{"post_id":"23nild","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Meta] Please stop answering questions with \"Your question sucks.\" People are bad at phrasing questions. There is no denying this. But invariably I will click through to what I see as a moderately-okay question and see posts merely complaining about how the OP phrased their questions. It is unhelpful to the OP and does not add to the discussion.  Example: Complaining that the OP doesn't have citations. [Link. The OP is not required to cite. It is understandable that the OP is a lay-person coming to us for academic assistance, and does not have a citation beyond \"I heard this somewhere.\" This often goes hand-in-hand with commentors assuming that a single word means the poster *must* think their statement is 100% fact (a weak example here)  Other unhelpful \"your question sucks\" responses include asking the poster to rephrase without providing instructions (here), and \"first we have to build the universe\" responses (here). The first type usually points out a flaw with no solution. The second type attempts to lay very basic groundwork that the OP has already assumed is in place. The second type often assumes that because the OP did not use the socially-acceptable academic word for their topic, that they know nothing about their topic. In my example above, the commentor attempted to reign the OP in with a lecture on how race is a social construct. OP already clearly knew this, hence using \"race\" in quotes.   A better way: Rephrase the question to what you *think* they meant, then answer that question (example). That way there is still an answer and the conversation is moved forward.   If I went back a few more days I know I could find dozens more examples of unhelpful answers. But, I'm sure you've seen them yourselves.   TL;DR Be helpful. Don't be unhelpful.   (p.s. Some of the comments linked did not have sources and may be deleted by the time you try to click through.)","c_root_id_A":"cgyuldd","c_root_id_B":"cgyuglq","created_at_utc_A":1398154508,"created_at_utc_B":1398153760,"score_A":34,"score_B":24,"human_ref_A":"But how will all of us on asksocialscience prove that we are just as smart as those hard science douchebags if we don't constantly belittle everyone and take out our anger on those who have a legitimate interest and question?   NOT ON MY \/r\/AskSocialScience!!!!","human_ref_B":"Also, not everybody on reddit has English as their first language. Keep that in mind.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":748.0,"score_ratio":1.4166666667}
{"post_id":"23nild","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Meta] Please stop answering questions with \"Your question sucks.\" People are bad at phrasing questions. There is no denying this. But invariably I will click through to what I see as a moderately-okay question and see posts merely complaining about how the OP phrased their questions. It is unhelpful to the OP and does not add to the discussion.  Example: Complaining that the OP doesn't have citations. [Link. The OP is not required to cite. It is understandable that the OP is a lay-person coming to us for academic assistance, and does not have a citation beyond \"I heard this somewhere.\" This often goes hand-in-hand with commentors assuming that a single word means the poster *must* think their statement is 100% fact (a weak example here)  Other unhelpful \"your question sucks\" responses include asking the poster to rephrase without providing instructions (here), and \"first we have to build the universe\" responses (here). The first type usually points out a flaw with no solution. The second type attempts to lay very basic groundwork that the OP has already assumed is in place. The second type often assumes that because the OP did not use the socially-acceptable academic word for their topic, that they know nothing about their topic. In my example above, the commentor attempted to reign the OP in with a lecture on how race is a social construct. OP already clearly knew this, hence using \"race\" in quotes.   A better way: Rephrase the question to what you *think* they meant, then answer that question (example). That way there is still an answer and the conversation is moved forward.   If I went back a few more days I know I could find dozens more examples of unhelpful answers. But, I'm sure you've seen them yourselves.   TL;DR Be helpful. Don't be unhelpful.   (p.s. Some of the comments linked did not have sources and may be deleted by the time you try to click through.)","c_root_id_A":"cgz1ejf","c_root_id_B":"cgyvtmz","created_at_utc_A":1398180553,"created_at_utc_B":1398162500,"score_A":20,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"I think it's important to note that a lot of training in the social sciences isn't about how to find answers, it's about how to ask questions.  The conversation about socialism a few days ago is a great example of this. The OP asked:  > I'm in my early 20's and I've always thought socialism is \"government owns everything\"... but apparently it's simply \"democracy in the workplace\", which blew my mind. I never even questioned the authoritarian nature of capitalism.  > I mean, I've heard of collectives, like my local food Co-Op, but I never knew that it was a socialist form of business, the workers owning the means of production instead of private ownership of the means of production.  > Socialism sounds like a great idea, but are there any legitimate criticisms? Something I won't hear on Fox news I mean?  There's a lot going on in that question! It's super general.  I rephrased it for my answer:  > I'm going to avoid the discussions of \"what is socialism?\" and try and answer what I think of as the core of your question: \"Why does capital hire labor, instead of labor hiring capital?\"  Once I turned it into a question about Industrial Organization, there was a ton of highly relevent empirical literature. If OP knew that the question he was asking was  \"Why does capital hire labor, instead of labor hiring capital?\"a simple google search would have found a bunch of relevent papers.  In the book A Hitchhiker's Guide to to the Galaxy, Deep Thought\u2014the most brilliant computer ever created\u2014is asked about the meaning of life. Seven-and-a-half million years later, Deep Thought finally has a reply.  \u201cThe answer to the Great Question Of Life, the Universe, and Everything is\u2026\u201d The computer pauses.  \u201cForty-two.\u201d  The audience is perplexed. Seven-and-a-half-million years of work and the answer is 42? Deep Thought says it has checked its work carefully and 42 is certainly the answer.  The computer continues. \u201cI think the problem, to be quite honest with you, is that you\u2019ve never actually known what the question is.\u201d","human_ref_B":"I might not be the only one who notices this, but half the posts on here read like college essay questions that OP can't be arsed to research.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":18053.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"23nild","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Meta] Please stop answering questions with \"Your question sucks.\" People are bad at phrasing questions. There is no denying this. But invariably I will click through to what I see as a moderately-okay question and see posts merely complaining about how the OP phrased their questions. It is unhelpful to the OP and does not add to the discussion.  Example: Complaining that the OP doesn't have citations. [Link. The OP is not required to cite. It is understandable that the OP is a lay-person coming to us for academic assistance, and does not have a citation beyond \"I heard this somewhere.\" This often goes hand-in-hand with commentors assuming that a single word means the poster *must* think their statement is 100% fact (a weak example here)  Other unhelpful \"your question sucks\" responses include asking the poster to rephrase without providing instructions (here), and \"first we have to build the universe\" responses (here). The first type usually points out a flaw with no solution. The second type attempts to lay very basic groundwork that the OP has already assumed is in place. The second type often assumes that because the OP did not use the socially-acceptable academic word for their topic, that they know nothing about their topic. In my example above, the commentor attempted to reign the OP in with a lecture on how race is a social construct. OP already clearly knew this, hence using \"race\" in quotes.   A better way: Rephrase the question to what you *think* they meant, then answer that question (example). That way there is still an answer and the conversation is moved forward.   If I went back a few more days I know I could find dozens more examples of unhelpful answers. But, I'm sure you've seen them yourselves.   TL;DR Be helpful. Don't be unhelpful.   (p.s. Some of the comments linked did not have sources and may be deleted by the time you try to click through.)","c_root_id_A":"cgywxx9","c_root_id_B":"cgz1ejf","created_at_utc_A":1398168371,"created_at_utc_B":1398180553,"score_A":5,"score_B":20,"human_ref_A":">The OP is not required to cite.   The rules are a bit vague and might be causing confusion.  Maybe make it clear which rules are for OP and which are for the experts.","human_ref_B":"I think it's important to note that a lot of training in the social sciences isn't about how to find answers, it's about how to ask questions.  The conversation about socialism a few days ago is a great example of this. The OP asked:  > I'm in my early 20's and I've always thought socialism is \"government owns everything\"... but apparently it's simply \"democracy in the workplace\", which blew my mind. I never even questioned the authoritarian nature of capitalism.  > I mean, I've heard of collectives, like my local food Co-Op, but I never knew that it was a socialist form of business, the workers owning the means of production instead of private ownership of the means of production.  > Socialism sounds like a great idea, but are there any legitimate criticisms? Something I won't hear on Fox news I mean?  There's a lot going on in that question! It's super general.  I rephrased it for my answer:  > I'm going to avoid the discussions of \"what is socialism?\" and try and answer what I think of as the core of your question: \"Why does capital hire labor, instead of labor hiring capital?\"  Once I turned it into a question about Industrial Organization, there was a ton of highly relevent empirical literature. If OP knew that the question he was asking was  \"Why does capital hire labor, instead of labor hiring capital?\"a simple google search would have found a bunch of relevent papers.  In the book A Hitchhiker's Guide to to the Galaxy, Deep Thought\u2014the most brilliant computer ever created\u2014is asked about the meaning of life. Seven-and-a-half million years later, Deep Thought finally has a reply.  \u201cThe answer to the Great Question Of Life, the Universe, and Everything is\u2026\u201d The computer pauses.  \u201cForty-two.\u201d  The audience is perplexed. Seven-and-a-half-million years of work and the answer is 42? Deep Thought says it has checked its work carefully and 42 is certainly the answer.  The computer continues. \u201cI think the problem, to be quite honest with you, is that you\u2019ve never actually known what the question is.\u201d","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12182.0,"score_ratio":4.0}
{"post_id":"23nild","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Meta] Please stop answering questions with \"Your question sucks.\" People are bad at phrasing questions. There is no denying this. But invariably I will click through to what I see as a moderately-okay question and see posts merely complaining about how the OP phrased their questions. It is unhelpful to the OP and does not add to the discussion.  Example: Complaining that the OP doesn't have citations. [Link. The OP is not required to cite. It is understandable that the OP is a lay-person coming to us for academic assistance, and does not have a citation beyond \"I heard this somewhere.\" This often goes hand-in-hand with commentors assuming that a single word means the poster *must* think their statement is 100% fact (a weak example here)  Other unhelpful \"your question sucks\" responses include asking the poster to rephrase without providing instructions (here), and \"first we have to build the universe\" responses (here). The first type usually points out a flaw with no solution. The second type attempts to lay very basic groundwork that the OP has already assumed is in place. The second type often assumes that because the OP did not use the socially-acceptable academic word for their topic, that they know nothing about their topic. In my example above, the commentor attempted to reign the OP in with a lecture on how race is a social construct. OP already clearly knew this, hence using \"race\" in quotes.   A better way: Rephrase the question to what you *think* they meant, then answer that question (example). That way there is still an answer and the conversation is moved forward.   If I went back a few more days I know I could find dozens more examples of unhelpful answers. But, I'm sure you've seen them yourselves.   TL;DR Be helpful. Don't be unhelpful.   (p.s. Some of the comments linked did not have sources and may be deleted by the time you try to click through.)","c_root_id_A":"cgz2gdg","c_root_id_B":"cgywxx9","created_at_utc_A":1398182765,"created_at_utc_B":1398168371,"score_A":6,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":">The OP is not required to cite.  But some of us are genuinely interested in how they came across strange layman ideas and knowing the source makes it easier to address OP's interest. It's fine if they say they don't know where their idea came from, but it makes it a lot easier on us (and therefore more likely that a satisfying answer will be made) if they can find where their idea came from.","human_ref_B":">The OP is not required to cite.   The rules are a bit vague and might be causing confusion.  Maybe make it clear which rules are for OP and which are for the experts.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":14394.0,"score_ratio":1.2}
{"post_id":"23nild","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Meta] Please stop answering questions with \"Your question sucks.\" People are bad at phrasing questions. There is no denying this. But invariably I will click through to what I see as a moderately-okay question and see posts merely complaining about how the OP phrased their questions. It is unhelpful to the OP and does not add to the discussion.  Example: Complaining that the OP doesn't have citations. [Link. The OP is not required to cite. It is understandable that the OP is a lay-person coming to us for academic assistance, and does not have a citation beyond \"I heard this somewhere.\" This often goes hand-in-hand with commentors assuming that a single word means the poster *must* think their statement is 100% fact (a weak example here)  Other unhelpful \"your question sucks\" responses include asking the poster to rephrase without providing instructions (here), and \"first we have to build the universe\" responses (here). The first type usually points out a flaw with no solution. The second type attempts to lay very basic groundwork that the OP has already assumed is in place. The second type often assumes that because the OP did not use the socially-acceptable academic word for their topic, that they know nothing about their topic. In my example above, the commentor attempted to reign the OP in with a lecture on how race is a social construct. OP already clearly knew this, hence using \"race\" in quotes.   A better way: Rephrase the question to what you *think* they meant, then answer that question (example). That way there is still an answer and the conversation is moved forward.   If I went back a few more days I know I could find dozens more examples of unhelpful answers. But, I'm sure you've seen them yourselves.   TL;DR Be helpful. Don't be unhelpful.   (p.s. Some of the comments linked did not have sources and may be deleted by the time you try to click through.)","c_root_id_A":"cgz4gbi","c_root_id_B":"cgz31zf","created_at_utc_A":1398186790,"created_at_utc_B":1398183989,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Also, social science covers an incredibly broad range of subjects. Don't treat people from other fields like morons for not knowing the literature in your field.","human_ref_B":"I am a blacksmith in the Byzantine Empire. What is my opinion of America?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2801.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"3o41u8","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"What ISN'T capitalism? Only communism? Or is there a point at which you would no longer describe a market economy as a capitalist economy? The more real world grounding in the answer the better.","c_root_id_A":"cvu1ql3","c_root_id_B":"cvu6qaa","created_at_utc_A":1444419390,"created_at_utc_B":1444427228,"score_A":12,"score_B":47,"human_ref_A":"Since we had some problems with answering this question, I would like to narrow it down to a much more specific question.   Is the Mondragon Corporation capitalist, or is it just embedded in a capitalist system? Does it offer an alternative mode of production?","human_ref_B":"> Or is there a point at which you would no longer describe a market economy as a capitalist economy?  market economies and capitalism technically have nothing to do with one another.  capitalism means the means of production are owned by private capitalists; but this style of ownership does not require markets - for example under state capitalism in which \"commercial (i.e. for-profit) economic activity is undertaken by the state\".  likewise you can have markets without capitalists, as is the case under market socialism involving \"the public, cooperative, or social ownership of the means of production in the framework of a market economy\".  you can also have a mixed economy, which is basically every economy you've ever heard of, in which some of the means of production are owned by private capitalists, some by the state, and some by workers; and some economic planning is delegated to market mechanisms while some is centrally planned.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7838.0,"score_ratio":3.9166666667}
{"post_id":"3o41u8","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"What ISN'T capitalism? Only communism? Or is there a point at which you would no longer describe a market economy as a capitalist economy? The more real world grounding in the answer the better.","c_root_id_A":"cvu6qaa","c_root_id_B":"cvu2kyk","created_at_utc_A":1444427228,"created_at_utc_B":1444420667,"score_A":47,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"> Or is there a point at which you would no longer describe a market economy as a capitalist economy?  market economies and capitalism technically have nothing to do with one another.  capitalism means the means of production are owned by private capitalists; but this style of ownership does not require markets - for example under state capitalism in which \"commercial (i.e. for-profit) economic activity is undertaken by the state\".  likewise you can have markets without capitalists, as is the case under market socialism involving \"the public, cooperative, or social ownership of the means of production in the framework of a market economy\".  you can also have a mixed economy, which is basically every economy you've ever heard of, in which some of the means of production are owned by private capitalists, some by the state, and some by workers; and some economic planning is delegated to market mechanisms while some is centrally planned.","human_ref_B":"A capitalist economy is one that's commonly defined as when the means of production are largely privately owned and managed. This is an economy where most of human human labor is used as a means to an end for a private owner's profit. In *Democracy at Work: A Cure for Capitalism* economist Richard Wolff presents an alternate model to a capitalist enterprise where the distinction between owners and workers does not exist. If an economy is largely composed of nothing but these types of enterprises but retains markets for the distribution of goods and services then it could be said to be market socialist and thus not capitalist.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6561.0,"score_ratio":23.5}
{"post_id":"10vfo4","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Over a 100 years ago people fought for the 8-hour workday. Not only do we not have, say, 6-hour workdays now, but we're working more on average. What the hell happened?","c_root_id_A":"c6gzyvk","c_root_id_B":"c6h3tcb","created_at_utc_A":1349273989,"created_at_utc_B":1349287823,"score_A":16,"score_B":35,"human_ref_A":"Actually work hours have been steadily declining in many countries during the last few decades, including most of the developed world. Many citizens of developing countries, like China or India, are moving from subsistence farming to salaried employment so a comparison is more difficult.   What happened is that most increases in production efficiency went into increasing production and income, instead of most of it going into reducing the work load. There is nothing wrong with this per se, although perhaps the reduction in work hours should have been even greater, Keynes thought a 15 hour work week would be the norm today for instance. Regardless, work hours are slowly decreasing.","human_ref_B":"The 8 hour workday was an achievement of the labour movement, which has been in decline for ~40 years. Private sector unionization in the US peaked in the 1970s and has been trending downward since, largely as a result of globalization and a gradual shift away from the Fordist mode of production.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":13834.0,"score_ratio":2.1875}
{"post_id":"10vfo4","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Over a 100 years ago people fought for the 8-hour workday. Not only do we not have, say, 6-hour workdays now, but we're working more on average. What the hell happened?","c_root_id_A":"c6h2cgv","c_root_id_B":"c6h3tcb","created_at_utc_A":1349282704,"created_at_utc_B":1349287823,"score_A":15,"score_B":35,"human_ref_A":"In America, it is due to a shifting philosophy of workers to accept longer hours and even want to work more. This may be due to the realization of the \"American Dream:\" that hard work is all that is needed to lift yourself up a class or two. Or it could be more insidious, a purposeful erosion of the power of organized labor on the part of big business. Either way, hours in the work week have been increasing for decades within the middle and upper-middle classes (not so much for lower paying jobs).  Whatever is the cause, businesses are running with it, requiring longer time commitments for lower pay. However it happened, our willingness to do it is the reason you're looking for.","human_ref_B":"The 8 hour workday was an achievement of the labour movement, which has been in decline for ~40 years. Private sector unionization in the US peaked in the 1970s and has been trending downward since, largely as a result of globalization and a gradual shift away from the Fordist mode of production.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5119.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333}
{"post_id":"10vfo4","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Over a 100 years ago people fought for the 8-hour workday. Not only do we not have, say, 6-hour workdays now, but we're working more on average. What the hell happened?","c_root_id_A":"c6h1ph1","c_root_id_B":"c6h3tcb","created_at_utc_A":1349280463,"created_at_utc_B":1349287823,"score_A":2,"score_B":35,"human_ref_A":"My history prof explained that in the United States (not going to generalize on elsewhere), the consumer culture of the 50s onwards valued external signs of wealth (big houses and yards, expensive cars) over recreation. I guess it basically boils down to \"keeping up with the Joneses\".","human_ref_B":"The 8 hour workday was an achievement of the labour movement, which has been in decline for ~40 years. Private sector unionization in the US peaked in the 1970s and has been trending downward since, largely as a result of globalization and a gradual shift away from the Fordist mode of production.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7360.0,"score_ratio":17.5}
{"post_id":"10vfo4","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Over a 100 years ago people fought for the 8-hour workday. Not only do we not have, say, 6-hour workdays now, but we're working more on average. What the hell happened?","c_root_id_A":"c6h36sx","c_root_id_B":"c6h3tcb","created_at_utc_A":1349285638,"created_at_utc_B":1349287823,"score_A":3,"score_B":35,"human_ref_A":"Well, seeing how government enforces the 8-hour workday by law in many places, I can see why we don't have 6 hour workdays.  Also, the tying of fixed benefits to employment such as health insurance or disability insurance creates fixed expenses that provide an incentive against hiring more people to the do the same amount of work. What costs an employer more, giving 40 hours of work to 5 people or 10?","human_ref_B":"The 8 hour workday was an achievement of the labour movement, which has been in decline for ~40 years. Private sector unionization in the US peaked in the 1970s and has been trending downward since, largely as a result of globalization and a gradual shift away from the Fordist mode of production.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2185.0,"score_ratio":11.6666666667}
{"post_id":"10vfo4","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Over a 100 years ago people fought for the 8-hour workday. Not only do we not have, say, 6-hour workdays now, but we're working more on average. What the hell happened?","c_root_id_A":"c6h2cgv","c_root_id_B":"c6h1ph1","created_at_utc_A":1349282704,"created_at_utc_B":1349280463,"score_A":15,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"In America, it is due to a shifting philosophy of workers to accept longer hours and even want to work more. This may be due to the realization of the \"American Dream:\" that hard work is all that is needed to lift yourself up a class or two. Or it could be more insidious, a purposeful erosion of the power of organized labor on the part of big business. Either way, hours in the work week have been increasing for decades within the middle and upper-middle classes (not so much for lower paying jobs).  Whatever is the cause, businesses are running with it, requiring longer time commitments for lower pay. However it happened, our willingness to do it is the reason you're looking for.","human_ref_B":"My history prof explained that in the United States (not going to generalize on elsewhere), the consumer culture of the 50s onwards valued external signs of wealth (big houses and yards, expensive cars) over recreation. I guess it basically boils down to \"keeping up with the Joneses\".","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2241.0,"score_ratio":7.5}
{"post_id":"10vfo4","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Over a 100 years ago people fought for the 8-hour workday. Not only do we not have, say, 6-hour workdays now, but we're working more on average. What the hell happened?","c_root_id_A":"c6h4pfh","c_root_id_B":"c6h1ph1","created_at_utc_A":1349290695,"created_at_utc_B":1349280463,"score_A":8,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"asksocialscience, where you get some common sense answers, not really scientific at all.","human_ref_B":"My history prof explained that in the United States (not going to generalize on elsewhere), the consumer culture of the 50s onwards valued external signs of wealth (big houses and yards, expensive cars) over recreation. I guess it basically boils down to \"keeping up with the Joneses\".","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10232.0,"score_ratio":4.0}
{"post_id":"10vfo4","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Over a 100 years ago people fought for the 8-hour workday. Not only do we not have, say, 6-hour workdays now, but we're working more on average. What the hell happened?","c_root_id_A":"c6h36sx","c_root_id_B":"c6h4pfh","created_at_utc_A":1349285638,"created_at_utc_B":1349290695,"score_A":3,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Well, seeing how government enforces the 8-hour workday by law in many places, I can see why we don't have 6 hour workdays.  Also, the tying of fixed benefits to employment such as health insurance or disability insurance creates fixed expenses that provide an incentive against hiring more people to the do the same amount of work. What costs an employer more, giving 40 hours of work to 5 people or 10?","human_ref_B":"asksocialscience, where you get some common sense answers, not really scientific at all.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5057.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667}
{"post_id":"10vfo4","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Over a 100 years ago people fought for the 8-hour workday. Not only do we not have, say, 6-hour workdays now, but we're working more on average. What the hell happened?","c_root_id_A":"c6h1ph1","c_root_id_B":"c6h36sx","created_at_utc_A":1349280463,"created_at_utc_B":1349285638,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"My history prof explained that in the United States (not going to generalize on elsewhere), the consumer culture of the 50s onwards valued external signs of wealth (big houses and yards, expensive cars) over recreation. I guess it basically boils down to \"keeping up with the Joneses\".","human_ref_B":"Well, seeing how government enforces the 8-hour workday by law in many places, I can see why we don't have 6 hour workdays.  Also, the tying of fixed benefits to employment such as health insurance or disability insurance creates fixed expenses that provide an incentive against hiring more people to the do the same amount of work. What costs an employer more, giving 40 hours of work to 5 people or 10?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5175.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"7xyftr","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Were baby boomers portrayed as being mad at the silent generation for \"ruining things\" as millennials are with boomers? I'm aware that there were many positive changes in the latter half of the 20th century in the US in terms of civil rights and social change, but I'm wondering if boomers felt like they got a raw deal from their parents much like what the media portrays now (and many, many personal accounts). I'm wondering about boomers beyond \"hippies\" and counter culture protesters. Were there any popular books, essays, or figureheads that demonstrated this blame, if it existed?","c_root_id_A":"ducl3n7","c_root_id_B":"dud4hwh","created_at_utc_A":1518803177,"created_at_utc_B":1518821857,"score_A":14,"score_B":21,"human_ref_A":"Vsauce has an interesting video on how early generations pretty much always see the later generations as worse: https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=LD0x7ho_IYc","human_ref_B":"He's a generation older than the baby boomers but it might be worth checking out Harry Leslie Smith. Just about to turn 95, he was born into poverty a few years before the 1929 crash, served in the RAF during the war and saw the NHS created - too late to prevent his sister dying from tuberculosis (and poverty). His best known book is Harry's Last Stand and his latest is Don't Let My Past Be Your Future.  What we're seeing now is middle class kids falling off the economic ladder that was erected by that generation and (as a very broad generalisation) dismantled by their children (the boomers). Harry witnessed all of it. So, not a direct answer to your question but you may find him interesting. There are several long excerpts floating around, many here, in The Guardian.  Matt Stoller also has an interesting long essay about the conflicts within the Democratic party between the New Deal generation and the \"Watergate Babies\": How Democrats Killed Their Populist Soul. It touches on some of the conflict you're referring to:  >It was January 1975, and the Watergate Babies had arrived in Washington looking for blood. The Watergate Babies\u2014as the recently elected Democratic congressmen were known\u2014were young, idealistic liberals who had been swept into office on a promise to clean up government, end the war in Vietnam, and rid the nation\u2019s capital of the kind of corruption and dirty politics the Nixon White House had wrought. Richard Nixon himself had resigned just a few months earlier in August. But the Watergate Babies didn\u2019t just campaign against Nixon; they took on the Democratic establishment, too. Newly elected Representative George Miller of California, then just 29 years old, announced, \u201cWe came here to take the Bastille.\u201d","labels":0,"seconds_difference":18680.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"2zfvp0","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Herd Immunity is when an immune community protects the non-immune from disease. Is this concept ever applied to non-medical situations, e.g. good drivers will protect a sub-standard driver from having accidents?","c_root_id_A":"cpinw4z","c_root_id_B":"cpiwwa0","created_at_utc_A":1426678691,"created_at_utc_B":1426697415,"score_A":5,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"The Broken Windows Theory, perhaps.  That is, preventative interventions in social environments.","human_ref_B":"In your example, you consider multiple individual (sensible) decisions protecting people as a whole who haven't made such a decision.  A fun parallel could the the Market for Lemons, where sellers with good cars protect the existence of the market as a whole, even though some people are selling bad cars and lying about it - if too great a proportion of sellers are selling bad cars (lemons), then the market will collapse from lack of trust (i.e. why buy a car at that price when it's likely duff?)","labels":0,"seconds_difference":18724.0,"score_ratio":1.2}
{"post_id":"2zfvp0","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Herd Immunity is when an immune community protects the non-immune from disease. Is this concept ever applied to non-medical situations, e.g. good drivers will protect a sub-standard driver from having accidents?","c_root_id_A":"cpis4f2","c_root_id_B":"cpiwwa0","created_at_utc_A":1426689435,"created_at_utc_B":1426697415,"score_A":2,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Yea, See Esposito's work here","human_ref_B":"In your example, you consider multiple individual (sensible) decisions protecting people as a whole who haven't made such a decision.  A fun parallel could the the Market for Lemons, where sellers with good cars protect the existence of the market as a whole, even though some people are selling bad cars and lying about it - if too great a proportion of sellers are selling bad cars (lemons), then the market will collapse from lack of trust (i.e. why buy a car at that price when it's likely duff?)","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7980.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
{"post_id":"26ir6m","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Why is it that a majority of mass murders like the U.C. shootings, Columbine, etc, are committed by men?","c_root_id_A":"chrhvba","c_root_id_B":"chrh6o6","created_at_utc_A":1401120370,"created_at_utc_B":1401118534,"score_A":120,"score_B":28,"human_ref_A":"Masculinity, and in particular the failure to live up to cultural standards of masculinity. There is a whole body of social science literature on this topic. In particular, I suggest Messner, Connell, and Kimmel's works.   I also disagree with another comment that this phenomenon is about testosterone. Such biological reductionist explanations lack any meaningful insight into the problem.","human_ref_B":"I believe it is at least in part because the majority of murders overall in the US are committed by men Source. Additionally, anti-social personality expresses at different rates and in different ways in men then women source and that is very over expressed in violent populations source","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1836.0,"score_ratio":4.2857142857}
{"post_id":"cnst8s","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Why do Marxist ideas seem to be more accepted in the many social sciences except for economics?","c_root_id_A":"ewdwt1t","c_root_id_B":"ewdtm37","created_at_utc_A":1565309326,"created_at_utc_B":1565307366,"score_A":63,"score_B":36,"human_ref_A":"It might help to specify which of Marx's ideas you mean. Do you mean Marx's economic theory specifically or his ideas more generally?  More generally, social scientists have found Marx useful for thinking about a wide range of social phenomena such as alienation, commodity fetishism, ideology, etc.   One simple reason that Marx's ideas are studied more in social science departments is because social scientists often study these sorts of phenomena while economists study other things.","human_ref_B":"To not retread already covered ground, checkout this thread from r\/AskEconomics. There are many good, top level comments from respected members of the Reddit econ community, and it should give you a feel for how he\u2019s viewed by economists and why.   In short, Marx isn\u2019t accepted in economics because he was wrong, just like most of the political economists of his day. The Labor Theory of Value doesn\u2019t hold up to scrutiny, and the standard models from the Marginal Revolution do a much better job at creating a coherent Theory of the Firm. That\u2019s not to say Marx wasn\u2019t important; he was, but in a historical sense.   As to why he is more accepted in other social sciences (or if this assertion is even true), that\u2019s not for me to say as that\u2019s out of my area.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1960.0,"score_ratio":1.75}
