I've noticed the denial of evolution is rampant among arab communities as opposed to denial of the formation of stars or so. Why is this the case? Does it serve some purpose?
Clinical psychologist and political commentator Jordan Peterson makes the following claim in this video:
> There's an increasingly voluminous body of psychological research suggesting that one of the best predictors of the desire to redistribute income isn't fairness — which, if measured properly, doesn't seem to enter into the equation at all — but malicious envy.
I'm aware that Peterson is often wrong on political topics since they're outside his area of expertise, but here he's making a claim based on psychological research on personality, for which I believe he's fairly well respected. Is there any evidence supporting this claim?
I’ve spent time in Vietnam and met many hardworking and kind people, which is why I’ve been wondering about the reports of some Vietnamese technical interns in Japan becoming involved in theft or violent crimes.
I’m not trying to generalize Vietnamese people at all. I’m more interested in the structural and psychological side of this issue.
Some media reports point to debt, exploitation, isolation, language barriers, low wages, and unrealistic expectations before arriving in Japan.
Do you think Japan’s technical intern system and working conditions may contribute to desperation or antisocial behavior in some cases?
I am trying to understand whether there are established frameworks in sociology, political science, or social psychology that analyze social phenomena through the interaction of several dimensions:
power or authority structures
resource distribution or material incentives
affect, emotions, identity, or perceived legitimacy
institutions, rules, norms, and organizational structures
For example, in cases such as electoral bloc switching, public trust in government, protest movements, or institutional legitimacy crises, it seems insufficient to explain outcomes only through individual preferences or only through formal institutions.
My question is: are there recognized theories or bodies of literature that explicitly combine these dimensions? For instance, how do scholars connect institutional arrangements, elite coordination, material incentives, and collective emotions when explaining social behavior?
I am not trying to propose a new theory; I am looking for existing concepts, keywords, or literature that would help me study this more rigorously.
You're an adult now. Get over it,"
"Victim hood."
Is what people say to victims of abuse.
The act of abuse is mainly the only thing that is talked about
But the mental trauma isn't.
People don't seem to understand that abuse can change the brain, which isn't something that changes when the brain reaches adulthood .
There's no "get over it" for some people, abuse raises some people, some people are born into abuse, and it's all their brain knows.
They don't see anything wrong with themselves, so there is no "get help ", help for what?, a problem they don't see.
People act out of trauma.
What looks like fully understanding of an action.
Can mean something totally different to an abused brain.
This also makes abuse seem not so bad, something to get over.
When society treats abuse like something, victims should just get over at a certain time . It downplays the abuser actions.
Make what they did not so bad.
Yes, people should get help to heal from their trauma, but it's not that easy for everyone
P.s it's late lol, sorry if what I'm saying doesn't make sense
We talk a lot about voting blocs as if they're fixed, but the 2024 election showed us that even groups with strong partisan leanings can shift rapidly. Muslim American voters moving away from Democrats, Black Republicans leaving the House, these aren't just individual decisions; they're coordinated movements.
I document how this actually works using Israeli elections as an example (I"When Rigid Blocs Crack: Elite-Coordinated Voter Switching in an Identity-Based Party System" https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202511.2148) .
The key finding: bloc defection can occur when community elites signal that switching is acceptable or necessary. It's not about individual voters suddenly changing their minds; it's about permission structures and coordination.
For election mappers, this matters because it means we can't just assume historical patterns will hold. When you see a bloc starting to crack, look for the elite-level signals; endorsements, community leader statements, organizational shifts. Those are your leading indicators, not just polling of individual voters.
Happy to share more on the methodology if anyone's working on forecasting models that incorporate these dynamics.
----
Boris Gorelik, Data scientist studying AI reasoning, platform dynamics, and quantitative social science
I am looking into why the data suggests that ethnic minority women are disproportionately affected by violence and homicide in the UK. I am looking for insight into why people think this is
Hi all! I'm just a curious guy with no intention of harm or hate to anyone. I was just wondering, given the acceptance of transitioning genders, why is race still not accepted?
This thought came from a reel I saw of some white Brazilian legislator (I think) trying to argue transitioning genders is.. I dunno... bad?
While I have nothing against transgender people - I always thought a person is more a person than their labels anyway - I thought that the way she tried to prove her point didn't make sense? If she were genuinely trying to transition into a black woman, what would be wrong in that?
When I don't understand something I always have a conversation with AI: the arguments it gave me were all so weak!
I think that's only cause gender transition is far more socially accepted, which let it be recognised in law, medicine, and psychological. Being more accepted and thus less stigmatised also let it be researched into, thus further acceptance in the three fields
Meanwhile "race dysphoria" is, let's say "socially rejected", thus it isn't recognised in the three fields.
Thus, I find this to beg the question: it's gender dysphoria is socially accepted because it is medically accepted, and it is medically accepted because it is socially accepted
In a world where there were less stigma to race transition, it would probably be more heard of, thus more looked into by these scholars, no?
I think that's also not fair, who is to say race transition is necessarily out of choice? This is more of assumption than a fact.
transitioning race would be picking and choosing what you like about a culture without the lived experience:
how is gender and race any different in this scenario, you transition and then you gain the privileges or oppression that a gender faces: someone who transitions into a woman will face the oppression of misogyny and the privileges of chivalry all without having grown up with it. A black person can transition into white and face the privileges that they never had growing up. A white person can transition into black and face the oppression.
It is argue that gender is a **psychological state** (Brain Sex Theory), while race is a **historical contract.** In this view, "Woman" is something you *are*, but "Black" or "Asian" is something you *belong to*. You can change your state, but you can’t change your ancestors:
What does ancestors have anything to do with an individual's identity?? The only reason it would matter is genetically, like the theories of genetic scars of slavery, but we aren't talking about genes in identity, right??
OK if you used this language on gender dysphoric people the mobs would chase you out of the village no doubt. However really considering it, what is the difference here between race and gender transition? They are both constructs that aren't tied to biology
Anyways the debate was too long that I couldn't really put em all here, but lowkey.. after putting down all of AI's arguments, it did say that the notion thag race not being as fluid as gender is just a blind belief held by society
Give me your bests arguments! Convince me!
and tell me if there are any flaws to my logic.
If so, how much/well?
They seem so obviously stupid that i find it hard to believe that they do.
As a modern person, the thought of two grown men fighting to the death over disrespect feels very strange. Especially given that, from what I understand, duels generally didn't happen in the heat of the moment but were planned affairs. So days or even weeks didn't suffice to cool tempers enough to avert bloodshed.
What led to this culture, and what led to its decline?
American cultural theorist Sianne Ngai to discuss her intellectual trajectory, political aesthetics, Fredric Jameson, ugly thoughts, ugly feelings, aesthetic categories, the gimmick in capitalism… and a lot of other things.
Hello everyone, I came across a study from worldmetrics.org https://worldmetrics.org/transgender-crime-statistics/ which found that transgender people did have higher rates of violence perpetrated against them which I already knew, but they also found that transgender people had higher arrest rates for violent crime compared to cisgender people. I have never heard this before and I wasnt able to find any other evidence online that corroborates these findings. One that particularly stood out to me as unbelievable was that transgender men had arrest rates for assault 4.3 times higher than cisgender men. Is this information accurate or is it misleading?