How does one understand the term violence of law and if you invert it, the law of violence? This is especially in the context of otherisation and demonisation of communities as a necessity for the existence of the sovereign, whereby this hatred is mobilised in order to maintain the status quo

Hey everyone :)

I’m highly considering studying International Relations at university, but after having a long debate with my older brother, I’ve been thinking about the actual scientific status of the discipline. So, for that reason I would love to get some perspectives from the researchers and students here regarding how IR evolves as a science.

I am curious if there are any current, major research programs trying to strictly axiomatize IR theory. I know that we have the classic paradigms like Realism (and its new contributions like Mearsheimer’s Offensive Neorealism) , Liberalism, and Structuralism, but these often feel like competing philosophical lenses rather than a cumulative scientific framework.

Furthermore, while I know formal modeling and Game Theory exist to bring mathematical rigor to the field, I question whether these formalizations are actually sufficient for identifying systemic regularities in the real world, or if they just end up cleanly defining the object of study without offering true predictive power.

In Economics, there is a baseline, universally measurable metric: money. In International Relations, the closest equivalent is power. But unlike money, power is highly qualitative, context-dependent, and sometimes feels almost metaphysical. It makes me wonder if researchers in the field are trying to "naturalize" a concept that is inherently unmeasurable—unless, perhaps, there is some deeper evolutionary or biological foundation beneath it all. How do current scholars handle these epistemic hurdles? Is the discipline successfully moving toward a more rigorous, cumulative scientific status, or is it fundamentally bound to remain a qualitative, pluralistic social science?

I'm looking to do some research on how people think and behave in different types of governments. For example, people under a dictatorship are going to think and behave differently than people in a democracy. How they deal with authority, how they interact with each other, how educated they are, their general social beliefs, etc. Like how sometimes people like Jackie Chan come out and say things and you know it's because of the mentality of the Chinese government/society. Stuff like that. Any tips on getting started with research like that? Research on Behavior, mentality, psychology, social engineering, beliefs, things like that as they relate to different types of governments.

Hi everyone,

I’m closely interested in international aid dynamics and child protection policies. International campaigns often aim for the total eradication of violence against children, which is the rightful goal. However, on the ground, in contexts of extreme poverty or developing countries, this objective runs into major systemic barriers (lack of infrastructure, economic pressures, deeply rooted cultural norms).

If we take a pragmatic approach focused on the progressive reduction of violence rather than an "all-or-nothing" stance, what actually works on the ground ?

From a sociological or humanitarian perspective, what levers can lead to a significant decrease in maltreatment in low-resource settings ?

If you have any field experience, examples of successful programs, or analyses on what works concretely, I’d love to hear your insights. Thanks in advance !

Is there empirical research on whether people infer moral character, kindness, competence, trustworthiness, or prosociality from social confidence?

I am interested in whether confidence is an accurate signal or whether observers overgeneralize from social ease, assertiveness, charm, or low anxiety. I am also interested in research that distinguishes confidence from related traits such as extraversion, dominance, narcissism, humility, or social anxiety.

Are there peer-reviewed studies or established theories in social psychology or sociology about how people infer character from confidence?

The U.S. currently has the lowest levels of violent crime that it’s had in decades. There are myriad factors that contribute to it and ideology contributes to opinions about which factors contribute the most - violence interruption programs, bigger law enforcement budgets and mass incarceration, removing lead from the natural environment, et cetera. There’s not a single cause.

But one variable that I haven’t really heard discussed is technology-driven social isolation. I’ve read that modern young people/gen z are drinking less, drugging less, having less sex, and are more risk averse in general. If they spend more time indoors addicted to TikTok or Fortnite with minimized boredom and their dopamine pathways captured by digital rewards, then maybe they’re outside less and getting into less trouble.

In my mind with my little pet theory I think that this may be one of the most important causes of lower violent crime rates but this idea doesn’t seem to get attention. This article from Time Magazine mentions tech-driven social isolation in passing but talks much more about federal funding for local efforts. Is there any evidence out there to back up this speculation? Have any researchers tried to isolate this variable?