{"post_id":"a5l4wa","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"This sub needs additional moderators We have had a spate of posts lately with responses that seem informative, but are not cited, breaking Rule #1.  We already have AskReddit and other subs for unsubstantiated answers like this.  As an active participant who tries give substantial grounding in the scientific literature along with citations in every substantive response I write, I feel frustrated when I see upvoted comments with no citations.  Either we just give up on the core purpose of this sub, or we verify experts who can give whatever answer without citations, or we add mods so that responses are adequately policed.   The people who ask questions and read the responses don't seem to care. They will upvote whatever. We need some leadership here.","c_root_id_A":"ebnekbl","c_root_id_B":"ebnesx9","created_at_utc_A":1544643142,"created_at_utc_B":1544643315,"score_A":15,"score_B":42,"human_ref_A":"I've mostly stopped contributing here because of this.","human_ref_B":"Starting point: Current mods need to go to \/r\/redditrequest and ask to have the lead mod (who hasn't had publicly viewable activity on Reddit for 5+ years) removed. Managing staff gets a lot easier when the lead mod is actually still engaging with the site.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":173.0,"score_ratio":2.8}
{"post_id":"a5l4wa","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"This sub needs additional moderators We have had a spate of posts lately with responses that seem informative, but are not cited, breaking Rule #1.  We already have AskReddit and other subs for unsubstantiated answers like this.  As an active participant who tries give substantial grounding in the scientific literature along with citations in every substantive response I write, I feel frustrated when I see upvoted comments with no citations.  Either we just give up on the core purpose of this sub, or we verify experts who can give whatever answer without citations, or we add mods so that responses are adequately policed.   The people who ask questions and read the responses don't seem to care. They will upvote whatever. We need some leadership here.","c_root_id_A":"ebnesx9","c_root_id_B":"ebnd972","created_at_utc_A":1544643315,"created_at_utc_B":1544642193,"score_A":42,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"Starting point: Current mods need to go to \/r\/redditrequest and ask to have the lead mod (who hasn't had publicly viewable activity on Reddit for 5+ years) removed. Managing staff gets a lot easier when the lead mod is actually still engaging with the site.","human_ref_B":"Seconded.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1122.0,"score_ratio":3.2307692308}
{"post_id":"a5l4wa","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"This sub needs additional moderators We have had a spate of posts lately with responses that seem informative, but are not cited, breaking Rule #1.  We already have AskReddit and other subs for unsubstantiated answers like this.  As an active participant who tries give substantial grounding in the scientific literature along with citations in every substantive response I write, I feel frustrated when I see upvoted comments with no citations.  Either we just give up on the core purpose of this sub, or we verify experts who can give whatever answer without citations, or we add mods so that responses are adequately policed.   The people who ask questions and read the responses don't seem to care. They will upvote whatever. We need some leadership here.","c_root_id_A":"ebnekbl","c_root_id_B":"ebnfrgu","created_at_utc_A":1544643142,"created_at_utc_B":1544644017,"score_A":15,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"I've mostly stopped contributing here because of this.","human_ref_B":"Agreed. Also, and I'm not sure how to address this, but the quality of questions we've been receiving are sophomoric. I mean, of course, we can't expect people to have a functional knowledge of how our disciplines work, but a lot of the questions I've seen lately are roughly analogous to \"why are girls so stinky\" or \"why are [random demographic] this vaguely defined way?\"  Most of the question I see leave me scratching my head, thinking \"how would you even quantify that?\"  That said, I would be willing to help mod here. I've been modding another community for a few years now, I feel like I've got enough experience to make a meaningful contribution. Just throwing it out there.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":875.0,"score_ratio":1.2}
{"post_id":"a5l4wa","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"This sub needs additional moderators We have had a spate of posts lately with responses that seem informative, but are not cited, breaking Rule #1.  We already have AskReddit and other subs for unsubstantiated answers like this.  As an active participant who tries give substantial grounding in the scientific literature along with citations in every substantive response I write, I feel frustrated when I see upvoted comments with no citations.  Either we just give up on the core purpose of this sub, or we verify experts who can give whatever answer without citations, or we add mods so that responses are adequately policed.   The people who ask questions and read the responses don't seem to care. They will upvote whatever. We need some leadership here.","c_root_id_A":"ebnfrgu","c_root_id_B":"ebnd972","created_at_utc_A":1544644017,"created_at_utc_B":1544642193,"score_A":18,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"Agreed. Also, and I'm not sure how to address this, but the quality of questions we've been receiving are sophomoric. I mean, of course, we can't expect people to have a functional knowledge of how our disciplines work, but a lot of the questions I've seen lately are roughly analogous to \"why are girls so stinky\" or \"why are [random demographic] this vaguely defined way?\"  Most of the question I see leave me scratching my head, thinking \"how would you even quantify that?\"  That said, I would be willing to help mod here. I've been modding another community for a few years now, I feel like I've got enough experience to make a meaningful contribution. Just throwing it out there.","human_ref_B":"Seconded.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1824.0,"score_ratio":1.3846153846}
{"post_id":"a5l4wa","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"This sub needs additional moderators We have had a spate of posts lately with responses that seem informative, but are not cited, breaking Rule #1.  We already have AskReddit and other subs for unsubstantiated answers like this.  As an active participant who tries give substantial grounding in the scientific literature along with citations in every substantive response I write, I feel frustrated when I see upvoted comments with no citations.  Either we just give up on the core purpose of this sub, or we verify experts who can give whatever answer without citations, or we add mods so that responses are adequately policed.   The people who ask questions and read the responses don't seem to care. They will upvote whatever. We need some leadership here.","c_root_id_A":"ebnd972","c_root_id_B":"ebnekbl","created_at_utc_A":1544642193,"created_at_utc_B":1544643142,"score_A":13,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"Seconded.","human_ref_B":"I've mostly stopped contributing here because of this.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":949.0,"score_ratio":1.1538461538}
{"post_id":"a5l4wa","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"This sub needs additional moderators We have had a spate of posts lately with responses that seem informative, but are not cited, breaking Rule #1.  We already have AskReddit and other subs for unsubstantiated answers like this.  As an active participant who tries give substantial grounding in the scientific literature along with citations in every substantive response I write, I feel frustrated when I see upvoted comments with no citations.  Either we just give up on the core purpose of this sub, or we verify experts who can give whatever answer without citations, or we add mods so that responses are adequately policed.   The people who ask questions and read the responses don't seem to care. They will upvote whatever. We need some leadership here.","c_root_id_A":"ebnv3q2","c_root_id_B":"ebnm15n","created_at_utc_A":1544655432,"created_at_utc_B":1544648604,"score_A":7,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Agreed. Moderators need to filter non-cited content better, and increasing the number of moderators will help with that.","human_ref_B":"The responses sound like a department meeting:  Everyone agrees but they want to talk about it for 10 minutes so something that could have happened via email now takes two hours.   (I agree with that everyone said)","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6828.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667}
{"post_id":"gs4slo","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"Is there evidence the US justice system is racist when social class is taken into account? Like many, I've seen the news of yet another black man being killed by what seems to be police brutality in the USA. It seems pretty easy to draw the conclusion that the US police and justice system as a whole is institutionally racist and the harsher sentencing minorities receive for the same crimes as whites seem to point to this.    However, being from the UK, I'm not fully aware of race relation in the US and it seems to me that race is often a proxy for class in the US.  I wondered if there were any studies that investigated racism within the police and justice system as a whole when controlling for variables such as socioeconomic status and if so what the results of these were. I'm interested if when race is the only real difference between suspects, whether there is any evidence a black man is more likely to be a victim of police brutality or receive a harsher sentence for the same crime.   Not trying to downplay racism or anything, was just curious as to what the data says about these specific scenarios. Thanks.","c_root_id_A":"fs35oxy","c_root_id_B":"fs31q21","created_at_utc_A":1590672992,"created_at_utc_B":1590670618,"score_A":106,"score_B":27,"human_ref_A":"I would recommend checking the several older threads in this subreddit on the topic of racial disparities in the USA which answer several of the questions you appear to have. I will just briefly comment on the notion that what are considered racial or ethnic problems are \"actually\" class problems: generally speaking, \"race\" and \"class\" should both be taken into consideration (both within and the USA *and* elsewhere), without conflating the two, or subsuming one into another: both ethnic minorities, and the poor, have vulnerabilities, unique, shared, intertwined.  ---  Have some illustrations:  Affluent and Black, and Still Trapped by Segregation: Why well-off black families end up living in poorer areas than white families with similar or even lower incomes  >**The choices that black families make today are inevitably constrained by a legacy of racism that prevented their ancestors from buying quality housing and then passing down wealth that might have allowed today\u2019s generation to move into more stable communities.** And even when black households try to cross color boundaries, they are not always met with open arms: **Studies have shown that white people prefer to live in communities where there are fewer black people, regardless of their income.**  >The result: **Nationally, black and white families of similar incomes still live in separate worlds.**  The massive new study on race and economic mobility in America, explained: Even black men born to wealthy families are less economically successful than white men.  >**Black Americans experience dramatically lower upward mobility than white Americans do** \u2014 a difference that **appears to be driven largely by significant economic disadvantages among black men.**  Race and economic opportunity in the United States   >The sources of racial disparities in income have been debated for decades. This column uses data on 20 million children and their parents to show how **racial disparities persist across generations in the US.** For instance, **black men have much lower chances of climbing the income ladder than white men even if they grow up on the same block.** In contrast, black and white women have similar rates of mobility. The column discusses how such findings can be used to reduce racial disparities going forward ...]  [Environmental racism: time to tackle social injustice30219-5\/fulltext)  >**While a common counterargument to the narrative of environmental racism is that these are conditions that arise from poverty, not racism, a growing body of evidence suggests that this is not the case**, including a report from the US Environmental Protection Agency in February, 2018, which noted that \u201cDisparities in exposure to PM emissions] for Blacks are more pronounced than are disparities on the basis of poverty status.\u201d **The roots of environmental racism are complex, but share similarities with many other types of social injustice. One of the major issues is the lack of resources in minority communities** [...] **Yet another problematic point has been the historical exclusion of people of colour from the leadership of the environmentalist community. While not necessarily a deliberate omission**, this creates a situation in which minority groups do not feel engaged with the movement and the effects of a successful opposition campaign are not considered in a broader regional context, both of which contribute to further the preferential choice of minority communities as sites for polluting industries.  [The Racial Ecology of Lead Poisoning: Toxic Inequality in Chicago Neighborhoods, 1995-2013   >**If pictures could talk, Figures 3 - 5 would speak volumes about the racial and ethnic disparities in lead toxicity that children in segregated Chicago neighborhoods have had to endure, both historically and in the contemporary era**\u2014Flint, Michigan, is not an aberration. We have shown, for example, that Black and Hispanic neighborhoods exhibited extraordinarily high rates of lead toxicity compared to White neighborhoods at the start of our study in 1995, in some cases with prevalence rates topping 90% of the child population. **Black disadvantage in particular is pronounced not only relative to Whites but even relative to Hispanics** (Figure 4), in every year from 1995-2013. **The profound heterogeneity in the racial ecology of what we call toxic inequality is partially attributable to socioeconomic factors, such as poverty and education, and to housing-related factors, such as unit age, vacancy, and dilapidation. But controlling these factors, neighborhood prevalence rates of elevated BLL remain closely linked to racial and ethnic segregation**  The Growth of Incarceration in the United States: Exploring Causes and Consequences   >**Much of the significance of the social and economic consequences of incarceration is rooted in the high absolute level of incarceration for minority groups and in the large racial and ethnic disparities in incarceration rates.** Research on the spatial distribution of incarceration indicates that **prisoners are overwhelmingly drawn from poor minority neighborhoods that also suffer from an array of other socioeconomic disadvantages.** In the era of high incarceration rates, **prison admission and return became commonplace in minority neighborhoods with high levels of crime, poverty, family instability, poor health, and residential segregation** (see Chapter 10). **Large racial disparities in incarceration focused any negative effects of incarceration disproportionately on African Americans, the poor in particular, and transformed their collective relationship to the state**.  Punishing Race: A Continuing American Dilemma  >Stark disparities in imprisonment and entanglement in the criminal justice system result partly from racial differences in offending. To a lesser extent they result from practitioners\u2019 conscious biases and unconscious stereotypes. **Mostly they result from the adoption in the 1980s and 1990s of drug and crime control policies that place much heavier burdens on black Americans than on whites.** See for example the [100-to-1 rule.]  Race, Crime, and Criminal Justice  >The research on race and incarceration has also been moved in a more nuanced direction after an initial flurry of publications. **African Americans and Latinos continue to be imprisoned at rates higher than would be predicted by their percentages in the general U.S. population. Debates have been centered on what portion of that difference is \u201cwarranted,\u201d** which can be explained by higher rates of criminal involvement by members of these groups, and on what portion cannot be explained by legally relevant factors, \u201cunwarranted racial disparity.\u201d It is too soon to call it a consensus, but **a narrative is emerging that holds that higher rates of incarceration for violent offenses among African Americans can be explained by higher levels of involvement, but as the level of seriousness of crime declines to property and drug crimes, less observed racial differences in imprisonment can be accounted for by racial differences in involvement** (Blumstein, 1993; Blumstein and Beck, 1999, 2014). Recently, Blumstein and Beck (2017) published updated analyses on this topic and concluded that arrest rates (and they validated these patterns with victimization survey data) account for racial disparities in the criminal justice system for murder and rape but that accountability for other forms of violence and drug offenses is low. **What these studies have in common is that scholars argue that racial disparities in the criminal justice system can be accounted for by higher Black and, to a lesser extent, Hispanic involvement in the most serious violent crimes. But system disparities for other crimes, even other violent crimes, cannot be explained or justified by higher levels of involvement of people of color for these crimes.** Tonry and Melewski (2008) reported that although more than half of those imprisoned for drug sales or possession are Black or Latino, the best available evidence is that these groups use and sell drugs at a rate commensurate with their representation in the general population, 13% and 17%, respectively.   Racial Disproportionality in U.S. State Prisons: Accounting for the Effects of Racial and Ethnic Differences in Criminal Involvement, Arrests, Sentencing, and Time Served  >Although these concerns should be pursued in further detail, our conclusion is that racial differences in prison are to a large degree reflective of the differences across the races in their involvement in crimes that lead to imprisonment. **Factors contributing to that differential involvement include the \u201croot causes\u201d of crime associated with socioeconomic status, job opportunities, family structure and discipline, and local culture and peer influences.**  Here we go back to the beginning. Consider this list an ouroboros. (The message implicit in this selection of illustrations & quotes is expanded\/developed in replies to other relevant threads provided by myself\/others.)","human_ref_B":"Even if we found that white people of similar class status and situational circumstance faced roughly the same outcomes as people of color (which I seriously doubt, but I'm waiting to see a few good sources), the high rates of poverty among people of color still suggest that institutional racism exists, barring an extraordinary degree of happenstance, or unless you believe there are actually differences between people of different racial groups. The Kaiser Family Foundation shows African Americans having a higher rate of poverty than white Americans in every state with data, and at least 2x as high in every state but Rhode Island (15%\/8%) and West Virginia (26%\/17%) in 2018.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2374.0,"score_ratio":3.9259259259}
{"post_id":"1l4gga","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Why did mexican drug cartels became so violent in recent years? In Mexico they say that is beacuse the government started to persecute them more actively, can something like that increase the violence in these groups? What really made them explode in 2006?","c_root_id_A":"cbvq41e","c_root_id_B":"cbvs06y","created_at_utc_A":1377539684,"created_at_utc_B":1377544938,"score_A":7,"score_B":27,"human_ref_A":"https:\/\/files.nyu.edu\/od9\/public\/papers\/Cross_border_spillover.pdf  **Abstract**  *To what extent, and under what conditions, does access to arms fuel violent crime? To answer this question, we exploit a unique natural experiment: the 2004 expiration of the U.S. Federal Assault Weapons Ban exerted a spillover on gun supply in Mexican municipios near Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico, but not near California, which retained a pre-existing state-level ban. We \ufb01nd \ufb01rst that Mexican municipios located closer to the non-California border states experienced differential increases in homicides, gun-related homicides, and crime gun seizures after 2004. Second, the magnitude of this effect is contingent on political factors related to Mexico\u2019s democratic transition. Killings increased disproportionately in municipios where local elections had become more competitive prior to 2004, with the largest differentials emerging in high narco-traf\ufb01cking areas. Our \ufb01ndings suggest that competition undermined informal agreements between drug cartels and entrenched local governments, highlighting the role of political conditions in mediating the gun-crime relationship.*","human_ref_B":"According to this:  http:\/\/iis-db.stanford.edu\/evnts\/6716\/NAF_2011_EG_%28Final%29.pdf It was basically what you say--the gov't arrested some important figures, the cartels broke up, and nasty fighting began among the factions.  It's also interesting to note that there's a lot of involvement of military defectors in the early 2000s, so the management is populated by a lot of professional killers.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5254.0,"score_ratio":3.8571428571}
{"post_id":"bup76g","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"Why do we think of baby boomers as conservative, when they instigated the student uprisings of the 60s and 70s? Right now in class we're studying the 1968 cultural uprisings in France and the concurrent hippy philosophy of America. As far as I'm aware, these were heavily influenced by sudden growth in the proportion of the younger to older population, anti-imperialist movements (e.g. in Cuba and in support of Vietnam) \/ sympathy for socialist ideals, economic developments, and various other factors. Very generally, this seems to portray the student population as progressive, revisionist, leftist, anti-authoritarian, and humanitarian.  Again speaking in general terms, this is at odds with the stereotype of the conservative, cynical, out-of-touch, religious, unsympathetic baby boomer pushed by today's left wing.  I understand both that a group's values may become more conservative as they age, and also that no generation is homogeneous. All the same, can someone try and explain this disparity? How can I reconcile this? Is my conception of the baby-boomer generation exceedingly simplistic?  thank you in advance for any responses!","c_root_id_A":"epgx22h","c_root_id_B":"epibpev","created_at_utc_A":1559219521,"created_at_utc_B":1559236907,"score_A":4,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"At the height of the counterculture movement in 1969, President Nixon called on the [\"silent majority\"]( https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Silent_majority) to support his conservative policies, especially with respect to US participation in the Vietnam War that the students were protesting, and he largely received that support.  The counterculture movement was vocal and garnered a lot of attention in traditionally conservative societies like the US, but it did not represent a majority of the population at that time.","human_ref_B":"Bruce Gibney's *A Generation of Sociopaths* looks into a lot of the details of the baby boomer involvement in the civil rights\/anti-war movements and reaches some interesting conclusions. IIRC, some big takeaways were that the civil rights movement was already gaining in popularity before the Boomers came into their own, and that (white) Boomers were actually disproportionately in favor of war in Vietnam initially. Widespread negative attitudes and student protests only began once being drafted became significantly more likely for the student populations.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":17386.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"bup76g","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"Why do we think of baby boomers as conservative, when they instigated the student uprisings of the 60s and 70s? Right now in class we're studying the 1968 cultural uprisings in France and the concurrent hippy philosophy of America. As far as I'm aware, these were heavily influenced by sudden growth in the proportion of the younger to older population, anti-imperialist movements (e.g. in Cuba and in support of Vietnam) \/ sympathy for socialist ideals, economic developments, and various other factors. Very generally, this seems to portray the student population as progressive, revisionist, leftist, anti-authoritarian, and humanitarian.  Again speaking in general terms, this is at odds with the stereotype of the conservative, cynical, out-of-touch, religious, unsympathetic baby boomer pushed by today's left wing.  I understand both that a group's values may become more conservative as they age, and also that no generation is homogeneous. All the same, can someone try and explain this disparity? How can I reconcile this? Is my conception of the baby-boomer generation exceedingly simplistic?  thank you in advance for any responses!","c_root_id_A":"epibpev","c_root_id_B":"ephpluk","created_at_utc_A":1559236907,"created_at_utc_B":1559229592,"score_A":8,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Bruce Gibney's *A Generation of Sociopaths* looks into a lot of the details of the baby boomer involvement in the civil rights\/anti-war movements and reaches some interesting conclusions. IIRC, some big takeaways were that the civil rights movement was already gaining in popularity before the Boomers came into their own, and that (white) Boomers were actually disproportionately in favor of war in Vietnam initially. Widespread negative attitudes and student protests only began once being drafted became significantly more likely for the student populations.","human_ref_B":">I understand both that a group's values may become more conservative as they age, and also that no generation is homogeneous. All the same, can someone try and explain this disparity? How can I reconcile this? Is my conception of the baby-boomer generation exceedingly simplistic?  Taking these questions, and to provide you with a reply that might help you out also in the future, I am going to share some information to stimulate a critical posture which should allow to juggle other similar issues:  ---  **First**, you should question whether thinking in terms of *generations* is useful and meaningful, or if it is better to think in terms of other factors (i.e. thinking in terms of cohorts with determinate characteristics).  ---  **Second**, keep in mind that stereotypes are not by definition *accurate*. Even if we take those who, such as Jussim, argue that stereotypes tend to be accurate, stereotypes are *at least* assumed to be beliefs about groups which can be *either* accurate *or* inaccurate, and that this accuracy can depend on the categorization being made (putting aside the issues regarding the conceptualization of both stereotype and accuracy). That said, even assuming stereotype accuracy, it does not mean that the attributes associated to a group (according to stereotypes) applies correctly to *everyone* in a given group.   On that note, let's suppose the vast majority of the population identified as conservative in the 60s and 70s. In 1960 there was around 180 million Americans. If 1% of that population participated in protests, that would be 1'800'000 people making noise. That is already a *substantial* number of people to make a lasting impact in public perception and memory. And protesting minorities *can* be effective at changing attitudes.  ---  **Lastly**, factually, if we look at the Pew Research Center's data on party affiliation, there was a higher portion of people identifying with the Democratic Party than the Republican Party during those years:  >For more than 70 years, with few exceptions, more Americans have identified as Democrats than Republicans. But the share of independents, which surpassed the percentages of either Democrats or Republicans several years ago, continues to increase. Currently, 39% Americans identify as independents, 32% as Democrats and 23% as Republicans. This is the highest percentage of independents in more than 75 years of public opinion polling.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7315.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"hgynte","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Is there a finite amount of status in a society to go around? Is there a finite amount of status in a society to go around? Or in a different way phrased, does high status only exist if there  is low status?","c_root_id_A":"fw7tw7i","c_root_id_B":"fw78pd5","created_at_utc_A":1593302177,"created_at_utc_B":1593290408,"score_A":34,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"Purely conceptually, it makes little sense to have \"high\" status if there is no lower status, or vice-versa (how can there be a higher status if there is no low status?). In terms of in how many ways a society may be stratified, there is no upper limit. You can have the classic upper, middle and lower class, but these can also be divvied up.   Things get more complex once you also acknowledge that not everyone *within* the same economic class (e.g. rich, middle, poor) is perceived and apprehended in the same manner. Consider for example the different values and attitudes attached to different genders, sexual orientations, ethnic memberships, nationalities, citizenship, etc. This notion is famously acknowledged by intersectionality. For an illustration on how evaluations can be complex, see Fiske and colleagues' stereotype content model.png).","human_ref_B":"What are we defining \u201cstatus\u201d as? Economic status? \u201cSociocultural\u201d status? A mix of both?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11769.0,"score_ratio":2.6153846154}
{"post_id":"6thkum","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.63,"history":"Why are serial killers\/mass murders mostly white men? According to this statistic, the majority of serial killers are white male serial killers. http:\/\/maamodt.asp.radford.edu\/Serial%20Killer%20Information%20Center\/Serial%20Killer%20Statistics.pdf  Or is this a stereotype?","c_root_id_A":"dlkse8l","c_root_id_B":"dlkvb7m","created_at_utc_A":1502660726,"created_at_utc_B":1502664334,"score_A":8,"score_B":56,"human_ref_A":"The chart on page 10 shows that white people were serial murderers 52.5% of the time, and from 1990 - 2016 were serial murderers 37.4% of the time.  So it's not *completely* true.","human_ref_B":"Regarding the race side of the question, I'm not sure you're right. As the chart on page 6 shows, Whites have been surpassed by Blacks as a percentage of serial killers since at least 1990. Additionally these appear to be total percentage. The black population in America since 1900 has stayed pretty consistent at around 10-12%, you would expect whites to show up more, in fact whites are UNDER-represented in these statistics if you take population into account.   I'm surprised you didn't pick up on this as the table on page 10 explicitly states \"As can be seen in this table, the commonly cited profile of a serial killer in the U.S. being a white, male, in his mid to late twenties is not\r accurate.\"","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3608.0,"score_ratio":7.0}
{"post_id":"eiz7qw","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Has there been a comprehensive poll or study conducted to show how many people think that if they support \"trickle down economics\", that they themselves will benefit from the policy once they become wealthy?","c_root_id_A":"fculj3k","c_root_id_B":"fcufykq","created_at_utc_A":1577983639,"created_at_utc_B":1577980030,"score_A":29,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"There's a great study that shows that if you believe that you can move upwards in society, that you are more likely to support income inequality. Both belief + actual country level data.   Shariff, A. F. Wiwad, D. Aknin, L. B. (2016). Income mobility breeds tolerance for income inequality cross-national and experimental evidence. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(3), 373-380. Click here.","human_ref_B":"YouGov did a poll in 2015.  Poll on Trickle Down Economics    There is also this.  https:\/\/www.gq.com\/story\/fox-news-tax-poll-fairness  It\u2019s important to note that conservative ideology tells us that society is made up of the haves and soon to haves, not the haves and have nots.   https:\/\/youtu.be\/iE_SJc4_A6M","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3609.0,"score_ratio":2.0714285714}
{"post_id":"ggci7u","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"What is a (psychological) theory that links prior experiences to perception of social situations? Hi there! For my bachelor thesis, I am looking into perceptions of sexual harassment and how these differ amongst men and women (as has been found in many studies, for meta-analyses see e.g. Blumenthal (1998) and Rotundo et al. (2001)).  For my theoretical framework I want to show that **our perception of social situations is influenced by our experiences** (which could explain why women, who are disproportionally targeted by sexual harassment, generally perceive milder forms as threatening than men). I haven't been able to find a suitable theory or model that includes this connection between prior experiences and perceptions of social situations, It doesn't have to be related to sexual harassment specifically, but can also be more general. Do you have any suggestions? Thanks so much! (Please upvote to support my quest!)","c_root_id_A":"fq0huxr","c_root_id_B":"fq0axu2","created_at_utc_A":1589032109,"created_at_utc_B":1589029551,"score_A":8,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"I would read your question as relating very much to schema theory. Schema theory is going to suggest that when we have a developed schema we will impose that schema on the situation we experience. Check out Fiske and Taylor's (2017) Social Cognition book (https:\/\/uk.sagepub.com\/en-gb\/eur\/social-cognition\/book250299) to find some good references. Many Social Psychology texts should have a discussion as well.   Category accessibility would also explain the effect. One of my favorite studies is Higgins, Rholes, & Jones (1977) https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/S0022-1031(77)80007-3, the Donald study.  If you want to go further back, you could even look at George Kelly's (1950's) construct theory. I'd argue it is really the beginning of schema theory, but relatively ignored today.  Good luck.","human_ref_B":"I\u2019m thinking maybe the works of Bourdieu and his Habitus? Perhaps you might find interest in the field of phenomenology which is essentially the study of structures of consciousness as experienced from the first-person point of view.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2558.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"ggci7u","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"What is a (psychological) theory that links prior experiences to perception of social situations? Hi there! For my bachelor thesis, I am looking into perceptions of sexual harassment and how these differ amongst men and women (as has been found in many studies, for meta-analyses see e.g. Blumenthal (1998) and Rotundo et al. (2001)).  For my theoretical framework I want to show that **our perception of social situations is influenced by our experiences** (which could explain why women, who are disproportionally targeted by sexual harassment, generally perceive milder forms as threatening than men). I haven't been able to find a suitable theory or model that includes this connection between prior experiences and perceptions of social situations, It doesn't have to be related to sexual harassment specifically, but can also be more general. Do you have any suggestions? Thanks so much! (Please upvote to support my quest!)","c_root_id_A":"fq0huxr","c_root_id_B":"fpzifx9","created_at_utc_A":1589032109,"created_at_utc_B":1589018672,"score_A":8,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I would read your question as relating very much to schema theory. Schema theory is going to suggest that when we have a developed schema we will impose that schema on the situation we experience. Check out Fiske and Taylor's (2017) Social Cognition book (https:\/\/uk.sagepub.com\/en-gb\/eur\/social-cognition\/book250299) to find some good references. Many Social Psychology texts should have a discussion as well.   Category accessibility would also explain the effect. One of my favorite studies is Higgins, Rholes, & Jones (1977) https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/S0022-1031(77)80007-3, the Donald study.  If you want to go further back, you could even look at George Kelly's (1950's) construct theory. I'd argue it is really the beginning of schema theory, but relatively ignored today.  Good luck.","human_ref_B":"Serge Moscovici\u2019s concepts of anchoring and objectification may be useful.  Moscovici, S. (2000). Social Representations: Explorations in Social Psychology. Cambridge: Polity Press.  Edit: Book","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13437.0,"score_ratio":4.0}
