identified a wide range of policy options? Honestly, this basically never happens. Departments and ministries are often constrained to their mandate and other laws, so broader, more effective policies are often completely ignored. Many policies are written with the policy option in mind, so this step is ignored completely. Think of a law that increases penalties for drug possession (e.g. more jail time). The problem is that many adverse health outcomes are the result of some recreational drug use. Governments almost universally just look at increasing penalties for drug possession or trafficking, but its really obvious that they should at least consider other policy options. Why not treat more drug addicts to reduce the impact on human health? Why not spend more educating people on adverse health effects? Okay, so let's say that now we have a problem, objectives to fix the problem, and a number of solutions. If the policy makes sense so far, it's actually doing better than most. But now, the policy makers need to convince you that they've properly captured and weighed all of the benefits and costs of the policy options. There are lots of possible questions here: How sound is the analysis? Was their any analysis at all? Are there lots of unverified assumptions? Are all stakeholders considered? (A stakeholder is any person, industry, or economic actor that may be affected by the policy) Is the analysis transparent enough to know how they weighed the costs and benefits? Did the policy makers undertake sufficient public consultation? Are all of the costs and benefits properly accounted for? Etc. Honestly, this part of regulatory development is an art into itself. Just weighing the costs and benefits of a new law or regulation can be extremely challenging. For lots of regulations, you can actually look at all of these things through the impact assessment documents. Next, did the policy makers choose the right option given their analysis? It should be absolutely crystal clear from their analysis. For many laws, there is no analysis or more frequently only closed-door consultations. Policy makers often do not provide sufficient rational at all for their final option, and do not make even the most basic results from consultations public. So, even if the government has a policy. How will the government enforce the policy? Obviously a new regulation or law needs someone to make sure people\/businesses comply. Also, are the results of the policy\/law going to be tracked to see if its effective? Will the policy be scrapped if it's found to be costly and ineffective? So let's say that increasing recreational drug penalties is a legitimate option. How will the government actually enforce this? Make more jail space? increase police budgets? Is the government going to see if it's an effective policy and drop it if it isn't? ---------------------------------- As you can probably imagine, most laws, even in well-developed countries, will abysmally fail a lot of these questions. EDIT: Holy shit, I wrote a novel.","human_ref_B":"\"whose interests does this serve?\"","labels":1,"seconds_difference":15518.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"1418op","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"[Economics] What would be fair, revealing questions that could be asked of advocates of economic policy by a person who knows very little about the field of economics but will be affected by those policies?","c_root_id_A":"c79bo3i","c_root_id_B":"c799jlt","created_at_utc_A":1354313393,"created_at_utc_B":1354305841,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I work in regulatory issues. I've worked for governments, businesses, and even done some bits of work for the World Bank. I also just got back from a course on international standards in regulatory analysis. This should get you started on how to tear apart any new regulation or law. I'm referencing my documents and notes that I took while taking this international course taught by European professors of public policy, World Bank leaders, and regulatory consultants. A full outline of the current ideal policy development process can be found here. This is the process that is followed in many Western countries to varying degrees of quality and depth. It's frequently not followed for laws, but it makes a useful tool for tearing them apart. The UK, US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, EU, and other countries, regularly produce IA statements for new regulations, so you can see their whole process. The first question that needs to be asked every single time you look at a policy or law and above all before anything else is: What is the problem? A policy should always clearly lay out exactly what the problem is and what are the root causes of the problem. Is it too many people are dying in road accidents? Businesses are unable to compete in a specific market? Too many people are getting sick from tainted food? It's critical that the problem is defined as an adverse affect on people (bad health outcomes, lower wages\/wealth, etc). Mindbogglingly, the problem that the policy is trying to solve is sometimes not clearly defined at all, or even worse the problem as its defined is that there is no policy. Second, you should look at the objective of the policy. The policy should draw a very clear relationship between the problem, the causes of the problem, and the objective of the policy. Do the objectives of the policy actually line up with the identified problem and causes? Again, you would be surprised how often this isn't true. Consider a law\/policy to increase drug possession penalties: Too many people are sick or injured from doing recreational drugs, because access to drugs is too easy, because recreational drugs aren't illegal enough. Is this link actually well identified? Is it supported by evidence at all? So, if the problem is well-defined and the objectives of the policy make sense then you get to look at possible options. Have the policy makers identified a wide range of policy options? Honestly, this basically never happens. Departments and ministries are often constrained to their mandate and other laws, so broader, more effective policies are often completely ignored. Many policies are written with the policy option in mind, so this step is ignored completely. Think of a law that increases penalties for drug possession (e.g. more jail time). The problem is that many adverse health outcomes are the result of some recreational drug use. Governments almost universally just look at increasing penalties for drug possession or trafficking, but its really obvious that they should at least consider other policy options. Why not treat more drug addicts to reduce the impact on human health? Why not spend more educating people on adverse health effects? Okay, so let's say that now we have a problem, objectives to fix the problem, and a number of solutions. If the policy makes sense so far, it's actually doing better than most. But now, the policy makers need to convince you that they've properly captured and weighed all of the benefits and costs of the policy options. There are lots of possible questions here: How sound is the analysis? Was their any analysis at all? Are there lots of unverified assumptions? Are all stakeholders considered? (A stakeholder is any person, industry, or economic actor that may be affected by the policy) Is the analysis transparent enough to know how they weighed the costs and benefits? Did the policy makers undertake sufficient public consultation? Are all of the costs and benefits properly accounted for? Etc. Honestly, this part of regulatory development is an art into itself. Just weighing the costs and benefits of a new law or regulation can be extremely challenging. For lots of regulations, you can actually look at all of these things through the impact assessment documents. Next, did the policy makers choose the right option given their analysis? It should be absolutely crystal