(Part 2) Reddit mentions: The best sociology books

Well let's include oligopolies in this too.

>In a free market, monopolies should only arise if a company is providing an objectively better product (both in quality and pricing) than

The free market does not ensure better products and services for customers, it ensures freedom for companies to pursue profit how they see fit which sometimes results in better products or services.

Also what about the workers? Regulation of the market is one of the keys of worker protection. What do you want to rely on? Businesses beingnice, consumerssuddenly en masse developing the ability for deep empathy and to limit themselves for people they will never meet?

>The opposition to net neutrality is a great recent example

Some part of this is corporate competiveness even when you don't think it is. Check out this book for example if you're interested

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Grassroots-Hire-Consultants-American-Democracy/dp/1107619017

But anyhow in this case Amazon, Facebook, Google, Netflix, Twitter, etc public support is an alliance of convenience not true consensus building. If you want to tell me Amazon care about anything but profit I've got a bridge to sell you.

>In either case, that's still good for consumers and competitors should eventually arise once that ceases to be the case. Someone will always come along with a better idea

New boss, same as the old boss. This only seems like a good thing if you are pretty satisfied with the status quo.

>What you have in the US, however, is companies lobbying the government for laws beneficial to them...You also wouldn't have banks and companies that are "too big to fail" because, under true free market economics, a business fails for a reason.

Recreating some kind of rehash of theeconomic conditions of the 1800s with less huge corporations and a lot more mid-sized competive businesses and freeing the market would result in a similar outcome. "Crony capitalism" is the natural outcome of free market capitalism not a mistake that was made. You can fight it with regulation, but you'll always be fighting it until we transition away from capitalism.

Also lets say you want to start a bookshop and I already own a chain, I pay your landlord double rent once your contract expires, in a free market that is ok but is a clear example of me gaining from being unethical and not by treating workers or customers right. There are well paid people who think up and plan strategies like this as their job.

This line of argument puts you at odds with lots of social democrats. It's pretty close to liberatarian arguments.

>Interests were also far more regionalized back then. In modern times, most of Manhattan would probably send "The Rent is Too Damn High" Party to Congress because that's a group that would best represent them. A farmer would pick the party that could give them the biggest subsidy, etc. I'm not sure on the exact date, but we didn't even have a national currency until post-Civil War and even then a lot of states still used their own monetary system and we certainly didn't have the information network we do today to inform us about what's going on nationally.

There's certainly some true to what you say, but political pluralism is not just de facto a result of "more local interests" obviously countries like Germany, Sweden, Japan, France (especially) and even Canada and Australia disprove this. The fact is most Americans want more political choice given, but obviously the Democrats/Republicans are fighting an uphill battle to prevent this:

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/05/gallup-poll-third-party-republicans-democrats-tea-party/1

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/15/america-needs-3-parties/


>Special interests definitely play a huge role into forcing people into one or two camps today, but we also are more able to identify (on average at least), with the two camps because they speak to issues of national importance, or at least they're supposed to.

Well not really, being that Congress has a whopping thirteen percent approval rating and disillusioned with the two major parties is quite high:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/22/congress-adjourns-pointing-fingers-but-not-at-poor-approval-ratings.html

http://elections.firedoglake.com/2010/04/19/americans-want-more-diversity-in-their-political-choices/

>Why more 'dissidents' and 'alternative voices' don't emerge isn't a fault of the system

Actually it is. Everything from restrictive ballot access laws (I'm not sure how anyone can construed this as not excluding candidates) more befitting a two bit dictatorship, to not allowing alternative candidates even within the two major parties air time in debates (which used to be guaranteed until the Democrats and Republicans ended that guarantee in the 80s), to outright refusing to allow them to be on the ballot.

This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that the odd time when an alternative candidate is given at some exposure and fair attention, they rise up to the polls and even win.

Here's a few examples from recent American history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermont_Progressive_Party

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_gubernatorial_election,_1998

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1992

Clearly, it betrays the idea that it's just people wanting less choice. Obviously at least some of the time people want something beyond the Democrats/Republicans, so wouldn't you say it's more about restrictive measures than public apathy?

>So we, somewhat falsely, trust the people (Dems, Republicans), who have been there the longest to figure them all out.

Clearly not, as I've shown, most Americans want more choice and more parties.