{"post_id":"ggci7u","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"What is a (psychological) theory that links prior experiences to perception of social situations? Hi there! For my bachelor thesis, I am looking into perceptions of sexual harassment and how these differ amongst men and women (as has been found in many studies, for meta-analyses see e.g. Blumenthal (1998) and Rotundo et al. (2001)).  For my theoretical framework I want to show that **our perception of social situations is influenced by our experiences** (which could explain why women, who are disproportionally targeted by sexual harassment, generally perceive milder forms as threatening than men). I haven't been able to find a suitable theory or model that includes this connection between prior experiences and perceptions of social situations, It doesn't have to be related to sexual harassment specifically, but can also be more general. Do you have any suggestions? Thanks so much! (Please upvote to support my quest!)","c_root_id_A":"fq0huxr","c_root_id_B":"fpzq418","created_at_utc_A":1589032109,"created_at_utc_B":1589021899,"score_A":8,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I would read your question as relating very much to schema theory. Schema theory is going to suggest that when we have a developed schema we will impose that schema on the situation we experience. Check out Fiske and Taylor's (2017) Social Cognition book (https:\/\/uk.sagepub.com\/en-gb\/eur\/social-cognition\/book250299) to find some good references. Many Social Psychology texts should have a discussion as well.   Category accessibility would also explain the effect. One of my favorite studies is Higgins, Rholes, & Jones (1977) https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/S0022-1031(77)80007-3, the Donald study.  If you want to go further back, you could even look at George Kelly's (1950's) construct theory. I'd argue it is really the beginning of schema theory, but relatively ignored today.  Good luck.","human_ref_B":"Clinical psychologist here, my first thought was attachment theory. It's a bit more general (and attachment style is shaped by an aggregate of experiences, not a single experience) but it's definitely relevant for intepreting social situations. It might be a bit hard to relate that to gender differences though. Research on trauma might also be useful to you, though I don't have a specific theory that comes to mind. Feel free to ask more, I might have some more input later.  Edit: added a source on attachment theory.  https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/journals\/behavioral-and-brain-sciences\/article\/bowlbyainsworth-attachment-theory\/6D35C7A344107195D97FD7ADAE06C807","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10210.0,"score_ratio":4.0}
{"post_id":"ggci7u","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"What is a (psychological) theory that links prior experiences to perception of social situations? Hi there! For my bachelor thesis, I am looking into perceptions of sexual harassment and how these differ amongst men and women (as has been found in many studies, for meta-analyses see e.g. Blumenthal (1998) and Rotundo et al. (2001)).  For my theoretical framework I want to show that **our perception of social situations is influenced by our experiences** (which could explain why women, who are disproportionally targeted by sexual harassment, generally perceive milder forms as threatening than men). I haven't been able to find a suitable theory or model that includes this connection between prior experiences and perceptions of social situations, It doesn't have to be related to sexual harassment specifically, but can also be more general. Do you have any suggestions? Thanks so much! (Please upvote to support my quest!)","c_root_id_A":"fq0axu2","c_root_id_B":"fpzifx9","created_at_utc_A":1589029551,"created_at_utc_B":1589018672,"score_A":6,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I\u2019m thinking maybe the works of Bourdieu and his Habitus? Perhaps you might find interest in the field of phenomenology which is essentially the study of structures of consciousness as experienced from the first-person point of view.","human_ref_B":"Serge Moscovici\u2019s concepts of anchoring and objectification may be useful.  Moscovici, S. (2000). Social Representations: Explorations in Social Psychology. Cambridge: Polity Press.  Edit: Book","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10879.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
{"post_id":"ggci7u","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"What is a (psychological) theory that links prior experiences to perception of social situations? Hi there! For my bachelor thesis, I am looking into perceptions of sexual harassment and how these differ amongst men and women (as has been found in many studies, for meta-analyses see e.g. Blumenthal (1998) and Rotundo et al. (2001)).  For my theoretical framework I want to show that **our perception of social situations is influenced by our experiences** (which could explain why women, who are disproportionally targeted by sexual harassment, generally perceive milder forms as threatening than men). I haven't been able to find a suitable theory or model that includes this connection between prior experiences and perceptions of social situations, It doesn't have to be related to sexual harassment specifically, but can also be more general. Do you have any suggestions? Thanks so much! (Please upvote to support my quest!)","c_root_id_A":"fq0axu2","c_root_id_B":"fpzq418","created_at_utc_A":1589029551,"created_at_utc_B":1589021899,"score_A":6,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I\u2019m thinking maybe the works of Bourdieu and his Habitus? Perhaps you might find interest in the field of phenomenology which is essentially the study of structures of consciousness as experienced from the first-person point of view.","human_ref_B":"Clinical psychologist here, my first thought was attachment theory. It's a bit more general (and attachment style is shaped by an aggregate of experiences, not a single experience) but it's definitely relevant for intepreting social situations. It might be a bit hard to relate that to gender differences though. Research on trauma might also be useful to you, though I don't have a specific theory that comes to mind. Feel free to ask more, I might have some more input later.  Edit: added a source on attachment theory.  https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/journals\/behavioral-and-brain-sciences\/article\/bowlbyainsworth-attachment-theory\/6D35C7A344107195D97FD7ADAE06C807","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7652.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
{"post_id":"2abwhz","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"If wages were left up to the free market, where do you believe they would end up at? Is there a way to estimate this in a relatively accurate way?","c_root_id_A":"citk9zy","c_root_id_B":"citk16s","created_at_utc_A":1405006576,"created_at_utc_B":1405006088,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"This isn't really an answer, but additional info to the question that needs to be evaluated.  For one, if wages were left entirely to the free market, this would mean child labor is back on the table. This additional population added to the market would serve to drive down wages further than if only adults were able to work.  Secondly, wages vary according to immigration policy of the country in question. Stronger border policies result in higher wages whereas more free border policies result in lower wages. If we are talking entirely free markets, borders don't really exist, in which case this huge potential labor force external to the country would further push down wages.  I would also add that a free market left to its own devices, has been shown to stall when modeled.  > To study free market models, the authors used statistical mechanics methods focusing on the dynamic of wealth exchange over time. These methods were inspired by Boltzmann's theory of kinetic energy exchange between gas molecules during collisions. They found that over time, all the available wealth is concentrated among only a few agents. This is represented by a tail-shaped graph that confirms previous studies showing that wealth distribution follows a power law. >  > As a result, the free market is stalled with no subsequent possible exchanges of wealth, even if wealth were distributed evenly from the start. The authors concluded that regulations for the rules of wealth exchange are necessary to avoid concentration of wealth and stalling of market exchange.","human_ref_B":"Heritage Foundation ranks the US number one in the world for \"labor freedom,\" which includes freedom from wage restrictions: http:\/\/www.heritage.org\/index\/explore  So, look at the US? http:\/\/1.bp.blogspot.com\/-UFM_hDc-Qy4\/Ut9HPb3nwcI\/AAAAAAAAJ24\/tZy2rSESPTs\/s1600\/g-2012-distribution-total-wage-salary-income-us-individuals.png","labels":1,"seconds_difference":488.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
{"post_id":"syh61q","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"Is there a term for describing someone who believes inherently racist ideas and stereotypes, but who makes an exception for some based on their merits? I've been reading about some of the views held by Theodore Roosenvelt regarding race. He seems to have adhered to paternalism, and Social Darwinism, which I think is why his approach to racial and class politics could sometimes seem contradictory. But is there another term for descrbing this sort of behaviour?  It's seems like what someone would believe if they subscribed to a negative, cynical interpretation of Martin Luther King's _I Have A Dream_ speech, like, their core tenet might be along the lines of 'judge a person by their merit but always first assume the worst of them based on stereotype'. Is there a term or expression for such a cynical ideology?   I personally would summarise paternalism, Social Darwinism and the above-mentioned beliefs as racist, which I do not subscribe to, but my question is whether there is an existing term or expression for the afore-mentioned cynical ideology?","c_root_id_A":"hxycsgt","c_root_id_B":"hxz8313","created_at_utc_A":1645530825,"created_at_utc_B":1645546288,"score_A":15,"score_B":47,"human_ref_A":"You might be thinking of *subtyping*.  It is thought to be a method by which a person who holds prejudices maintains them despite evidence suggesting they are not a great way to judge people. I'm in a hurry, but here is an article that seems to address this (among some other phenomena).","human_ref_B":">Is there a term for describing someone who believes inherently racist ideas and stereotypes, but who makes an exception for some based on their merits?   **Racist**, plain and simple, and as you correctly recognized by the end of your post. Human beings are not one-dimensional caricatures, and this also applies to racist people. Harboring preconceived negative attitudes toward a group and its members, such as judging people based on their membership first and \"assuming the worst,\" is textbook prejudice.  If these attitudes concern \"race,\" then it is racial prejudice, i.e., racism.  A racist individual can be prejudiced toward racialized *groups* (e.g., Black people) while retaining the ability to acknowledge positive attributes in *individual* members of said groups. In fact, a person does not require to believe that all members of racialized groups lack any positive traits to be considered a racist. For illustration, see the classic trope associated with racist (and otherwise bigoted) characters: \"You're a credit to your race.\"  More broadly, racist ideology (but also other forms of bigotry) can include both negative beliefs (\"Black people are intellectually inferior to White people\") and ostensibly positive beliefs (\"Black people are superior dancers to White people\").  ---  As I have explained elsewhere, racism can manifest itself in multiple manners, and its expressions can be complex. Humans are complex. We should rid ourselves of stereotypes of racists^(1), who are also human.  Find below some relevant insight from philosopher Lawrence Blum, who argues that racism involves *inferiorization* (i.e., \"treating the racial other as inferior or of lesser value and, secondarily, viewing the racial other as inferior\") and *antipathy* (i.e., \"a strong dislike, often tinged with hostility, toward individuals or groups because of their race.\"):  >Inferiorizing and antipathy racism are distinct. **Some superiority racists do not hate the target of their beliefs. They may have a paternalistic concern and feelings of kindness for persons they regard as their human inferiors. This form of racism was prevalent among slave owners, and characterized many whites\u2019 views of blacks during the segregation era in the United States.** The concern and kindness are misdirected, and demeaning, because the other is not seen as an equal, or even as a full human being; it is a racist form of concern. Nevertheless such attitudes are distinct from antipathy and hatred.  >**On the other side, not every race hater regards the target of her hatred as inferior. In the U.S. antipathy toward Asians and Jews often accompanies, and is in part driven by, a kind of resentment of those seen as in some ways superior (e.g. more successful). And some whites who hate blacks do not really regard blacks as inferior; they may fear and be hostile to them, but fear and hostility are not the same as contempt and other forms of inferiorizing.** (Again, antipathy and contempt may accompany one another). Survey research suggests that pure superiority racism toward blacks has substantially decreased since segregation, more so than hostility-based racism (Schuman et al., pp. 156\u2013157). Nevertheless, the great and persistent racial inequalities in our society provide a standing encouragement to advantaged groups to see disadvantaged groups as somehow deserving their lower status.  ---  All of this applies to prejudice in general. A sexist person can have men *and* women as friends and have positive things to say about all of them (also see the concepts of ambivalent and benevolent sexism), ageist people may be fond of their grandparents (or children) and be personally kind with individuals who are older (or younger) than them, and so forth.  ---  ^(1) (Isn't it ironic?)  ---  Blum, L. (2009). Racism: What it is and what it isn\u2019t. In Education, Democracy, and the Moral Life (pp. 71-84). Springer, Dordrecht.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":15463.0,"score_ratio":3.1333333333}
{"post_id":"1cj7tl","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.66,"history":"From personal observation, a majority of mothers over 35 years old appear to be on some form of antidepressant\/anti-anxiety. Is this observation accurate? Why is this? Is the rate similar in men as well? Why or why not?","c_root_id_A":"c9h4vg5","c_root_id_B":"c9h5436","created_at_utc_A":1366221962,"created_at_utc_B":1366222556,"score_A":7,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"Females have higher reported incidences of depression.  Childbirth itself is also a depression risk factor.    http:\/\/en.m.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Major_depressive_disorder","human_ref_B":"Are you talking about women who give birth after the age of 35? Or are you talking about every woman who had a child at any age being depressed after age 35? You may want to clarify that in your post.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":594.0,"score_ratio":1.7142857143}
{"post_id":"26umyf","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.74,"history":"This is a weird question ... but is it true that many people associate the name \"Chad\" with less-than-pleasant people? If so, where does this stereotype come from?","c_root_id_A":"churg83","c_root_id_B":"chuoix5","created_at_utc_A":1401446988,"created_at_utc_B":1401431189,"score_A":11,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Well, we had something in germany with the name Kevin, an article that said \"Kevin isn't a name, it's a diagnose.\" Kevinism they called it and as it turned out, Kevin was a name, at least in west germany, that was used predominantly by people with low cultural capital (as Bourdieu would have put it) and therefor the association with being \"scum-ish\" (assozial) came to be. I just can't find the source again.","human_ref_B":"I think it's relatively confined to internet circles of nerdy guys. I doubt the average person has this association. But it does exist. Look at the first couple entries for Chad on urbandictionary.com to see what I mean. (Ignore most of the other entries, urbandicitonary.com has a weird habit of people's names being given meanings as jokes by users. So the page for Chad contains both the slang term as well as those jokes.)  As for why they picked Chad, part of it could be the times the name has been popular. Its popularity spiked in the 1970s (source) so few people who are in their 20's whose parents were born a decade or two earlier will not have grown up around many adults named Chad, making it a stereotypically younger name. As for why they picked Chad over any other name that fits this criteria, I don't know.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":15799.0,"score_ratio":1.8333333333}
{"post_id":"urkz1","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"If we abolished all borders and made travelling as easy as possible (No passports etc) what would be most likely to happen?","c_root_id_A":"c4xx7x7","c_root_id_B":"c4xwh82","created_at_utc_A":1339170418,"created_at_utc_B":1339167028,"score_A":58,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Michael Clemens has some of the best work on international migration economics. Here's a good paper.  > **Abstract**: Large numbers of people born in poor countries would like to leave those countries, but barriers  prevent their emigration. Those barriers, according to economists\u2019 best estimates to date, cost the  world economy much more than all remaining barriers to the international movement of goods  and capital combined. Yet economists spend much more time studying the movement of goods  and capital, and when they study migration at all, they focus on the effects of immigration on  nonmigrants in destination countries. I ask why this is the case and sketch a four-point research  agenda on the effects of emigration. Barriers to emigration deserve a research priority that is  commensurate with their likely colossal economic effects.   edit: Table 1 from the paper is pretty jaw-dropping. Estimates of the efficiency gains from moving migration barriers range from 67%-147% of *world* GDP.","human_ref_B":"Are you asking on a global scale? As in, if the earth were to get rid of all travel restrictions and impediments to travel?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3390.0,"score_ratio":14.5}
{"post_id":"urkz1","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"If we abolished all borders and made travelling as easy as possible (No passports etc) what would be most likely to happen?","c_root_id_A":"c4xxe8e","c_root_id_B":"c4xwh82","created_at_utc_A":1339171175,"created_at_utc_B":1339167028,"score_A":16,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"People here need to stop speculating that this question can't be answered unless they know what they are talking about. Economists study the question, so it's a valid (and IMO great) question.  http:\/\/www.aeaweb.org\/articles.php?doi=10.1257\/jep.25.3.83  >The gains to eliminating migration barriers amount to large fractions of world GDP\u2014one or two orders of magnitude larger than the gains from dropping all remaining restrictions on international flows of goods and capital. When it comes to policies that restrict emigration, there appear to be trillion-dollar bills on the sidewalk.","human_ref_B":"Are you asking on a global scale? As in, if the earth were to get rid of all travel restrictions and impediments to travel?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4147.0,"score_ratio":4.0}
{"post_id":"urkz1","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"If we abolished all borders and made travelling as easy as possible (No passports etc) what would be most likely to happen?","c_root_id_A":"c4xxdy8","c_root_id_B":"c4xxe8e","created_at_utc_A":1339171139,"created_at_utc_B":1339171175,"score_A":3,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"You can answer the man without resorting to politics. I think gunsofbrixton answers it best. Also, OP isn't promoting the idea, he is just asking. Calm down, Reddit!","human_ref_B":"People here need to stop speculating that this question can't be answered unless they know what they are talking about. Economists study the question, so it's a valid (and IMO great) question.  http:\/\/www.aeaweb.org\/articles.php?doi=10.1257\/jep.25.3.83  >The gains to eliminating migration barriers amount to large fractions of world GDP\u2014one or two orders of magnitude larger than the gains from dropping all remaining restrictions on international flows of goods and capital. When it comes to policies that restrict emigration, there appear to be trillion-dollar bills on the sidewalk.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":36.0,"score_ratio":5.3333333333}
{"post_id":"urkz1","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"If we abolished all borders and made travelling as easy as possible (No passports etc) what would be most likely to happen?","c_root_id_A":"c4xwh82","c_root_id_B":"c4y59gd","created_at_utc_A":1339167028,"created_at_utc_B":1339205251,"score_A":4,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Are you asking on a global scale? As in, if the earth were to get rid of all travel restrictions and impediments to travel?","human_ref_B":"Right-wing nationalists would sure have some rustled jimmies.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":38223.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
{"post_id":"urkz1","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"If we abolished all borders and made travelling as easy as possible (No passports etc) what would be most likely to happen?","c_root_id_A":"c4xxdy8","c_root_id_B":"c4y59gd","created_at_utc_A":1339171139,"created_at_utc_B":1339205251,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"You can answer the man without resorting to politics. I think gunsofbrixton answers it best. Also, OP isn't promoting the idea, he is just asking. Calm down, Reddit!","human_ref_B":"Right-wing nationalists would sure have some rustled jimmies.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":34112.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
{"post_id":"1tdl2e","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Most religions I know of are thousands of years old but I know Mormonism (1820), Scientology (1954), Jehovah's Witnesses (1870\/19301) and Christian Science (1875) are all new religions that have established themselves and gained a global following. Are there other recent religions that are huge? I assume that sects, gurus, preachers, religions get started, have their time and die down without being remembered.   But some, for some reason, take hold, grow and become established.  I am very curious as to what it takes what mechanism it is that  causes some to catch on.   For me, the \"new\" religions all seem a little crazier than the old but I think that is just a bias I have, since i am not used to hearing about them.   So what are some other religions that have been recently created but have gained a big following and will endure, has endured  after the death of the founder(s)?","c_root_id_A":"ce6whfn","c_root_id_B":"ce6zvjw","created_at_utc_A":1387605625,"created_at_utc_B":1387624362,"score_A":26,"score_B":39,"human_ref_A":"The Baha'i faith. 1844","human_ref_B":"Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists, and Mormons each self-identify as Christian, so they may more accurately be called sects than religions.  Mormonism rose up in the wake of the Second Great Awakening, while the JWs and the Christian Scientists rose up in the wake of the Third Great Awakening. Both the Second and Third Great Awakenings occurred primarily in the United States, unlike the First Great Awakening, which also took hold in Europe.   The United States, protecting the freedom of religion and encouraging the separation of church and state, was a haven for more radical sects and offshoots of Christianity. Most of these offshoots, though, still consider themselves to be part of -- or the sole protector of -- Christianity and the Christian commission. I'm not entirely sure calling them different religions, then, is appropriate.  It was around the end of the Third Great Awakening that unique, non-Christian religions started to emerge. From the late 1880s through the first few decades of the 20th century, New Thought, channeled works (e.g., OAHSPE), Theosophy, Spiritualism, and more magical religions (e.g. The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, The Ordo Templi Orientis) started popping up across Europe and the U.S. In the U.S., especially, these movements found an audience.   The American Ethical Union and others in the Ethical movement of the late 19th century sought to create, essentially, a church of morality and ethical behavior that did neither require the belief in nor the worship of the Divine. While not particularly \"big,\" this movement has had a tremendous amount of influence behind the philosophy of secular humanism and the Humanist movement.   Unitarian Universalism, founded 1961 with over 800,000 members, originated from the Christian Universalist and Christian Unitarian movements. Yet, that religion no longer considers itself to be Christian *per se*. Rather, they honor their roots in the Judeo-Christian tradition, but are open to all types of belief and non-belief.  Soka Gakkai International claims over 12 million members worldwide and is an offshoot of Nichiren Buddhism. One of their beliefs is that repeatedly chanting the title of the Lotus Sutra in Japanese (Nam Myo-ho Renge Kyo) will lead to happiness, wellness, wealth, and enlightenment. SGI started as a lay organization that was affiliated with the Nichiren sect, but they broke away from the Nichiren Shoshu in 1991.   You might also look at Wicca (Gardnerian was founded around 1949-1950) and Transcendental Meditation (1958). Given that Wicca is decentralized and covers many traditions, it's difficult to get solid numbers. I've heard numbers for  neopagans adherents ranging from 250,000 to 1 million in the U.S. Transcendental Meditation claimed something like 5 million adherents in the 1990s.   I think, given the Internet, it's possible that more sects and religions will emerge and will gain more traction over time, with smaller groups living far longer than they would have in the pre-Internet age. That's purely speculation, of course, but it certainly seems like something that could be documented and observed.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":18737.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"1tdl2e","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Most religions I know of are thousands of years old but I know Mormonism (1820), Scientology (1954), Jehovah's Witnesses (1870\/19301) and Christian Science (1875) are all new religions that have established themselves and gained a global following. Are there other recent religions that are huge? I assume that sects, gurus, preachers, religions get started, have their time and die down without being remembered.   But some, for some reason, take hold, grow and become established.  I am very curious as to what it takes what mechanism it is that  causes some to catch on.   For me, the \"new\" religions all seem a little crazier than the old but I think that is just a bias I have, since i am not used to hearing about them.   So what are some other religions that have been recently created but have gained a big following and will endure, has endured  after the death of the founder(s)?","c_root_id_A":"ce6zczy","c_root_id_B":"ce6zvjw","created_at_utc_A":1387620324,"created_at_utc_B":1387624362,"score_A":12,"score_B":39,"human_ref_A":"Not really sure if it counts as a religion, but Falun Gong might be considered on of them. Very new (1992) and according to the Wiki *\"hundreds of thousands\"* followers world wide.","human_ref_B":"Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists, and Mormons each self-identify as Christian, so they may more accurately be called sects than religions.  Mormonism rose up in the wake of the Second Great Awakening, while the JWs and the Christian Scientists rose up in the wake of the Third Great Awakening. Both the Second and Third Great Awakenings occurred primarily in the United States, unlike the First Great Awakening, which also took hold in Europe.   The United States, protecting the freedom of religion and encouraging the separation of church and state, was a haven for more radical sects and offshoots of Christianity. Most of these offshoots, though, still consider themselves to be part of -- or the sole protector of -- Christianity and the Christian commission. I'm not entirely sure calling them different religions, then, is appropriate.  It was around the end of the Third Great Awakening that unique, non-Christian religions started to emerge. From the late 1880s through the first few decades of the 20th century, New Thought, channeled works (e.g., OAHSPE), Theosophy, Spiritualism, and more magical religions (e.g. The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, The Ordo Templi Orientis) started popping up across Europe and the U.S. In the U.S., especially, these movements found an audience.   The American Ethical Union and others in the Ethical movement of the late 19th century sought to create, essentially, a church of morality and ethical behavior that did neither require the belief in nor the worship of the Divine. While not particularly \"big,\" this movement has had a tremendous amount of influence behind the philosophy of secular humanism and the Humanist movement.   Unitarian Universalism, founded 1961 with over 800,000 members, originated from the Christian Universalist and Christian Unitarian movements. Yet, that religion no longer considers itself to be Christian *per se*. Rather, they honor their roots in the Judeo-Christian tradition, but are open to all types of belief and non-belief.  Soka Gakkai International claims over 12 million members worldwide and is an offshoot of Nichiren Buddhism. One of their beliefs is that repeatedly chanting the title of the Lotus Sutra in Japanese (Nam Myo-ho Renge Kyo) will lead to happiness, wellness, wealth, and enlightenment. SGI started as a lay organization that was affiliated with the Nichiren sect, but they broke away from the Nichiren Shoshu in 1991.   You might also look at Wicca (Gardnerian was founded around 1949-1950) and Transcendental Meditation (1958). Given that Wicca is decentralized and covers many traditions, it's difficult to get solid numbers. I've heard numbers for  neopagans adherents ranging from 250,000 to 1 million in the U.S. Transcendental Meditation claimed something like 5 million adherents in the 1990s.   I think, given the Internet, it's possible that more sects and religions will emerge and will gain more traction over time, with smaller groups living far longer than they would have in the pre-Internet age. That's purely speculation, of course, but it certainly seems like something that could be documented and observed.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4038.0,"score_ratio":3.25}
{"post_id":"1tdl2e","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Most religions I know of are thousands of years old but I know Mormonism (1820), Scientology (1954), Jehovah's Witnesses (1870\/19301) and Christian Science (1875) are all new religions that have established themselves and gained a global following. Are there other recent religions that are huge? I assume that sects, gurus, preachers, religions get started, have their time and die down without being remembered.   But some, for some reason, take hold, grow and become established.  I am very curious as to what it takes what mechanism it is that  causes some to catch on.   For me, the \"new\" religions all seem a little crazier than the old but I think that is just a bias I have, since i am not used to hearing about them.   So what are some other religions that have been recently created but have gained a big following and will endure, has endured  after the death of the founder(s)?","c_root_id_A":"ce75vue","c_root_id_B":"ce72w39","created_at_utc_A":1387650386,"created_at_utc_B":1387641287,"score_A":5,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Cao Dai in Vietnam, several million adherents, founded in 1926","human_ref_B":"Pentacostalism.  It dates, effectively, only to the Azusa Street Revival which started in 1906.  Pentacostalism is one of the main things spreading Protestantism in South America and Africa today.  \"In 2011, a Pew Forum study of global Christianity found that there were an estimated 279 million classical Pentecostals, making 4 percent of the total world population and 12.8 percent of the world's Christian population Pentecostal\".","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9099.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
{"post_id":"1tdl2e","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Most religions I know of are thousands of years old but I know Mormonism (1820), Scientology (1954), Jehovah's Witnesses (1870\/19301) and Christian Science (1875) are all new religions that have established themselves and gained a global following. Are there other recent religions that are huge? I assume that sects, gurus, preachers, religions get started, have their time and die down without being remembered.   But some, for some reason, take hold, grow and become established.  I am very curious as to what it takes what mechanism it is that  causes some to catch on.   For me, the \"new\" religions all seem a little crazier than the old but I think that is just a bias I have, since i am not used to hearing about them.   So what are some other religions that have been recently created but have gained a big following and will endure, has endured  after the death of the founder(s)?","c_root_id_A":"ce75vue","c_root_id_B":"ce6zy1t","created_at_utc_A":1387650386,"created_at_utc_B":1387624940,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Cao Dai in Vietnam, several million adherents, founded in 1926","human_ref_B":"Tenrikyo, from around 1854 in Japan. Estimated to have ~4 million followers world-wide.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":25446.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
{"post_id":"1tdl2e","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Most religions I know of are thousands of years old but I know Mormonism (1820), Scientology (1954), Jehovah's Witnesses (1870\/19301) and Christian Science (1875) are all new religions that have established themselves and gained a global following. Are there other recent religions that are huge? I assume that sects, gurus, preachers, religions get started, have their time and die down without being remembered.   But some, for some reason, take hold, grow and become established.  I am very curious as to what it takes what mechanism it is that  causes some to catch on.   For me, the \"new\" religions all seem a little crazier than the old but I think that is just a bias I have, since i am not used to hearing about them.   So what are some other religions that have been recently created but have gained a big following and will endure, has endured  after the death of the founder(s)?","c_root_id_A":"ce75jnc","c_root_id_B":"ce75vue","created_at_utc_A":1387649437,"created_at_utc_B":1387650386,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"moonies! 1-2 million members.  http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Unification_Church","human_ref_B":"Cao Dai in Vietnam, several million adherents, founded in 1926","labels":0,"seconds_difference":949.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