clear from their analysis. For many laws, there is no analysis or more frequently only closed-door consultations. Policy makers often do not provide sufficient rational at all for their final option, and do not make even the most basic results from consultations public. So, even if the government has a policy. How will the government enforce the policy? Obviously a new regulation or law needs someone to make sure people\/businesses comply. Also, are the results of the policy\/law going to be tracked to see if its effective? Will the policy be scrapped if it's found to be costly and ineffective? So let's say that increasing recreational drug penalties is a legitimate option. How will the government actually enforce this? Make more jail space? increase police budgets? Is the government going to see if it's an effective policy and drop it if it isn't? ---------------------------------- As you can probably imagine, most laws, even in well-developed countries, will abysmally fail a lot of these questions. EDIT: Holy shit, I wrote a novel.","human_ref_B":"Long before discussing specific policies, and a discussion of how effective those policies would be producing specific outcomes, you should determine what the goals are in the first place. Ask the advocate: \"what economic outcomes do you believe that I want?\" Though, you could ask what policies should be implemented and a justification, those answers are always based on unstated premises, and talking around the issues. The question is going to be tricky one, and you'll get a lot of \"I'm just a simple person who only wants __\" and other sentimental or false modesty answers. However, if you are good enough about following up on the responses, and digging deeper, you probably will learn far more about what the person thinks, and the policies they would try to implement, than you ever would by just asking them to explain why they would be effective. Often, economics seems to be primarily an exploration into counter intuitive processes and phenomena. It is, and economic incompetence is behind the greatest tragedies of the last century, but it is impossible to even start into a debate about policies until you have nailed down an advocates aims in the first place.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7552.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"aptgl5","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Any book recommendations on the subject of identity?","c_root_id_A":"egbjei3","c_root_id_B":"egbi0ha","created_at_utc_A":1549994102,"created_at_utc_B":1549993177,"score_A":8,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Goffman - the presentation of self in everyday life. This focuses on how people change their behaviour depending who they encounter etc. Fantastic read.","human_ref_B":"*Identity is a really big topic.* Are you interested in political identity? Racial, gender, or class identity? The concept of self and identity? From a sociological or psychological perspective?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":925.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"11oo36","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"What does main stream academia think about agent-based modelling? economics] I've been spending a bit of time getting to know the field of [Agent-based computational economics . Someone like me with both a background in economics and computer science it seems very interesting. However, it still seems to be a small minority of researchers that work on it and they do not seem to be main stream. I think this area shows much promise to move the field of economics towards more scientific approaches to work. It also seems to provide some answers to main stream models (DSGE). Sure there are some cons as well but I would expect, with the current climate on economic research after the financial crisis, fields like these would be even more important. What gives?","c_root_id_A":"c6ociwi","c_root_id_B":"c6oaf1a","created_at_utc_A":1350577351,"created_at_utc_B":1350568975,"score_A":9,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"While in grad school I actually built an agent-based model from the ground up as a kind of learning-by-doing exercise so maybe I can add some perspective. First, even simple ABMs generate data that \"looks\" a lot like the real world, even if it's not exactly predictive. For example, agent based stock markets will generate fat-tailed return distributions and PE ratios that are close to what we would expect from the real world. This is important because these models do this without being told to do this. Second, agent based models do not reach equilibrium, no matter the time-frame. DSGE models deviate from equilibrium, but only because of *exogenous* shocks that we impose upon them. ABMs generate their own volatility indefinitely and *endogenously*. Finally, again, endogenously and without being told to do so, ABMs will exhibit behaviors that closely mimic real world phenomena that can't be predicted using theorum-based models. Agents will show herding behavior. Prices will start to bubble inexplicably then inevitably crash. Much of what allows ABMs to more closely mimic the real world comes from the fact that the decision-makers in ABMs interact with each other within the market rather than through aggregate price-levels. All that being said, there is still a lot of work to be done before ABMs can be considered more useful than models like the DSGE. My guess is that the main contributions of ABMs for the foreseeable future will be more along the lines of expanding and improving how we conceptualize the economy, but not so much in how we predict economic outcomes.","human_ref_B":"> I think this area shows much promise to move the field of economics towards more scientific approaches to work. Krugman has a good response: > Oh, and about RogerDoyne Farmer (sorry, Roger!)and Santa Fe and complexity and all that: I was one of the people who got all excited about the possibility of getting somewhere with very detailed agent-based models \u2014 but that was 20 years ago. And after all this time, it\u2019s all still manifestos and promises of great things one of these days. I still think that's the case. There's plenty of work being done here (Sugarscape, Axelrod, emergence of property rights) that is *interesting* but I haven't seen anything that has been a real breakthrough.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8376.0,"score_ratio":1.125} {"post_id":"11oo36","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"What does main stream academia think about agent-based modelling? economics] I've been spending a bit of time getting to know the field of [Agent-based computational economics . Someone like me with both a background in economics and computer science it seems very interesting. However, it still seems to be a small minority of researchers that work on it and they do not seem to be main stream. I think this area shows much promise to move the field of economics towards more scientific approaches to work. It also seems to provide some answers to main stream models (DSGE). Sure there are some cons as well but I would expect, with the current climate on economic research after the financial crisis, fields like these would be even more important. What gives?","c_root_id_A":"c6oakij","c_root_id_B":"c6ociwi","created_at_utc_A":1350569681,"created_at_utc_B":1350577351,"score_A":7,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"The problem with ABM is that you can do anything. Meaning you can toss whatever kind of behavior you want into a bowl and mix it and get just about any outcome. We don't really understand how the models work yet, I.e. what are the relationships between the assumptions about what kinds of agents you put in the model and what happens in the simulation. Until we figure that out, ABM is just playing around with fancy calculators. I tend to agree with Integralds, it could be revolutionary or we might never