Anyway here's a few starters for you and others here:

http://www.ballot-access.org/ just scroll through this site

http://freeandequal.org

http://www.aclu.org/voting-rights/aclu-challenges-montanas-flawed-system-third-party-ballot-access

http://enidnews.com/opinion/x403272421/Oklahoma-s-presidential-candidate-choices-are-hindered-by-restrictive-ballot-access-laws

http://rangevoting.org/BallAccess.html

http://www.lp.org/blogs/staff/the-quiet-war-on-ballot-access

These few examples should give a sobering image of American "democracy"

Anyway, this also shows that yes, the electoral process was more democratic and inclusive around one hundred years ago, for those who can vote. I don't see why we shouldn't seek to make it more open and fair, especially with the way things are going in this country.

Also this book covers the situation pretty well and gives some reasonable solutions: http://www.amazon.com/10-Steps-Repair-American-Democracy/dp/0976062151 If you ever get the chance to read it, I highly recommend it.

>No, they're not. Freedom is freedom. The ability to do what you want without restriction is freedom. That's... what freedom is - "the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint".

>As freedom is good, authoritarians have to claim that freedom doesn't exist, because otherwise they'd be bad guys.

>It's pretty standard reverse cargo culting characteristic of authoritarians. "Freedom isn't real! Shut up, and do what we tell you!"

>You can say that the right to bear arms isn't freedom to you, or that the right to blaspheme against Allah isn't freedom.

>But that doesn't mean that they aren't freedoms. It just means you oppose those freedoms.

>This is why authoritarians resent America so - because we're a constant thorn in their side.

But you are wrong about that. Even the idea and meaning of freedom is a social construct. You would not need the word Freedom if we could experience 'actual' freedom. What is Freedom is defined by the difference to would you are forbidden to do.

Any social contract, be it a law, ethics, manners etc. is a restriction of your individual freedom. Absolute freedom is not existing since humans started to create societies, which are working under certain rules. Not being able to steal something is a restriction of your freedom. Not being able to openly drink alcohol in public is restricting your freedom. But that is fine, we evolved into creating societies and these societies are further evolving. So we just have to decide what are the essential liberties/freedoms we want to ingrain into our social code. And you obviously If you want to understand how societies evolved and work i recommend reading up on:

Niklas Luhmann (1996). Social Systems.

Niklas Luhmann (2013). Introduction to Systems Theory, Polity.

Parsons, Talcott (2012). The Social System.

I'd recommend the second one for readability.

And yeah I mean your hole point about authoritarians resenting America is non argument, since there is no authoritarian rule in Europe. Authoritarians resent democracies and more progressive societies and they resent the whole western hemisphere. America isn't really special in that regard =).

>I mean, they can try, but European universities, like American ones, have admissions tests. If you don't pass them, you don't get to go. There's a limited number of slots at any given school. It doesn't matter if it doesn't cost anything to go to a given school - if you aren't good enough, you won't get in.

Somewhat true, we don't have admission test, but you need a certain score on your highschool eduction to get into a certain fields without any waiting time. If you don't have the needed score you have to wait, but you'll get in at somepoint. Fact is though it is a lot easier to get into higher education in Europe. We have less barriers to get a good education. And money pretty much is a non factor. For example in Germany, you pay about 300€ per semester, which includes free public transport in the whole state. If you don't have the money, it is also very easy to get a scholarship program like in the us. Or we have a special student loan from the government with 0% interest and you only need to pay back half of it, starting 10 years after you graduated .

>And indeed, this is true in the US as well - the barrier to entry is non-financial. Equal proportions of Americans with poor, uneducated parents go to college as Norwegians, despite the fact that Norwegian higher education is free.

Yeah you have to back that up with some facts.

>Moreover, if you go to a top school in the US, you get a scholarship. Going to most of the top schools costs you little to nothing in tuition fees - if you can get into MIT, or Vanderbilt, or whatever, you can afford to go there.

>Sadly, Europeans don't know this, due to their lack of knowledge of the world.

>Oh, and of course, propaganda. Because you gotta lie about the US, otherwise people might start getting resentful.

Oh we do know. We have the same system just without the actual crazy high tuitions. No one lies about the US, most of us know very well how everything works in the US. My GF is a international student in the stats, so I do know even more then maybe the average European, but we are very informed about all the different education systems.

>So illegal immigrants get full free health care?

>I bet not. I know that isn't the case in a lot of the EU.

Strawman argument, if your not registered in any form, it will obviously be difficult. But everyone who is either a asylum seeker, immigrant or also someone who has no right to stay here and is due to deportation has full free health care. You literally need to not exist in the system to don't have access to full coverage.
>It isn't the case in the US, either. You can't be turned away from emergency rooms, but you aren't covered by the government if you're here illegally.

>Most people who are legally within the US - well over 90% of the population - have medical insurance or are covered by the government.

You have nearly 30 million people who are uninsured. That is crazy and that is even an all time low. That is half of the whole population in France. And then there is the fact that your insurances are incredibility expensive and your government still pays a fuck ton lot more then everyone else for healthcare.