{"post_id":"1tdl2e","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Most religions I know of are thousands of years old but I know Mormonism (1820), Scientology (1954), Jehovah's Witnesses (1870\/19301) and Christian Science (1875) are all new religions that have established themselves and gained a global following. Are there other recent religions that are huge? I assume that sects, gurus, preachers, religions get started, have their time and die down without being remembered.   But some, for some reason, take hold, grow and become established.  I am very curious as to what it takes what mechanism it is that  causes some to catch on.   For me, the \"new\" religions all seem a little crazier than the old but I think that is just a bias I have, since i am not used to hearing about them.   So what are some other religions that have been recently created but have gained a big following and will endure, has endured  after the death of the founder(s)?","c_root_id_A":"ce75vue","c_root_id_B":"ce701w1","created_at_utc_A":1387650386,"created_at_utc_B":1387625811,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Cao Dai in Vietnam, several million adherents, founded in 1926","human_ref_B":"Seich\u014d no Ie, from around 1930 in Japan. Spread to Brazil and has continued after its founder's death in 1985. Claims approx 1.5 million followers world-wide.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":24575.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
{"post_id":"1tdl2e","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Most religions I know of are thousands of years old but I know Mormonism (1820), Scientology (1954), Jehovah's Witnesses (1870\/19301) and Christian Science (1875) are all new religions that have established themselves and gained a global following. Are there other recent religions that are huge? I assume that sects, gurus, preachers, religions get started, have their time and die down without being remembered.   But some, for some reason, take hold, grow and become established.  I am very curious as to what it takes what mechanism it is that  causes some to catch on.   For me, the \"new\" religions all seem a little crazier than the old but I think that is just a bias I have, since i am not used to hearing about them.   So what are some other religions that have been recently created but have gained a big following and will endure, has endured  after the death of the founder(s)?","c_root_id_A":"ce70s9c","c_root_id_B":"ce75vue","created_at_utc_A":1387631509,"created_at_utc_B":1387650386,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Rastafari, 1930s.","human_ref_B":"Cao Dai in Vietnam, several million adherents, founded in 1926","labels":0,"seconds_difference":18877.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
{"post_id":"1tdl2e","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Most religions I know of are thousands of years old but I know Mormonism (1820), Scientology (1954), Jehovah's Witnesses (1870\/19301) and Christian Science (1875) are all new religions that have established themselves and gained a global following. Are there other recent religions that are huge? I assume that sects, gurus, preachers, religions get started, have their time and die down without being remembered.   But some, for some reason, take hold, grow and become established.  I am very curious as to what it takes what mechanism it is that  causes some to catch on.   For me, the \"new\" religions all seem a little crazier than the old but I think that is just a bias I have, since i am not used to hearing about them.   So what are some other religions that have been recently created but have gained a big following and will endure, has endured  after the death of the founder(s)?","c_root_id_A":"ce71yea","c_root_id_B":"ce75vue","created_at_utc_A":1387637629,"created_at_utc_B":1387650386,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Moorish-scientific , http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Moorish_Science_Temple_of_America.  Started in the early 20th century.","human_ref_B":"Cao Dai in Vietnam, several million adherents, founded in 1926","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12757.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
{"post_id":"1tdl2e","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Most religions I know of are thousands of years old but I know Mormonism (1820), Scientology (1954), Jehovah's Witnesses (1870\/19301) and Christian Science (1875) are all new religions that have established themselves and gained a global following. Are there other recent religions that are huge? I assume that sects, gurus, preachers, religions get started, have their time and die down without being remembered.   But some, for some reason, take hold, grow and become established.  I am very curious as to what it takes what mechanism it is that  causes some to catch on.   For me, the \"new\" religions all seem a little crazier than the old but I think that is just a bias I have, since i am not used to hearing about them.   So what are some other religions that have been recently created but have gained a big following and will endure, has endured  after the death of the founder(s)?","c_root_id_A":"ce75vue","c_root_id_B":"ce74tho","created_at_utc_A":1387650386,"created_at_utc_B":1387647361,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Cao Dai in Vietnam, several million adherents, founded in 1926","human_ref_B":"No one has mentioned Ahmadiyya yet.   It dates from the late 19th century, and its founder died in 1908.  (He claimed to be both the Islamic Mahdi and the second coming of Jesus.) The Ahmadis consider themselves Muslims, but they are heavily persecuted in Pakistan (the movement started in Lahore), where many religious figures consider them heretics.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3025.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
{"post_id":"1tdl2e","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Most religions I know of are thousands of years old but I know Mormonism (1820), Scientology (1954), Jehovah's Witnesses (1870\/19301) and Christian Science (1875) are all new religions that have established themselves and gained a global following. Are there other recent religions that are huge? I assume that sects, gurus, preachers, religions get started, have their time and die down without being remembered.   But some, for some reason, take hold, grow and become established.  I am very curious as to what it takes what mechanism it is that  causes some to catch on.   For me, the \"new\" religions all seem a little crazier than the old but I think that is just a bias I have, since i am not used to hearing about them.   So what are some other religions that have been recently created but have gained a big following and will endure, has endured  after the death of the founder(s)?","c_root_id_A":"ce72w39","c_root_id_B":"ce6zy1t","created_at_utc_A":1387641287,"created_at_utc_B":1387624940,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Pentacostalism.  It dates, effectively, only to the Azusa Street Revival which started in 1906.  Pentacostalism is one of the main things spreading Protestantism in South America and Africa today.  \"In 2011, a Pew Forum study of global Christianity found that there were an estimated 279 million classical Pentecostals, making 4 percent of the total world population and 12.8 percent of the world's Christian population Pentecostal\".","human_ref_B":"Tenrikyo, from around 1854 in Japan. Estimated to have ~4 million followers world-wide.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":16347.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"1tdl2e","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Most religions I know of are thousands of years old but I know Mormonism (1820), Scientology (1954), Jehovah's Witnesses (1870\/19301) and Christian Science (1875) are all new religions that have established themselves and gained a global following. Are there other recent religions that are huge? I assume that sects, gurus, preachers, religions get started, have their time and die down without being remembered.   But some, for some reason, take hold, grow and become established.  I am very curious as to what it takes what mechanism it is that  causes some to catch on.   For me, the \"new\" religions all seem a little crazier than the old but I think that is just a bias I have, since i am not used to hearing about them.   So what are some other religions that have been recently created but have gained a big following and will endure, has endured  after the death of the founder(s)?","c_root_id_A":"ce701w1","c_root_id_B":"ce72w39","created_at_utc_A":1387625811,"created_at_utc_B":1387641287,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Seich\u014d no Ie, from around 1930 in Japan. Spread to Brazil and has continued after its founder's death in 1985. Claims approx 1.5 million followers world-wide.","human_ref_B":"Pentacostalism.  It dates, effectively, only to the Azusa Street Revival which started in 1906.  Pentacostalism is one of the main things spreading Protestantism in South America and Africa today.  \"In 2011, a Pew Forum study of global Christianity found that there were an estimated 279 million classical Pentecostals, making 4 percent of the total world population and 12.8 percent of the world's Christian population Pentecostal\".","labels":0,"seconds_difference":15476.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"1tdl2e","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Most religions I know of are thousands of years old but I know Mormonism (1820), Scientology (1954), Jehovah's Witnesses (1870\/19301) and Christian Science (1875) are all new religions that have established themselves and gained a global following. Are there other recent religions that are huge? I assume that sects, gurus, preachers, religions get started, have their time and die down without being remembered.   But some, for some reason, take hold, grow and become established.  I am very curious as to what it takes what mechanism it is that  causes some to catch on.   For me, the \"new\" religions all seem a little crazier than the old but I think that is just a bias I have, since i am not used to hearing about them.   So what are some other religions that have been recently created but have gained a big following and will endure, has endured  after the death of the founder(s)?","c_root_id_A":"ce72w39","c_root_id_B":"ce70s9c","created_at_utc_A":1387641287,"created_at_utc_B":1387631509,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Pentacostalism.  It dates, effectively, only to the Azusa Street Revival which started in 1906.  Pentacostalism is one of the main things spreading Protestantism in South America and Africa today.  \"In 2011, a Pew Forum study of global Christianity found that there were an estimated 279 million classical Pentecostals, making 4 percent of the total world population and 12.8 percent of the world's Christian population Pentecostal\".","human_ref_B":"Rastafari, 1930s.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9778.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"1tdl2e","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Most religions I know of are thousands of years old but I know Mormonism (1820), Scientology (1954), Jehovah's Witnesses (1870\/19301) and Christian Science (1875) are all new religions that have established themselves and gained a global following. Are there other recent religions that are huge? I assume that sects, gurus, preachers, religions get started, have their time and die down without being remembered.   But some, for some reason, take hold, grow and become established.  I am very curious as to what it takes what mechanism it is that  causes some to catch on.   For me, the \"new\" religions all seem a little crazier than the old but I think that is just a bias I have, since i am not used to hearing about them.   So what are some other religions that have been recently created but have gained a big following and will endure, has endured  after the death of the founder(s)?","c_root_id_A":"ce71yea","c_root_id_B":"ce72w39","created_at_utc_A":1387637629,"created_at_utc_B":1387641287,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Moorish-scientific , http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Moorish_Science_Temple_of_America.  Started in the early 20th century.","human_ref_B":"Pentacostalism.  It dates, effectively, only to the Azusa Street Revival which started in 1906.  Pentacostalism is one of the main things spreading Protestantism in South America and Africa today.  \"In 2011, a Pew Forum study of global Christianity found that there were an estimated 279 million classical Pentecostals, making 4 percent of the total world population and 12.8 percent of the world's Christian population Pentecostal\".","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3658.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"1tdl2e","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Most religions I know of are thousands of years old but I know Mormonism (1820), Scientology (1954), Jehovah's Witnesses (1870\/19301) and Christian Science (1875) are all new religions that have established themselves and gained a global following. Are there other recent religions that are huge? I assume that sects, gurus, preachers, religions get started, have their time and die down without being remembered.   But some, for some reason, take hold, grow and become established.  I am very curious as to what it takes what mechanism it is that  causes some to catch on.   For me, the \"new\" religions all seem a little crazier than the old but I think that is just a bias I have, since i am not used to hearing about them.   So what are some other religions that have been recently created but have gained a big following and will endure, has endured  after the death of the founder(s)?","c_root_id_A":"ce75jnc","c_root_id_B":"ce701w1","created_at_utc_A":1387649437,"created_at_utc_B":1387625811,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"moonies! 1-2 million members.  http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Unification_Church","human_ref_B":"Seich\u014d no Ie, from around 1930 in Japan. Spread to Brazil and has continued after its founder's death in 1985. Claims approx 1.5 million followers world-wide.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":23626.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"1tdl2e","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Most religions I know of are thousands of years old but I know Mormonism (1820), Scientology (1954), Jehovah's Witnesses (1870\/19301) and Christian Science (1875) are all new religions that have established themselves and gained a global following. Are there other recent religions that are huge? I assume that sects, gurus, preachers, religions get started, have their time and die down without being remembered.   But some, for some reason, take hold, grow and become established.  I am very curious as to what it takes what mechanism it is that  causes some to catch on.   For me, the \"new\" religions all seem a little crazier than the old but I think that is just a bias I have, since i am not used to hearing about them.   So what are some other religions that have been recently created but have gained a big following and will endure, has endured  after the death of the founder(s)?","c_root_id_A":"ce70s9c","c_root_id_B":"ce75jnc","created_at_utc_A":1387631509,"created_at_utc_B":1387649437,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Rastafari, 1930s.","human_ref_B":"moonies! 1-2 million members.  http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Unification_Church","labels":0,"seconds_difference":17928.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"1tdl2e","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Most religions I know of are thousands of years old but I know Mormonism (1820), Scientology (1954), Jehovah's Witnesses (1870\/19301) and Christian Science (1875) are all new religions that have established themselves and gained a global following. Are there other recent religions that are huge? I assume that sects, gurus, preachers, religions get started, have their time and die down without being remembered.   But some, for some reason, take hold, grow and become established.  I am very curious as to what it takes what mechanism it is that  causes some to catch on.   For me, the \"new\" religions all seem a little crazier than the old but I think that is just a bias I have, since i am not used to hearing about them.   So what are some other religions that have been recently created but have gained a big following and will endure, has endured  after the death of the founder(s)?","c_root_id_A":"ce71yea","c_root_id_B":"ce75jnc","created_at_utc_A":1387637629,"created_at_utc_B":1387649437,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Moorish-scientific , http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Moorish_Science_Temple_of_America.  Started in the early 20th century.","human_ref_B":"moonies! 1-2 million members.  http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Unification_Church","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11808.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"1tdl2e","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Most religions I know of are thousands of years old but I know Mormonism (1820), Scientology (1954), Jehovah's Witnesses (1870\/19301) and Christian Science (1875) are all new religions that have established themselves and gained a global following. Are there other recent religions that are huge? I assume that sects, gurus, preachers, religions get started, have their time and die down without being remembered.   But some, for some reason, take hold, grow and become established.  I am very curious as to what it takes what mechanism it is that  causes some to catch on.   For me, the \"new\" religions all seem a little crazier than the old but I think that is just a bias I have, since i am not used to hearing about them.   So what are some other religions that have been recently created but have gained a big following and will endure, has endured  after the death of the founder(s)?","c_root_id_A":"ce75jnc","c_root_id_B":"ce74tho","created_at_utc_A":1387649437,"created_at_utc_B":1387647361,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"moonies! 1-2 million members.  http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Unification_Church","human_ref_B":"No one has mentioned Ahmadiyya yet.   It dates from the late 19th century, and its founder died in 1908.  (He claimed to be both the Islamic Mahdi and the second coming of Jesus.) The Ahmadis consider themselves Muslims, but they are heavily persecuted in Pakistan (the movement started in Lahore), where many religious figures consider them heretics.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2076.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"r1bsew","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"What is the term for the intangible advantages of having dedicated, well-educated and well-connected parents? People with dedicated, well-educated and well-connected parents have non-monetary advantages. Examples:  A dedicated parent has more time to tutor their children. Well-educated and well-connected parents know how to get their children into the best schools. Well-educated parents take their children to the hospital when they're sick and not to a shaman. Et cetera.  Is there a catch-all term for all these advantages?","c_root_id_A":"hlxod5j","c_root_id_B":"hlxuxgv","created_at_utc_A":1637780543,"created_at_utc_B":1637783124,"score_A":21,"score_B":80,"human_ref_A":"It's privilege. In social sciences, that's what you call it when every social advantage adds up.  A relevant paper would be *Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color* (1994) by prof. Kimberl\u00e9 Crenshaw.  Here is a link to the PDF, and a quote from the first page:  >Over the last two decades, women have organized against the almost routine violence that shapes their lives. Drawing from the strength of shared experience, women have recognized that the political demands of millions speak more powerfully than the pleas of a few isolated voices. This politicization in turn has transformed the way we understand violence against women. For example, battering and rape, once seen as private (family matters) and aberrational (errant sexual aggression), are now largely recognized as part of a broad-scale system of domination that affects women as a class. This process of recognizing as social and systemic what was formerly perceived as isolated and individual has also characterized the identity politics of people of color and gays and lesbians, among others. For all these groups, identity-based politics has been a source of strength, community, and intellectual development.  This sentence is especially important:  >battering and rape, once seen as private (family matters) and aberrational (errant sexual aggression), are now largely recognized as part of a broad-scale system of domination that affects women as a class.  That works for every group, not just women. We are all affected by *broad-scale systems* that determine our outcomes.  So as you've noticed, being well-connected, having a higher education, and being attentive are all factors that set up a child for success. Who *usually* has those things? White, middle-class, heterosexual Western parents do. And who is less likely to have the time, money or connections? Literally everyone else: single moms who work two jobs, newly arrived immigrants who are busy learning the language, anyone who is poor, anyone who's disabled and focusing on managing disease, anyone who is disadvantaged because of racism... That's intersectionality in a nutshell.","human_ref_B":"Agree that privilege works, another concept is capital. Bourdieu distinguishes between social, cultural, and economic [capital (pdf)] (https:\/\/www.academia.edu\/download\/56148162\/Bourdieu_The_Forms_of_Capital.pdf). Economic capital is money, assets, etcetera. Social capital is the people that you know and the social influence that you have. So access to favors, information, knowing who to ask what. Cultural capital includes schooling and diplomas, and art-stuff that you possess, but also know-how of acting 'right' for certain situations. So not only knowing what are good schools to get into, but also what extracurriculars to take to get there, how to speak with teachers in a way they relate to and approve, etcetera. As you rightly point out, all of these things are sources of power. In Bourdieu's terms, people with access to a lot of capital can often (but not always, and not unconditionally) transfer it to other types.  ETA: and all of these are transferred intergenerationally, which actually was your question.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2581.0,"score_ratio":3.8095238095}
{"post_id":"r1bsew","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"What is the term for the intangible advantages of having dedicated, well-educated and well-connected parents? People with dedicated, well-educated and well-connected parents have non-monetary advantages. Examples:  A dedicated parent has more time to tutor their children. Well-educated and well-connected parents know how to get their children into the best schools. Well-educated parents take their children to the hospital when they're sick and not to a shaman. Et cetera.  Is there a catch-all term for all these advantages?","c_root_id_A":"hlyyyie","c_root_id_B":"hlz0bww","created_at_utc_A":1637799697,"created_at_utc_B":1637800318,"score_A":5,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"Forms of capital and Bourdieusian class analysis would be the place to start.  Well-connected would be covered by social capital and well-educated covered by cultural capital - which includes not just education but your accent, posture, ability to navigate social situations, tastes in culture, etc.   *The Class Ceiling* has some really good explanations for the way these intangible qualities help already-advantaged folks get ahead in elite professions, they compare it to having a following wind behind you propelling you forward.  Edit - citations\/useful works on cultural\/social capital:  Distinction (Borudieu, 1987) - https:\/\/www.routledge.com\/Distinction-A-Social-Critique-of-the-Judgement-of-Taste\/Bourdieu\/p\/book\/9780415567886  Class Ceiling (Friedman & Laurison, 2019) - https:\/\/policy.bristoluniversitypress.co.uk\/the-class-ceiling  Finding From Great British Class Survey (Savage et al, 2013) - https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/full\/10.1177\/0038038513481128","human_ref_B":"I\u2019ve heard it referred to as generational privilege. Here is an article on in. https:\/\/www.russellsage.org\/publications\/persistence-privilege-and-parenting  The gist being that if you have parents who have had access to and knowledge of available social resources, their children also have a better likelihood of accessing said resources.   There\u2019s also another term about how for example children of medical doctors tend to also go in the profession or how college educated parents are also likely to have college educated children. I have to ask my wife what the term is. [just asked the wife. This concept is known as \u201cgenerational occupation\u201d]","labels":0,"seconds_difference":621.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
{"post_id":"19t2tk","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Economics: if the central bank creates money through open market operations by buying government debt, what would happen if a country had no debt? How would it create money?","c_root_id_A":"c8r2x6o","c_root_id_B":"c8r4uz0","created_at_utc_A":1362615934,"created_at_utc_B":1362621939,"score_A":5,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"The central bank doesn't create money through OMOs. Money is created by law. The bank manipulates how much money there is with OMO.  If a country had no debt, it would not be able to use OMO to manipulate the money supply. It would either not control the money supply discretionarily, or it would use more crude tools.","human_ref_B":"The C.B. doesn't have to deal in short-term government debt. It could distribute freshly-minted currency in some other way.  Fun fact: this was a live policy discussion back in the late 1990s, when there was a nonzero chance that the US would run surpluses big enough, over the foreseeable future, to pay down its entire outstanding debt burden. (edit: crosspost with \/u\/blargyblargblarg)  How far we've come...  Anyway, if you want to get into the nitty-gritty of what the NY Fed desk would do...they could deal in S&P index funds, or they could helicopter drop money onto private households, or perhaps set up a market to buy and sell corporate debt. I don't think any of these options is without flaws - the Fed doesn't need to be any more of a hedge fund than it already is - but that's how it might go down.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6005.0,"score_ratio":1.8}
{"post_id":"19t2tk","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Economics: if the central bank creates money through open market operations by buying government debt, what would happen if a country had no debt? How would it create money?","c_root_id_A":"c8r49ml","c_root_id_B":"c8r4uz0","created_at_utc_A":1362620141,"created_at_utc_B":1362621939,"score_A":3,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"Pipesthepipes nailed it, but also worth noting: money \"created\" through OMO is more *activated* than created, since it was already on someone's books.","human_ref_B":"The C.B. doesn't have to deal in short-term government debt. It could distribute freshly-minted currency in some other way.  Fun fact: this was a live policy discussion back in the late 1990s, when there was a nonzero chance that the US would run surpluses big enough, over the foreseeable future, to pay down its entire outstanding debt burden. (edit: crosspost with \/u\/blargyblargblarg)  How far we've come...  Anyway, if you want to get into the nitty-gritty of what the NY Fed desk would do...they could deal in S&P index funds, or they could helicopter drop money onto private households, or perhaps set up a market to buy and sell corporate debt. I don't think any of these options is without flaws - the Fed doesn't need to be any more of a hedge fund than it already is - but that's how it might go down.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1798.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
{"post_id":"19t2tk","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Economics: if the central bank creates money through open market operations by buying government debt, what would happen if a country had no debt? How would it create money?","c_root_id_A":"c8racr9","c_root_id_B":"c8r2x6o","created_at_utc_A":1362640629,"created_at_utc_B":1362615934,"score_A":6,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Central banks can increase money supply by buying *anything*, they usually restrict themselves to financial assets, but this still leaves many possibilities apart from government debt.  Foreign currency is one obvious alternative. The Hong Kong government has essentially no debt. The HK Monetary Authority essentially increases money supply by buying US dollars.","human_ref_B":"The central bank doesn't create money through OMOs. Money is created by law. The bank manipulates how much money there is with OMO.  If a country had no debt, it would not be able to use OMO to manipulate the money supply. It would either not control the money supply discretionarily, or it would use more crude tools.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":24695.0,"score_ratio":1.2}
{"post_id":"19t2tk","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Economics: if the central bank creates money through open market operations by buying government debt, what would happen if a country had no debt? How would it create money?","c_root_id_A":"c8r49ml","c_root_id_B":"c8racr9","created_at_utc_A":1362620141,"created_at_utc_B":1362640629,"score_A":3,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Pipesthepipes nailed it, but also worth noting: money \"created\" through OMO is more *activated* than created, since it was already on someone's books.","human_ref_B":"Central banks can increase money supply by buying *anything*, they usually restrict themselves to financial assets, but this still leaves many possibilities apart from government debt.  Foreign currency is one obvious alternative. The Hong Kong government has essentially no debt. The HK Monetary Authority essentially increases money supply by buying US dollars.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":20488.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"15cx81","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Do all cultures have science fiction? I guess I would define science fiction as fiction in which people use technology that does exist at the time of its writing. What kind of culture leads to the writing of science fiction?","c_root_id_A":"c7lg07c","c_root_id_B":"c7ldwvf","created_at_utc_A":1356345835,"created_at_utc_B":1356330845,"score_A":38,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"I cannot find the thread but I saw a similar but different question popping up some time ago: \"How did the Romans saw the future?\".  The answer was that Science Fiction is relatively new as we didn't see technology actually advancing during our own lifetime before the industrial revolution. Hence, Science Fiction is a fairly new genre, people don't start guessing of what technologies comes next if it doesn't even change to begin with. And for third-world cultures: they can predict the future of their own society: looking at the first world.","human_ref_B":"You should also try asking this in r\/AskHistorians too. They would probably have a concrete answer to this as well.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":14990.0,"score_ratio":4.75}
{"post_id":"15cx81","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Do all cultures have science fiction? I guess I would define science fiction as fiction in which people use technology that does exist at the time of its writing. What kind of culture leads to the writing of science fiction?","c_root_id_A":"c7lg07c","c_root_id_B":"c7lfa5z","created_at_utc_A":1356345835,"created_at_utc_B":1356339110,"score_A":38,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I cannot find the thread but I saw a similar but different question popping up some time ago: \"How did the Romans saw the future?\".  The answer was that Science Fiction is relatively new as we didn't see technology actually advancing during our own lifetime before the industrial revolution. Hence, Science Fiction is a fairly new genre, people don't start guessing of what technologies comes next if it doesn't even change to begin with. And for third-world cultures: they can predict the future of their own society: looking at the first world.","human_ref_B":"I would imagine the answer to this is probably going to be \"Yes... and no\".   Where as Science Fiction, as we are used to it, comes from a cultural legacy of previous similar stories which are added to, altered and rewritten over time, until in its present form is a set and understandable genre. I cannot imagine this being the case for many ancestral cultures. Sure we might find mythic texts with elements of it, but it won't be the same sort of stuff as we are used to.   I suppose if it depends where you draw the line. Would an early man, telling his friends about his idea for a sword, count as science fiction?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6725.0,"score_ratio":7.6}
{"post_id":"15cx81","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Do all cultures have science fiction? I guess I would define science fiction as fiction in which people use technology that does exist at the time of its writing. What kind of culture leads to the writing of science fiction?","c_root_id_A":"c7ldwvf","c_root_id_B":"c7lgec9","created_at_utc_A":1356330845,"created_at_utc_B":1356350235,"score_A":8,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"You should also try asking this in r\/AskHistorians too. They would probably have a concrete answer to this as well.","human_ref_B":"science fiction is the magic of the industrial era.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":19390.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"15cx81","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Do all cultures have science fiction? I guess I would define science fiction as fiction in which people use technology that does exist at the time of its writing. What kind of culture leads to the writing of science fiction?","c_root_id_A":"c7lgec9","c_root_id_B":"c7lfa5z","created_at_utc_A":1356350235,"created_at_utc_B":1356339110,"score_A":16,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"science fiction is the magic of the industrial era.","human_ref_B":"I would imagine the answer to this is probably going to be \"Yes... and no\".   Where as Science Fiction, as we are used to it, comes from a cultural legacy of previous similar stories which are added to, altered and rewritten over time, until in its present form is a set and understandable genre. I cannot imagine this being the case for many ancestral cultures. Sure we might find mythic texts with elements of it, but it won't be the same sort of stuff as we are used to.   I suppose if it depends where you draw the line. Would an early man, telling his friends about his idea for a sword, count as science fiction?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11125.0,"score_ratio":3.2}
{"post_id":"15cx81","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Do all cultures have science fiction? I guess I would define science fiction as fiction in which people use technology that does exist at the time of its writing. What kind of culture leads to the writing of science fiction?","c_root_id_A":"c7lhb9s","c_root_id_B":"c7lfa5z","created_at_utc_A":1356358808,"created_at_utc_B":1356339110,"score_A":6,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"\"True History\", written by Lucian in the 2nd century, details a trip to the moon in a flying ship. There are aliens as well. It's written as satire, but I think it's fair to call this one of the earliest examples of Science Fiction. http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Lucian","human_ref_B":"I would imagine the answer to this is probably going to be \"Yes... and no\".   Where as Science Fiction, as we are used to it, comes from a cultural legacy of previous similar stories which are added to, altered and rewritten over time, until in its present form is a set and understandable genre. I cannot imagine this being the case for many ancestral cultures. Sure we might find mythic texts with elements of it, but it won't be the same sort of stuff as we are used to.   I suppose if it depends where you draw the line. Would an early man, telling his friends about his idea for a sword, count as science fiction?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":19698.0,"score_ratio":1.2}