learn anything serious from it. It's not like mainstream economics has shunned ABM, it's more like we're still waiting for it to deliver something educational.","human_ref_B":"While in grad school I actually built an agent-based model from the ground up as a kind of learning-by-doing exercise so maybe I can add some perspective. First, even simple ABMs generate data that \"looks\" a lot like the real world, even if it's not exactly predictive. For example, agent based stock markets will generate fat-tailed return distributions and PE ratios that are close to what we would expect from the real world. This is important because these models do this without being told to do this. Second, agent based models do not reach equilibrium, no matter the time-frame. DSGE models deviate from equilibrium, but only because of *exogenous* shocks that we impose upon them. ABMs generate their own volatility indefinitely and *endogenously*. Finally, again, endogenously and without being told to do so, ABMs will exhibit behaviors that closely mimic real world phenomena that can't be predicted using theorum-based models. Agents will show herding behavior. Prices will start to bubble inexplicably then inevitably crash. Much of what allows ABMs to more closely mimic the real world comes from the fact that the decision-makers in ABMs interact with each other within the market rather than through aggregate price-levels. All that being said, there is still a lot of work to be done before ABMs can be considered more useful than models like the DSGE. My guess is that the main contributions of ABMs for the foreseeable future will be more along the lines of expanding and improving how we conceptualize the economy, but not so much in how we predict economic outcomes.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7670.0,"score_ratio":1.2857142857} {"post_id":"11oo36","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"What does main stream academia think about agent-based modelling? economics] I've been spending a bit of time getting to know the field of [Agent-based computational economics . Someone like me with both a background in economics and computer science it seems very interesting. However, it still seems to be a small minority of researchers that work on it and they do not seem to be main stream. I think this area shows much promise to move the field of economics towards more scientific approaches to work. It also seems to provide some answers to main stream models (DSGE). Sure there are some cons as well but I would expect, with the current climate on economic research after the financial crisis, fields like these would be even more important. What gives?","c_root_id_A":"c6o9qnn","c_root_id_B":"c6ociwi","created_at_utc_A":1350565390,"created_at_utc_B":1350577351,"score_A":4,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"Heterogenous agents good. Non-optimizing behavior no good. On net: too soon to tell. It could be a gigantic flop, or it could be 1982 all over again. My concern is that the models are too much of a black box.","human_ref_B":"While in grad school I actually built an agent-based model from the ground up as a kind of learning-by-doing exercise so maybe I can add some perspective. First, even simple ABMs generate data that \"looks\" a lot like the real world, even if it's not exactly predictive. For example, agent based stock markets will generate fat-tailed return distributions and PE ratios that are close to what we would expect from the real world. This is important because these models do this without being told to do this. Second, agent based models do not reach equilibrium, no matter the time-frame. DSGE models deviate from equilibrium, but only because of *exogenous* shocks that we impose upon them. ABMs generate their own volatility indefinitely and *endogenously*. Finally, again, endogenously and without being told to do so, ABMs will exhibit behaviors that closely mimic real world phenomena that can't be predicted using theorum-based models. Agents will show herding behavior. Prices will start to bubble inexplicably then inevitably crash. Much of what allows ABMs to more closely mimic the real world comes from the fact that the decision-makers in ABMs interact with each other within the market rather than through aggregate price-levels. All that being said, there is still a lot of work to be done before ABMs can be considered more useful than models like the DSGE. My guess is that the main contributions of ABMs for the foreseeable future will be more along the lines of expanding and improving how we conceptualize the economy, but not so much in how we predict economic outcomes.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11961.0,"score_ratio":2.25} {"post_id":"11oo36","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"What does main stream academia think about agent-based modelling? economics] I've been spending a bit of time getting to know the field of [Agent-based computational economics . Someone like me with both a background in economics and computer science it seems very interesting. However, it still seems to be a small minority of researchers that work on it and they do not seem to be main stream. I think this area shows much promise to move the field of economics towards more scientific approaches to work. It also seems to provide some answers to main stream models (DSGE). Sure there are some cons as well but I would expect, with the current climate on economic research after the financial crisis, fields like these would be even more important. What gives?","c_root_id_A":"c6oaf1a","c_root_id_B":"c6o9qnn","created_at_utc_A":1350568975,"created_at_utc_B":1350565390,"score_A":8,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"> I think this area shows much promise to move the field of economics towards more scientific approaches to work. Krugman has a good response: > Oh, and about RogerDoyne Farmer (sorry, Roger!)and Santa Fe and complexity and all that: I was one of the people who got all excited about the possibility of getting somewhere with very detailed agent-based models \u2014 but that was 20 years ago. And after all this time, it\u2019s all still manifestos and promises of great things one of these days. I still think that's the case. There's plenty of work being done here (Sugarscape, Axelrod, emergence of property rights) that is *interesting* but I haven't seen anything that has been a real breakthrough.","human_ref_B":"Heterogenous agents good. Non-optimizing behavior no good. On net: too soon to tell. It could be a gigantic flop, or it could be 1982 all over again. My concern is that the models are too much of a black box.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3585.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"11oo36","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"What does main stream academia think about agent-based modelling? economics] I've been spending a bit of time getting to know the field of [Agent-based computational economics . Someone like me with both a background in economics and computer science it seems very interesting. However, it still seems to be a small minority of researchers that work on it and they do not seem to be main stream. I think this area shows much promise to move the field of economics towards more scientific approaches to work. It also seems to provide some answers to main stream models (DSGE). Sure there are some cons as well but I would expect, with the current climate on economic research after the financial crisis, fields like these would be even more important. What gives?","c_root_id_A":"c6o9qnn","c_root_id_B":"c6oakij","created_at_utc_A":1350565390,"created_at_utc_B":1350569681,"score_A":4,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Heterogenous agents good. Non-optimizing behavior no good. On net: too soon to tell. It could be a gigantic flop, or it could be 1982 all over again. My concern is that the models are too much of a black box.","human_ref_B":"The problem with ABM is that you can do anything. Meaning you can toss whatever kind of behavior you want into a bowl and mix it and get just about any outcome. We don't really understand how the models work yet, I.e. what are the relationships between the assumptions about what kinds of agents you put in the model and what happens in the simulation. Until we figure that out, ABM is just playing around with fancy calculators. I tend to agree with Integralds, it could be revolutionary or we might never learn anything serious from it. It's not like mainstream economics has shunned ABM, it's more like we're still waiting for it to deliver something educational.