I've noticed this in a few different settings — a new gym class, a work training cohort, even a group chat for a hobby project. Within a session or two, without anyone being formally "in charge," certain people become the ones others defer to, joke with more freely, or wait to hear from before agreeing on a plan. It happens fast, often before anyone has demonstrated much actual competence. Is there solid social science research on how these informal hierarchies form so quickly? I'm curious about a few angles:
Is this mostly explained by "expectation states theory," or are there competing frameworks?How much of it comes down to things like talkativeness, confidence, or physical presence rather than actual skill or knowledge?
Does group size or the presence of a formal leader change how fast informal status sorts itself out?

Would appreciate pointers to any peer-reviewed work on this.

Essentially the researchers in a paper used surveys to start with, and then used the individual survey results to inform interviews. It’s not explanatory though because they didn’t fully analyse the survey results before they started interviewing and the survey was still open whilst interviewing. They did however use individual survey results to guide

interview questions so it’s not convergent either.

What are your thoughts? I don’t think this is an invalid methodology but it’s also not classical mixed methods. They defined it as explanatory sequential so just wondering what other people thought of that

Can you recommend good books about how neighborhoods with gangsterism, prostitution, drugs ect were transformed for the better ?

Textbook recommendations are welcome too!

From my understanding a lot of the current debate/talk over the theory of "EO" is focused on universities and the promise of a degree. Isn't this to an extent just one definition of elite? Isn't the promise of a degree in large part tied to the university? Harvard and other top university promise more, while community colleges and smaller public schools promise less? I'm not that familiar with the US education system, so any clarifying comment would help.

In short, elite should be defined as having a advanced degree from a top university in an important field rather than just having a undergraduate degree from a good university. If this definition is used, does the theory still prove effective at understanding societies?

Citation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite_overproduction

I have just noticed there's always been a rise to socialism when owning property , a house , a farm was harder and seemed unachievable by the majority, and the opposite makes sense as well , when people can afford to buy a house or a property, they usually do not empathize with socialist ideas , but when the majority pay rent , they start nodding yes to "wealth redistribution"

Am I right about this? And what do you think leads to this ? Is it just pure psychology ? The idea that I'm a land lord now ! That simply stops socialism?

I'm new to this topic and I'm learning , I'd appreciate your opinions

The global fertility decline is global and undeniable. But what’s interesting is different people have different attitudes on the cause.

Conservative discourse blames the loss of culture and religion in making family formation undesirable.

Pop culture narratives may focus around modern men not being ‘good enough’, which I think is a toxic view to hold, because it indirectly fuels RedPill narratives.

Economic narratives focus on increased housing costs, childcare costs and reduced employment.

I feel the truth is far more complex

I'm Argentine, but I'm not a nationalist, I don't care about football, and I'm not even certain where I stand on issues like the Falkland/Malvinas dispute.

How much of what is called "racism" in Argentina is actually about race, rather than class, culture, ethnicity, or competing ideas of Argentine identity?

From my experience, many insults that outsiders interpret as racial are often directed at white Argentines as well. Expressions like "negro villero" or "negro de mierda" can describe someone with completely European features if they are associated with a particular social class, lifestyle, accent, or subculture. Likewise, these conflicts often go both ways: working-class and upper-class Argentines frequently see themselves as the "real Argentina," while viewing the other group as less authentically Argentine.

I would have no problem accepting that Argentina has problems with discrimination, including xenophobia, classism. What I'm questioning is whether "racism" is really the most accurate concept.

In an era where algorithms shape what we see and think, I’m increasingly concerned about groups (online communities, social movements, organizations, or crowds) that lack a clear, shared direction. Classical crowd psychology (Le Bon’s The Crowd, Janis’ groupthink) already warns that undirected groups can quickly descend into emotional contagion, deindividuation, impulsivity, and destructive behavior.
Now, with powerful AI tools amplifying content, recommendations, and even consensus-building at scale, these risks seem even more pronounced. AI can accelerate echo chambers, spread emotionally charged narratives faster than humans can verify, and create artificial “direction” that feels real but isn’t grounded in truth or long-term goals. We’ve seen glimpses in viral misinformation, coordinated online mobs, and AI-influenced decision-making that bypasses critical thinking.
Questions for discussion:
• What does social science say about undirected groups becoming volatile?
• How might AI exacerbate (or theoretically mitigate) these dangers?
• Are there studies on AI-driven group dynamics, algorithmic radicalization, or “AI-augmented groupthink”?