{"post_id":"15cx81","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Do all cultures have science fiction? I guess I would define science fiction as fiction in which people use technology that does exist at the time of its writing. What kind of culture leads to the writing of science fiction?","c_root_id_A":"c7lhb9s","c_root_id_B":"c7lgf1d","created_at_utc_A":1356358808,"created_at_utc_B":1356350452,"score_A":6,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"\"True History\", written by Lucian in the 2nd century, details a trip to the moon in a flying ship. There are aliens as well. It's written as satire, but I think it's fair to call this one of the earliest examples of Science Fiction. http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Lucian","human_ref_B":"No, not in the way that you likely mean. Science Fiction in the sense of technological improvements is very much a Western phenomena. There are a few cultural stories about future events (think Christian prophecies) but rarely, if ever, do they involve technology. Technology as a cultural focus is very much part of Western Culture.  I would say Western interest in Science Fiction comes as a reaction to the influence of technology on Western Culture. Few cultures have been changed by technological developments so rapidly as Western Culture. Our culture typically focuses around technology and the uses of it and as a result, our stories about the future all involve some sort of technological advancement that changes who we are.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8356.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"zy11t","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"Why do children's films always paint every conflict as black and white, with an obvious good and bad side? Any Disney or Pixar movie in the past always has a good character which struggles against some foe by mustering help along the way, which in the end they are victorious from. Why have almost of all of them only presented one side, and if they do show the other side of the story, it is always some trivial wrong which evil-doer obviously is in the wrong for justifying an evil deed which is way out of proportion? Do filmmakers just think their target audience is incapable of dealing with gray areas?","c_root_id_A":"c68qney","c_root_id_B":"c68qrjz","created_at_utc_A":1347757907,"created_at_utc_B":1347758456,"score_A":2,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"It has both to do with younger childrens cognitive ability and the didactic nature of how we raise children. Right and wrong are central concepts for (basically?) all human societies and imparting that knowledge to our children is generally viewed as necessary.","human_ref_B":"I don't think this is limited to children's films; this applies to mainstream films of all types. Whether it's comedies, horror, superhero movies, children's films or any other genre, the most popular films almost invariably feature a *good* side (the protagonist) and a *bad* side (the mean boss, the terrorist, the ex-boyfriend, the other country, etc.).   This gets at the first point of TheHorselessHeadsman, that these films aren't primarily out to teach lessons. Making a clear good guy and a bad guy is a much, much easier film to make than one that gets into nuances truths about all parties that would more accurately reflect reality.   As for the idea that young children have trouble handling complex moral situations: that maybe true (and may not be...perhaps it's harder to gauge the effect of more nuanced moral lessons on children because their thoughts on it are, well, more nuanced). Even so, I think you can make films that handle very simple moral themes (love your family, don't be a dick, earth is really important, etc.) without having a Goofus-and-Gallant type dichotomy. Though, admittedly, I can't think of one example off-hand. I guess the challenge is up to the filmmakers, then.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":549.0,"score_ratio":8.5}
{"post_id":"zy11t","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"Why do children's films always paint every conflict as black and white, with an obvious good and bad side? Any Disney or Pixar movie in the past always has a good character which struggles against some foe by mustering help along the way, which in the end they are victorious from. Why have almost of all of them only presented one side, and if they do show the other side of the story, it is always some trivial wrong which evil-doer obviously is in the wrong for justifying an evil deed which is way out of proportion? Do filmmakers just think their target audience is incapable of dealing with gray areas?","c_root_id_A":"c68qney","c_root_id_B":"c68qtyt","created_at_utc_A":1347757907,"created_at_utc_B":1347758778,"score_A":2,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"It has both to do with younger childrens cognitive ability and the didactic nature of how we raise children. Right and wrong are central concepts for (basically?) all human societies and imparting that knowledge to our children is generally viewed as necessary.","human_ref_B":"I don't know if you've ever read Joseph Campbell's \"Hero With A Thousand Faces,\" (if you haven't, you should - it's excellent) but one possible answer to your question lies within some of the theories he lays out in the book.  In the work he advances the idea that legends, and the heroes they contain, serve to lay out a template for proper behavior in a society. The hero (or 'monomyth') is endowed with various traits that are considered desirable in  a specific society, and by telling these epic stories, future generations are conditioned as to how to behave.   The modern day analogue of Campbell's epic story can be found in Disney movies. In fact, some Disney writers wrote stories using Campbell's outline of the hero's journey as a guide. (Somewhat Sketchy Source.)  The writers of Disney\/Pixar films aren't concerned with presenting the tale of the villain. The goal of their films isn't to explore the complexities of human nature; their goal is create a monomyth, a hero figure, that serves as a vehicle for morality and cultural values.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":871.0,"score_ratio":5.0}
{"post_id":"zy11t","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"Why do children's films always paint every conflict as black and white, with an obvious good and bad side? Any Disney or Pixar movie in the past always has a good character which struggles against some foe by mustering help along the way, which in the end they are victorious from. Why have almost of all of them only presented one side, and if they do show the other side of the story, it is always some trivial wrong which evil-doer obviously is in the wrong for justifying an evil deed which is way out of proportion? Do filmmakers just think their target audience is incapable of dealing with gray areas?","c_root_id_A":"c68si9b","c_root_id_B":"c68ti8v","created_at_utc_A":1347766718,"created_at_utc_B":1347771559,"score_A":6,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"Speculative only, but:  It might be possible to blame it on the originally oral nature of a lot of the stories we pass on to kids, and then habit as we adapt to our highly literate digital world. (Sorry for the outdated source, but this is where I heard it) Walter Ong's 1982 *Orality and Language* cites  formulas, redundancy, conservativism, and \"heavy\"\/ heroic figures as features of oral literature.  All these things make stories stickier and easier to remember, but they also lead to a simplification of characters in order to make them \"heavier\".  [Most archetypes could be considered \"heavy\" characters. The Chosen One, The Mentor, The Trickster, The Dirty Old Man... These characters are composed mainly of a small set of defining characteristics and are therefore easily memorable as That Guy With The Thing]","human_ref_B":"This is an American\/Western construct. If you search you can find childrens movies that aren't inline with the Disney construct of good vs. bad. I show my kids foreign children's movies because you can find movies that are not like that. I like Hayao Miyazaki movies, the stories are more about personal connections.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4841.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"zy11t","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"Why do children's films always paint every conflict as black and white, with an obvious good and bad side? Any Disney or Pixar movie in the past always has a good character which struggles against some foe by mustering help along the way, which in the end they are victorious from. Why have almost of all of them only presented one side, and if they do show the other side of the story, it is always some trivial wrong which evil-doer obviously is in the wrong for justifying an evil deed which is way out of proportion? Do filmmakers just think their target audience is incapable of dealing with gray areas?","c_root_id_A":"c68qney","c_root_id_B":"c68ti8v","created_at_utc_A":1347757907,"created_at_utc_B":1347771559,"score_A":2,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"It has both to do with younger childrens cognitive ability and the didactic nature of how we raise children. Right and wrong are central concepts for (basically?) all human societies and imparting that knowledge to our children is generally viewed as necessary.","human_ref_B":"This is an American\/Western construct. If you search you can find childrens movies that aren't inline with the Disney construct of good vs. bad. I show my kids foreign children's movies because you can find movies that are not like that. I like Hayao Miyazaki movies, the stories are more about personal connections.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":13652.0,"score_ratio":4.5}
{"post_id":"zy11t","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"Why do children's films always paint every conflict as black and white, with an obvious good and bad side? Any Disney or Pixar movie in the past always has a good character which struggles against some foe by mustering help along the way, which in the end they are victorious from. Why have almost of all of them only presented one side, and if they do show the other side of the story, it is always some trivial wrong which evil-doer obviously is in the wrong for justifying an evil deed which is way out of proportion? Do filmmakers just think their target audience is incapable of dealing with gray areas?","c_root_id_A":"c68uvw8","c_root_id_B":"c68vysa","created_at_utc_A":1347780098,"created_at_utc_B":1347791086,"score_A":5,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"they are both archetypal and stereotypical and they allow the reproduction of (usually conservative) moral values, through simplified, often mythological, forms.    As already pointed, this has to do with the target's ability to process complex information... but it also relates to a social process which starts from the birth, and its common to every single one of us... the fact that our identity is formed (among other processes) by internalizing *the other*, more often than not, by polarizing and differentiating from it.","human_ref_B":"WALL-E is an example of a Pixar that doesn't fit your mold. There really are not any bad characters. There were some bureaucrats that made some bad decisions centuries prior and the antagonist was merely doing what he had been programmed to do long before.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10988.0,"score_ratio":1.2}
{"post_id":"zy11t","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"Why do children's films always paint every conflict as black and white, with an obvious good and bad side? Any Disney or Pixar movie in the past always has a good character which struggles against some foe by mustering help along the way, which in the end they are victorious from. Why have almost of all of them only presented one side, and if they do show the other side of the story, it is always some trivial wrong which evil-doer obviously is in the wrong for justifying an evil deed which is way out of proportion? Do filmmakers just think their target audience is incapable of dealing with gray areas?","c_root_id_A":"c68vysa","c_root_id_B":"c68tl1h","created_at_utc_A":1347791086,"created_at_utc_B":1347771962,"score_A":6,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"WALL-E is an example of a Pixar that doesn't fit your mold. There really are not any bad characters. There were some bureaucrats that made some bad decisions centuries prior and the antagonist was merely doing what he had been programmed to do long before.","human_ref_B":"Studio Ghibli makes movies that are more complex and not always so black-and-white. From what I remember,  European children's fairy tales and Greek mythology were both more morally-grey than what you see in American movies made for children. Or adults for that matter.   ** I think it comes down to money. ** Producers know they will make more revenue at the box-office and toy sales if it is simple and has a happy ending.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":19124.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"zy11t","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"Why do children's films always paint every conflict as black and white, with an obvious good and bad side? Any Disney or Pixar movie in the past always has a good character which struggles against some foe by mustering help along the way, which in the end they are victorious from. Why have almost of all of them only presented one side, and if they do show the other side of the story, it is always some trivial wrong which evil-doer obviously is in the wrong for justifying an evil deed which is way out of proportion? Do filmmakers just think their target audience is incapable of dealing with gray areas?","c_root_id_A":"c68qney","c_root_id_B":"c68vysa","created_at_utc_A":1347757907,"created_at_utc_B":1347791086,"score_A":2,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"It has both to do with younger childrens cognitive ability and the didactic nature of how we raise children. Right and wrong are central concepts for (basically?) all human societies and imparting that knowledge to our children is generally viewed as necessary.","human_ref_B":"WALL-E is an example of a Pixar that doesn't fit your mold. There really are not any bad characters. There were some bureaucrats that made some bad decisions centuries prior and the antagonist was merely doing what he had been programmed to do long before.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":33179.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
{"post_id":"zy11t","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"Why do children's films always paint every conflict as black and white, with an obvious good and bad side? Any Disney or Pixar movie in the past always has a good character which struggles against some foe by mustering help along the way, which in the end they are victorious from. Why have almost of all of them only presented one side, and if they do show the other side of the story, it is always some trivial wrong which evil-doer obviously is in the wrong for justifying an evil deed which is way out of proportion? Do filmmakers just think their target audience is incapable of dealing with gray areas?","c_root_id_A":"c68si9b","c_root_id_B":"c68qney","created_at_utc_A":1347766718,"created_at_utc_B":1347757907,"score_A":6,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Speculative only, but:  It might be possible to blame it on the originally oral nature of a lot of the stories we pass on to kids, and then habit as we adapt to our highly literate digital world. (Sorry for the outdated source, but this is where I heard it) Walter Ong's 1982 *Orality and Language* cites  formulas, redundancy, conservativism, and \"heavy\"\/ heroic figures as features of oral literature.  All these things make stories stickier and easier to remember, but they also lead to a simplification of characters in order to make them \"heavier\".  [Most archetypes could be considered \"heavy\" characters. The Chosen One, The Mentor, The Trickster, The Dirty Old Man... These characters are composed mainly of a small set of defining characteristics and are therefore easily memorable as That Guy With The Thing]","human_ref_B":"It has both to do with younger childrens cognitive ability and the didactic nature of how we raise children. Right and wrong are central concepts for (basically?) all human societies and imparting that knowledge to our children is generally viewed as necessary.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8811.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
{"post_id":"zy11t","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"Why do children's films always paint every conflict as black and white, with an obvious good and bad side? Any Disney or Pixar movie in the past always has a good character which struggles against some foe by mustering help along the way, which in the end they are victorious from. Why have almost of all of them only presented one side, and if they do show the other side of the story, it is always some trivial wrong which evil-doer obviously is in the wrong for justifying an evil deed which is way out of proportion? Do filmmakers just think their target audience is incapable of dealing with gray areas?","c_root_id_A":"c68uvw8","c_root_id_B":"c68tl1h","created_at_utc_A":1347780098,"created_at_utc_B":1347771962,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"they are both archetypal and stereotypical and they allow the reproduction of (usually conservative) moral values, through simplified, often mythological, forms.    As already pointed, this has to do with the target's ability to process complex information... but it also relates to a social process which starts from the birth, and its common to every single one of us... the fact that our identity is formed (among other processes) by internalizing *the other*, more often than not, by polarizing and differentiating from it.","human_ref_B":"Studio Ghibli makes movies that are more complex and not always so black-and-white. From what I remember,  European children's fairy tales and Greek mythology were both more morally-grey than what you see in American movies made for children. Or adults for that matter.   ** I think it comes down to money. ** Producers know they will make more revenue at the box-office and toy sales if it is simple and has a happy ending.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8136.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
{"post_id":"zy11t","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"Why do children's films always paint every conflict as black and white, with an obvious good and bad side? Any Disney or Pixar movie in the past always has a good character which struggles against some foe by mustering help along the way, which in the end they are victorious from. Why have almost of all of them only presented one side, and if they do show the other side of the story, it is always some trivial wrong which evil-doer obviously is in the wrong for justifying an evil deed which is way out of proportion? Do filmmakers just think their target audience is incapable of dealing with gray areas?","c_root_id_A":"c68uvw8","c_root_id_B":"c68qney","created_at_utc_A":1347780098,"created_at_utc_B":1347757907,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"they are both archetypal and stereotypical and they allow the reproduction of (usually conservative) moral values, through simplified, often mythological, forms.    As already pointed, this has to do with the target's ability to process complex information... but it also relates to a social process which starts from the birth, and its common to every single one of us... the fact that our identity is formed (among other processes) by internalizing *the other*, more often than not, by polarizing and differentiating from it.","human_ref_B":"It has both to do with younger childrens cognitive ability and the didactic nature of how we raise children. Right and wrong are central concepts for (basically?) all human societies and imparting that knowledge to our children is generally viewed as necessary.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":22191.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
{"post_id":"zy11t","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"Why do children's films always paint every conflict as black and white, with an obvious good and bad side? Any Disney or Pixar movie in the past always has a good character which struggles against some foe by mustering help along the way, which in the end they are victorious from. Why have almost of all of them only presented one side, and if they do show the other side of the story, it is always some trivial wrong which evil-doer obviously is in the wrong for justifying an evil deed which is way out of proportion? Do filmmakers just think their target audience is incapable of dealing with gray areas?","c_root_id_A":"c68tl1h","c_root_id_B":"c68qney","created_at_utc_A":1347771962,"created_at_utc_B":1347757907,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Studio Ghibli makes movies that are more complex and not always so black-and-white. From what I remember,  European children's fairy tales and Greek mythology were both more morally-grey than what you see in American movies made for children. Or adults for that matter.   ** I think it comes down to money. ** Producers know they will make more revenue at the box-office and toy sales if it is simple and has a happy ending.","human_ref_B":"It has both to do with younger childrens cognitive ability and the didactic nature of how we raise children. Right and wrong are central concepts for (basically?) all human societies and imparting that knowledge to our children is generally viewed as necessary.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":14055.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"zy11t","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"Why do children's films always paint every conflict as black and white, with an obvious good and bad side? Any Disney or Pixar movie in the past always has a good character which struggles against some foe by mustering help along the way, which in the end they are victorious from. Why have almost of all of them only presented one side, and if they do show the other side of the story, it is always some trivial wrong which evil-doer obviously is in the wrong for justifying an evil deed which is way out of proportion? Do filmmakers just think their target audience is incapable of dealing with gray areas?","c_root_id_A":"c68qney","c_root_id_B":"c68wom3","created_at_utc_A":1347757907,"created_at_utc_B":1347799604,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"It has both to do with younger childrens cognitive ability and the didactic nature of how we raise children. Right and wrong are central concepts for (basically?) all human societies and imparting that knowledge to our children is generally viewed as necessary.","human_ref_B":"WALL-E and Up, I think, were very nuanced.  I think the antagonist and protagonist of *Up* were actually two people facing similar problems in different ways.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":41697.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"ok3oxc","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"What are the prevailing academic conceptions of what gender is? Sorry for the awkward title.  I want to clarify up front that I am not questioning the validity of any gender people identify with. My question is rooted in a realization that the concept of gender I grew up with is outdated, and that it was always insufficient, maybe even incoherent, to begin with.  I grew up in a conservative rural town in the '80s. The concept of being transgender didn't seem to exist at all in local discourse, so my only exposure to the concept was through talk shows like Donahue and Oprah. From those, I picked up the idea that being transgender was being \"a woman trapped in a man's body\" and, without medical transitioning, always dysphoric. Gender itself was seen as an immutable characteristic that, I now realize, was never really defined except as the presence or absence of dysphoria.  In the '90s, that notion of gender was taken as given by the people I associated with, but with an increasing understanding that gender roles and gender presentation were distinct from gender itself. One could be what we now call a cis man and still enjoy female-coded dress and activities.  In recent years, I've learned that a person can be trans without dysphoria and without a desire for medical transitioning. That's totally cool! But it leaves me without any real understanding of what people are talking about when they talk about gender. It seems some younger conflate gender with gender expression and gender roles, but that conflicts with my understanding (which I want to emphasize I'm 100% ready to change) of those things being distinct from gender itself.  So from an academic perspective, what *are* people talking about when they talk about gender?","c_root_id_A":"h55rr5x","c_root_id_B":"h55pdxg","created_at_utc_A":1626274338,"created_at_utc_B":1626273254,"score_A":31,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"Your mileage may vary regarding the details of how to define gender, but broadly speaking it is understood to be the meaning attached to being a \"man\" or a \"woman\" (or other similar options) within a given society - the members of which co-construct meaning through social interaction and communication. It refers to concepts such as masculinity and femininity. Therefore, gender represents what people expect of gendered people, which translates into gender norms, gender roles, etc. and it informs gender expression, gender identity, etc.  ---  Below a selection of definitions provided by different sources, to illustrate the above:  According to the *APA Dictionary of Psychology*, gender is:  >the condition of being male, female, or neuter. In a human context, the distinction between gender and sex reflects the usage of these terms: Sex usually refers to the biological aspects of maleness or femaleness, whereas **gender implies the psychological, behavioral, social, and cultural aspects of being male or female (i.e., masculinity or femininity).**   According to sociologist John Scott (*A Dictionary of Sociology*):  >According to Ann Oakley, who introduced the term to sociology, \u2018**\u201cSex\u201d refers to the biological division into male and female; \u201cgender\u201d to the parallel and socially unequal division into femininity and masculinity\u2019** (see Sex, Gender and Society, 1972). Gender draws attention, therefore, to the socially constructed aspects of differences between women and men. But **the term gender has since become extended to refer not only to individual identity and personality but also, at the symbolic level, to cultural ideals and stereotypes of masculinity and femininity and, at the structural level, to the sexual division of labour in institutions and organizations.**  According to gender researcher Gabrielle Griffin (*A Dictionary of Gender Studies*):  >**The notion of what it means to be male or female.** In some languages such as French and German, words have a grammatical gender which may be feminine, masculine, or neutral. **Within feminist theory, gender has been contrasted with sex. Gender here expressed the acculturation of an individual into femininity or masculinity as practised in a given culture; that is, it was regarded as socially constructed**, whereas sex was viewed as biologically given through female or male bodily traits.   Neuroscientists Fine, Joel and Rippon make the following distinction:  >In both science and everyday language, the terms \u201csex\u201d and \u201cgender\u201d are sometimes used in interchangeable ways. In this article, we use \u201csex\u201d to refer to the genetic and hormonal components of sex \u2013 the biology involved in creating individuals with either male and female reproductive systems (Joel 2016). **We use \u201cgender\u201d to refer to socially constructed expectations concerning the roles, identities, and behaviors associated with being either female or male.** As we discuss below, both sex and gender can affect brain and behavior, either independently or in interaction. Therefore, in order to avoid prejudging causes of differences between the sexes, we\u2019ll use the term \u201csex\/gender\u201d (Kaiser 2012).  Biological anthropologist Agust\u00edn Fuentes argues (2012):  >In general most people, and many researchers, use the words \u201cgender\u201d and \u201csex\u201d interchangeably. The two are related, entangled even, but not the same thing. **Anthropologists have long held that gender is best seen as the culturally influenced perception of what the sexes are and the roles they are expected to play. Sex is a biological definition (XX or XY . . . more or less) and gender is how the social worlds, and expectations, of the sexes play out. Gender is best conceived of as a continuum, not a dichotomy.** At one extreme end we have total femininity and at the other end total masculinity, with most people falling in between those points. In our society, we expect sex-females to fall largely toward the behaviorally feminine side and sex-males to be mostly toward the masculine side ...] **Gender works because it is a core part of the social fabric in which we develop our schemata, the way we see and interpret the world.**  ---  Do note that while it is common to define gender in binary terms, in reference to the concepts of 'male' and 'female,' there are in fact societies which have traditionally recognized more than two genders. As cultural anthropologist [Carol Ember and colleagues explain:  >While the two gender (binary) category system appears to be common cross-culturally (Segal 2004), we do not have a systematic survey to tell us how common it is compared to multiple gender systems. **Quite a number of societies have a third gender category in addition to female and male. Two examples are the concept of \u201ctwo-spirit\u201d** (the earlier term berdache is considered perjorative) **found in many Native American cultures and the Oman xanith** ...]  >**While the most common exception to the male\/female dichotomy comes in the form of a third gender, there are societies with more than three genders.** The Bugis of Indonesia recognize five different genders. Oroane (identify with their assigned gender as men), makkunrai (identify with their assigned gender as women), calabai (transgender women), calalai (transgender men), and bissu (half-male and half-female). The final gender category, bissu, is perhaps the most contested of the five. Bissu may be intersex, being born with ambiguous genitalia, but this is not always the case. Bissu are thought of as being externally male, but internally female. They typically serve as shamans and were originally seen as having a special connection to the gods. While the increasing presence of conservative Islam in Indonesia led to the oppression and repression of gender diversity in the 20th century, the bissu have been vital to cultural revitalization efforts, and still today play an important role in various ceremonies (Nanda 2013).  ---  You can also find [in my profile a recent post I wrote wherein I discuss the conceptualization of gender, sex, and gender identity in relation to some common misconceptions or misrepresentations about their definitions, including the matter of what it means for gender to be recognized as a social construction.  [Edit] Forgot to add the link to the document I was citing re: Ember et al.  ---  Fuentes, A. (2012). Race, monogamy, and other lies they told you. University of California Press.","human_ref_B":"Follow-up question, if I may. What's the status of **the claim that \"Gender is a social construct**\"?   My understanding had been that this is quite simply true by definition! That is, we define \"gender\" to encompass all the aspects of this issue that *are* socially constructed (whatever those might turn out to be), and all other aspects are \"sex.\" Of course this is contrary to common usage, but in common usage they're synonymous (?) so it's not as though we're losing some interesting distinction by ignoring common usage.  But lately I've seen informed people treat this as a nontrivial claim. Does that make sense to you? What definitions of \"sex\" and \"gender\" do you use in your research?  Edit: Honestly, when people insist in a broad sense that \"gender is not a social construct,\" I tend to assume they're either uninformed or deeply tendentious. You can *define* gender as a social construct, but they're saying you *shouldn't*\u2014is that defensible? Is it somehow incoherent to separate the physical and social aspects into separate bins? Or is it just because the \"sex\/gender\" dichotomy is is a useful tool for *analyzing* the social aspects, and certain people would prefer these issues not to be analyzed at all?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1084.0,"score_ratio":3.1}
{"post_id":"1avorw","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"How do neo-nazis and the KKK in the United States perceive each other?  Saw something on reddit involving neo-nazis and it got me thinking about this.   Sorry if this is in the wrong sub,  had no clue where to ask.","c_root_id_A":"c917l9h","c_root_id_B":"c91at8k","created_at_utc_A":1364082112,"created_at_utc_B":1364094389,"score_A":28,"score_B":85,"human_ref_A":"One of the mods at ask historians studies white supremacists, you might try there(or just send him a private message).  \/u\/AnOldHope if I recall correctly.","human_ref_B":"I used to study white power groups and work with community groups dedicated to keeping them out of our town\/area\/state. In order to better understand them and to track their movements in my area, I would surf white power sites\/message boards\/yahoo groups. From this, I picked up some about how they view each other. To boil it down to their simplest terms, they generally don't like each other but understand that they are on the same side. The KKK sees neo-nazis as ignorant, violent and easily manipulated and see them to be used as the \"foot soldiers\" of the war. The neo-nazis see the KKK as a bunch of lazy, old guys who lost their drive and just like to sit back and talk about the \"good old days\" but don't do anything about it. They work together for common goals but there is not a lot of love lost between them. This is what I saw a lot from their postings and rants  Edit: I should point out that I used the word \"study\" because that is how I saw it but these were in no way academic studies. It was more just gathering information and resources on a casual level for community action groups in the area. I didn't intend to mislead anyone by using the word study, but I couldn't think of a better term...","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12277.0,"score_ratio":3.0357142857}