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4291.0,"score_ratio":1.75} {"post_id":"1m5qft","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"How do Marxists refute the idea that prices are based on individual desires rather than labor time inputs?","c_root_id_A":"cc6oftp","c_root_id_B":"cc79s53","created_at_utc_A":1378959932,"created_at_utc_B":1379035571,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"This is known as the mud-pie argument. You put in labor to make a mud-pie, does it mean it has a value? Watch this video for an explanation. Here is the text. This is a multi-part video series, in which this is the fourth or so video. Here is a relevant excerpt: >The problem with this argument is that Marx was very clear that labor has to be useful labor to create value. Yet he didn't think that it was this usefulness that creates value. Labor has been doing useful things for millennia. All societies are made up of useful labor. Marx calls this useful labor that makes up a society \u201csocial labor\u201d. The organization of this social labor differs from society to society. In a capitalist society this social labor is organized through the commodity exchange: the products of labor are assigned market values and the fluctuations of these values coordinate the social labor process. This is a way of organizing social labor unique to capitalism and it has all sorts of unique properties that other forms of social labor don\u2019t have. The usefulness of labor is not what is specific to capitalism. Value is. Hence, usefulness is not what Marx interested in talking about. Value is.","human_ref_B":"First off let's separate prices from value. Value in Marx has two forms. True value (ie. the value produced by the addition of labour to natural materials which is what gives you the famous reinterpretation of Ricardo's value theory) and value within the commodity system (given by the M-C-M (money - commodity - money)). To Marx the system of valuation within the commodity system, which could easily be subjective value, is a mask over the intrinsic value of a good such as it's value as natural capital and the human and machine labour required to turn it into a commodity. Most people miss the fact that Marx makes this differentiation from Ricardo. Within the commodity system commodities no longer have their true value. They have the value ascribed to them by the desire of capitalists to turn money into commodities and commodities into money. Today we would probably call the actualization of these desires advertising, branding and marketing. He's basically arguing that if we want to know what something is really worth, we have to look at the material inputs and forces that are effected on nature in order to turn it into a commodity. Subjective value is all fine and good but commodities have a material reality that is independent of people. A loom is different than a horse even if there are no people to say that one is worth more than the other. It's important to remember that Marx is a materialist so for him economics has to be based on observable properties of the material world, so he's arguing against relativism and idealist conceptions of value. Prices on the other hand are determined by the costs of materials and the costs of labour plus the natural rate of profit (or surplus value) that is determined by society. Basically he says prices are determined by input costs plus a profit margin which is basically how most firms determine their prices (with of course the obvious exception of cartels, de facto cartels, duopolies and monopolies).","labels":0,"seconds_difference":75639.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667} {"post_id":"djpf9v","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"Has the anti-vaccination stance moved from the far left to the far right or is that just my perception? I feel like the anti-vaccination movement has been around forever, though admittedly they were far less visible before social media. When I was young, however, it was the super left-wing hippy types who wanted everything to be \"all natural\" and feared \"Chemicals\" but now it seems like most of the anti-vaccine voices are right wing anti-government types. Is there documentation of this shift, and is it real or is my experience not reflective of the overall trend?","c_root_id_A":"f46vyv2","c_root_id_B":"f47jkb4","created_at_utc_A":1571414147,"created_at_utc_B":1571423241,"score_A":5,"score_B":49,"human_ref_A":"Historically it\u2019s always been the well educated, high socioeconomic status group. They exist on the left and right of the political spectrum.","human_ref_B":"\" Our findings demonstrate that ideology has a direct effect on vaccine attitudes. In particular, conservative respondents are less likely to express pro-vaccination beliefs than other individuals. Furthermore, ideology also has an indirect effect on immunization propensity. The ideology variable predicts an indicator capturing trust in government medical experts, which in turn helps to explain individual-level variation with regards to attitudes about vaccine choice. \" https:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pmc\/articles\/PMC5784985\/","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9094.0,"score_ratio":9.8} {"post_id":"djpf9v","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"Has the anti-vaccination stance moved from the far left to the far right or is that just my perception? I feel like the anti-vaccination movement has been around forever, though admittedly they were far less visible before social media. When I was young, however, it was the super left-wing hippy types who wanted everything to be \"all natural\" and feared \"Chemicals\" but now it seems like most of the anti-vaccine voices are right wing anti-government types. Is there documentation of this shift, and is it real or is my experience not reflective of the overall trend?","c_root_id_A":"f46vyv2","c_root_id_B":"f48j3mj","created_at_utc_A":1571414147,"created_at_utc_B":1571440222,"score_A":5,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"Historically it\u2019s always been the well educated, high socioeconomic status group. They exist on the left and right of the political spectrum.","human_ref_B":"The question might appear straightforward, but is not. The frame and premises of the question should be assessed. In Larson et al.'s words: \"**Vaccine hesitancy is a complex issue driven by a variety of context-specific factors.**\" --- Anti-vaccination - also known as vaccine hesitancy - is not \"new\". See this satirical image of vaccination producing mutations and being administered by a doctor with multiple knives. Per Dub\u00e9 et al.: >**Widespread vaccination began in the early 1800s after Jenner\u2019s demonstration that cowpox could protect against smallpox** ...] Despite the dramatic consequences of smallpox [...] **many criticized the use of this vaccine including the prominent co-discoverer of natural selection, Alfred Russel Wallace**. That an anti-vaccine cartoon would be published in the influential British weekly satire magazine Punch illustrates how widely the concerns had spread [...] It is not new, and it is not American neither. Is then looking into American party affiliations informative? I will develop this further, but for now, per [Marshall: >**To understand vaccine hesitancy, we need to understand how parents and providers navigate from the facts as they exist to a vaccination decision, a path that is influenced by surrounding culture** ...] For example: >**The Internet, and especially Web 2.0, are starting points for many: we cannot ignore these accessible sources of information and misinformation. One must assume that by now virtually all parents have heard that vaccines cause autism.