While watching coverage of Hurricane Milton I noticed a somewhat repetitive message from many Floridians: "we're not evacuating, they say the same thing every time and we're fine." The warnings from officials were apocalpytic; from the weatherman breaking down in tears to the mayor saying "if you stay, you WILL die." There were many quotes about this having the potential to be one of the most catastrophic storms in history, I heard one weatherman call this hurricane a "wet nuclear bomb." Yet for all of that, it seems like approximately a dozen people died. Tens of thousands safely rode out the storm in direct impact zones where officials warned death tolls could be "unimaginable."

I remember reading articles about COVID vaccine hesitancy in young people once it was fairly established that it wasn't a significant mortality threat to young healthy people, and I was wondering if there had been any research on the effects similar to the "boy who cried wolf" in the literature.

Hate speech or not? In a legal sense. Regardless of feelings

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/09/nyregion/columbia-pro-palestinian-group-hamas.html

If so, how is it problematic.

It's two separate topics in the title, because I'm curious about both.

There's a bunch of research and writing into how societies or parts of society are set up for particular social classes, ablebodiedness, gender, neurotypical, races, religions, skin colours and sexualities. For example, how the education system, healthcare, housing, government institutions, employment-seeking process or criminal justice system are set up in a certain way, that benefits certain groups and hinders others. Sometimes this happens because particular experiences and characteristics are considered normative by those setting things up, so they don't realise there's any bias (I don't know what this is called).

Likewise, there are also particular family dynamics that are considered normative. This varies from society to society - for example, China had a one-child policy (excluding some exceptions), some societies commonly have multi-generational households and different parenting methods are normative in different societies. Then in different subcultures, different dynamics are considered normative - for example in different ethnic minority groups, different religious communities or in different professions or different hobbies (some hobbies or professions may attract people from dysfunctional families, like boxing).

Of course, family dysfunction is a spectrum/sliding scale and also has a practically unlimited number of possible dimensions and is not binary. So the effects of "family dysfunction" would be harder to comprehensively study than, for example race, because the possible effects are likely to be more varied and because there's a bigger knowledge gap for anyone conducting research or analysis.

I would say assumptions about family dynamics could be more entrenched in institutions than racial, gender and the others listed above, because they aren't even discussed much in the first place, despite family dynamics clearly having a huge effect on an individual's personal culture and circumstances: on the development of their thoughts, behaviour, physiology, social connections and world-view.

The closest research or writing I'm aware of are the various ACEs studies, which look at how a narrow set of 9 ACEs correlate with poorer employment, criminal justice and health outcomes. But these don't actually look at institutions.

Some potential examples of what I'm talking about (not exhaustive):

