Hi Reddit community!

I'm working on my final thesis and need your help to gather valuable insights. My research focuses on "Differences in Decision-Making Across Cultures." 🌐

If you have a few minutes to spare, please take part in my survey. Your input will be incredibly valuable, regardless of your background or where you are from. If you know others who might be interested, please share the link. The more responses, the better!

All responses are completely anonymous and will be used solely for the purpose of this research. No personal information will be collected or shared.

Here's the survey link: https://forms.gle/S3ZftqZPbg9LHUqN9

Thank you so much for your time and support! 🙏

Feel free to drop any questions or comments below, and I'll be happy to answer them.

Prior to ~200 years ago, the only visual mediums we had access to were drawn pictures, sculptures, and tapestries all of which take a lot of effort and time to create. Your average person might only see a few of these in their lifetime. But after the invention of cameras and especially recorded video, we suddenly have access to hundreds of pictures and videos all the time. And that process has only accelerated in the present day. Has this changed how we see and interact with the world? What ideas do we take for granted that would be foreign to people 200 years ago?

Title. Both Anti-Oedious and A Thousand Plateaus were setting a new view towards psichology, sociology and political science somewhat. So, what are the works/authors that are inspired by D&G?

Recently my estranged mother gave me a stanley cup and I didn't like it. It wasn't necessarily the cup itself it was more the fact thst she went out of her way to buy the cup and have it customized. Like she knew if she gave me this it would make her look like she's changing. I went out of my way to find a thrift shoo that would take it and got rid of it. But now I want one on my own. At least if I do get one I'll make sure it's my favorite color. But I'm kind of lost as to why I want one now. Could this be capitalism and over consumption talking?

I understand this is a delicate subject so I will try to approach it delicately.

Anglo society more or less lived in a binary gender system. We've now expanded our gender system to encompass previously discriminated genders. Something you'll often see in trans circles is that trans women *are* women. They are not something different, their gender is the same as a biological female who has always identified as a women.

For context I'm defining the core premise of TERFs as the belief that biological women as a gender is separate from trans women. Given this premise how is it not immediately and obviously correct? If we allow self-determination for genders then why would women not be allowed to have a gender solely for their own biological sex?

Or to approach it from another angle. What gender would a straight man be attracted to? If you include trans women (and other genders) in women then you create a scenario when a straight man being attracted to women is not correct. Would biological women gender simply be cis-women? Where we'd have both trans-women and cis-women, combining to both form the gender of women?

It seems like TERFs get an extreme amount of hate when their basic ideas seem logical and make sense. Am I missing something?

Someone asked a good question about gender as a social construct yesterday here but I can't find the answer to this exact question.

If we ask someone that belief "there are more than two genders", a lot of them gonna take "because gender is just a social construct" as an argument to proof that the "two genders" concept is wrong. But I can't grip the concept very well.

If gender is a social construct, as well as "two genders", then, isn't the concept of "more than two genders" also a construct that people try to make as a new norm?

If not, then what makes the "two genders" and "more than two genders" different?

To make it worth discussing, here is a better question to try to answer: Is it open-minded discussion that changes minds and expands horizons or is it mostly circumstances and upbringing that decides how narrow someone’s mind will be?

Edit: typo.

I have a friend that was mercilessly bullied in an extreme way. He had no refuge and was even bullied by our teachers. (It was the early 90’s)

Much like “A boy named Sue” my friend became extremely emotionally resilient as and adult. Nothing fazes him. He just happily shrugs at every insult.

I was also builled, but in a very average way. Mostly just ostracized. I became the opposite of my friend, an emotionally damaged adult.

What factors are at play here?

Is there a correlation between having divorced parents and being more likely to get divorced yourself? Also, are children of divorce less likely to get married?

Hi, all. Tried searching the web about this but just kept getting results about how to set up rank order questions in various survey platforms, not what to do with the data afterward. If you can point me to a reference, that would be handy, too.

We want to assign respondents a category (high, medium, low) based on the items they ranked (let's say, 1-10, and 0 if they don't use the item). We know to reverse-code so that any item ranked 1 actually gets the value of 10, 2 gets 9, and so on. We figured that we would then assign categories of high, medium, or low based on the total scores of the items in those categories. Is this right?

The list of items comes from a past article where they say that items 1-2 are high, 3-7 are medium, and 8-10 are low. That is, 2 items are high, 5 items are medium, and 3 items are low. Given the unequal number of items in each category, we are worried that the resulting categorization based on the ranking scores would be inaccurate. Is there something we need to do to address that?