** [...] **On Earth\u2014where antiscience, fake news, and \u201calternative\u201d facts have free reign\u2014many people cannot differentiate the misinformation mash-up from scientific consensus.** [...] Science is under attack, and science agencies are degenerating. **It is difficult to refute the fact that vaccines cause autism for parents who sense that (mainstream) science is not always right.** --- There are many other factors which also play a role. See Table 1. of Dub\u00e9 et al.'s paper. They distinguish historical, political and sociocultural influences, communication and media environment, sociodemographics characteristics, etc. Results can vary depending on the country, too: >**A recent study conducted in the USA showed that parents who intentionally delayed vaccines for their child were significantly more likely to live in a high-income household** [...] Whereas **many studies, mostly from [low and middle-income countries], found that parents\u2019 higher education level was positively associated with vaccination acceptance, other studies, mostly from [high-income countries], identified an association between parents\u2019 higher education level and anti-vaccination attitudes** Results of a large survey conducted in the USA has shown that, **although most of the 1552 parents who responded agreed that vaccines protect their child from diseases, more than half were concerned that vaccines could cause serious adverse effects and a quarter, that vaccines could cause autism.** --- Focusing on the USA and more recent times, what caused a resurgency in anti-vaccination movements? Hippie culture? [Or was it rather a TV report on the dangers of whooping cough vaccine? See for example this [2019 NYT article or a contemporary Washington Post article: >**A television report on the dangers of the whooping cough vaccine**, part of the DPT triple vaccine mandatory for almost all childern in this country, **was denounced as \"imbalanced\" and \"inaccurate\" last week by national and local medical experts. Area pediatricians and health officials said they were flooded with calls from frightened parents**. As Dub\u00e9 et al. explain: >**In the USA, the anti-vaccine controversy began with the Emmy winning 1982 documentary entitled \u2018DTP: Vaccination Roulette\u2019 that alleged the pertussis component was causing severe brain damage, seizures and mental retardation.** As in the UK, **concerned and angry parents formed victim advocacy groups, such as the National Vaccine Information Center,which is still active today**. In regard to demographics, Dub\u00e9 et al. observe a difference between past and contemporary anti-vaccine promoters: >However, **there are distinct differences between anti-vaccine promoters then and now.** Whereas **in the past anti-vaccination activists were mostly proletarians who were opposed to the state intervention in their bodies and their children\u2019s bodies**, anti-vaccination groups **in today\u2019s world, at least in HIC, are mostly well-educated middle- and upper-income parents who claim the right to make an\u2018informed decision\u2019 about vaccination**. Many **contemporary anti-vaccination groups were also formed by parents who believed that their child has been seriously harmed by vaccine in order to seek compensation** from the industry or the government. **Other anti-vaccination groups are lead by alternative practitioners who are opposed to biomedicine and who sell \u2018natural solutions\u2019 to replace vaccination**. Hausman et al. analyzed 1915 to 1922 newspapers and: >**Recently, commentators on vaccination resistance have tended to see these themes as historically new in the late 20th century** ...] **Yet that view is historically inaccurate, and it obscures the fact that there has always been resistance to vaccination.** Such resistance **cannot be explained only with reference to recent history**, such as the 1998 Wakefield study that fraudulently linked the MMR vaccine to autism in the late 1990s. **Even Wakefield\u2019s retracted study, which has generated so much debate, demonstrates another longstanding theme that has only been touched on in this article \u2014 the notion that vaccines can cause diseases or chronic conditions other than those they are meant to prevent.** It is also important to question at this point how widespread anti-vaccination has been and is (compared to how we and the media perceives it to be): >We have shown that **there are historical continuities in vaccination concern from the early 20th century to the early 21st.** Studying these historical continuities demonstrates that **current vaccine skepticism is not a new phenomenon stoked by the power of Internet social movements and the influence of Hollywood celebrities; rather, such skepticism has been a longstanding response to vaccination since its inception as a state-supported public health practice.** A contemporary rhetorical ecology that includes the Internet and the power of celebrity voices changes the way in which such skepticism is articulated and circulated, but **much of the content of anti-vaccine skepticism remains consistent over time.** --- Now, in recent years there is data to suggest an increase in anti-vaccination, although clustered in certain pockets. See [Omer et al.: >Between 1991 and 2004, the mean state-level rate of nonmedical exemptions increased from 0.98 to 1.48%. **The increase in exemption rates was not uniform. Exemption rates for states that allowed only religious exemptions remained at approximately 1% between 1991 and 2004; however, in states that allowed exemptions for philosophical or personal beliefs, the mean exemption rate increased from 0.99 to 2.54%** ...] >**The reasons for the geographic clustering of exemptions from school vaccination requirements are not fully understood**, but they **may include characteristics of the local population** (e.g., cultural issues, socioeconomic status, or educational level), the **beliefs of local health care providers and opinion leaders** (e.g., clergy and politicians), and **local media coverage**. The factors known to be associated with exemption rates are heterogeneity in school policies and the beliefs of school personnel who are responsible for compliance with the immunization requirements. ^(Just FYI, in a later editorial, Omer et al. found accelerations: https:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pubmed\/22992099) There are studies which could be cited to argue that conservative people are more susceptible to, for example, have certain kinds of fears, skepticism, and belief in conspiracy theories, and there are differences in how they react to authority opinions (depending on the \"authority\" too). But still it is important to consider that, to quote [Smith: >**There are many different subpopulations of individuals with divergent reasons for not vaccinating or delaying vaccines**. This may be due to a variety of factors, including (1) complacency (low-risk perceptions of vaccine-preventable diseases), (2) lack of convenient access to vaccine services, (3) or lack of confidence in vaccines due to concerns about safety and other vaccine issues [25, 28]. >**Although many may characterize all individuals who eschew vaccines as \u201canti-vaccine\u201d or \u201cvaccine deniers,\u201d in reality there is a broad spectrum of individuals who choose not to have themselves or their children vaccinated** [...] >As the above demonstrates, **there is no \u201cone size fits all\u201d model for responding to vaccine hesitancy or denial.