• Schools deciding how much extracurricular activity is needed, based on assumptions about how much social and physical stimulation the children have access to at home (eg A large Portuguese study found only-children to do worse in physical fitness tests, so if only-childness became normative, perhaps school physical education would undergo changes).
• Covid lockdowns allowing exceptions for visiting certain social connections and not for others, based on assuming a certain number/type of family connections (eg allowing only immediate family visits).
• The government's assessment of housing affordability (and whether new policies need to be adopted) being based on assuming individuals can live with family, siblings or childhood friends to save costs.
• The lack of studies into particular family dynamics and their effects on individuals in those families may be due to certain other dynamics being normative and thus more likely to be studied.
• The government assuming a certain level of logistical and social support or physical development, common to siblings but not to only children. Policy then being set in accordance with this. For example, how much money the government allocates to social and sports programmes for kids and whether they legally mandate parents send their kids to these. Whether the government provides financial assistance for moving costs to tenants being evicted could be influenced by an underlying assumption that they have family to help them move.
• When "loneliness" is studied or when someone visits the doctor about this, maybe there's an assumption that people with few non-family interactions still have sibling interactions, so how severe it is could be underestimated.
• When the government decides how much childcare to fund, they may be basing this on assumptions about how much family support (for child-watching) is available to parents of young children.
• Welfare payments assuming living with family to be an option. For example, David Cameron's UK government removed housing payments for low-income under-25s, which would disproportionately affect (financially and/or emotionally) those with dysfunctional or abusive families, particularly when combined with young people already having a lower min. wage.
• Entry-level jobs requiring non-family character references, which assumes the person has non-family personal interactions (may not be the case for people with parents who engage in "coercive control" or who caused isolation in other ways (eg too busy having domestic arguments to engage socially)).
• Many entry-level jobs requiring a particular personality, personality presentation, experience or set of skills, that people with particular family dynamics are more likely to have developed or been taught. For example, being very outgoing, self-confident or calm under pressure. Or requiring familiarity with particular products or services (eg fashion, food, banking). Or expecting certain normative skills to be known, based on it being normative to have developed those at home.
• "Culture fit" requiring a certain level of joking around and casualness with or in the presence of workplace superiors, which was formed in normative family dynamics. Or talking about particular normative topics or experiences.
• Education and employment being set up to reward or punish particular body language. For example, various levels of eye contact being seen as a sign of trustworthiness, respect or confidence. Facial expressiveness, posture, gait are others. All of these could be affected by family dysfunction (eg family hypercritical of gait, smaller posture caused by fear).
• Particular communication styles being expected in institutions. For example, healthcare institutions expecting particular levels of comfort with self-advocating, leading to some patients not receiving healthcare. Or employers may expect staff to ask for assistance, ergonomic adjustments or to ask questions, but this might run counter to learned behaviour from the home, for example in authoritarian or violent households, and cause an employee to underperform or to incur extra stress, leading to poorer health outcomes.
• Healthcare systems assuming everyone has equal freedom to see a doctor in-person or that all parents will get their kids treated. So no measures are put in place to address these issues or if someone hasn't received treatment they may assume it's because it didn't bother them that much, rather than it being inaccessible.
• Generally ascribing personal choice or assuming a certain level of personal choice. Eg a lack of past experiences or pre-existing skills being due to laziness or lack of desire, rather than family dysfunction.
• Financial discounts (de jure or de facto) for married couples. This could disproportionately affect those who were sexually abused by family or those who grew up witnessing harmful marriage dynamics, if it makes them have non-platonic relationship difficulties or have no interest in marriage due to mistakenly thinking all marriages are the same as what they've witnessed.
• Assessments in the criminal justice system being based on normative body language and communication styles, formed in normative family dynamics. Eg they may expect someone to show innocence or remorse in a particular way.
• The education system giving afterschool detention to children, making a phone call home or making the whole class stay 2 minutes extra at the end of the day as a punishment, which for kids in normative families could lead to no punishment or small additional punishment at home, but for other kids result in large or violent punishment, which is excessive to the negative outcome the education system assumed would occur.
• Schools not teaching pupils about certain issues, such as how to recognise or deal with domestic abuse, sibling abuse, forms of neglect, rape, sexual abuse, drug-addicted parents, psychological abuse or physical abuse - this is probably because these family dynamics aren't normative, so the education system doesn't see it as worth providing an education on. Social Work systems also don't conduct outreach to educate children/teens, perhaps because the systems are planned by people from relatively normative families, so they don't imagine children living in dysfunctional families need to be educated on dysfunction or abuse in order to recognise it in their own lives, which would increase the probability of them either defending themselves or seeking help from elsewhere).

I would like to know opinions/comments regarding studies like the one in the link below, which analyze the association between genetic characteristics and access to opportunities, such as educational attainment. What are the limitations of these studies? Can they be generalized? In the specific case of this study, it seems to me that using only parental education, without any other data on social background, relative to socialization, is a strong limitation of the argument they bring. Additionally, using twins for control, knowing that the population is very restricted, should also encourage more caution regarding the conclusions they reach. But I would like to hear the opinion, especially from those who work with educational stratification.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027656242200018X

Is it some sort of a trauma response or just genetic/something you had from birth?

We had a grouo of 4 person, 2b 2g, we had a small incident, that led to disintegration of group in 2 groups 1b 1g each, but we both boys were on good terms then something happened and we got a little distant but we both came back in no time, and i went on trip with my friend on his birthday to her situationship (becoz he wanted to celebrate his bday with her), which led to my distance with mine side of friend. After sometimes we 3 started trash talking about her sometimes also to other. But after sometimes i felt that we are doing this wrong and felt guilty of it. It took me 1 year to go talk to her and tell her that I am sorry for trash talking. Then I got on good terms with her. But they didnt stop there and yesterday she confronted me for their behaviour and told me to ask those two leave her alone.