{"post_id":"gsp3qk","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.72,"history":"What would happen if traditional family had ceased being a norm? There were (still are) arguments that allowing Gay people to marry and adopt would lead to abandoning of institution of family, normalization of promiscuity, polygamy and irresponsible sexual behavior.  But I guess these arguments were there when the society debated legalization of premarital sex, legalization of birth control, legalization of abortion, perhaps even interracial marriage...  So, I guess that institution of marriage is safe. Except, there is a common idea that gay people are very promiscuous and that their legitimization indeed is leading to abandoning family values. I'm not sure if it's only homophobic hogwash (considering the fact that according to studies, Gay couples are just as good, if not even better parents, I guess that how promiscuous they are is really irrelevant.) or if it has grain of truth in it.  In any case, theoretically, what would happen if the institution of transitional marriage had actually been abandoned and polygamous\/polyamorous relationships and open marriages even with children had become a norm?","c_root_id_A":"fs6x5gp","c_root_id_B":"fs6rvry","created_at_utc_A":1590753793,"created_at_utc_B":1590749302,"score_A":23,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":">Except, there is a common idea that gay people are very promiscuous and that their legitimization indeed is leading to abandoning family values. I'm not sure if it's only homophobic hogwash  See the following thread: \"A question on fringe claims about homosexual infidelity.\"  Regarding the concept of 'traditional marriage', see the following thread on how nebulous that term is, and myths and realities about so-called traditional families: \"Are there really more incels today than there were when traditional marriage was more of a thing?\"  Also see the following thread on family structure and child outcomes, which deals with 'alternative families': \"How greatly does a child benefit from a two parent household?\"  I believe many elements in these threads are important starting points for further discussion.   ---  That said, it is unclear what *you* have in mind when you use the term \"traditional family\". Considering the last sentence, it seems that what interests you is the topic of polygamy and monogamy. To clarify why I am not alone in asking what you mean: \"traditional family\" in the USA often refers to the nuclear family (two parents, mother and father, and children). This family type is often contrasted with single-parent families, extended families, homosexual families, cohabiting families, step-families, and so forth. In which case, there is actually no \"typical family\" in the US.   On the contrary, it does not commonly refer to the topic of monogamy and polygamy. As a brief tangent, I would note, however, that there are many societies in which polygamy, most often polygyny, is legal and\/or accepted (these two statuses should not be conflated). Countries in which it is legal, but not necessarily widespread, include many Muslim countries with their own conceptualization and perception of what is conventional and\/or normative in regard to marriage and which tend *not* to be particularly accepting of homosexual practices and marriage. In other words, although one may argue that both are 'unconventional', homosexual marriage and polygamy are two separate topics.  ---  [Edit] Expanded the comment a little bit, and clarified some parts further.","human_ref_B":"Do you have a definition of \u201ctraditional marriage\u201d?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4491.0,"score_ratio":3.2857142857}
{"post_id":"158qvf","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"Reddit, help me settle an argument: are there real and measurable effects of credit cards and credit card companies on market prices for goods, specifically food in grocery stores? (x-post from r\/AskReddit) My friend thinks that grocery stores raise their prices across the board to compensate for the fees they have to pay to credit card companies in order to use their services. I argue that the extra revenue from the added number of customers they get by accepting credit cards generally compensates for the fees, and that prices for goods are affected much more by other forces such as supply\/demand, shipping\/manufacturing costs, etc. Are there any economics studies that specifically address this?","c_root_id_A":"c7ka6v5","c_root_id_B":"c7kart8","created_at_utc_A":1356123848,"created_at_utc_B":1356126002,"score_A":2,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"I know of several establishments that offer discounts for using cash (3-5%). To me this implies that any establishment that accepts credit cards does indeed raise their prices to compensate for the fees.","human_ref_B":"Not sure about studies on this particular question, but it's very unlikely that you (or your friend) are 100% right. You're basically arguing about the elasticity of goods.   > My friend thinks that grocery stores raise their prices across the board to compensate for the fees they have to pay to credit card companies in order to use their services  Your friend is arguing that demand is perfectly inelastic.  > I argue that the extra revenue from the added number of customers they get by accepting credit cards generally compensates for the fees, and that prices for goods are affected much more by other forces such as supply\/demand, shipping\/manufacturing costs, etc.  You are arguing that demand is perfectly elastic (also, note that credit card fees are a component of supply and demand, namely they reduce supply).  Almost certainly, the interchange fees cause the stores to raise prices, but not 100% of the fee. Some of the change is simply a reduce quantity sold.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2154.0,"score_ratio":3.5}
{"post_id":"158qvf","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"Reddit, help me settle an argument: are there real and measurable effects of credit cards and credit card companies on market prices for goods, specifically food in grocery stores? (x-post from r\/AskReddit) My friend thinks that grocery stores raise their prices across the board to compensate for the fees they have to pay to credit card companies in order to use their services. I argue that the extra revenue from the added number of customers they get by accepting credit cards generally compensates for the fees, and that prices for goods are affected much more by other forces such as supply\/demand, shipping\/manufacturing costs, etc. Are there any economics studies that specifically address this?","c_root_id_A":"c7kart8","c_root_id_B":"c7kal06","created_at_utc_A":1356126002,"created_at_utc_B":1356125311,"score_A":7,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Not sure about studies on this particular question, but it's very unlikely that you (or your friend) are 100% right. You're basically arguing about the elasticity of goods.   > My friend thinks that grocery stores raise their prices across the board to compensate for the fees they have to pay to credit card companies in order to use their services  Your friend is arguing that demand is perfectly inelastic.  > I argue that the extra revenue from the added number of customers they get by accepting credit cards generally compensates for the fees, and that prices for goods are affected much more by other forces such as supply\/demand, shipping\/manufacturing costs, etc.  You are arguing that demand is perfectly elastic (also, note that credit card fees are a component of supply and demand, namely they reduce supply).  Almost certainly, the interchange fees cause the stores to raise prices, but not 100% of the fee. Some of the change is simply a reduce quantity sold.","human_ref_B":"Yes and no. Paying credit fees raises their overhead, and any raise in overhead will raise costs. However, I'd wager that it's pretty damn negligible. A grocery store might sell $200 worth of product and get charged a buck or so. Compared to rent, electricity, etc... It's a really small factor. You also have to consider the fact that dealing with significantly less cash transactions speeds up transactions significantly, lowering their labor costs. I've never seen an analysis that compared the costs vs. savings for a business accepting credit cards, but it would be difficult to compute a the extraneous factors. In the end, I'd say credit cards are either irrelevant or very lowly correlated with good prices.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":691.0,"score_ratio":3.5}
{"post_id":"2jfc12","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"Is excessive binge drinking a relatively recent phenomenon? If so, what are some theories on factors contributing to it's popularity? I've come across a few articles recently about how binge drinking is a \"new problem facing young people with unknown long-term consequences.\" Anecdotally, I do see a lot of my friends drinking WAY more than they probably should at pretty frequent intervals, and I see a lot of glorification of getting black out drunk...well...everywhere.   Have the rates of binge drinking among young adults (or any population for that matter) actually increased? If so, what are some theories about why this is happening?","c_root_id_A":"clb7g50","c_root_id_B":"clb7npv","created_at_utc_A":1413478270,"created_at_utc_B":1413478640,"score_A":18,"score_B":20,"human_ref_A":"It isn't, Britain has been hit before by what was known as the Gin Craze. Some of the reasons for its cause explained in the wiki may be relevant to today also.","human_ref_B":"I read an article about exactly this just today, but it was in Norwegian, so I'm not sure how much that would help you source-wise. Their point was, despite the media hysteria, today's teenagers and young adults actually drink much, much less alcohol than previous generations. However, how much of that is due to pressure in school, and how much it is due to other substances, is debatable.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":370.0,"score_ratio":1.1111111111}
{"post_id":"l2sjbr","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"What are the theories surround CGP Grey's \"Rules for Rulers\" Video and \"The Dictator's Handbook\" by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita? \"DON'T LOSE YOUR KEYS\" is the refrain of CGP Grey's animated synopsis of *The Dictator's Handbook* by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita. \"If you can't guarantee that your keys will be endowed to the next day, you will be dethroned.\" It's an excellent theory of statecraft- bureaucrats and soldiers just want their paycheck, regardless if it's the Bolsheviks or Nazis.  I would first infer that it is heavy in exchange-theory, but would anyone else know if it goes beyond that? I can definitely see Machiavelli all of this too!","c_root_id_A":"gk890k1","c_root_id_B":"gk7nxsd","created_at_utc_A":1611344747,"created_at_utc_B":1611338441,"score_A":24,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"I had a professor in graduate school point out to me that Mesquita repackaged his ideas for a popular audience in *Dictator's Handbook* after releasing the more academic *The Logic of Political Survival* with other authors in 2003. That said, Mesquita's ideas and those who have written on them since are broadly packaged as \"selectorate theory\" which essentially argues that in every regime (democratic, authoritarian, or semi-democratic), ruling requires gaining the support of a winning coalition of the minimum number of \"selectorate\" needed to attain power.","human_ref_B":"The Dictator's handbook is indeed quite pop sci take trivializing the complexities of political power sharing networks (even in case of trivial dictatorships) - and especially that of irrational sentiments, on all levels of society that short-circuit naive exchange models.  Coup d'\u00c9tat (Luttwak) is a more scholarly take, elaborating on the complexities from someone with reasonable credentials with political strategy. It's a dry read, though.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6306.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"2oopxh","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"Will the global economy \"even out\", with all countries equally developed and wealthy? When will this happen?","c_root_id_A":"cmp81ez","c_root_id_B":"cmp969r","created_at_utc_A":1418083274,"created_at_utc_B":1418085423,"score_A":2,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"http:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/AskSocialScience\/comments\/1xrmwy\/what_will_happen_to_the_global_economy_when_the\/","human_ref_B":"The data presented in this fascinating video suggests that since industrialization, countries have slowly been coalescing into similar standards of living, with poorer countries rising at faster rates than richer countries.  Theoretically, this could mean that all countries will eventually even out in terms of economic prosperity, but that is assuming that political or economic systems don't change over time to prevent this.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2149.0,"score_ratio":3.5}
{"post_id":"2oopxh","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"Will the global economy \"even out\", with all countries equally developed and wealthy? When will this happen?","c_root_id_A":"cmq0nsh","c_root_id_B":"cmp81ez","created_at_utc_A":1418154664,"created_at_utc_B":1418083274,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"[World Systems Theory] (http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/World-systems_theory) (sorry it's a wikipedia article) would suggest that this won't happen, and that a country's wealth and role in the world economy is relative. There are 'core' countries, 'peripheral' countries, and countries in the middle. Core countries spend their energy developing tech. Peripheral countries can't compete, and so spend their energy processing resources.","human_ref_B":"http:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/AskSocialScience\/comments\/1xrmwy\/what_will_happen_to_the_global_economy_when_the\/","labels":1,"seconds_difference":71390.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"ci0u11","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.71,"history":"what influences the differences between women and men's sexual behaviour? i read a comment by someone saying \"women's sexual behaviour is influenced by societal reactions to it\/acceptance\/ repression\" something along those lines.  How true is that?  i mean sexual behaviour as in what types? Pre-Marital, Casual or Marital, how often they have sex etc.  Does it differ by class or personality etc?  Thanks.","c_root_id_A":"ev1mri1","c_root_id_B":"ev1t0f5","created_at_utc_A":1564161518,"created_at_utc_B":1564164642,"score_A":4,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"While it is quite difficult to measure the relative contribution of environment to behaviors, in a study which has now been replicated (https:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pubmed\/30206941), sex differences in personality types have been shown to increase as countries become more gender equal.   This counterintuitive result suggests that increasing gender equality in a country may cause people to gravitate towards more traditional gender roles. There may be many reasons for this, but it isn't just a matter of being an advanced economy. Many countries in the middle east and asia which are not known for gender equality have far more women engineers, for example, than sweden.  These results suggest (but do not prove) that many behavioral differences between men and women are biological in nature, as opposed to socially constructed.","human_ref_B":"Here are two amazing\/comprehensive videos related to your title question, if you aren't short on time. The info in these two lectures underlies your 2nd\/3rd\/4th questions, and by understanding these two lectures you'll better be able to grasp the answer(s) to those questions which are peripheral to it.  *Dr. Robert Sapolsky - Human Behavioral Biology (Stanford)*  *Human Sexual Behavior I*   *Human Sexual Behavior II*","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3124.0,"score_ratio":2.25}
{"post_id":"1gfw2b","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"Political feasibility aside, what is the first thing we should change about the US tax code, and why? I'm looking for informed answers that are specific: i.e. not \"close all loopholes\", \"raise\/lower the top marginal tax-rate to X%\", \"abolish all income taxes\" but a marginal change that you think would improve on the status quo.","c_root_id_A":"cajuo9o","c_root_id_B":"cajvexc","created_at_utc_A":1371365899,"created_at_utc_B":1371370361,"score_A":22,"score_B":28,"human_ref_A":"Like Europe, have everything calculated already instead of having people do it themselves.","human_ref_B":"The mortgage interest deduction should be abolished. It subsidises rich people's homes more than poor people's homes, inflates house prices, and is not in the interest of either efficiency or equality.   Corporate taxes should be made much, much lower--probably down to a rate of between 5 and 10 percent. The reason people support corporate taxes is that they think this is a way to get the rich. Not so. Believe it or not, not all the people on a corporation's payroll are rich: indeed, over 50 percent of corporate tax incidence falls on workers. So taxing corporations is just a less direct way of taxing individuals, and a better way of targeting rich individuals would be through taxes on them *as individuals*.   There should be lower federal income taxes, and a consumption tax like a VAT and a carbon tax should make up the difference. Consumption taxes are generally acknowledged to be more economically efficient than income taxes (see OECD link). A carbon tax harnesses the effect of taxation to decrease consumption of whatever is being taxed for the benefit of the environment. Since carbon and consumption taxes are not progressive, tax credits can be given to the poor to alleviate the hardship these changes would impose on them.   Sources:  http:\/\/www.npr.org\/2012\/10\/17\/163104599\/planet-moneys-fake-presidential-candidate      http:\/\/constructionlitmag.com\/politics\/why-we-should-eliminate-the-mortgage-interest-deduction\/     http:\/\/worthwhile.typepad.com\/worthwhile_canadian_initi\/2010\/03\/the-corporate-tax-on-workers-and-consumers.html     http:\/\/www.oecd.org\/tax\/tax-policy\/41000592.pdf     http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2007\/09\/16\/business\/16view.html?_r=0","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4462.0,"score_ratio":1.2727272727}
{"post_id":"4lddfp","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.66,"history":"Can Trump pick Sanders as his VP? Has that situation ever happen in American Politics? (Republican pick a Democrat or vice versa)","c_root_id_A":"d3mhbba","c_root_id_B":"d3mk29f","created_at_utc_A":1464397515,"created_at_utc_B":1464402531,"score_A":33,"score_B":39,"human_ref_A":"It's been attempted before:  When John McCain was selected to be the Republican nominee, his first choice was Sen. Joe Lieberman Notably, Lieberman endorsed McCain over Obama in 2008.  Sarah Palin was later selected.","human_ref_B":"There's no reason it could not happen, and originally the VP was the runner-up to the candidate who won the election, so opposite party Vice Presidents were common.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5016.0,"score_ratio":1.1818181818}
{"post_id":"4lddfp","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.66,"history":"Can Trump pick Sanders as his VP? Has that situation ever happen in American Politics? (Republican pick a Democrat or vice versa)","c_root_id_A":"d3mg622","c_root_id_B":"d3mk29f","created_at_utc_A":1464395404,"created_at_utc_B":1464402531,"score_A":17,"score_B":39,"human_ref_A":"this may be a question better suited for \/r\/askhistorians","human_ref_B":"There's no reason it could not happen, and originally the VP was the runner-up to the candidate who won the election, so opposite party Vice Presidents were common.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7127.0,"score_ratio":2.2941176471}
{"post_id":"4lddfp","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.66,"history":"Can Trump pick Sanders as his VP? Has that situation ever happen in American Politics? (Republican pick a Democrat or vice versa)","c_root_id_A":"d3mk29f","c_root_id_B":"d3mjmbq","created_at_utc_A":1464402531,"created_at_utc_B":1464401703,"score_A":39,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"There's no reason it could not happen, and originally the VP was the runner-up to the candidate who won the election, so opposite party Vice Presidents were common.","human_ref_B":"It happened at least once before. In his first term, Abraham Lincoln ran with Maine Republican Hannibal Hamlin. Running for a second term in the middle of the Civil War, he picked Tennessee Democrat Andrew Johnson. Johnson had remained loyal to the Union when his state seceded, the only Senator from the Confederate states to do so, and supported the war.   Edit: sources are the encyclopedia britannica articles for Johnson and Hamlin.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":828.0,"score_ratio":2.6}
{"post_id":"4lddfp","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.66,"history":"Can Trump pick Sanders as his VP? Has that situation ever happen in American Politics? (Republican pick a Democrat or vice versa)","c_root_id_A":"d3mhbba","c_root_id_B":"d3mg622","created_at_utc_A":1464397515,"created_at_utc_B":1464395404,"score_A":33,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"It's been attempted before:  When John McCain was selected to be the Republican nominee, his first choice was Sen. Joe Lieberman Notably, Lieberman endorsed McCain over Obama in 2008.  Sarah Palin was later selected.","human_ref_B":"this may be a question better suited for \/r\/askhistorians","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2111.0,"score_ratio":1.9411764706}
{"post_id":"oekqu","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.73,"history":"In your informed opinion, what are the dangers of Austrian economics as promoted by Ron Paul?","c_root_id_A":"c3gn4w9","c_root_id_B":"c3gn0tm","created_at_utc_A":1326416527,"created_at_utc_B":1326415819,"score_A":7,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"If by \"Austrian Economics promoted by Ron Paul\" you mean \"Gold Fetishism,\" then:  In a gold standard, attempts at savings by society will lower the interest rate. This decreases the opportunity cost for holding money\/using gold for non-monetary uses, which decreases velocity. Decreased V with stable (or decreased) M can lead to significant deflation\/reduced output\/both - all due to an attempted increase in savings. The same thing (potentially) can also happen with an inflation targeting central bank, though without the second danger of alternate uses for money. Sumner is interesting on this point, and apparently Larry Summers has papers on this.  This is a good summary of why Ron Paul's writing on money doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Granted, he writes for a political purpose, so it's hard to tell whether he really thinks this way (i.e., completely rejects the concept of monetary neutrality, even in the long run) or he thinks its the best rhetorical strategy.  What Ron Paul promotes really isn't 'Austrian Economics,' it just happens that there are a couple Austrian writers who agree with him on monetary policy and small government, but his positions on these things don't come from an understanding of Austrian Economics. Hayek, while against the Federal Reserve, never advocated for a return to the gold standard - and was skeptical of it while it was around. As someone who admires a lot of the academic work of Austrian economists - Hayek, Kirzner, and some more recent ones, I am saddened by the close connection with monetary crankism that the label seems to have brought on.","human_ref_B":"Austrian economics advocate free-market fundamentalism that rests on the assumption that markets are most efficient when free from government intervention. That implies that market failures are not necessarily non-existent, but at the very least insignificant enough that the inefficiencies brought about by government intervention would outweigh the good that comes from ''fixing'' the mentioned market failures.  In short, empirical evidence points to that being false. Market failures are systematic and large.  What are the dangers of leading economic policies that come from this set of ideas?  The danger of getting everything wrong. The world has gone for very long without a structured economic policy approach, which means it's not impossible to live that way. Economics, however, is about getting the little things that went unnoticed in the past right. Austrian economics won't do it for you.   Mind you: I know little of Austrian economics. I just understand that it's a school of thought that resembles that of the Chicago School, but even further to the right (in terms of the optimal size of the state).  Edit: couple of typos, rephrasing, etc.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":708.0,"score_ratio":1.75}
{"post_id":"24t440","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"[all] Since correlation doesn't imply causation, how exactly do we know something is causal? Exactly what the title says. I started reading the wiki on Causality and when I got to \"In academia, there is a significant number of theories on causality; The Oxford Handbook of Causation (Beebee et al. 2009) encompasses 770 pages. Among the more influential theories within philosophy are Aristotle's Four causes and Al-Ghazali's occasionalism\"   I ran screaming, because I'm not about to read that much, and don't really think that in practice criminologists are quoting Al-Ghazli or epidemiologists really getting into Aristotle in a big way.   So how exactly do you establish causation?","c_root_id_A":"chafgyz","c_root_id_B":"chafye4","created_at_utc_A":1399327759,"created_at_utc_B":1399328782,"score_A":8,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"~~Placeholder. I'll have quite long writeup for this when I get home tonight.~~   tl;dr: We know X caused Y when no other plausible explanations exist for why X and Y are related, except the sole reason specified in the study.  Terribly sorry about the delayed response. Lets talk...  Correlations and causations are different for one simple reason: correlations are a **statistical** concept and causation is a **methodological** concept. Correlations are a sum of cross product Z scores that account for how much two variables co-vary, or how much they are statistically related. **Causation is simply your ability to rule out plausible alternative hypotheses.**    Several other people in this thread have talked about \"holding constant\" or \"controlling for\" or \"running an experiment\" but no one has talked about **why** you're trying to do that. What are we trying to contain that is so god awful? At the end of the day, we are trying to say that X affects Y and that there are no other plausible reasons for why X affects Y. A true experiment doesn't, per se, allow you to make a causal claim.  For example, I run an experiment where my students are randomly assigned to one of two conditions: (1) in one condition I provide positive feedback right before they take the exam (\"Many folks do well on this exam\") and (2) in the other condition I provide negative feedback (\"Not very many people do well on this exam\").   This is a true experiment and should provide a causal claim that type of feedback causes grades to change. Or does it? As the designer of the study, I obviously knew my own hypothesis which may affect how I deliver the feedback (perhaps I conveyed negative feedback in a very mean way and positive feedback in a nice way). Or what if there was an earthquake between classes and one class was affected but another was not. Why are these problematic? The reason they are problematic is because they introduce a NEW plausible reason for why X (feedback) affects Y (grades). We can't tell if class 1 and 2 are different because of the feedback I provided, the way I provided it, or the earthquake. The more plausible explanations that exist, the less \"causal\" the design. Notice we have not mentioned any statistical concepts in this example. This is because causation has nothing to do with statistics and everything to do with your method. Causality is not a binary factor either. Instead, it is a very long spectrum with \"No other plausible explanation\" to \"all other plausible explanations\" at either end of the spectrum. In a true experimental design, we are much closer to the former end, with very few competing reasons for why X affects Y.   But it only takes **one** plausible reason to eliminate a causal claim! Imagine that a hospital employed a racist nurse who, after administering a drug Y to a black women, made a snide remark that it wouldn't help cure the patient while administering drug X to white women made the opposite remark. Assume that all other factors were equal. Now we have a competing hypothesis for whether drug X and Y are different. This is only one reason but it's a good reason that jeopardizes the causal inference of the study.   Notice also that I mention \"plausible\" alternative explanations and not \"possible\". This is because you're not trying to eliminate every possible reason that could ever exist, but only the reasons that would otherwise explain why X affected Y.   One of the most important factors for making a causal claim is that X affected Y and not the other way around. This implies a temporal precedence. X first, then Y. Not Y, then X. Correlations do not make the distinction between time, because time is a methodological feature of measurement (I measured X, THEN I measured Y). Correlations simply indicate that X and Y were measured, with no interest in temporal precedence. Therefore, TIME is the main component that correlations do not imply causations because a correlation - a statistical concept - is completely ignorant of the methods of the study and therefore cannot make any claim about which came first.   Random assignment and true experiments are simply means to an end: the end goal being to rule out alternative plausible hypothesis by making them IMPLAUSIBLE so that only one plausible explanation remains, the hypothesis the researcher set out to test.","human_ref_B":"The easiest way is to try and directly manipulate a variable. Not always possible, but I'll give an example.  Let's say you look at a correlation such as smoking and cancer, which is highly correlated. You want to make the claim that smoking causes cancer, but the tobacco companies want to say that there's some undetermined variable that makes people who are more susceptible to get cancer to also be more inclined to smoke cigarettes.  The easiest thing you can do is perform an experiment where you randomly assign people to smoke or not smoke cigarettes and then see who gets cancer. Random assignment should wash out any other variables that could be at play, so if you find the smoking group has a higher cancer rate, you could say that smoking causes cancer.  But it's not always possible (or ethical) to perform controlled experiments. There are a few other ways to determine causality, mostly related to timing (one thing always happens after something else happens). It's tricky to come up with an example, but let's say find a correlation between the time of day and car accidents to find that more car accidents occur at night. You could fairly confidently claim that more accidents occur because of low visibility even if all you have is a correlation since the reverse doesn't make sense. However, as with everything in science, there always could be another cause that isn't accounted for whenever you are looking at cause and effect.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1023.0,"score_ratio":1.875}
{"post_id":"u7kro","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.73,"history":"Are there any studies who focus on and explain cultural reappropriation?[Cross post] I was talking about rap with a couple friends this weekend and wondered why white suburban kids were so enthralled by inner city black culture, wich is pretty much the polar opposite in the north american context. What would explain this attraction? Also, is there a link between the level of comfort on group of people have and their tendency to approriate a different culture than their own? There's definitely some confirmation bias going on, but I see so many subgenre in my suburban life and I don't know if other cultures have that as well.","c_root_id_A":"c4t8bvo","c_root_id_B":"c4t4zbg","created_at_utc_A":1338204816,"created_at_utc_B":1338176863,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"What I think you are describing here is cultural appropriation - no 're' required. There is a huge body of work on subcultures such as hip hop and rap as well as work in the various women's and race studies areas which looks at cultural appropriation more broadly.   I would agree somewhat with ZardOz in that most people link it with consumer\/commodity culture and they hyper-individualisation that comes with neo-liberal capitalist societies. That said, I personally think it might be a bit more complex than that.  I would actually suggest starting with some of the blogs and lay-opinions on cultural appropriation. If you are at uni or have access to an academic library you could also try the entries for 'cultural appropriation' in the SAGE eReference or Oxford Reference Collection databases or a Handbook to Social Theory or similar text\/reference book.  Edward Said is a canonical source on the topic and has a very nice writing style.","human_ref_B":"I'd trying posting this in \/r\/anthropology.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":27953.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"1r4y2c","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"How common are racism and colorism in the Arabian Peninsula? In Saudia Arabia, Jordan, Yemen, Oman, the various emirates, Iraq, etc, are lighter skinned Arabic-speakers in a position of power among darker people? Would lighter skinned people consider themselves to be white, like many Berbers do?","c_root_id_A":"cdk12sc","c_root_id_B":"cdjmb8y","created_at_utc_A":1385076176,"created_at_utc_B":1385042508,"score_A":7,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Not too sure about colourism between Arabs. But I do know, from being Arab myself, that Arabs are hugely, HUGELY, racist towards Indians. Seeing them as nonhuman sometimes. They are also racist to other people such as filipinos and other minorities, though to a lesser extent. I can only speak for khaleeji Arab countries though.   Khaleeji Arabs are also racist towards their less successful Arab counterparts. Like Lebanon, Syria and Egypt(though technically Egyptians are african) but this racism is not fueled by the color of skin. It's is more racism fueled by wealth and social status.   EDIT: just remembered some stuff. Darker skinned Bahrainis (people from the khaleeji arab country where i'm from) are more often than not, descended from african slaves, but have assimilated into the culture for the past 200 years that **nobody** thinks they are different from lighter skinned arabs.  EDIT 2: another example of racism would be how my friends grandfather(a bahraini) was disowned by his parents for marrying a holi woman (my friends grandmother). a holi person is a sunni iranian.  Overall, racism is greatly rampant in the khaleeji Arab states","human_ref_B":"Forgive my ignorance, but what is colourism? And how is it different from racism?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":33668.0,"score_ratio":3.5}
{"post_id":"76bnji","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"I'd like to read about the nitty-gritty of social control and peer manipulation. Where should I start?","c_root_id_A":"docragx","c_root_id_B":"docqv3f","created_at_utc_A":1507983789,"created_at_utc_B":1507982869,"score_A":13,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Edward Bernays' book \"propaganda\" might be relevant","human_ref_B":"Soloman Asch might be a good place to start.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":920.0,"score_ratio":2.1666666667}
{"post_id":"76bnji","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"I'd like to read about the nitty-gritty of social control and peer manipulation. Where should I start?","c_root_id_A":"docqv3f","c_root_id_B":"doculsm","created_at_utc_A":1507982869,"created_at_utc_B":1507989948,"score_A":6,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"Soloman Asch might be a good place to start.","human_ref_B":"A lot of the evolutionary game theory and altruism research is very relevant to this area, particularly reputation games with indirect reciprocity. Indirect reciprocity basically studies gossip networks and peer punishment.   Nowak's 5 rules for cooperation a good place to get your feet wet. Nowak and Rand have been putting out some interesting papers looking a peer punishment which include antisocial punishment and retribution that overturn earlier result that peer punishment results in cooperation. Rand is doing a bunch of interesting work that looks at networks. His most interesting stuff is looking at dual process theory and bringing psychology into evolutionary game theory. I've heard him give talks about how 'fast thinking' and appeals to affect may have given us Trump as president.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7079.0,"score_ratio":1.8333333333}