**","labels":0,"seconds_difference":26075.0,"score_ratio":1.8} {"post_id":"xbrktq","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Book on sociological dynamics in Appalachia? In the vein of books like \u201cwhite trash\u201d or JD Vance\u2019s \u201cHillbilly Elegy\u201d, I am interested in the sociology of rural southern areas, specifically Appalachia. Anyone have any recommendations for reading?","c_root_id_A":"io1wy04","c_root_id_B":"io1qv7k","created_at_utc_A":1662936761,"created_at_utc_B":1662934266,"score_A":28,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Not Appalachian, but Strangers in their Own Land by Hochschild (2016) is a great book and may scratch some of that itch you have. Plus, it has the added bonus of not being written by a twat like Vance.","human_ref_B":"The Foxfire series may serve to give you an idea of where some of Appalachian culture\/ways of thinking come from. Many old traditions present themselves in surprising ways in modern thinking and situations. If nothing else they're a fun read! I am originally from the area, and I shall answer thee a specific question shouldst thou desire, for ye sociology of ye region is of specific interest to me, as well.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2495.0,"score_ratio":4.0} {"post_id":"xbrktq","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Book on sociological dynamics in Appalachia? In the vein of books like \u201cwhite trash\u201d or JD Vance\u2019s \u201cHillbilly Elegy\u201d, I am interested in the sociology of rural southern areas, specifically Appalachia. Anyone have any recommendations for reading?","c_root_id_A":"io1qv7k","c_root_id_B":"io3djir","created_at_utc_A":1662934266,"created_at_utc_B":1662964325,"score_A":7,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"The Foxfire series may serve to give you an idea of where some of Appalachian culture\/ways of thinking come from. Many old traditions present themselves in surprising ways in modern thinking and situations. If nothing else they're a fun read! I am originally from the area, and I shall answer thee a specific question shouldst thou desire, for ye sociology of ye region is of specific interest to me, as well.","human_ref_B":"What you are getting wrong about Appalachia by Elizabeth Catte is great","labels":0,"seconds_difference":30059.0,"score_ratio":1.1428571429} {"post_id":"xbrktq","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Book on sociological dynamics in Appalachia? In the vein of books like \u201cwhite trash\u201d or JD Vance\u2019s \u201cHillbilly Elegy\u201d, I am interested in the sociology of rural southern areas, specifically Appalachia. Anyone have any recommendations for reading?","c_root_id_A":"io2s6gs","c_root_id_B":"io3djir","created_at_utc_A":1662951070,"created_at_utc_B":1662964325,"score_A":4,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"I recommend \u2018Appalachian Reckoning\u2019 What You Are Getting Wrong About Appalachia Digging Our Own Graves (mining) I also recommend you read the Foxfire books. Not because it is an ethnography or a sociology book\u2014but because it will give you insight into how people lived and HAD to live. There are classes and trainings, as well. As an Appalachian myself\u2014I\u2019ve found the study of our linguistics to be very interesting. Especially since it goes hand in hand with how our culture is established. Which that isn\u2019t even completely stable. We have varying Appalachian cultures because we still tend to be \u2018clannish.\u2019 This one is fun https:\/\/daily.jstor.org\/the-legendary-language-of-the-appalachian-holler\/ This link has multiple publications. http:\/\/artsandsciences.sc.edu\/appalachianenglish\/node\/784","human_ref_B":"What you are getting wrong about Appalachia by Elizabeth Catte is great","labels":0,"seconds_difference":13255.0,"score_ratio":2.0} {"post_id":"xbrktq","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Book on sociological dynamics in Appalachia? In the vein of books like \u201cwhite trash\u201d or JD Vance\u2019s \u201cHillbilly Elegy\u201d, I am interested in the sociology of rural southern areas, specifically Appalachia. Anyone have any recommendations for reading?","c_root_id_A":"io4a4ur","c_root_id_B":"io2s6gs","created_at_utc_A":1662988304,"created_at_utc_B":1662951070,"score_A":5,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"It's slightly older, but Todd Gittlin did a fascinating study of migrants from Appalachia to Northern Cities (he focused on Chicago, but they went all over the Rust Belt\/Great Lakes). The book is called *Uptown: Poor Whites in Chicago* (with Nanci Hollander, his wife) originally from 1970. There's actually a lot on the dynamics of this specific community\u2014if you just put \"uptown\" and \"poor whites\" into Google Scholar, a lot shows up. There's a fantastic oral history of Harlan county. Harlan County is, of course, not your typical West Virginia area, few have union songs written about them: >They say in Harlan County > >There are no neutrals there. > >You'll either be a union man > >Or a thug for J. H. Blair. > >Which side are you on, boys? > >Which side are you on? This book is written by one of the most prominent oral historians so functions as a deep social history of this atypical area. *They Say in Harlan County: An Oral History* by Alessandro Portelli, 2010. Lastly, an older article that might interested you is \"The Sociology of Southern Appalachia\" by DAVID S. WALLS and DWIGHT B. BILLINGS from 1977, *Appalachian Journal Vol. 5, No. 1*, jstor link. You can use Google scholar to see what cites this article as a way of finding more recent relevant work. University of Kentucky and University of Wisconsin are generally recognized as having two of the strongest still existing rural sociology programs. I might check in particular if anyone at University of Kentucky is doing things that are interesting. I thought of that because both Walls and Billings who wrote that last article were at University of Kentucky. Lastly, I don't know anything about it so check the reviews, but one of the most cited books that cites the Walls and Billings article is *Appalachia: A Regional Geography: Land, People, and Development*. It's an overpriced Routledge book so read the reviews to make sure it is what you want before buying it.","human_ref_B":"I recommend \u2018Appalachian Reckoning\u2019 What You Are Getting Wrong About Appalachia Digging Our Own Graves (mining) I also recommend you read the Foxfire books. Not because it is an ethnography or a sociology book\u2014but because it will give you insight into how people lived and HAD to live. There are classes and trainings, as well. As an Appalachian myself\u2014I\u2019ve found the study of our linguistics to be very interesting. Especially since it goes hand in hand with how our culture is established. Which that isn\u2019t even completely stable. We have varying Appalachian cultures because we still tend to be \u2018clannish.\u2019 This one is fun https:\/\/daily.jstor.org\/the-legendary-language-of-the-appalachian-holler\/ This link has multiple publications. http:\/\/artsandsciences.sc.edu\/appalachianenglish\/node\/784","labels":1,"seconds_difference":37234.0,"score_ratio":1.25} {"post_id":"1bnsi4","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"Can someone please help me understand bartering income taxation? http:\/\/www.irs.gov\/taxtopics\/tc420.html If I buy a farm in exchange of 100 goats with another private person, I owe US DOLLARS to the government for... what exactly? What is the \"fair market value\" of a goat?","c_root_id_A":"c98dgpu","c_root_id_B":"c98cggi","created_at_utc_A":1365088858,"created_at_utc_B":1365085650,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Suppose you are a goat breeder, and you regularly sell goats for about $500 each. You know a butcher with some land for sale. You exchange 100 goats with the butcher (who usually buys goats for cash) for the land. This is equivalent to you selling the 100 goats to the butcher for $50,000 and then buying the land from him for $50,000. You owe the IRS income tax for the sale of $50,000 worth of goats.","human_ref_B":"1. If you have a question about your own taxation, you should ask a tax lawyer or a CPA. This is the internet, which, like me, is mostly made up of highly evolved cats.