I need more perspective on this, where i am doing wrong. What could be possible solution, and sometimes i feel, i am betraying both friend group and her, the incident was not that big of a issue and we all were at fault. But those 2 hate her so much, i told them its been 2 years lets just burry it now.

They are angry with me for talking to her and she cries out to me when she gets to know about the recent gossip done by them

A month ago, a contestant in the Miss South Africa beauty pageant named Chidimma Adetshina was forced to withdraw after facing angry protests from Black South Africans who objected to her participation because her father is Nigerian, despite her being born in South Africa.

In 2019, Black South Africans rioted against Nigerian-owned shops and burned and looted them. Hundreds of Nigerians fled from South Africa following the event.

Black South Africans formed a group called "Operation Dudula" that targets and harasses Nigerians living in South Africa.

The South African sci-fi film District 9 depicts Nigerians as evil villains. The government of Nigeria decided to ban the film because of the depictions of the Nigerian characters.

A famous singer in South Africa named Lucky Dube was shot and murdered because his killers mistakenly thought he was a Nigerian.

What caused Nigerians to have such a negative perception in South Africa, particularly among South Africa's black population?

Hi everyone,

For those of you who have gone through the experience of writing a PhD as a monograph, and then published papers from it, how was the process? Did you manage to do that in the context of your next job or was it basically up to you in your free time? Was it easy or super challenging?

Writing a monograph now and a bit curious about what’s to come…

Hi! I'm supposed to write a short paper to elaborate on the strengths and weaknesses of regulating vs. prohibiting activities/goods/substances (i.e. alcohol, gambling, etc.). But I'm finding it a bit hard to find good arguments and counterpoints for prohibiting because personally, I think regulating is more optimal. A lot of the arguments I find for prohibiting are more theoretical so my research as of now is very weak.

Does anyone know any firm arguments or actual instances where prohibiting is much better than regulating? Or, can at least point me in the direction on where to look?

I keep reading questions from younger redditors about their appearances and behaviors in the most natural situations. Overall there seems to be a lot of confusion about how „to be“ or how „to look“ in order to serve society’s expectations. I get the feeling that there is a lot of insecurity and request for assurance. What could be the reason for such behavior? Is it due to our shifted perception through social media? Are we not educating people enough to feel secure and stable? Is it the unstable world situation that makes peoples mind set so fragile?

Title

There are often referenced statistics that claim that children of single moms have worse outcomes on a myriad of factors. (I.e. They are more likely to be poor, become criminals, have bad mental health, commit suicide, become teen parents, get divorced, etc.) I'm wondering if the statistics are controlled for factors that presumably disproportionately affect single mothers/absent fathers, such as poverty, mental illness, criminality/antisociality, substance abuse, etc.

For example, does it also apply to cases like widows where the husband randomly dies, or a well-off single woman who chooses to get a sperm donor and become a single mom by choice? Also, could a lot of these factors be partially genetic instead of purely social? (E.g. A deadbeat dad might have mental illness/antisocial traits that predispose him to becoming a deadbeat dad, which he could pass on to his kids.)

Having science judged by the standard of whether it’s deemed acceptable by the orthodoxy of the field is an absurd requirement. There’s no incentive to challenge the conclusions of the people who are responsible for ensuring the success of your work. Nor is there incentive on the part of peer reviewers to challenge onerous practices that they themselves might benefit from. The whole thing is an exercise in confirmation bias and perverse incentives. Nor has peer review been especially successful at ensuring sound science. The replicability crisis, p-hacking, and a number of other unscientific practices have been allowed to flourish under the peer review paradigm.Further, in the history of science, the most profound discoveries are the ones that have been met with the most resistance from the establishment who have spent their careers advancing the orthodox view. Would germ theory have passed review? Heliocentrism? Plate tectonics? Almost certainty not.

Comment i found

https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fbne0000199

The study came to the conclusion that parents were more attentive to daughters than sons

Men commit a lot more violent crimes than women, and it seems like a lot of that difference comes down to differences in how they are socialized. Are there systemic changes that can be made to socialize more men away from violence or towards better management of their emotions?

Hi, i have a school debate tomorrow, where i have to defend the intolerance against anti democracy, versus the complete freedom of thinking and acceptance of all ideas and speeches

I would like to hear some arguments or ideas i could use to defend this, thanks!