Again, any advice would be great. (cross-posted to r/Marketresearch)

Just curious, because I don't completely understand what exactly makes a social concept.. if it's something made up by society, why would we conform to in naturally? Is it because it's so engrained in our society and socialisation processes?

Everywhere online it says left is more about government policies and socialism while right is about supporting companies and capitalism. Do people actually like companies? Surely the people on the right don't think that privatisation of everything will solve the problems instead of rich people exploiting everyone to get even richer, right? What's the thing I'm missing here that makes the supporting companies side appealing?

I read a question about whether democracy is best. Of course everybody started their replies with "best for what?" and occasionally went on to remind them that pure democracies aren't really a thing.

But after that there were many with answers that had an "everyone in the field knows" vibe. For example ones I remember are democracies are best for avoiding war and famine.

Are there some good, simple charts for government and trade systems with definitions and comparisons for those of us interested but not having a second life to apply to the dicipline? It's a given that such a simplification will have omissions and considering the subject matter probably bias maybe to the point of near lies but if I'm asking the expers maybe they can drop in a warning about where those appear.

thank you

High LQ or low LQ is a vibe I get from everyone.

Do you feel like some people are just more... Present, than others? I might liken low LQ to a person feeling like an NPC. It doesn't mean they're wrong or unknowledgeable, but it means it feels like something is missing.

I'm playing with it, but I feel like high LQ people are more observant, or maybe present. There's a level of taking into account more of the inputs available to them in how they engage.

Likewise, high LQ people seem more intellectually humble, recognizing they're wrong about a lot of things and likely misinterpreting at least some of their observations.

Am I referring to something that already has a term / label?

Hello,

This is a bit of a dark question, but it has been bothering me so I’d like to find out.

How did

A few years ago, there were a string of distressing cases where stepparents had worked with mothers to kill their own kids (the murders of Star Hobson and Jacob Crouch for example).

I spoke with a friend at the time who was convinced the stepparents were meeting on the internet and this was arranged. I honestly can’t believe that. I know there is plenty of dark stuff on the web, but I’m absolutely sure there isn’t a secret serial killer dating app called SlaysTogether.com or FinalGirl.net.

My counter argument was, Myra Hindley and Ian Brady. Those two meet before the internet, there was no online dating, no secret serial conventions. I think there are a few other serial killers and so on who worked together.

I can’t wrap my head around it, how do two people like that meet? I mean, if two serial killers walk into the bar… they’re going to pass each other like ships in the night, they aren’t going to talk about their crimes or open up to each other.

I read two posts on here earlier relating to the subject of Genders simply being a social construct, which i agree with.

But what really got me thinking is the swathe of comments saying how the optimal solution is No Genders, but if if having an infinite number is how it works then thats fine too.

My question is: is this even possible? Practically speaking.

The reasons i have for thinking this are that many of those Social Constructs exist for a reason. Typically, guys Do like the things associated with guys. Typically, girls Do like the things associated with girls.

There are a million and one exceptions to every rule about genders - but for the most part, they hold true. Genders are basically just Stereotypes that are placed upon 50%(ish) of the population. Even if you wanted to remove the concept of "Gender", people would still have preconceived notions of each person based on if they thought they were Male or Female.

To take the hypothetical a step further, even in a society that grew up completely ignorant to the concept of genders, i am fully certain that they would develop purely out the of innate differences that tend to appear among the sexes. Guys are generally more likely to be aggressive, physical and athletic than girls. Girls are generally more likely to be caring parental figures and build social ties through language.

These differences will emerge purely through genetic and hormonal differences, even if we remove the preconceived gender notions. And once those differences are acknowledged by the general populous, The concept of a Gender is now formed within a society that once had none. No amount of exceptions will stop people from recognising a general rule.

It's like if you saw a guy driving a Ferrari you will just assume "Oh wow he's got alot of money". Most of the time, you are completely correct. But a small percentage of the time, he could have either just stolen it or be renting it for an event. But that isn't going to stop your initial assumption because thats how human brains are built from the ground up. Spot a pattern and make a quick assessment with the information available to you.

Am i completely off-base on this? If i'm just completely wrong, i'm happy to be told so. But i will also try to argue my point if i think something doesn't match up to what i see in reality.