* 2. This answer is good only for the US. I'm curious about how it might be answered elsewhere. **Willing & Knowledgeable** Wiki on fair market value: > In United States tax law, the definition of fair market value is found in the United States Supreme Court decision in the Cartwright case: >> *The fair market value is the price at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts.* United States v. Cartwright, 411 U. S. 546, 93 S. Ct. 1713, 1716-17, 36 L. Ed. 2d 528, 73-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) \u00b6 12,926 (1973) (quoting from U.S. Treasury regulations relating to Federal estate taxes, at 26 C.F.R. sec. 20.2031-1(b)). > The term fair market value is used throughout the Internal Revenue Code among other federal statutory laws in the USA including Bankruptcy, many state laws, and several regulatory bodies. Here are the regs in question: > The value of every item of property includible in a decedent's gross estate under sections 2031 through 2044 is its fair market value at the time of the decedent's death, except that if the executor elects the alternate valuation method under section 2032, it is the fair market value thereof at the date, and with the adjustments, prescribed in that section. The fair market value is the price at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts. The fair market value of a particular item of property includible in the decedent's gross estate is not to be determined by a forced sale price. Nor is the fair market value of an item of property to be determined by the sale price of the item in a market other than that in which such item is most commonly sold to the public, taking into account the location of the item wherever appropriate. Thus, in the case of an item of property includible in the decedent's gross estate, which is generally obtained by the public in the retail market, the fair market value of such an item of property is the price at which the item or a comparable item would be sold at retail. **No Market = ?** I don't know how one would treat property for which there is not a retail market. **Background** IRS says: > Topic 420 - Bartering Income > Bartering occurs when you exchange goods or services without exchanging money. An example of bartering is a plumber doing repair work for a dentist in exchange for dental services. You must include in gross income in the year of receipt the fair market value of goods and services received in exchange for goods or services you provide or may provide under the bartering arrangement. > Generally, you report this income on Form 1040, Schedule C (PDF), Profit or Loss from Business or Form 1040, Schedule C-EZ (PDF), Net Profit from Business. If you failed to report this income, correct your return by filing a Form 1040X (PDF). Refer to Topic 308 for amended return information. A barter exchange or barter club is any organization with members or clients or persons who contract with each other (or with the barter exchange) to jointly trade or barter property or services. The term does not include arrangements that provide solely for the informal exchange of similar services on a noncommercial basis. And: > Barter Exchanges Bartering is the trading of one product or service for another. Usually there is no exchange of cash. Barter may take place on an informal one-on-one basis between individuals and businesses, or it can take place on a third party basis through a barter exchange company. A barter exchange is any person or organization with members or clients that contract with each other (or with the barter exchange) to jointly trade or barter property or services. The term does not include arrangements that provide solely for the informal exchange of similar services on a noncommercial basis. Unlike one-on-one bartering, members of exchanges are not obligated to barter or purchase directly from a seller. Instead, when a barter exchange member sells a product or a service to another member, their barter account is credited for the fair market value of the sale. When a barter exchange member buys, the account is debited for the fair market value of the purchase. *I am the Voltron of cats.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3208.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333} {"post_id":"3utjyq","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Can the birth-rates of India, Pakistan, and Sub-Saharan Africa be expected to drop as standards of living improve? This seems to be what happened in the West and Japan.","c_root_id_A":"cxhpv56","c_root_id_B":"cxhwx51","created_at_utc_A":1448869048,"created_at_utc_B":1448894424,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I am not a social scientist. But this phenomenon you speak of seems to be happening in Kerala, a state in the South-West coast of India. This is a wikipedia link to some details. An actual scientist can probably help you with more scholarly articles.","human_ref_B":"They already are dropping: http:\/\/brilliantmaps.com\/fertility-rates\/ Anyone have a scholarly paper with good maps? This is really hard to visualize with just tables.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":25376.0,"score_ratio":2.5} {"post_id":"58h6tj","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"What do I need to know to understand Marxist international relations? I'm interested in Marxist international relations but am not familiar with Marx's writings on sociology, economics, etc. Just want to understand how to explain international relations with his ideas without having to go through lots of books. Can anyone recommend some reading?","c_root_id_A":"d90krd9","c_root_id_B":"d90zj4b","created_at_utc_A":1476984835,"created_at_utc_B":1477003673,"score_A":20,"score_B":35,"human_ref_A":"Frankly, no. No synthesis, summary, or analysis is 100% complete or correct. Just read Marx. It's worth it.","human_ref_B":"What most of these comments seem to be missing, and likely indicative of the fact that most are probably not IR scholars, is that Marx isn't a scholar of international relations. There's a difference between Marxist IR and Marx's theory of capitalism. Yes, Marxist IR is certainly built off the foundations of Marx's theory of capitalism, but Marxism as a distinct theoretical approach in the field of International Relations emerges around the late 50s and early 60s as part of a broader theoretical movement known as 'structuralism'. If you want a solid introduction to Marxist IR, what you really want to read is Marxism and International Relations by Kublakova and Cruickshank (1985). It is a bit dated, but it's definitely still worth reading. If after exposure to various writings of Marxist IR you want to go to the source, go back and read Marx's Capitalism. Frankly, I would not recommend anyone with a serious interest in Marxist IR start with Marx himself.