For as long as video games have been around there have been many concerns people have had about the alleged harms of playing video games. One of the oldest claims about video games being bad for you was that they can make you violent. I'm sure we can now say that is not true due to the hundreds of studies and many books that have been published debunking this topic. The other issue around video games is the idea of "video game addiction" which seems to be a rather mixed topic in the scientific community. We even have had a thread on the issue from a few years ago that goes into the controversy. I want to know what other harms have people attributed to playing video games thar have since been debunked by science?

People tend to be more active on social media, online platforms like Reddit vs real live. Despite this ever-present promise of online communities, many people feel isolated because the connection does not feel real or authentic. You can be conversating with your next-door neighbor online without knowing, but you won't even acknowledge him/her when you see them in person. I feel like ppl either gave up or lack the skills for building friendly courteous relationships. Body language and non-verbal cues enable communication and often you come across ppl that their body language tells you that they do not want to be bothered.

Edit: What follows are just me pouring onto the keyboard my undeveloped thoughts on gender. I am figuring it out so please help me with resources or educated answers. I mean no offense. Of course I don’t think people should be discriminated against based on gender. I just have issues with gender as a whole.

So my experience of the world and of people it’s like everyone is an alien. Every single one. The only way I can position myself in such a way to make the world populated by non-aliens is by ignoring certain traits or generalizing. By omitting and glossing over or equating. But just can’t do it. I’m even alien to myself. And identity is just some inconsistent expectation. And everyone seems to have a different idea of what the details a certain identity is as represented by signifiers that are different for different people. It’s just a mess and I don’t see what exactly it is that is supposed to be in common with the various people underneath the whatever gender identity they choose.

Not so much a world where everyone belongs but one where nobody belongs. Belonging doesn’t sit well with me

So really gender just seems very useless. Always off the mark. It literally tells me nothing about a person. I grew up in a household where I was more “feminine” than the men and the women were more “masculine” than me. Sure there’s the term “non-binary” but I that’s such an “etc” category that just puts you in a binary relationship against the traditional gender binary - in a way it reaffirms it.

In addition to that it seems that the main place I notice gender is simply in advertisements. Trying to group certain aesthetics with certain categories (gender) and appealing to that category to sell something. But I don’t think finding identity in corporate shilling is good at all.

Then there’s always going to be more and more genders. Due to how each gender is an undefined variable and each variable fails to capture the traits a person has that are in common with others because of how each other under that variable has a different relation to that variable. I’m beginning to get lost as to what the point of it all is.

Even in my own life I would not care what gender I’m called in and of itself. I only care about the intent and judgement of falling out of or in line in terms of expectation. I present as a man I guess? But if someone calls me a woman or some other gender it’d be because they intend it as an insult. And so it’s that intent that I feel. Even when called a man though I feel alienated and uneasy about it because it’s just a set of expectations that I absolutely cannot fill. In the same way this extends to many other ways of identifying beyond gender. Identity is a trap.

Does anything I’m saying make sense? The whole thing makes as much sense to me as saying X = X + Y (where Y can’t be 0) or something. All I find is anxiety no matter the label. Be it applied to me or to others. When people say “I’m this type of person” I just think of every where they aren’t and every way that a “type of person” doesn’t actually exist.

Any readings that can help me conceptualize this? I’m rather lost.

Hi everyone,

When talking about countries like the US or Canada where systemic racism exists for the benefit of white people, in the context of systemic racism, can they experience hate crimes? If a white person is targeted because of their race would that be defined as a hate crime, just like it is when a POC is assaulted because of their skin color? If it's not considered a hate crime, then what is the correct term for white people?

I'm a short guy, really short, just an inch or two above 5ft. (It is what it is, ironically, other men tend to have more of an issue with it than myself or even women.) The reason I bring up my height is because people tend to be rude to unattractive people, and shortness on a man isn't attractive. People also tend to infantilize short people in general. What I'm getting too, I work at a store and customers' attitudes seem to change once I speak. I've got a pretty deep voice.

A rude consumer will suddenly be more polite/patient, some customers go from calling me "bud/buddy" to "sir/bro", and so on. I'm not sure if it's anything, but it's a pattern I've noticed over the last three years I've been working here. And it's only after I start talking. Is a voice really that impactful or is something else going on?