{"post_id":"lsegx","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"Why do we tax corporations? Corporations are taxed based on their income. Corporations are made up of people. Those people are taxed based on their personal income. So why not just tax the people directly and not the corporations?  I see a lot of talk about raising corporate tax rates and closing loopholes in the OWS movement, in the spirit of taxing the rich. But if you want to tax the rich, you can do that *directly* through the income tax. The burden of the corporate tax might not even be borne by the rich owners of the corporation. So why do we even tax corporations?","c_root_id_A":"c2v81je","c_root_id_B":"c2v95be","created_at_utc_A":1319825269,"created_at_utc_B":1319832518,"score_A":4,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Corporations were created in order to limit liability from its owners and shareholders.  Incorporating thus reduces the tax the individual person is responsible for, and as such it should be deferred toward the corporation.","human_ref_B":"The practice is really silly. It would be like implementing a 'cow tax' and expecting the cows to pay up.   Everything within a corporation is owned by someone - either individual owners or shareholders. Wealth and income effects from taxes fall on those people (and their customers, depending on the elasticities involved).  There is good reason to want to close loopholes, however - (other than the obvious - if the tax code is complicated, taking advantage of it is a barrier to entry (i.e., a large fixed-ish cost to doing business) which encourages market concentration.  One incorrect assumption people seem to have is that corporation = rich people. The vast majority of corporations are small - and it's these corporations that actually pay corporate income tax, the big ones can hire accounting firms to get them out of it. So corporate taxes don't even hit the rich. (http:\/\/www.census.gov\/econ\/smallbus.html for numbers)","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7249.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"lsegx","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"Why do we tax corporations? Corporations are taxed based on their income. Corporations are made up of people. Those people are taxed based on their personal income. So why not just tax the people directly and not the corporations?  I see a lot of talk about raising corporate tax rates and closing loopholes in the OWS movement, in the spirit of taxing the rich. But if you want to tax the rich, you can do that *directly* through the income tax. The burden of the corporate tax might not even be borne by the rich owners of the corporation. So why do we even tax corporations?","c_root_id_A":"c2v95be","c_root_id_B":"c2v8akq","created_at_utc_A":1319832518,"created_at_utc_B":1319826915,"score_A":8,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"The practice is really silly. It would be like implementing a 'cow tax' and expecting the cows to pay up.   Everything within a corporation is owned by someone - either individual owners or shareholders. Wealth and income effects from taxes fall on those people (and their customers, depending on the elasticities involved).  There is good reason to want to close loopholes, however - (other than the obvious - if the tax code is complicated, taking advantage of it is a barrier to entry (i.e., a large fixed-ish cost to doing business) which encourages market concentration.  One incorrect assumption people seem to have is that corporation = rich people. The vast majority of corporations are small - and it's these corporations that actually pay corporate income tax, the big ones can hire accounting firms to get them out of it. So corporate taxes don't even hit the rich. (http:\/\/www.census.gov\/econ\/smallbus.html for numbers)","human_ref_B":"because a corporations value is not made up of the individuals incomes? It is separate.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5603.0,"score_ratio":4.0}
{"post_id":"lsegx","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"Why do we tax corporations? Corporations are taxed based on their income. Corporations are made up of people. Those people are taxed based on their personal income. So why not just tax the people directly and not the corporations?  I see a lot of talk about raising corporate tax rates and closing loopholes in the OWS movement, in the spirit of taxing the rich. But if you want to tax the rich, you can do that *directly* through the income tax. The burden of the corporate tax might not even be borne by the rich owners of the corporation. So why do we even tax corporations?","c_root_id_A":"c2vq7ol","c_root_id_B":"c2v81je","created_at_utc_A":1320021540,"created_at_utc_B":1319825269,"score_A":7,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I'm surprised that with all this discussion, no one has given what I consider to be the 'right answer': **Illegal activities and tax evasion**.   People can usually evade taxes in one particular way, idiosyncratic to their job\/industry\/lifestyle (e.g. prostitutes avoid income tax, black market transactions avoid sales tax, etc).   So, a government should tax in as many different ways as possible (sales tax, income tax, profits tax, land tax), and reduce the marginal rates of any one tax. This reduces tax evasion, even though they are all tapping into the same stream (GDP - circular flow).","human_ref_B":"Corporations were created in order to limit liability from its owners and shareholders.  Incorporating thus reduces the tax the individual person is responsible for, and as such it should be deferred toward the corporation.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":196271.0,"score_ratio":1.75}
{"post_id":"lsegx","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"Why do we tax corporations? Corporations are taxed based on their income. Corporations are made up of people. Those people are taxed based on their personal income. So why not just tax the people directly and not the corporations?  I see a lot of talk about raising corporate tax rates and closing loopholes in the OWS movement, in the spirit of taxing the rich. But if you want to tax the rich, you can do that *directly* through the income tax. The burden of the corporate tax might not even be borne by the rich owners of the corporation. So why do we even tax corporations?","c_root_id_A":"c2v8akq","c_root_id_B":"c2vq7ol","created_at_utc_A":1319826915,"created_at_utc_B":1320021540,"score_A":2,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"because a corporations value is not made up of the individuals incomes? It is separate.","human_ref_B":"I'm surprised that with all this discussion, no one has given what I consider to be the 'right answer': **Illegal activities and tax evasion**.   People can usually evade taxes in one particular way, idiosyncratic to their job\/industry\/lifestyle (e.g. prostitutes avoid income tax, black market transactions avoid sales tax, etc).   So, a government should tax in as many different ways as possible (sales tax, income tax, profits tax, land tax), and reduce the marginal rates of any one tax. This reduces tax evasion, even though they are all tapping into the same stream (GDP - circular flow).","labels":0,"seconds_difference":194625.0,"score_ratio":3.5}
{"post_id":"lsegx","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"Why do we tax corporations? Corporations are taxed based on their income. Corporations are made up of people. Those people are taxed based on their personal income. So why not just tax the people directly and not the corporations?  I see a lot of talk about raising corporate tax rates and closing loopholes in the OWS movement, in the spirit of taxing the rich. But if you want to tax the rich, you can do that *directly* through the income tax. The burden of the corporate tax might not even be borne by the rich owners of the corporation. So why do we even tax corporations?","c_root_id_A":"c2vq7ol","c_root_id_B":"c2v9cfk","created_at_utc_A":1320021540,"created_at_utc_B":1319833910,"score_A":7,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I'm surprised that with all this discussion, no one has given what I consider to be the 'right answer': **Illegal activities and tax evasion**.   People can usually evade taxes in one particular way, idiosyncratic to their job\/industry\/lifestyle (e.g. prostitutes avoid income tax, black market transactions avoid sales tax, etc).   So, a government should tax in as many different ways as possible (sales tax, income tax, profits tax, land tax), and reduce the marginal rates of any one tax. This reduces tax evasion, even though they are all tapping into the same stream (GDP - circular flow).","human_ref_B":"Well, not everybody does. Estonia, for instance has no tax on corporate income, just on dividends and other payouts. The system was designed like this specifically to avoid any distortions.  For sure, there is no reason, based on academic economics, for a corporate income tax. Heck, in a typical macro model, there isn't one.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":187630.0,"score_ratio":3.5}
{"post_id":"1truit","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"How are the average IQ results of some countries below the overall average? I stumbled across this map which purports to show the average IQ test results for various countries - and it confused me.  As I understand it, the results of IQ tests are calculated in such a way that the average score for all people who sit the test is 100: if enough people take the test, their average score will be 100. However, this map shows countries which have overall average IQ test results as significantly lower than 100. What am I missing?   I know there's some controversy about IQ tests being culturally biassed, which might cause non-Anglophone non-western people to do worse on those tests, but I thought that there were new tests which were culturally neutral, to remove that bias.  So, why is this map showing low average IQ test results for some countries? If the average is deliberately set at 100, how can the average be significantly different from 100? What am I missing?","c_root_id_A":"ceav3yj","c_root_id_B":"ceawxg5","created_at_utc_A":1388110218,"created_at_utc_B":1388115574,"score_A":8,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"The Bill Gates Foundation found a correlation between low IQ rates and high rates of malaria infection, because the disease can harm the brain.  https:\/\/docs.gatesfoundation.org\/Documents\/2011-annual-letter.pdf","human_ref_B":"First, no test can be truly culturally neutral, simply because the act of \"taking a test\" is itself a culture-bound idea.   Second, sampling matters. You gave no source for that map, but let's compare it to this global map of IQ derived from Lynn and Vanhanen's *IQ and the Wealth of Nations*. For that map, there were \"104 of the 185 nations, for which] no studies were available. In those cases, the authors have used an estimated value by taking averages of the IQs of neighboring or comparable nations.\" Further critiques of the methodology of Lynn and Vanhanen can be found in [Volken \\(2003\\). The takeaway here, however, is that global mappings of IQ are predicated upon scantly data collected asynchronously and in a non-standard method. They compare the results of national data in the U.S. to elite schools in Shanghai to data-less estimates in Sub-Saharan Africa.   I have innumerable objections to global IQ test \"results\" and the idea of IQ as an objective measure, but the real answer here is to look at the sources. Where did the numbers for this map come from? Are we actually comparing Americans and Iranians of comparable education and SES, or are we taking countries with vast gulfs between them with regards to average education\/SES\/health and pretending that this forms an objective measure? Given that IQ is highly variable due to non genetic reasons (see: Devlin et al. 1997 and Turkheimer et al. 2003) the problem with showing national averages of IQ and pretending they mean something becomes a chicken and egg problem. Are the low IQs (as measured by dubious and non-standardized means) indicative of a population genetically pre-destined to failure? Or are the results reflective of social conditions which militate against high IQ scores, which are themselves a classic example of a test that is precise, but not accurate?   That map is probably based on scanty data, collected erratically, and interpreted poorly, in other words. Check the sources and be critical of how they apply to the results the authors of the map want to portray.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5356.0,"score_ratio":1.375}
{"post_id":"1truit","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"How are the average IQ results of some countries below the overall average? I stumbled across this map which purports to show the average IQ test results for various countries - and it confused me.  As I understand it, the results of IQ tests are calculated in such a way that the average score for all people who sit the test is 100: if enough people take the test, their average score will be 100. However, this map shows countries which have overall average IQ test results as significantly lower than 100. What am I missing?   I know there's some controversy about IQ tests being culturally biassed, which might cause non-Anglophone non-western people to do worse on those tests, but I thought that there were new tests which were culturally neutral, to remove that bias.  So, why is this map showing low average IQ test results for some countries? If the average is deliberately set at 100, how can the average be significantly different from 100? What am I missing?","c_root_id_A":"ceawxg5","c_root_id_B":"ceaulg7","created_at_utc_A":1388115574,"created_at_utc_B":1388108712,"score_A":11,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"First, no test can be truly culturally neutral, simply because the act of \"taking a test\" is itself a culture-bound idea.   Second, sampling matters. You gave no source for that map, but let's compare it to this global map of IQ derived from Lynn and Vanhanen's *IQ and the Wealth of Nations*. For that map, there were \"104 of the 185 nations, for which] no studies were available. In those cases, the authors have used an estimated value by taking averages of the IQs of neighboring or comparable nations.\" Further critiques of the methodology of Lynn and Vanhanen can be found in [Volken \\(2003\\). The takeaway here, however, is that global mappings of IQ are predicated upon scantly data collected asynchronously and in a non-standard method. They compare the results of national data in the U.S. to elite schools in Shanghai to data-less estimates in Sub-Saharan Africa.   I have innumerable objections to global IQ test \"results\" and the idea of IQ as an objective measure, but the real answer here is to look at the sources. Where did the numbers for this map come from? Are we actually comparing Americans and Iranians of comparable education and SES, or are we taking countries with vast gulfs between them with regards to average education\/SES\/health and pretending that this forms an objective measure? Given that IQ is highly variable due to non genetic reasons (see: Devlin et al. 1997 and Turkheimer et al. 2003) the problem with showing national averages of IQ and pretending they mean something becomes a chicken and egg problem. Are the low IQs (as measured by dubious and non-standardized means) indicative of a population genetically pre-destined to failure? Or are the results reflective of social conditions which militate against high IQ scores, which are themselves a classic example of a test that is precise, but not accurate?   That map is probably based on scanty data, collected erratically, and interpreted poorly, in other words. Check the sources and be critical of how they apply to the results the authors of the map want to portray.","human_ref_B":"Global average vs country average. I believe that in this map iq 100 was calculated as a global average, in which case this map suggests that the average iq in some countries is lower than the global average.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6862.0,"score_ratio":2.75}
{"post_id":"1truit","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.68,"history":"How are the average IQ results of some countries below the overall average? I stumbled across this map which purports to show the average IQ test results for various countries - and it confused me.  As I understand it, the results of IQ tests are calculated in such a way that the average score for all people who sit the test is 100: if enough people take the test, their average score will be 100. However, this map shows countries which have overall average IQ test results as significantly lower than 100. What am I missing?   I know there's some controversy about IQ tests being culturally biassed, which might cause non-Anglophone non-western people to do worse on those tests, but I thought that there were new tests which were culturally neutral, to remove that bias.  So, why is this map showing low average IQ test results for some countries? If the average is deliberately set at 100, how can the average be significantly different from 100? What am I missing?","c_root_id_A":"ceav3yj","c_root_id_B":"ceaulg7","created_at_utc_A":1388110218,"created_at_utc_B":1388108712,"score_A":8,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"The Bill Gates Foundation found a correlation between low IQ rates and high rates of malaria infection, because the disease can harm the brain.  https:\/\/docs.gatesfoundation.org\/Documents\/2011-annual-letter.pdf","human_ref_B":"Global average vs country average. I believe that in this map iq 100 was calculated as a global average, in which case this map suggests that the average iq in some countries is lower than the global average.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1506.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"3nsjyp","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Are there credible studies examining very long range (hundreds of years) levels of violence in a given society? Many years ago I read an article saying that rates of violence (both 'criminal' and state-sanctioned) had decreased steadily over time (since, I believe, the 1400s). I can't remember the name of the article, the author, or which societies he was examining, but it got me thinking.","c_root_id_A":"cvr34fj","c_root_id_B":"cvriqq8","created_at_utc_A":1444207000,"created_at_utc_B":1444240773,"score_A":2,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"You may benefit from asking in \/r\/AskHistorians.","human_ref_B":"The empirical data Pinker presents for anything beyond very recent trends has been pretty thoroughly dismantled by a range of historians and anthropologists. [1] For more recent trends on violence, though, you may want to look at the Human Security Report.  [1] One helpful critical overview https:\/\/www.opendemocracy.net\/stephen-corry\/case-of-%E2%80%98brutal-savage%E2%80%99-poirot-or-clouseau-why-steven-pinker-like-jared-diamond-is-wro","labels":0,"seconds_difference":33773.0,"score_ratio":4.5}
{"post_id":"9uzzju","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"Is there a list of studies every social scientist should be familiar with? Thanks in advance.","c_root_id_A":"e99s7kk","c_root_id_B":"e9buvda","created_at_utc_A":1541648342,"created_at_utc_B":1541726234,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I would say the Hawthorne Experiments, but not just because of what you hear in an intro textbook. If you read the longer history of it as published in the Classics of Org Theory texts (and elsewhere, I'm sure), you can see that the REAL take-away from the entire thing is that human interaction and emotion influences worker behavior as much, if not more, than their environment.","human_ref_B":"In politics it would be several:   - \"The Origins of Totalitarianism\" by Hannah Arendt - \"Democracy in America\" by Alexis de Tocqueville - \"Das Kapital\" by Marx - \"Leviathan\" by Hobbes - \"Second Treatise of Government\" by Locke - \"A Theory of Justice\" by John Rawls - \"The Social Contract\" by Rousseau","labels":0,"seconds_difference":77892.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"mkxzh1","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Research on \u201cincels\u201d? Hi! I studied psychology undergrad, am now 29 and have been debating for years whether to go back to school for a higher degree. Over the past couple of years, I\u2019ve become very fascinated with the incel (\u201cinvoluntary celibate\u201d) community\u2014a fairly toxic community consisting of men who struggle with female companionship. While incel forums tend to be pretty misogynistic, I can\u2019t help but feel for some of these men who are searching for community, and seem to end up in what functions like a cult of low self-esteem and self-fulfilling prophecy.  I do think some of them could be helped. It has occurred to me that it would be very interesting to study them in an academic sense to learn more about them, and how we could prevent men from falling into this trap in the first place. There are already subs like r\/incelExit, dedicated to helping men leave. Is anyone studying this social phenomenon yet? I\u2019d love to see some academic papers if they exist, so thought this would be the best place to start. TIA!","c_root_id_A":"gtjm1fe","c_root_id_B":"gtk1m3b","created_at_utc_A":1617692177,"created_at_utc_B":1617707155,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"You don't happen to understand German, do you? There's a great book on Incels: https:\/\/www.ventil-verlag.de\/titel\/1862\/incels","human_ref_B":"If you're interested in the linguistics of it, then i recently watched a talk that is based on this paper and it was very interesting!  Krendel, Alexandra. \"The men and women, guys and girls of the \u2018manosphere\u2019: A corpus-assisted discourse approach.\" *Discourse & Society* 31, no. 6 (2020): 607-630.   https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/full\/10.1177\/0957926520939690","labels":0,"seconds_difference":14978.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
{"post_id":"mkxzh1","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Research on \u201cincels\u201d? Hi! I studied psychology undergrad, am now 29 and have been debating for years whether to go back to school for a higher degree. Over the past couple of years, I\u2019ve become very fascinated with the incel (\u201cinvoluntary celibate\u201d) community\u2014a fairly toxic community consisting of men who struggle with female companionship. While incel forums tend to be pretty misogynistic, I can\u2019t help but feel for some of these men who are searching for community, and seem to end up in what functions like a cult of low self-esteem and self-fulfilling prophecy.  I do think some of them could be helped. It has occurred to me that it would be very interesting to study them in an academic sense to learn more about them, and how we could prevent men from falling into this trap in the first place. There are already subs like r\/incelExit, dedicated to helping men leave. Is anyone studying this social phenomenon yet? I\u2019d love to see some academic papers if they exist, so thought this would be the best place to start. TIA!","c_root_id_A":"gtlamca","c_root_id_B":"gtjm1fe","created_at_utc_A":1617729702,"created_at_utc_B":1617692177,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I study this in my grad program now. I'm currently working on a paper on former incels (presenting it this week actually!) I recommend the following articles:  ​  For the OG  \"involuntary celibate\" community:   Donnelly, Denise, Elisabeth Burgess, Sally Anderson, Regina Davis, and Joy Dillard. 2001. \u201cInvoluntary Celibacy: A Life Course Analysis.\u201d *Journal of Sex Research* 38(2):159-169.  ​  The most cited:  Ging, Debbie. 2017. \u201cAlphas, Betas, and Incels: Theorizing the Masculinities of the Manosphere.\u201d *Men and Masculinities*. Retrieved Dec. 10, 2018 (https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/1097184X17706401).  ​  Other useful works:  Van Valkenburgh, Shawn P. \"Digesting the red pill: Masculinity and neoliberalism in the manosphere.\" *Men and Masculinities*(2018): 1097184X18816118.  Ribeiro, Manoel Horta, Jeremy Blackburn, Barry Bradlyn, Emiliano De Cristofaro, Gianluca Stringhini, Summer Long, Stephanie Greenberg, and Savvas Zannettou. \"The Evolution of the Manosphere Across the Web.\" *arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.07600* (2020).  Menzie, Lauren. \"Stacys, Beckys, and Chads: the construction of femininity and hegemonic masculinity within Incel rhetoric.\" *Psychology & Sexuality* (2020): 1-17.  ​  And for more info from the Institute for Research on Male Supremacism:  https:\/\/www.malesupremacism.org\/publications\/","human_ref_B":"You don't happen to understand German, do you? There's a great book on Incels: https:\/\/www.ventil-verlag.de\/titel\/1862\/incels","labels":1,"seconds_difference":37525.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"zaq1h","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Does contemporary German bear any traces of the language redefined by Hitler\u2019s regime? Was language considered at all during the recovery efforts of a post-reich Germany? Preceding his section on \u201cLager jargon\u201d, Primo Levi writes, \u201cIt is an obvious observation that where violence is inflicted on man it is also inflicted on language.\u201d He also states that much has been written about LTI (Lingua Tertii Imperii or the language of the Third Reich). The adjective fanatisch, for example, had changed from negative to positive; the adjective volkisch (\u201cnational folk\u201d) took on nationalistic arrogance.   Considering the successes of Nazi propaganda, the cultural grip Hitler had on his people, and the overwhelming popularity of the regime, did the German language maintain any of these linguistic transformations after the war? Was an attempt made at reverting any of these redescriptions, either with cultural efforts or political ones? Is the German spoken today still swelled with these past linguistic changes?  Thank you for your time.","c_root_id_A":"c632336","c_root_id_B":"c632muy","created_at_utc_A":1346721492,"created_at_utc_B":1346723621,"score_A":4,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"This isn't exactly what you're looking for, but the German philosopher Theodor Adorno's book *The Jargon of Authenticity* was a screed against what Adorno saw as the obfuscating language of Heidegger and other Existentialists, and how the way they spoke of subjects like \"being\" and \"authenticity\" permeated the post-war German culture.   He cites examples from government bureaucrats and other cultural sources of a sort of quasi-'simple'\/'authentic' language becoming in vogue after WWII, which Adorno attaches to a general cultural desire to find some alternate cultural wellspring to draw on - in a sense, to use language that wasn't so tainted.","human_ref_B":"You should x-post this in \/r\/linguistics. I'm sure at least some will find it very interesting.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2129.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
{"post_id":"zaq1h","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Does contemporary German bear any traces of the language redefined by Hitler\u2019s regime? Was language considered at all during the recovery efforts of a post-reich Germany? Preceding his section on \u201cLager jargon\u201d, Primo Levi writes, \u201cIt is an obvious observation that where violence is inflicted on man it is also inflicted on language.\u201d He also states that much has been written about LTI (Lingua Tertii Imperii or the language of the Third Reich). The adjective fanatisch, for example, had changed from negative to positive; the adjective volkisch (\u201cnational folk\u201d) took on nationalistic arrogance.   Considering the successes of Nazi propaganda, the cultural grip Hitler had on his people, and the overwhelming popularity of the regime, did the German language maintain any of these linguistic transformations after the war? Was an attempt made at reverting any of these redescriptions, either with cultural efforts or political ones? Is the German spoken today still swelled with these past linguistic changes?  Thank you for your time.","c_root_id_A":"c632336","c_root_id_B":"c6320e3","created_at_utc_A":1346721492,"created_at_utc_B":1346721203,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"This isn't exactly what you're looking for, but the German philosopher Theodor Adorno's book *The Jargon of Authenticity* was a screed against what Adorno saw as the obfuscating language of Heidegger and other Existentialists, and how the way they spoke of subjects like \"being\" and \"authenticity\" permeated the post-war German culture.   He cites examples from government bureaucrats and other cultural sources of a sort of quasi-'simple'\/'authentic' language becoming in vogue after WWII, which Adorno attaches to a general cultural desire to find some alternate cultural wellspring to draw on - in a sense, to use language that wasn't so tainted.","human_ref_B":"Similar to the volkisch adjective, the concepts of Heimat is no longer a more benign feeling\/longing for a sense of home and belonging; for many it carries right-wing connotations.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":289.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"zaq1h","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Does contemporary German bear any traces of the language redefined by Hitler\u2019s regime? Was language considered at all during the recovery efforts of a post-reich Germany? Preceding his section on \u201cLager jargon\u201d, Primo Levi writes, \u201cIt is an obvious observation that where violence is inflicted on man it is also inflicted on language.\u201d He also states that much has been written about LTI (Lingua Tertii Imperii or the language of the Third Reich). The adjective fanatisch, for example, had changed from negative to positive; the adjective volkisch (\u201cnational folk\u201d) took on nationalistic arrogance.   Considering the successes of Nazi propaganda, the cultural grip Hitler had on his people, and the overwhelming popularity of the regime, did the German language maintain any of these linguistic transformations after the war? Was an attempt made at reverting any of these redescriptions, either with cultural efforts or political ones? Is the German spoken today still swelled with these past linguistic changes?  Thank you for your time.","c_root_id_A":"c6320e3","c_root_id_B":"c632muy","created_at_utc_A":1346721203,"created_at_utc_B":1346723621,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Similar to the volkisch adjective, the concepts of Heimat is no longer a more benign feeling\/longing for a sense of home and belonging; for many it carries right-wing connotations.","human_ref_B":"You should x-post this in \/r\/linguistics. I'm sure at least some will find it very interesting.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2418.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
{"post_id":"zaq1h","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Does contemporary German bear any traces of the language redefined by Hitler\u2019s regime? Was language considered at all during the recovery efforts of a post-reich Germany? Preceding his section on \u201cLager jargon\u201d, Primo Levi writes, \u201cIt is an obvious observation that where violence is inflicted on man it is also inflicted on language.\u201d He also states that much has been written about LTI (Lingua Tertii Imperii or the language of the Third Reich). The adjective fanatisch, for example, had changed from negative to positive; the adjective volkisch (\u201cnational folk\u201d) took on nationalistic arrogance.   Considering the successes of Nazi propaganda, the cultural grip Hitler had on his people, and the overwhelming popularity of the regime, did the German language maintain any of these linguistic transformations after the war? Was an attempt made at reverting any of these redescriptions, either with cultural efforts or political ones? Is the German spoken today still swelled with these past linguistic changes?  Thank you for your time.","c_root_id_A":"c633wb6","c_root_id_B":"c6320e3","created_at_utc_A":1346728485,"created_at_utc_B":1346721203,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"this is completely unrelated, but I read the title as, \"Does the contemporary German bear trace any of its language back to Hitler's regime?\" and I was like, ....what?  american bears don't talk...","human_ref_B":"Similar to the volkisch adjective, the concepts of Heimat is no longer a more benign feeling\/longing for a sense of home and belonging; for many it carries right-wing connotations.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7282.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"2qq139","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Do knowledge retention rates differ between courses students are required to take and courses they choose freely?","c_root_id_A":"cn8hlf9","c_root_id_B":"cn8p0l4","created_at_utc_A":1419877701,"created_at_utc_B":1419890613,"score_A":4,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"I don't have an answer for you, but this journal article might be a good place to start.       Resistance to Content Area Reading: A Focus on Preservice Teachers Roger A. Stewart and David G. O'Brien Journal of Reading Vol. 32, No. 5 (Feb., 1989), pp. 396-401  http:\/\/www.jstor.org\/discover\/10.2307\/40031943?sid=21104954859691&uid=4&uid=2&uid=3739256&uid=3739976","human_ref_B":"If by 'required' you mean controlled, then yes. There is a strong link between control and motivation. A good deal of this research is done by people who work under the framework of Self-Determination Theory in psychology.   Here is a study comparing study habits with autonomous motivation to controlled motivation:  >In the present study, we found that relative autonomous motivation is positively associated with the use of a good study strategy by the students which is positively associated with higher study effort and better GPA.1]  Keep in mind, however, that not all students would see a 'required' class as controlling. There is a lot more [here.  1]: Kusurkar, R. A., Ten Cate, T. J., Vos, C. M. P., Westers, P., & Croiset, G. (2012). How motivation affects academic performance: A structural equation modelling analysis. Advances in Health Sciences Education, Online doi: [10.1007\/s10459-012-9354-3","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12912.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"14xkbk","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"[Economics] How does inflation work in a monetary union? If the Euro currency is linked for all member nations and controlled by the ECB, what are the factors that cause differences in inflation in member countries?","c_root_id_A":"c7hgb2y","c_root_id_B":"c7hekvf","created_at_utc_A":1355674444,"created_at_utc_B":1355661302,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I think this paper will have the answers you're looking for:  http:\/\/www.ecb.int\/pub\/pdf\/other\/art1_mb201211en_pp71-85en.pdf","human_ref_B":"There are many factor that are not controlled by the EU here, like the price of goods, the tax... Since 1 euro can't buy you the same things in two different EU members, I think it somehow makes sense that the inflation will be different.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13142.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"14xkbk","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"[Economics] How does inflation work in a monetary union? If the Euro currency is linked for all member nations and controlled by the ECB, what are the factors that cause differences in inflation in member countries?","c_root_id_A":"c7hg7zs","c_root_id_B":"c7hgb2y","created_at_utc_A":1355673974,"created_at_utc_B":1355674444,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"nothing, inflation is the same.  the price level is different because of varying policy, but the same is true of the US, with price levels varying between states.  but hold all existing policies constant, you get the same amount of inflation monetary union wide, mostly.","human_ref_B":"I think this paper will have the answers you're looking for:  http:\/\/www.ecb.int\/pub\/pdf\/other\/art1_mb201211en_pp71-85en.pdf","labels":0,"seconds_difference":470.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"14xkbk","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"[Economics] How does inflation work in a monetary union? If the Euro currency is linked for all member nations and controlled by the ECB, what are the factors that cause differences in inflation in member countries?","c_root_id_A":"c7hg7zs","c_root_id_B":"c7hgla6","created_at_utc_A":1355673974,"created_at_utc_B":1355675890,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"nothing, inflation is the same.  the price level is different because of varying policy, but the same is true of the US, with price levels varying between states.  but hold all existing policies constant, you get the same amount of inflation monetary union wide, mostly.","human_ref_B":"First ask: \"what is inflation?\" Inflation is a rise in the general price level of goods and services. By \"general level\", we mean the average amount an average person would be expected to pay for an average amount of goods and services. Imagine it to be like going to a town with only one grocery store (where the townspeople buy everything they need) and measuring how their baskets of goods change in price from month to month. But, people's preferences change from month to month, and different goods change in price different amounts.   That means that when measuring inflation, we have to take into account 1) that when comparing one month to the next, that the basket of goods being measured is the same from one month to the next (so that we only measure changes in prices), and 2) that we continually update what that basket of goods is, to reflect changing preferences. In fact, we have multiple measures of inflation to see how price changes differ between producers and consumers, since they don't buy the same things.  Now let's apply that definition of inflation to monetary unions: it's just like adding together a bunch of towns that can trade with each other and use the same currency. Each town will have a slightly different inflation rate, since each town has it's own market. We might group all towns together as a \"common market\", but that's only the aggregation of the actual markets. And the costs and preferences at each market will differ slightly. Imagine comparing the general price level between a rich suburban town and a poor city neighbourhood. The poor are completely unaffected by changes in the price of designer clothing, but the rich are. Normally, we only look at differences in inflation between large cities and between countries, but the same theory occurs whenever we have differing groups of people with differing costs and preferences.  Now consider that not everything can be traded to even prices between markets. The price of housing in London factors into UK inflation, but matters nothing to French inflation. Most service industries, from hairdressing to lawyering, are difficult to sell across linguistic and legal divides. A change in how lawyers operate in the UK won't affect the price of legal services in any other European country, meaning differences in inflation.  Finally, there are lots of hidden variables. If the price of fuel rises, countries will respond differently. Britain might cut some of it's petrol taxes to keep consumer prices the same, Belgians might unaffected because they always walk everywhere, and France might be deeply affected because consumers are unable to avoid driving. Differences in taxation, regulation and culture decide what and how much people buy, which in term determines what prices are and what impact price changes have on the basket of goods and services people buy.  **TL;DR Differences in preferences, taxes and regulation.**","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1916.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"16mjsl","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"What are the evolutionary origins of the sense of outrage I feel when something unfair takes place? It makes sense from an evolutionary perspective that we would have an innate sense of fairness, but I'm curious to know more about it. It is seen in other animals? Why do some people feel it more than others? Is it related to empathy? Where in the brain does it appear to take place?","c_root_id_A":"c7xgtr2","c_root_id_B":"c7xhsi9","created_at_utc_A":1358280098,"created_at_utc_B":1358283010,"score_A":10,"score_B":37,"human_ref_A":"Why would you assume there would be evolutionary origins? Outrage is a social thing, leading me to believe it's much more normative than evolutionary.","human_ref_B":"A sense of fairness exists even in monkeys. So, it would stand to reason that, evolutionarily speaking, it goes back quite a ways.  Monkey Angrily Rejects Unequal Pay  Dogs also understand fairness, and get jealous.  A lot of consideration has been given to what makes people fair, and it comes down a complicated mess of factors. From the point of view of neuroscience, it comes down to neurochemical rewards.  Fairness and Cooperation Are Rewarding  In the short-term, we get a boost of neurotransmitters in the right places, in the long-term, we learn the benefits of cooperation and being fair.   As to empathy, the greater one's ability to empathize, the easier it is to see things from their point of view and treat them fairly. It is a matter of perspective.   The mirror neurons in the anterior cingulate cortex have been hypothesized to give humans a greater capacity for empathy. Based on these ideas about mirror neurons, combined with what we know about the neuroscience of fairness, we see that the same parts of the brain are involved with empathy and can reasonably draw the connection... not just from a logical standpoint... seeing it from another person's point of view... but also from a electrochemical, region of the brain standpoint.  edit* Just released:  http:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/Scholar\/comments\/16oytg\/chimpanzees_play_the_ultimatum_game\/  Chimpanzees play the Ultimatum Game. Show similar preferences to humans.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2912.0,"score_ratio":3.7}