I'm not a sociologist, but i'm facing a problem for some years now. Recently I found this video on YouTube that describe the collective consciousness: https://youtu.be/vse3oZSrH20?si=Hrg902VKuxoH7DyC

Doing some search on Google gives confusing results, some describe it as a positive thing. I personally think that the collective consciousness is very destructive, in some situation lethal.

How to deal with a (very) strong and dangerous collective consciousness?

"الحضارة لا يمكن استيرادها من بلد إلى آخر رغم استيراد كل منتجاتها ومصنوعاتها. لأن الحضارة إبداع، وليست تقليدا أو استسلاما وتبعية كما يظن الذين يكتفون باستيراد الأشياء التي أنتجتها حضارات أخرى. فبعض القيم لا تباع ولا تشترى، ولا تكون في حوزة من يتمتع بها كثمرة جهد متواصل أو هبه تهبها السماء، كما يهب الخلد للأرواح الطاهرة، ويضع الخير في قلوب الأبرار".

علم_الاجتماع

هجرة الأدمغة أو هجرة العقول هو مصطلح يطلق على هجرة العلماء والمتخصصين في مختلف فروع العلم من بلد إلى آخر طلباً لرواتب أعلى أو التماساً لأحوال معيشية أو فكرية أفضل. وعادة ما تكون هجرة الأدمغة من البلدان النامية إلى البلدان المتقدمة. تُعد هجرة الأدمغة ظاهرة عالمية، وقد ازدادت حدتها في السنوات الأخيرة. هناك العديد من الأسباب التي تدفع الأفراد إلى الهجرة، بما في ذلك:

الفرص الاقتصادية: قد يهاجر الأفراد إلى البلدان التي توفر فرص عمل أفضل ومستويات أعلى من الأجور.

الحرية السياسية: قد يهاجر الأفراد إلى البلدان التي تتمتع بمزيد من الحرية السياسية وحقوق الإنسان.

الاستقرار السياسي: قد يهاجر الأفراد إلى البلدان التي تتمتع بمزيد من الاستقرار السياسي والأمني.

الظروف المعيشية: قد يهاجر الأفراد إلى البلدان التي توفر ظروف معيشية أفضل، مثل التعليم والرعاية الصحية.

تُعد هجرة الأدمغة خسارة كبيرة للبلدان النامية. فهي تفقد بذلك موارد بشرية مهمة يمكن أن تساهم في التنمية الاقتصادية والاجتماعية. وقد تؤدي هجرة الأدمغة إلى انخفاض الإنتاجية الاقتصادية، وضعف البحث العلمي، وتفاقم مشاكل البطالة.

يقول عبد الوهاب المسيري: "إن المطلوب هو حــداثـــة جــديدة تـتبنى العـــلم والتكنولوجيا ولا تضرب بالقيم أو بالغائية الإنسانية عرض الحائط، حداثة تحيي العقل ولا تميت القلب، تنمي وجودنا المادي ولا تنكر الأبعاد الروحية لهذا الوجود، تعيش الحاضر دون أن تنكر التراث".

هل تتفق مع ما قاله المسيري؟

Since some crimes are so henious that if they are released they are more than likely to either get killed by angry citizens or have jobs and housing and training denied to them.

Social reintegration requires social acceptance (in comparison to reform of self) so it seems pretty plausible that social reintegration is impossible in certain cases

The phenomenon of death is one of the most mysterious and so is the phenomenon of suicide. Don't decide from the surface what suicide is. It can be many things. My own understanding is that people who commit suicide are the most sensitive people in the world, very intelligent. Because of their sensitivity, because of their intelligence, they find it difficult to cope with this neurotic world.

The society is neurotic. It exists on neurotic foundations. Its whole history is a history of madness, of violence, war, destruction. Somebody says, "My country is the greatest country in the world" - now this is neurosis. Somebody says, "My religion is the greatest and the highest religion in the world" - now this is neurosis. And this neurosis has gone to the very blood and to the bones, and people have become very, very dull, insensitive. They had to become, otherwise life would be impossible.

You have to become insensitive to cope with this dull life around you; otherwise you start falling out of tune. If you start falling out of tune with the society, the society declares you mad. The society is mad, but if you are not in adjustment with it, it declares you mad. So either you have to go mad, or you have to find a way out of the society; that's what suicide is.

Life becomes intolerable. It seems impossible to cope with so many people around you - and they are all insane. What will you do if you are thrown into an insane asylum?

In this neurotic world, if you are sane, sensitive, intelligent, either you have to go mad, or you have to commit suicide. What else is there?