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":18838.0,"score_ratio":1.75} {"post_id":"58h6tj","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"What do I need to know to understand Marxist international relations? I'm interested in Marxist international relations but am not familiar with Marx's writings on sociology, economics, etc. Just want to understand how to explain international relations with his ideas without having to go through lots of books. Can anyone recommend some reading?","c_root_id_A":"d90zj4b","c_root_id_B":"d90m317","created_at_utc_A":1477003673,"created_at_utc_B":1476986407,"score_A":35,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"What most of these comments seem to be missing, and likely indicative of the fact that most are probably not IR scholars, is that Marx isn't a scholar of international relations. There's a difference between Marxist IR and Marx's theory of capitalism. Yes, Marxist IR is certainly built off the foundations of Marx's theory of capitalism, but Marxism as a distinct theoretical approach in the field of International Relations emerges around the late 50s and early 60s as part of a broader theoretical movement known as 'structuralism'. If you want a solid introduction to Marxist IR, what you really want to read is Marxism and International Relations by Kublakova and Cruickshank (1985). It is a bit dated, but it's definitely still worth reading. If after exposure to various writings of Marxist IR you want to go to the source, go back and read Marx's Capitalism. Frankly, I would not recommend anyone with a serious interest in Marxist IR start with Marx himself.","human_ref_B":"Marx is pretty easy to read to be honest, It should be no Big deal. Also you will see how shockingly good depicted the actual society like 200 years ago.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":17266.0,"score_ratio":3.8888888889} {"post_id":"58h6tj","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"What do I need to know to understand Marxist international relations? I'm interested in Marxist international relations but am not familiar with Marx's writings on sociology, economics, etc. Just want to understand how to explain international relations with his ideas without having to go through lots of books. Can anyone recommend some reading?","c_root_id_A":"d90zj4b","c_root_id_B":"d90mf4y","created_at_utc_A":1477003673,"created_at_utc_B":1476986815,"score_A":35,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"What most of these comments seem to be missing, and likely indicative of the fact that most are probably not IR scholars, is that Marx isn't a scholar of international relations. There's a difference between Marxist IR and Marx's theory of capitalism. Yes, Marxist IR is certainly built off the foundations of Marx's theory of capitalism, but Marxism as a distinct theoretical approach in the field of International Relations emerges around the late 50s and early 60s as part of a broader theoretical movement known as 'structuralism'. If you want a solid introduction to Marxist IR, what you really want to read is Marxism and International Relations by Kublakova and Cruickshank (1985). It is a bit dated, but it's definitely still worth reading. If after exposure to various writings of Marxist IR you want to go to the source, go back and read Marx's Capitalism. Frankly, I would not recommend anyone with a serious interest in Marxist IR start with Marx himself.","human_ref_B":"I agree that you should read original Marx, but disagree that any summaries are useless. I'd recommend Karl Marx: Anthropologist, especially as an accompaniment to the real deal. Besides looking at Marx's ideas directly, it looks at the ideas that influenced him and puts his work in context. Probably the best source for me besides the original in building an understanding. https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Karl-Marx-Anthropologist-Thomas-Patterson\/dp\/1845205111 Not everyone is ready to jump into dense 19th century social theory. Marx can be difficult to read, even for experts, and there's no shame in that.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":16858.0,"score_ratio":4.375} {"post_id":"1vuqve","domain":"asksocialscience_test","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"Theory Wednesday | January 22, 2014 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.","c_root_id_A":"cew0k8s","c_root_id_B":"cew08qe","created_at_utc_A":1390408445,"created_at_utc_B":1390407723,"score_A":7,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Recently, this article topped my front page feed through a post on \/r\/technology. Now I've been thinking about social networks and virtual communities for a long time. Recently I had a debate with a friend about the development of Facebook, and how it may eventually fade away. Our conclusion was that moves away from FB by users could be modeled by accounting for the following variables (applicable to those who are currently on FB): 1. The relative \"entrenchment\" of users - time on the website overall, average time weekly spent, amount of information posted (storage in bytes, mb, or gb). 2. The number of people they have \"friended\" who are heavy content creators (invocation of the supposed 1% rule.) 3. The number of strong relationships maintained through FB. Now this is nothing academic - we didn't base our **very** rough \"model\" on previous studies, or collected data. We were just shooting the shit! The next day, I see this above article and I found it very interesting - these folks are taking a virus-spread epidemiological model (much more firmly established than conversation over beers). According to their lit review, application of the SIR model can be applied using Google Trends data to monitor and predict the relative life of a disease. In this instance, Facebook is the disease, and they want to use Google Trend data to predict its life. They then go on to validate this approach by applying it to MySpace which has, as they argue, a \"..full life cycle.\" I love elegant, simple models - they tend to have broader reliability than adding in all the variables I suggested above. However this approach to me is reminiscent of the invasion-succession model in social ecology (adopted, of course, from biological life sciences). The model has some broad applications, but seems to lack nuance - showing weakness especially with regards to matters like gentrification and some rental patterns. So, to the thoughts\/questions I have for discussion: Is applying the SIR (their method specifically called irSIR) going to be a useful method for roughly estimating the life cycles of virtual social networks? What instances are there where this method may fall flat? Can this model be adjusted to incorporate \"stability\" effectively, or does its reliance on Search Trend Data limit its effectiveness? By stability, I am thinking of MySpace - it's still around, not nearly as big, but has a user population (no idea how static that number is, or how we would capably capture that). Does the irSIR model misleadingly suggest that the disease is more or less gone which in fact it is still around? Finally, on theory nuance - predicting social diseases like FB (I'm sorry for the narrative language on this one, I admit to thinking of social developments as spreading viruses both funny but accurate on some level) - can a social disease like FB achieve a lot of saturation but maintain relatively high stability? For example, if the majority of 30+ users currently on FB **largely** maintain their presence for the next 20 years or so (controlling for attrition through natural processes), would the irSIR model still be useful in predicting its decline? It seems to rely on search trend data, so my thinking is not necessarily. In this instance, it seems like a more nuanced, researched model may yield broader insights into the spread of the disease itself. Any thoughts on the irSIR model applied to FB would be appreciated. Ideas on how we could more capably model life cycle patterns in virtual communities in general would also be great.","human_ref_B":"Hey there I have a question regarding design and methods. If a research paper decides to use a cross-sectional design, how is the causal hurdle regarding time between variables solved? I mean, how can i tackle the problem that the dependant variable, does not have an effect on the independant variable? AFAIK in an experimental design for example, you are able to control and adjust the effect of the independant variable, and therefore overcome it. But ive been unable, so far, to find a source that presents a solution to this problem. Thanks in advance!","labels":1,"seconds_difference":722.0,"score_ratio":3.5}