>It's authoritarianism. It is censoring other people's ability to say true things about you.

>If you don't like it, maybe you shouldn't have done those things.

You have weird understanding of authoritarianism. Please elaborate how protecting my personal privacy is authoritarianism? That just doesn't make any sense. If you think it is fine, that everyone should be able know everything about everyone, then that is your decision. And i guess that's why America have no problems with things like the patriot act and unconditional surveillance. I think limiting your right to personal privacy is authoritarian. But hey i guess it's a matter of perceptive.

>But you can get in trouble for saying, "Muslims are evil and should be excluded from society."

No. You. Can. Not! As long has you do not threaten to kill, physically attack, incite violence against a group you are totally fine. There is are big anti Islam movements in Europe and they are not getting thrown into prisons! Maybe you should stop reading propaganda =).

>That's okay. Freedom means that people will sometimes do things that will make your blood boil. But as long as they aren't actually attacking people, stealing their stuff, or preventing them from doing business, whatever.

Yep that is how it works in here.

>And if you don't want to own a weapon, that's okay too. But it is okay to own one. Or several if you want. It isn't a big deal.

As i said i don't really care about your guns. They quite obviously have a negative social impact, but how you handle that isn't my concern.

>Which is because our poor people are rich, our middle class is richer, and our rich people are super rich.

American poor people are the richest poor people in the world, tied with a handful of other very wealthy countries (Sweden and Switzerland).

>Oh, you didn't realize that?

Haha, yeah if you compare it with third world countries. And also the cost of living in the US is so high, that even if the lowest paying job in the us would actually give you much more then the lowest paying jobs in europe (which they don't), you would be way worse of in America.

The thing is. I see a lot of things that work very well in the U.S. and i see a lot of things that are just utterly bad in the U.S.. The same goes for Europe. Somethings are working very great here, other things need improvement and further evolvement. But in no way is the U.S. more 'free' then Europe. You do not have more liberties. You System is not better designed. If anything your glorification for yourself will only hinder you to adapt to a changing social and technological environment.

You're right, it is unfeasible to change things by voting. The good news is, our power extends far beyond checking a few boxes every couple years. All it takes is realizing it.

I would start by strongly questioning voting for representatives as a means of getting what we want. The system itself does not favor us: Despite the fact that we get to choose who we allow to have power over our lives, we are still submitting our own power to a remarkably small group of people. This system naturally lends itself to those people trying to hold and gain more power for themselves, as their decisions that affect all of us are naturally influenced by their own personal gain.

But what else is there if not representative democracy? How about a system where we do not accept that a select few people are allowed to have power over all of us? Why do we need a president? Why do we need 100 Senators to decide what happens to 300 million of us? I strongly encourage people to consider direct, participatory democracy as an alternative. It's messy and complicated, sure, but so is our current system. The only difference is that now we hold onto our own power as individuals and use it to collectively shape our world. For an in-depth look about how these ideas could be applied, Iris Marion Young's Inclusion and Democracy is a phenomenal book.

But, you say, we don't have the power! They've got all the money and they control the laws! True, so it won't be easy. But it's important to remember that money and laws are only real because we believe in them. We're like the doberman that thinks it's impossible to walk off the edge of the property just because the owner said so. Plus, we have the most incredible, potentially-game-changing tool quite literally at our fingertips. Whereas for the last 100 years money and power were virtually required to have a loud, influential voice (mass media), we now have the ability to communicate as loudly as anybody for virtually no cost. Good ideas (and bad ideas, admittedly) can make it to the front page of Reddit and be seen by millions of people. We can now communicate directly with people all over the planet! Holy shit!

So we can get loud, but we can't just do that on Reddit. As we all know, it is frequented by a certain demographic with certain predispositions, and can too easily turn into an echo chamber, a circle jerk, and a preaching to the choir. We need to take these ideas and spread them to all other demographics! Stop bickering about Republican vs. Democrat and start reaching to others with different political viewpoints. Imagine the ideal of a world without war and poverty and hunger, a world where everybody is given as much actual security as possible, a world that actively cares for EVERYBODY within it, and then work to come up with the best way to do that. Don't be afraid to question socially created systems like markets and the economy and nations and borders and the silly notion that we are naturally stuck with such a broken system if those are the things that are actively stopping us from having a better world. Understand people who have different points of view than you and work to come up with a solution that benefits them just as well as you. Nobody should be left out of this process.