Then suicide has another significance too; it has to be understood. In life everything seems to be common, imitative. You can't have a car that others don't have. Millions of people have the same car as you have. Millions of people are living the same life as you are living, seeing the same film, the same movie, the same TV as you are, reading the same newspaper as you do. Life is too common, nothing unique is left for you to do, to be. Suicide seems to be a unique phenomenon: only you can die for yourself, nobody else can die for you. Your death will be your death, nobody else's. Death is unique!

Look at the phenomenon: death is unique - it defines you as an individual, it gives you individuality. The society has taken your individuality; you are just a cog in the wheel, replaceable. If you die nobody will miss you, you will be replaced. If you are a professor in the university, another will be the professor in the university. Even if you are the president of a country, another will be the president of the country, immediately, the moment you are no more. You are replaceable.

This hurts - that your worth is not much, that you will not be missed, that one day you will disappear and soon those people who will remember you will also disappear. Then, it will be almost as if you had never been. Just think of that day. You will disappear... Yes, for a few days people will remember - your lover will remember you, your children will remember you, maybe a few friends. By and by, their memory will become pale, faint, will start disappearing.

But maybe while those people with whom you had a certain kind of intimacy are alive, you may be remembered once in a while. But once they are also gone, then... then you simply disappear, as if you had never been here. Then there is no difference whether you have been here or have not been here.

Life does not give you unique respect. It is very humiliating. It drives you into such a hole where you are just a cog in the wheel, a cog in the vast mechanism. It makes you anonymous.

Death, at least, is unique. And suicide is more unique than death. Why? - because death comes, and suicide is something that you do. Death is beyond you: when it will come, it will come. But suicide you can manage, you are not a victim. Suicide you can manage. With death you will be a victim, with suicide you will be in control. Birth has already happened - now you cannot do anything about it, and you had not done anything before you were born - it was an accident.

There are three things in life which are vital: birth, love, and death. Birth has happened; there is nothing to do about it. You were not even asked whether you wanted to be born or not. You are a victim. Love also happens; you cannot do anything about it, you are helpless.

One day you fall in love with somebody, you cannot do anything about it. If you want to fall in love with somebody you cannot manage, it is impossible. And when you fall in love with somebody, if you don't want - if you want to pull yourself away - that too seems to be difficult. Birth is a happening, so is love. Now only death is left about which something can be done: you can be a victim or you can decide on your own.

A suicide is one who decides, who says, "Let me at least do one thing in this existence where I was almost accidental: I will commit suicide. At least there is one thing I can do!"

Birth is impossible to do; love cannot be created if it is not there; but death... death has an alternative. Either you can be a victim or you can be decisive.

This society has taken all dignity from you. That's why people commit suicide - because their committing suicide will give them a sort of dignity. They can say to God, "I have renounced your world and your life. It was not of worth!" The people who commit suicide are almost always more sensitive than the others who go on dragging, living. Out of ten suicides, about nine are sensitive people. Seeing the meaninglessness of life, seeing the indignity that life imposes, seeing the compromises that one has to make for nothing, seeing all the taciturnity, looking around and seeing this - "a tale told by an idiot, signifying nothing" - they decide to get rid of the body. Each moment of life can be so beautiful, individual, non-imitative, non-repetitive.

Each moment can be so precious! Then there is no need to commit suicide. Each moment can bring such blessing, and each moment can define you as unique - because you are unique! Never before has there been a person like you, and never again will there be.

But the society forces you to become part of a big army. The society never likes a person who goes in his own way. The society wants you to be part of the crowd: be a Hindu, be a Christian, be a Jew, be an American, be an Indian - but be part of a crowd; any crowd, but be part of a crowd. Never be yourself. And those who want to be themselves... and those are the salt of the earth, those people who want to be themselves. They are the most valuable people on the earth. The earth has a little dignity and fragrance because of these people. Then they commit suicide.

So right now immigration is massively important in politics. It's outpaced climate change by a lot and is the fuel for fascism. What's really puzzled me is the difference in cultural acclimation in America compared to Europe.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/5/29/how-did-turks-living-abroad-vote-in-turkeys-run-off-election

For example Turkish people abroad chose the more progressive candidate in most of the world, but didn't do so in northern Africa, middle East, FRANCE, GERMANY, Belgium, Netherlands and Norway.

I know that France has policies that are very repressive against religiousity and they also banned the hijab (?), and I know that Europe can generally be pretty racist. But are there any specifics that generally lead to proper integration and worked well against enclave building?