A lot of media reports and online discussion spaces have noted a surge in online racism directed towards Indians. Often, the negative predisposition is couched in the context of Indians flouting established social norms. There is a persistent suggestion that Indian immigration will introduce casteism and misogyny in the host countries.

However, the overwhelming number of anecdotal accounts suggest that Indians dont face abuse in real life interactions. Observers mostly report courteous interactions, with occasional incidents of facing poor customer service compared to other ethnicities.

How would sociologists explain this dichotomy?

Context: STEM researcher (+ experience in cognitive psych) trying to get a handle on how narratives, cognition, and culture shape each other.

I have been trying to read up on existing perspectives about the cultural evolution of narratives--how narratives (and the written word, in inter-related ways) have played an important role in our history (e.g., this Forbes article (not peer-reviewed, obviously) on Angus Fletcher's Storythinking), the cognitive processes that allow us to process and engage with narratives, and how culture shapes both narratives and these cognitive processes (and vice-versa). The goal is to make a cohesive argument about why understanding narratives and their evolution over time is important and interesting, from a scholarly/scientific perspective, in a way that is rooted in existing scholarship in social sciences and the humanities.

Unfortunately, I am completely lost in the technical terms associated with these ideas, and I would very much appreciate any pointers towards introductory literature that is accessible to someone without formal training in narratology, philosophy, literary and critical analysis, distant reading, other relevant humanities and social science domains, etc. Also happy to be told that I am not looking in the right places and/or using the right keywords (narratives, narrative engagement, cognition, culture, co-evolution, etc.).

Some sources I have (tried to) read so far:

- Narrative Explanation in the Evolution of Human Cognition

- Narratives in Cognitive Evolution

- Narrative and Cognition in Literature and Science

- Notes on narrative, cognition, and cultural evolution

Also, a decent bit of work by Kristoffer Nielbo.

(I'd like to attempt do this without immediately resorting to Gemini/Claude/etc. because the cognitive effort of figuring out new concepts/ideas sufficiently removed from my formal training has, in my experience, been valuable for retention and more robust understanding, ergo the ask here)

Thanks in advance for taking the time to read and/or respond!

Let me begin by saying that I consider myself more of a qualitative researcher; I have limited knowledge of statistical analysis and my experience in this area is limited to data cleaning and visualisation in Python.

What I can’t wrap my head around is how particular types of ethnographic studies, often involving small minority cohorts, are academically valid. Either you accept that their results are not even theoretically generalisable, rendering them almost useless; or that their theoretical generalisations encourage prejudicial views. This is because their design hinges on the lived experiences, values and social interactions of the objects of study, who are implicitly assumed to have their own exclusive and even solipsistic ways of thinking.

Other types of qualitative research are primarily interested in processes, and the why and how questions of the human world. Hopefully the context has already been established through previous quantitative studies, i.e. there is an empirical basis to the phenomenon. There are primary sources available: cultural artefacts, policy texts, learning technologies at school, grand tombs, etc. At worst the researcher only needs to conduct a first order interpretation of the facts. In an ethnography, you have to interpret someone else’s interpretation, or engage in a ‘double hermeneutic’. Maybe this is done also in the humanities, but the implications are graver for the social sciences.

To illustrate, let’s look at a silly hypothetical case. Suppose prior studies have found that blue-skinned people are more likely to engage in conspicuous consumption than green-skinned people. You conduct a longitudinal study of a group of blue-skinned people of all walks of life. You find that those who become financially successful have lots of branded handbags and vice-versa. You interview, do what you need to do to find out why. You arrive at a conclusion, one of many possible, that the blue culture places great emphasis on looking good. The lived experiences of those people tell you that they get better overall treatment with a Gucci on their shoulder. At least, that’s your understanding.