{"post_id":"16mjsl","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"What are the evolutionary origins of the sense of outrage I feel when something unfair takes place? It makes sense from an evolutionary perspective that we would have an innate sense of fairness, but I'm curious to know more about it. It is seen in other animals? Why do some people feel it more than others? Is it related to empathy? Where in the brain does it appear to take place?","c_root_id_A":"c7xhsi9","c_root_id_B":"c7xgv86","created_at_utc_A":1358283010,"created_at_utc_B":1358280224,"score_A":37,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"A sense of fairness exists even in monkeys. So, it would stand to reason that, evolutionarily speaking, it goes back quite a ways.  Monkey Angrily Rejects Unequal Pay  Dogs also understand fairness, and get jealous.  A lot of consideration has been given to what makes people fair, and it comes down a complicated mess of factors. From the point of view of neuroscience, it comes down to neurochemical rewards.  Fairness and Cooperation Are Rewarding  In the short-term, we get a boost of neurotransmitters in the right places, in the long-term, we learn the benefits of cooperation and being fair.   As to empathy, the greater one's ability to empathize, the easier it is to see things from their point of view and treat them fairly. It is a matter of perspective.   The mirror neurons in the anterior cingulate cortex have been hypothesized to give humans a greater capacity for empathy. Based on these ideas about mirror neurons, combined with what we know about the neuroscience of fairness, we see that the same parts of the brain are involved with empathy and can reasonably draw the connection... not just from a logical standpoint... seeing it from another person's point of view... but also from a electrochemical, region of the brain standpoint.  edit* Just released:  http:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/Scholar\/comments\/16oytg\/chimpanzees_play_the_ultimatum_game\/  Chimpanzees play the Ultimatum Game. Show similar preferences to humans.","human_ref_B":"There will be strong arguments that this is a product of socialization, rather than evolution. Take kids with a strong sense of entitlement - the things that rattle them would not even bother another child.  While rage is linked to the predatory instincts that raise adrenaline in survival situations, the fact that you're having a 'rage reaction' might be a better question for the psychologists than the anthropologists...","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2786.0,"score_ratio":6.1666666667}
{"post_id":"16mjsl","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"What are the evolutionary origins of the sense of outrage I feel when something unfair takes place? It makes sense from an evolutionary perspective that we would have an innate sense of fairness, but I'm curious to know more about it. It is seen in other animals? Why do some people feel it more than others? Is it related to empathy? Where in the brain does it appear to take place?","c_root_id_A":"c7xgum5","c_root_id_B":"c7xhsi9","created_at_utc_A":1358280173,"created_at_utc_B":1358283010,"score_A":6,"score_B":37,"human_ref_A":"Relevant BBC article published today: http:\/\/www.bbc.co.uk\/news\/science-environment-20973753","human_ref_B":"A sense of fairness exists even in monkeys. So, it would stand to reason that, evolutionarily speaking, it goes back quite a ways.  Monkey Angrily Rejects Unequal Pay  Dogs also understand fairness, and get jealous.  A lot of consideration has been given to what makes people fair, and it comes down a complicated mess of factors. From the point of view of neuroscience, it comes down to neurochemical rewards.  Fairness and Cooperation Are Rewarding  In the short-term, we get a boost of neurotransmitters in the right places, in the long-term, we learn the benefits of cooperation and being fair.   As to empathy, the greater one's ability to empathize, the easier it is to see things from their point of view and treat them fairly. It is a matter of perspective.   The mirror neurons in the anterior cingulate cortex have been hypothesized to give humans a greater capacity for empathy. Based on these ideas about mirror neurons, combined with what we know about the neuroscience of fairness, we see that the same parts of the brain are involved with empathy and can reasonably draw the connection... not just from a logical standpoint... seeing it from another person's point of view... but also from a electrochemical, region of the brain standpoint.  edit* Just released:  http:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/Scholar\/comments\/16oytg\/chimpanzees_play_the_ultimatum_game\/  Chimpanzees play the Ultimatum Game. Show similar preferences to humans.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2837.0,"score_ratio":6.1666666667}
{"post_id":"16mjsl","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"What are the evolutionary origins of the sense of outrage I feel when something unfair takes place? It makes sense from an evolutionary perspective that we would have an innate sense of fairness, but I'm curious to know more about it. It is seen in other animals? Why do some people feel it more than others? Is it related to empathy? Where in the brain does it appear to take place?","c_root_id_A":"c7xhdde","c_root_id_B":"c7xhsi9","created_at_utc_A":1358281742,"created_at_utc_B":1358283010,"score_A":2,"score_B":37,"human_ref_A":"http:\/\/www.psmag.com\/culture\/are-we-born-with-a-sense-of-fairness-50925\/","human_ref_B":"A sense of fairness exists even in monkeys. So, it would stand to reason that, evolutionarily speaking, it goes back quite a ways.  Monkey Angrily Rejects Unequal Pay  Dogs also understand fairness, and get jealous.  A lot of consideration has been given to what makes people fair, and it comes down a complicated mess of factors. From the point of view of neuroscience, it comes down to neurochemical rewards.  Fairness and Cooperation Are Rewarding  In the short-term, we get a boost of neurotransmitters in the right places, in the long-term, we learn the benefits of cooperation and being fair.   As to empathy, the greater one's ability to empathize, the easier it is to see things from their point of view and treat them fairly. It is a matter of perspective.   The mirror neurons in the anterior cingulate cortex have been hypothesized to give humans a greater capacity for empathy. Based on these ideas about mirror neurons, combined with what we know about the neuroscience of fairness, we see that the same parts of the brain are involved with empathy and can reasonably draw the connection... not just from a logical standpoint... seeing it from another person's point of view... but also from a electrochemical, region of the brain standpoint.  edit* Just released:  http:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/Scholar\/comments\/16oytg\/chimpanzees_play_the_ultimatum_game\/  Chimpanzees play the Ultimatum Game. Show similar preferences to humans.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1268.0,"score_ratio":18.5}
{"post_id":"16mjsl","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"What are the evolutionary origins of the sense of outrage I feel when something unfair takes place? It makes sense from an evolutionary perspective that we would have an innate sense of fairness, but I'm curious to know more about it. It is seen in other animals? Why do some people feel it more than others? Is it related to empathy? Where in the brain does it appear to take place?","c_root_id_A":"c7xl6it","c_root_id_B":"c7xhdde","created_at_utc_A":1358293653,"created_at_utc_B":1358281742,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"There is some related work in evolutionary game theory -- I know for instance of work on the evolution of cooperation and why\/how that would be beneficial.  The basic idea is this. Let's suppose we have some sort of interaction where both parties can cooperate with each other for a good outcome, or one party can cheat the other to get a better outcome for itself. This is the basic setup of a Prisoner's Dilemma.  Consider an idyllic society where everyone always cooperates with everyone else. But then one person realizes that they can cheat every time, since other people always cooperate, and they'll always be better off. Once they do that for a while, other people look at them and think, \"hey, I can cheat too, and then I'll be better off!\" Soon that society is doomed. Everyone will be cheating and everyone will be worse off than they were back in the good ol' days.  But now let's equip that society with a sense of moral outrage. When that first person begins to cheat, what happens? Life goes badly for them. Their neighbors are mad at them, people refuse to interact with them, maybe they go to jail. Others see this and decide they don't want to defect.  So moral outrage can act as a mechanism to support cooperation in cases where the best move individually is to cheat.  See also: Prisoner's Dilemma, Tragedy of the commons.","human_ref_B":"http:\/\/www.psmag.com\/culture\/are-we-born-with-a-sense-of-fairness-50925\/","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11911.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
{"post_id":"16mjsl","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"What are the evolutionary origins of the sense of outrage I feel when something unfair takes place? It makes sense from an evolutionary perspective that we would have an innate sense of fairness, but I'm curious to know more about it. It is seen in other animals? Why do some people feel it more than others? Is it related to empathy? Where in the brain does it appear to take place?","c_root_id_A":"c7xl6it","c_root_id_B":"c7xhvb5","created_at_utc_A":1358293653,"created_at_utc_B":1358283250,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"There is some related work in evolutionary game theory -- I know for instance of work on the evolution of cooperation and why\/how that would be beneficial.  The basic idea is this. Let's suppose we have some sort of interaction where both parties can cooperate with each other for a good outcome, or one party can cheat the other to get a better outcome for itself. This is the basic setup of a Prisoner's Dilemma.  Consider an idyllic society where everyone always cooperates with everyone else. But then one person realizes that they can cheat every time, since other people always cooperate, and they'll always be better off. Once they do that for a while, other people look at them and think, \"hey, I can cheat too, and then I'll be better off!\" Soon that society is doomed. Everyone will be cheating and everyone will be worse off than they were back in the good ol' days.  But now let's equip that society with a sense of moral outrage. When that first person begins to cheat, what happens? Life goes badly for them. Their neighbors are mad at them, people refuse to interact with them, maybe they go to jail. Others see this and decide they don't want to defect.  So moral outrage can act as a mechanism to support cooperation in cases where the best move individually is to cheat.  See also: Prisoner's Dilemma, Tragedy of the commons.","human_ref_B":"I'm not sure if this will answer all of your questions, but there was a relevant experiment with monkeys: http:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=FD06JUUXbSQ","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10403.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
{"post_id":"16mjsl","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"What are the evolutionary origins of the sense of outrage I feel when something unfair takes place? It makes sense from an evolutionary perspective that we would have an innate sense of fairness, but I'm curious to know more about it. It is seen in other animals? Why do some people feel it more than others? Is it related to empathy? Where in the brain does it appear to take place?","c_root_id_A":"c7xhdde","c_root_id_B":"c7xtzeq","created_at_utc_A":1358281742,"created_at_utc_B":1358328222,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"http:\/\/www.psmag.com\/culture\/are-we-born-with-a-sense-of-fairness-50925\/","human_ref_B":"Here is the abstract of a fairly complex 2002 article in the journal Nature, which may shed some light on that topic.  \"Human cooperation is an evolutionary puzzle. Unlike other creatures, people frequently cooperate with genetically unrelated strangers, often in large groups, with people they will never meet again, and when reputation gains are small or absent. These patterns of cooperation cannot be explained by the nepotistic motives associated with the evolutionary theory of kin selection and the selfish motives associated with signalling theory or the theory of reciprocal altruism. Here we show experimentally that the **altruistic punishment** of defectors is a key motive for the explanation of cooperation. Altruistic punishment means that individuals punish, although the punishment is costly for them and yields no material gain. We show that cooperation flourishes if altruistic punishment is possible, and breaks down if it is ruled out. The evidence indicates that negative emotions towards defectors are the proximate mechanism behind altruistic punishment. These results suggest that future study of the evolution of human cooperation should include a strong focus on explaining altruistic punishment.\"  http:\/\/www.nature.com\/nature\/journal\/v415\/n6868\/abs\/415137a.html","labels":0,"seconds_difference":46480.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"16mjsl","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"What are the evolutionary origins of the sense of outrage I feel when something unfair takes place? It makes sense from an evolutionary perspective that we would have an innate sense of fairness, but I'm curious to know more about it. It is seen in other animals? Why do some people feel it more than others? Is it related to empathy? Where in the brain does it appear to take place?","c_root_id_A":"c7xtzeq","c_root_id_B":"c7xhvb5","created_at_utc_A":1358328222,"created_at_utc_B":1358283250,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Here is the abstract of a fairly complex 2002 article in the journal Nature, which may shed some light on that topic.  \"Human cooperation is an evolutionary puzzle. Unlike other creatures, people frequently cooperate with genetically unrelated strangers, often in large groups, with people they will never meet again, and when reputation gains are small or absent. These patterns of cooperation cannot be explained by the nepotistic motives associated with the evolutionary theory of kin selection and the selfish motives associated with signalling theory or the theory of reciprocal altruism. Here we show experimentally that the **altruistic punishment** of defectors is a key motive for the explanation of cooperation. Altruistic punishment means that individuals punish, although the punishment is costly for them and yields no material gain. We show that cooperation flourishes if altruistic punishment is possible, and breaks down if it is ruled out. The evidence indicates that negative emotions towards defectors are the proximate mechanism behind altruistic punishment. These results suggest that future study of the evolution of human cooperation should include a strong focus on explaining altruistic punishment.\"  http:\/\/www.nature.com\/nature\/journal\/v415\/n6868\/abs\/415137a.html","human_ref_B":"I'm not sure if this will answer all of your questions, but there was a relevant experiment with monkeys: http:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=FD06JUUXbSQ","labels":1,"seconds_difference":44972.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"16mjsl","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"What are the evolutionary origins of the sense of outrage I feel when something unfair takes place? It makes sense from an evolutionary perspective that we would have an innate sense of fairness, but I'm curious to know more about it. It is seen in other animals? Why do some people feel it more than others? Is it related to empathy? Where in the brain does it appear to take place?","c_root_id_A":"c7xlg8k","c_root_id_B":"c7xtzeq","created_at_utc_A":1358294548,"created_at_utc_B":1358328222,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"a tribe full of people without that sense would not work together as well as one with it.  Sociopathy is ideal for individual survival, but terrible for group survival, and living in groups is safer than living alone.","human_ref_B":"Here is the abstract of a fairly complex 2002 article in the journal Nature, which may shed some light on that topic.  \"Human cooperation is an evolutionary puzzle. Unlike other creatures, people frequently cooperate with genetically unrelated strangers, often in large groups, with people they will never meet again, and when reputation gains are small or absent. These patterns of cooperation cannot be explained by the nepotistic motives associated with the evolutionary theory of kin selection and the selfish motives associated with signalling theory or the theory of reciprocal altruism. Here we show experimentally that the **altruistic punishment** of defectors is a key motive for the explanation of cooperation. Altruistic punishment means that individuals punish, although the punishment is costly for them and yields no material gain. We show that cooperation flourishes if altruistic punishment is possible, and breaks down if it is ruled out. The evidence indicates that negative emotions towards defectors are the proximate mechanism behind altruistic punishment. These results suggest that future study of the evolution of human cooperation should include a strong focus on explaining altruistic punishment.\"  http:\/\/www.nature.com\/nature\/journal\/v415\/n6868\/abs\/415137a.html","labels":0,"seconds_difference":33674.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"1f9alw","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"Is economics based on the idea that people are rational flawed? I don't know much about the models economists use, but do they base it on advertising, propoganda, natural disasters, altruism etc?  For example, Trickle Down Economics sound exactly like if rich people hired their own economists to advice governments, spread untestable falsehoods to people to get them to legally vote against themselves.  It is it in anyway a hard provable science?","c_root_id_A":"ca8627s","c_root_id_B":"ca83ztr","created_at_utc_A":1369842087,"created_at_utc_B":1369835459,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":">For example, Trickle Down Economics sound exactly like if rich people hired their own economists to advice governments, spread untestable falsehoods to people to get them to legally vote against themselves.  Bryan Caplan has done research on this and found that the differences in belief about economics between the public and economists cannot be accounted for by self-interest. The opinion gap narrows a bit if you control for education, but it seems that economic training is what causes economists to have different views than the public at large (This result is kind of funny since it shows that economic education actually does correct systemically wrong opinions, yet Caplan generally believes that education is all about signalling).  Caplan (2002) Systematically Biased Beliefs About Economics: Robust Evidence of Judgemental Anomalies From the Survey of Americans and Economists on the Economy","human_ref_B":"As everyone says here, it is a nice oversimplified model that can help make analysis easier for levels above the individual (e.g., economic policy). If you want to see a more nuanced\/psychologically realistic, but not overly complicated model, I highly recommend Robert Frank's book The Darwin Economy. Here's a great article by Leda Cosmides and John Tooby on the topic.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6628.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"1f9alw","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"Is economics based on the idea that people are rational flawed? I don't know much about the models economists use, but do they base it on advertising, propoganda, natural disasters, altruism etc?  For example, Trickle Down Economics sound exactly like if rich people hired their own economists to advice governments, spread untestable falsehoods to people to get them to legally vote against themselves.  It is it in anyway a hard provable science?","c_root_id_A":"ca83ztr","c_root_id_B":"ca89x5f","created_at_utc_A":1369835459,"created_at_utc_B":1369852529,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"As everyone says here, it is a nice oversimplified model that can help make analysis easier for levels above the individual (e.g., economic policy). If you want to see a more nuanced\/psychologically realistic, but not overly complicated model, I highly recommend Robert Frank's book The Darwin Economy. Here's a great article by Leda Cosmides and John Tooby on the topic.","human_ref_B":"Consumer behavior psychologist here.  I'll begin by saying that the idea of 'rational' is very vague and often defined in various ways.   For example, many economists often use the term to refer to profit maximization or utility maximization.  However, consider the ultimatum game. \"In which two players interact to decide how to divide a sum of money that is given to them. The first player proposes how to divide the sum between the two players, and the second player can either accept or reject this proposal. If the second player rejects, neither player receives anything. If the second player accepts, the money is split according to the proposal. The game is anonymous and played only once so that reciprocation and punishment are not issues.\"  Now if there is a total of $10 and the first player offers only a $1, it is 'rational' to accept; because not accepting loses you a dollar.  However very few people do.  Many economists will look at this and say   this is not rational behaviour.  Now from the CB side, we often look at rationality in terms of preference consistency.  For example, if I like product A more than B, and B more than C, than I should like A more than C.  However, there are ways in which you can present these pairs, such that A>B and B>C but that C>A; and in this sense people are not rational.    So first to answer the question, one really has to know what you mean by 'rationality' (also there are limitations to any definition, but those have been covered by others).  Now whether this effects economic theories\/models is a difficult thing to answer.  It depends on the model, but it also depends on the irrationality.  More specifically, if the the irrationality randomly deviates from the rational norm, than it should balance out.    However, often the irrational behavior moves in consistent ways.  For example, Loss-aversion, risk aversion, endowments, etc.  If everyone was rationale, stocks would not be able to offer the premium over bonds that they do (e.g. the equity price premium) \/ the fact that they do means everyone (with a long term plan) should be investing in them .However, because people a) have a huge aversion to risk and loss and b) compartmentalize time - that is not what is seen.   (See: MYOPIC LOSS AVERSION AND THE EQUITY PREMIUM PUZZLE, 1995)  Hope that helps.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":17070.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"2u1hz7","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"Where is research headed in Economics and its different branches? I love economics, particularly microeconomics, and am really interested in how its being explored as a science.","c_root_id_A":"co4njfr","c_root_id_B":"co4g73d","created_at_utc_A":1422543826,"created_at_utc_B":1422516624,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"The IMF made a list of 25 rising stars in economics. That might be a good starting point to see current research trends.","human_ref_B":"This is a huge question (there are lots of branches of economics http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Outline_of_economics#Branches_of_economics ), and if you want a detailed answer, you'll have to ask something more specific. However, if you want a good resource on \"cutting edge\" economics, you could look at recent winners of the John Bates Clark medal: https:\/\/www.aeaweb.org\/honors_awards\/clark_medal.php  If you read the linked bios on that page for anybody in the last 15 or so years (maybe more), you'll get a good sense of what's new and interesting.  The John Bates Clark medal is useful because it's given to young researchers, so it highlights new ideas.  The (free!) journal Journal of Economic Perspectives is also awesome for finding summaries of existing research and highlights of potential future research: https:\/\/www.aeaweb.org\/jep\/issues.php","labels":1,"seconds_difference":27202.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"2u1hz7","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"Where is research headed in Economics and its different branches? I love economics, particularly microeconomics, and am really interested in how its being explored as a science.","c_root_id_A":"co4iyie","c_root_id_B":"co4njfr","created_at_utc_A":1422529179,"created_at_utc_B":1422543826,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I really like this question. Any answer would be very imperfect but quite useful to send to people asking 'what's modern economics about?'. Below is my attempt; dear fellow economists, please help me by commenting!  **Macroeconomics:** We are in a post neo-keynesian 'revolution'. I have the feeling that now the bulk of the debate is on causality. The research is about finding good data and applying good methods to find out what causes what, e.g. unemployment.  **Game theory:** There are a lot of things to do in repeated games, especially with imperfect information. As far as I understand it, we know how to characterise equilibrium payoffs but not equilibrium strategies. See Larry Samuelson's work.  **Behavioural economics:** Experimental economics has generated a lot of data, now it's time to make sense of it.   **Microeconomics:** Mechanism design is huge, but I can't really say more, it's not my field.  One last thing: spanning all branches is the interest in **attention and focusing**. In macroeconomics you have rational inattention initated by Sims, in microeconomics you have Shleifer's or Gabaix's work.  EDIT: **Industrial organisations**: two-sided markets is big at the moment, thanks to Tirole.","human_ref_B":"The IMF made a list of 25 rising stars in economics. That might be a good starting point to see current research trends.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":14647.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"27pgvx","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"Best book you've read on the history of banking? I just started \"A History of Money and Banking in the United States\" by Murray Rothbard, but I'm looking for something that goes further back and actually focuses on the origins of banking and the Bank of England. Thanks.","c_root_id_A":"ci3bwnl","c_root_id_B":"ci34asx","created_at_utc_A":1402350407,"created_at_utc_B":1402335337,"score_A":10,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World by Niall Ferguson","human_ref_B":"\"Civilization and Capitalism\" by Fernand Braudel takes you back to the 15th century, and discusses the development of banking as part of the entire capitalist apparatus. A classic piece in history.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":15070.0,"score_ratio":1.4285714286}
{"post_id":"27pgvx","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"Best book you've read on the history of banking? I just started \"A History of Money and Banking in the United States\" by Murray Rothbard, but I'm looking for something that goes further back and actually focuses on the origins of banking and the Bank of England. Thanks.","c_root_id_A":"ci34g81","c_root_id_B":"ci3bwnl","created_at_utc_A":1402335636,"created_at_utc_B":1402350407,"score_A":2,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"Hi there, I am a Economics\/Philosophy major at Union College. I read a book called financial founding fathers for a class I took freshman year called Financial Markets. It's a easy read and one of the books that spurred my interest in Economics.","human_ref_B":"The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World by Niall Ferguson","labels":0,"seconds_difference":14771.0,"score_ratio":5.0}
{"post_id":"27pgvx","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"Best book you've read on the history of banking? I just started \"A History of Money and Banking in the United States\" by Murray Rothbard, but I'm looking for something that goes further back and actually focuses on the origins of banking and the Bank of England. Thanks.","c_root_id_A":"ci34g81","c_root_id_B":"ci3hf64","created_at_utc_A":1402335636,"created_at_utc_B":1402362931,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Hi there, I am a Economics\/Philosophy major at Union College. I read a book called financial founding fathers for a class I took freshman year called Financial Markets. It's a easy read and one of the books that spurred my interest in Economics.","human_ref_B":"A Financial History of Western Europe by Charles Kindleberger is a classic. It's broader than banking though, and also covers public and private finance, and the emergence of capital markets.          If you want to read about how, after the Renaissance, bankers could decide European wars, or how kings often screwed bankers by refusing to pay their debts, this is the book for you.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":27295.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"12liv4","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.74,"history":"Isn't 'saving' money bad for society? Wouldn't it take money out of circulation and thus make it less likely for the money to benefit other people? No matter how frivolously I spend my money it keeps on flowing. For example, if I pay a hairdresser 1 million dollars to cut my hair then the million dollars will be spent by the hairdresser on other things and so on and the money will be distributed naturally. But if I just save the money and don't spend it I will be hoarding it and making it less likely for other people to gain benefit from it.  I'm sure there are great theories and books about this, I can't find them sadly (and judging their quality without having a great understanding is hard) so I would love an answer or a link to a place which will give me a good answer","c_root_id_A":"c6w8uuw","c_root_id_B":"c6w3ud2","created_at_utc_A":1352045934,"created_at_utc_B":1352005829,"score_A":8,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"No. There are fifteen different misconceptions at work here. Our task is eternal...  Here is a short article exposing some of the fallacies you bring up in the OP. I'm willing to discuss any of them at length with you, because these issues are *really really important*.  1. In the short run, if enough people hoard money simultaneously (by destroying it, say), it will cause a recession, fine. But consider the following.  1. If you hoard a dollar by stuffing it under a mattress, all you will have done in the long run is reduced the price level by just enough that someone, somewhere, can afford an extra $1 cup of coffee.  2. If you hoard a dollar by putting it in a bank, all you will have done in the long run is reduced the interest rate by just enough that someone, somewhere, can afford to take out an extra $1 loan.  4. And of course, I'm ignoring the monetary policy response: when you hoard, the Fed dis-hoards in equal proportion.","human_ref_B":"I would recommend reading about the Paradox of Thrift and the far more contemporary Golden Rule Savings Rate","labels":1,"seconds_difference":40105.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"mch8t","domain":"asksocialscience_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"Why are patents good if monopolies are bad?","c_root_id_A":"c2zzo2u","c_root_id_B":"c2zvvvl","created_at_utc_A":1321380295,"created_at_utc_B":1321338816,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Patents are limited term monopolies. The purpose of Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution is mainly an incentive structure. Patents and copyrights are a monopoly given to authors and inventors so that they have an incentive to create. As you can see from the multiple comments here though, whether that incentive structure is working is still being debated. A lot of the case law with patents points to the ongoing tension between the incentive structure and the undeniable fact that it is a monopoly.","human_ref_B":"The case for patents is that they can help spur imnovation.   R&D is expensive, and companies don't want to make that investment just for someone to rip it off. If a company can secure market exclusivity, then the should be able to secure more revenue from the r&d.  This would increase the frequency that the research would be profitable for the company, meaning more new technology is developed!  That's the basic arguement for why patents are good.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":41479.0,"score_ratio":1.5}