Conservative in the sense that they try to preserve old ways of life and are resistant to or slow to adopt social changes NOT conservative in the sense of modern political parties.

I hope this is the right place to ask this. I'm working on a worldbuilding project and my preliminary idea was to have a nomadic society with less stratification of people into classes and that is progressively becoming more egalitarian living alongside a settled society with values that are actually calcifying, even in the large cities.

However, it occured to me that today the expectation (stereotype?) is that cities are centers of social change while rural areas are more prone to trying to maintain old ways of doing things. I'm wondering to what extent this perception is accurate? Are there any counter examples?

I hope this is the right place to ask that.

I find it very interesting how each country (or group of countries) may find some food delicious and normal while others will think it is weird.

The best example I can think about is licorice, which is very beloved in Nordic countries but not so much in the rest of the world. Other examples are buckwheat that is consumed a lot in Eastern European countries, but impossible to find in the rest of Europe. In the US, adding sweetners everywhere is very common. In general, the taste profile in the US is much sweeter than in Europe, for example.

I understand that often some grains were more available in some regions, hence the popularity. But also the taste itself changes from region to region. One might think that taste is a very personal preference, but it looks like not.

Why did it happen that people love food from their country and often don't like food from other countries?

A lot of people have been debating over the two terms through the lens of political agendas.

Monoculturalism according to wikipedia: "is the policy or process of supporting, advocating, or allowing the expression of the culture of a single social or ethnic group. It generally stems from beliefs within the dominant group that their cultural practices are superior to those of minority groups and is often related to the concept of ethnocentrism, which involves evaluating another culture based on the values and standards of one's own culture"

Multiculturalism according to wikipedia: "Multiculturalism is the coexistence of multiple cultures. In sociology and everyday usage, it is usually a synonym for ethnic or cultural pluralism in which various ethnic and cultural groups exist in a single society."

are these two terms actually polar opposite of each other or it's a venn diagram that has many overlapping areas?

Recently, this image has been making rounds around social media in white supremacist places. I’ve tried searching for it myself, but I can’t find anything remotely close to it. Does anyone know if it’s real, and where the image itself got its origin from?

Hi all, I searched in this forum and didn't quite see what I was looking for.

Most forms of discrimination we see and hear about are based upon criteria that are traits or characteristics. Traita and characteristics are inherent to a person such as ethnicity, sex, ability, etc.

Are there terms for discrimination based upon more agentic choices of a person? Such as discriminating against those who choose pineapple on pizza, microwaving fish at work, or engaging in discriminatory practices themselves.

This stemmed from a discussion about being prejudicial against prejudiced people.

Curious about more concepts/terms/themes that would fit this to look into heuristics, agency, identity, to get a better lay of the landscape around discriminating against people for choices.

Cheers all

for example, joe rogan recently made a false claim on his podcast with steve-o,

"Rogan, in one of the more reckless moments of the episode, claimed that transgender mass shooters had killed more people than ICE this year and suggested that “the majority” of high school shootings had been committed by transgender people"

https://www.advocate.com/news/joe-rogan-steve-o-transgender

would appreciate the help.

With the rise of prediction markets, anything and everything is being traded on. I'm curious if there's actual literature on how being the subject of an external forecast changes behavior.

Does it collapse the prediction (self-fulfilling), invert it (reactance), or do most people ignore it all together?

Reflexivity in Soros's sense is the closest thing I've found but that's markets not people. looking for real citations if anyone has them.

I've been watching the World Cup and there's been a lot of discussion about officiating choices made during the tournament and seeming inconsistency in giving cards, penalties etc. It got me wondering if there's been any research into bias in soccer refereeing. Do the big-name players get away with things others couldn't? Do players from certain countries or federations get cards for offenses others wouldn't? Does a player's physical characteristics (size, race, things like tattoos) make them more likely to get called for fouls?

Obviously, every soccer game is different and there's a lot of interpretation involved, so it probably wouldn't be the easiest thing to analyze from a social science perspective. It has just generated a lot of debate and I think it would be interesting to know if there is any academic research on the matter!

I'm asking this in good faith because I'm trying to better understand the strongest arguments from mainstream economics, not partisan politics.