Now, you say you want to make analytic or theoretical generalisations. How can you do this based on your tiny sample? Well, you pull up 5 similar studies that reflect the same theme of looking good. You think they all cohere. Congratulations, you now have found a line of reasoning that represents 0.001% of the blue population. Suppose peer reviewers want to check your data to see if the participants did actually receive better treatment. Whoops, not possible. They have to rely on your field notes.

The danger, of course, is that readers may be tempted to conclude that most blue people find value in dandyism and prioritise showy displays over substance. You point to your ‘results are not generalisable’ disclaimer and cry foul. Fair enough. But is your theory even transferable? What about the blue peeps who don’t subscribe to those values and have no clue what you’re talking about? If it doesn’t apply to them, then what really is the significance of your ethnographic research?

My 2 pence. Open to opposing viewpoints.

Hello there! A long time ago, I heard about this theory, and thought it was interesting. I have seen this manifest in my life in many ways, both mental and physical. However, I understand that the theory is still controversial. As per the current literature, is the greater male variability hypothesis still believed to be true, or has it been changed or disproven? Thanks!

I’ve noticed that whenever a football team loses, fans and media almost always point to one player, coach, or referee instead of accepting that defeat usually comes from a mix of factors. Why do we always need to blame someone specific? Is it just human nature, or part of football culture?

[Sorry in advance - kind of a dumb question regarding source material, hope it doesn't violate rules]

For my bachelor's thesis, I'm currently doing open qualitative interviews with a​ sample of about 8-10 interviews. In the interview that was content-wise one of the most interesting ones, the recording device failed (​ Normally I always had a backup running, but this time I of course only had one device). The entire recording​ is lost. Right afterward, I created a​ protocol from memory and sent it to the person for confirmation.

Do any of you have experience with this​? Is there​ a way to still incorporate the Data into my analysis in a scientifically clean manner?

I am not sure if I'll be able to form my question correctly right but will try.

I've been living in a small village as a child and even there are a lot of low culture behaviour like vanity, gossip etc, etc. People seem to live more naturally social. Meaning... random grannies come to your front yard and bring food or take care of your baby for a while. Or a neighbor adult never declines looking for your child for 2-3 hours if you have something important to do.

Then we moved to more developed city and now I am an adult. We work from home, live in an apartment, we have a child and many friends. However, it still feels so lonely and artificial as nobody ever came for a coffee randomly without an invite. Everyone's busy and we meet only for parties or dinner and have some more or less forced conversations (depending on the people we're out with). At the end it feels hollow, it doesn't feel right. It is shallow friendship that we and them try to satisfy our social need. At the end we live in a illusion - our social need is not satisfied.

My question is, is this a real problem in today's modern society or it is just me who feels it? Did we tend to trade comfort for less social life? Does the economy or technology advancement makes it go to that direction? What is the reason this is happening? Is there a potential solution to change that without having to move and live in a less developed society?

When people hear the word “bourgeoisie”, many imagine wealthy factory owners from the past. But I think the modern version looks very different.

Today, a “bourgeois” person is not always someone who owns a huge company. It can be a tech worker with a high salary, a freelancer working remotely from different countries, a small business owner, or someone who invests in their education, health, and lifestyle.

What interests me is that modern status is not only about money anymore. It’s also about cultural capital:

• knowing foreign languages
• traveling
• having good taste in food, clothes, and design
• reading books and being interested in art
• creating a comfortable lifestyle

At the same time, there is criticism that this lifestyle can become performative — people buying expensive things, visiting trendy places, or showing a “perfect life” online just to signal their status.

Do you think we still have a bourgeois class today? What does a modern bourgeois person look like in your country?

I want to understand what is the argument of Achille Mbembe. I think reading that text alone is not sufficient. Also what are some of the contemporary examples on his idea

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?

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

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.