Now, I know this has been a bit rambling, and it certainly doesn't equip everyone with the tools to instantly fix such entrenched problems. Still, I can assure you that an absolutely necessary prerequisite to changing a system that does not benefit us is to understand that we have the power to change that system. Getting people to realize and understand this plight, along with the power we DO have, is a massive step to solving the world's problems.

TL;DR: Why are we waiting for the people on top of a broken system to fix this for us? Why the hell would they? To paraphrase John Dewey, why would you expect the poison to suddenly create the cure? Thankfully, we have the power to do so all on our own, we just need to realize it first.

Instead of studying electricity, can you change to welding?

There's good money in welding, and it's a shorter course.

I don't know about your criminal history, but could you join the air force or other branch?

What about getting your CDL at the technical school? It would be an even shorter course than welding, and then you could get a job with Schneider perhaps?

[best state in the usa for work for welders/beginners welders im looking to relocate]
(http://weldingweb.com/showthread.php?426791-best-state-for-jobs&p=4628901)

[When thousands of oil-field workers descended on Watford City, North Dakota, they completely redefined its character and economy.]
(http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/09/what-if-your-small-town-suddenly-got-huge/379536/)

If you can, I recommend buying these 4 books, or asking a friend or family member to buy them and let you read them. There's really a lot of great advice and thoughts in these books.

Off The Grid: Live in a Van, Trailer, Truck, or Motorhome

Flat Broke? How to Get Back on Your Feet, Fast!

Living Well on Practically Nothing: Revised and Updated Edition

[Timely and Profitable Help for Troubled Americans]
(http://www.amazon.com/Timely-Profitable-Help-Troubled-Americans/dp/0930294149)

One is used for 0.75 cents.

2 are kindle for $2.99 and $4.99.

The other is about $15 used on amazon.

Oh. Don't forget this book, "We Had Everything But Money", as used it's only 0.01. That's right, only 1 penny! It's well worth it.

What about Publix or McDonald's?

But I like the CDL or welding idea, since you're already going to the tech school, and those 2 would be shorter courses.

What about the lineman school? The Southeast Lineman Training Center? You could take out loan money, and your family stay in Florida while you take the course, then get a job after graduation, and you can support your family?

http://lineworker.com/

http://lineworker.com/the-program/finanical-aid/

Can you start a flea market business for some fast cash on Saturdays and Sundays?
Good luck.

Your question highlights one of the core ambiguities in labeling something as "right-wing." In one sense, authoritarianism is right-wing by definition if we understand right-wing as an attitude toward traditional norms and hierarchical social power structures. This is certainly closest to the original use of right/left wing to distinguish royalists from those advocating for greater popular control in government during the French revolution.

But in addition to the distribution of political power, the right/left distinction has also come to be used to describe the distribution of economic power. That is, attitudes which favor state intervention to ensure a more equal distribution of wealth have come to be described as left-wing, and more free-market attitudes as right-wing.

A useful way to reframe the issue you've brought up is to say that left/right wing refers to these economic attitudes, while authoritarian/liberal (or perhaps democratic) refers to attitudes toward political power and tradition. The important point being that attitudes toward the distribution of economic and political power can be treated as independent (putting aside the fact that in reality these two kinds of power are generally correlated).

Looked at in this way, right and left wing authoritarianism need not describe different personality types, just different economic policies followed by regimes who are supported for similar reasons (e.g. fear, anxiety about change). On the other hand, this provides the most straightforward framework for answering your question about whether there might be "a specific 'anti-authoritarianism' personality that could be find both in left wing and libertarian movements?" This would be the "liberal/democratic" personality type which is not inherently right or left wing (economically speaking). What you describe as libertarian and left wing movements would share this personality type, so both would be against concentrated and hierarchical political power. But they would have different attitudes toward the concentration of economic power.

With that said, there is ample research within political psychology on what might be called liberal or democratic character traits, which are the most meaningful foil for authoritarian personality traits. A classic text along these lines is Lasswell's Democratic Character. This personality type is also the focus of a lot of research on education, focusing on how to ensure the development of democratic citizens (and therefore prevent the development of authoritarian personality). A recent edited volume called Education, Justice, and Democracy provides a useful introduction to this kind of work.

As for the idea of authoritarianism being a deviation from the norm, I think that's mainly a result of the prevalent belief in contemporary western nations that democratic character is "normal." Considering the history of human political association, however, the authoritarian personality would seem to have a stronger claim to being the norm, with liberal attitudes a recent deviation.

Glad you looked that up, last time I checked she was proposing $100 billion which MIT Grad/Duke economist Sandy Darity said was inadequate.

>Thanks for including my comments in this important article. Just one proviso; while I do think that @marwilliamson's initial proposed amount for reparations, $100 billion, is paltry, I also think she is open to modifying her proposal toward a much larger sum.