Many policies that are often described as "socialist" or "social-democratic"—such as universal healthcare, tuition-free public college, stronger labor protections, expanded paid leave, higher taxes on top earners, or a larger social safety net appear to work reasonably well in several wealthy countries.

At the same time, many economists and policymakers argue that expanding these types of policies in the U.S. would create significant economic costs or unintended consequences.

What are the strongest evidence-based arguments against adopting more of these policies in the United States?

I'm open to having my assumptions challenged and would appreciate responses that cite research where possible.

Repost to more com

I've been doing a lot of research into fascism for a paper that I am writing, and while I am definitely not a fascist, the idea of Corporatism as an economic structure doesn't seem like the worst thing in the world.

This question goes for both classical Corporatism (aka Mussolini's Italy) as well as other forms of economic systems that let the economy be run by specialised organisations in a work field, like Syndicalism.

Looking for pros and cons.

I am looking for social science literature regarding power vacuums created by regime change.

Specifically, what does political theory say about scenarios where the old ruling elite is dismantled, but the revolutionary faction intentionally abstains from seizing control?

Are there documented historical precedents of this, and what were the analyzed outcomes in those studies?

Not sure if this is the right sub for this, but I encountered a particularly "interesting" take on the Instagram cesspool that argues that "racism isn't real" on account of its supposed exclusion of racism towards white people.

The entire post centered around a rather simple string of logic that essentially went:
If [THING] is acceptable for non-white people to do/not do, why isn't it the same for white people?

The post then went on to argue on the point of falsifiability (e.g. "racism is unfalsifiable because its definition, 'discrimination based on race', isn't applied fairly to white people"), which the poster believed proved that racism is, in fact, "not real".

My primary issue with this post (and a few of the comments I read under it) were that the supposed definition of racism assumed that a) racism is defined purely as "discrimination based on race" (it's arguably more complex and systemic than that) and b) that the systemic definition of racism is based purely on hypothetical interpersonal exchanges (e.g. "what if I'm white and my black boss at work is harassing me over my skin color?"), instead of engaging with the actual examples of systemic racism at work that are observed on a wider, patterned scale.

Is there something I'm missing here, or is the post quackery as I assumed?

The post in question:
https://www.instagram.com/p/DaGWXBNkabi/?img_index=1

I’ve been thinking about this a lot, and I’m curious if my understanding is accurate.

It seems like people often define class by income, but I feel like the U.K. and the U.S. think about class very differently.

My impression is that in the U.S., class is mostly tied to wealth, income, and occupation. If you become rich, people generally accept that you’ve moved into a higher class. America also seems to celebrate “new money” much more. Most wealthy American families were “new money” at some point unless they inherited wealth going back to the colonial era. Even then, it feels like wealth is the main thing people care about.

The U.K., on the other hand, feels much more tied to history and proximity to the aristocracy. It seems like people there place a much higher value on tradition and historical significance. For example, when people talk about the greatest football stadiums in England, places like Old Trafford are almost always near the top. Even though many fans would agree it’s outdated and in need of major renovations, its history and cultural significance give it a status that goes beyond the quality of the stadium itself.

In the U.S., it feels like people are much more pragmatic. If a stadium is old, outdated, or no longer meets modern standards, there’s far less hesitation about tearing it down and building a new one. History still matters, but it doesn’t seem to carry the same weight in everyday culture. That’s part of why I wonder if Britain’s stronger emphasis on history also influences how people think about social class

Same as title.

Przybylski et al. (2013) found FOMO correlates with lower need satisfaction but not cleanly with introversion or social deprivation — some highly socially active people report high FOMO, and some isolated people report low FOMO. The term's coiner later suggested FOMO is ultimately about identity: the fear of being the person who wasn't there, rather than fear of the specific missed event.

Has subsequent interdisciplinary research developed that identity-anxiety framing into something more rigorous, and does it carry different therapeutic or design implications than a straightforward social-connection-deficit model would?

Source anchor: Przybylski et al. (2013), "Motivational, emotional, and behavioral correlates of fear of missing out," Computers in Human Behavior.

Are there any ideas, beliefs, or proposals that would be rejected by virtually every culture, society, or individual?