@emarvelous:

>"Universal programs are not specific to the injustices that have been inflicted on African-Americans." Talked to some smart folks on the 2020 conversation on reparations including ⁦@SandyDarity⁩. All say start with HR40, first proposed 30+ yrs ago:

SD:

>Thank you for writing this excellent article. I am especially curious about one matter: Would Whit Ayres endorse black reparations if it was not financed "by taking money away from white people and giving it to black people"?

-

He's been interfacing with Yvette Carnell and Antonio Moore and was on Ezra Klein's show a few months ago:

Sandy Darity has a plan to close the wealth gap | The Ezra Klein Show

>Published on Nov 6, 2018

> Here’s something to consider: For families in which the lead earner has a college degree, the average white family has $180,500 in wealth. The average black family? $23,400. That’s a difference of almost $160,000 — $160,000 that could be used to send a kid to college, get through an illness, start a small business, or make a down payment on a home that builds wealth for the next generation, too.
>
> Sandy Darity is an economist at Duke University, and much of his work has focused on the racial wealth gap, and how to close it. He’s a pioneer of “stratification economics” — a branch of study that takes groups seriously as economic units and thinks hard about how group incentives change our behavior and drive our decisions.
>
> In this podcast, we talk about stratification economics, as well as Darity’s idea of “baby bonds”: assets that would build to give poor children up to $50,000 in wealth by the time they become adults, which would, in turn, give them a chance to invest in themselves or their future the same way children from richer families do. Think of it as a plan for universal basic wealth — and people are listening: Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), a past guest on this show, recently released a plan to closely tracked Darity’s proposal.
>
> I know, I know, the election is in a day. But right now, we don’t know who will win. So how about spending some time thinking about what someone who actually wanted to ease problems like wealth inequality could do if they did have power?

-

>Recommended books:

>Caste, Class, and Race by Oliver Cox

>https://www.amazon.com/Caste-Class-Race-Social-Dynamics/dp/0853451168

>Capitalism and Slavery by Eric Williams

>https://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Slavery-Eric-Williams/dp/0807844888/

>Black Reconstruction in America by W.E.B. DuBois

>https://www.amazon.com/Black-Reconstruction-America-1860-1880-Burghardt/dp/0684856573/

>extremely flawed

Explain Stanford's discrepancies.

Asians make up 17.6% of USC's population. Explain that - LA is one of the highest density Asian places in the United States.

You don't think students who apply to UCLA are going to also send in an application to USC?

Asians make up 10% of Claremont McKenna, 20% of Harvey Mudd,12.9% of Pomona, 18.3% of Scripps. Explain that.

Asians make up 11% of Pepperdine's population. Explain that.

The only private institution that does not discriminate against Asians is Caltech. Caltech prides itself as a merit based, race blind school, and does not practice affirmative action.

And we see in Caltech a 42% Asian student makeup.

Need more evidence?

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1594035822/ref=as_li_tf_til?tag=pragmom-20&camp=0&creative=0&linkCode=as1&creativeASIN=1594035822&adid=1EQANJJ2S3CHT99N027E&

Published by a Princeton professor.

It's incredibly misleading when people try to justify affirmative action by suggesting Asians only make up 5% of the population but are 20% representation in school. Well, they also make up something like 30-40% of the applicant pool.

>Additionally, the California schools are all public institutions, while most of the compared schools are private, which adds a whole new dimension of difference.

Right. The UCs are accountable to the public so they can't get away with bullshit so easily. That's why we see a REASONABLE number of Asians in the UCs (not too many; it's a proportionally fair amount), percentages very closely mirroring the applicant pool with differences of <5%, as obeying the laws of probability.

And everything I mention still ignores that on average Asian performance should be expected to be higher than other races given the average Asian household income is the greatest of all races in the United States ($14,000 per year higher than White Americans according to the US Census, which is a significant number - enough to buy you a world class tutor and plenty of college prep programs). Academic success and wealth are closely correlated (do I need to prove this? I'll let you google academics and wealth correlation and find out for yourself if you don't believe this) This is not even going into the speculative stuff, like the type of discipline and cultural values Eastern Asians hold in education.

I've never read Games People Play, and psychology is not my area of expertise. But, to answer your question, that is not it.

You could read a number of different pop-psych books and each will give you a different perspective. The human psyche is extremely complex, and social interaction is even more complex. It can/should never be boiled down to one idea that supposedly explains the majority of human interaction. Be sure not to take books like this too seriously: Most people do not consider themselves to be "playing a game" whenever they are interacting with others.

My education is not in psychology, but if you are looking for further reading I can recommend some of my favorite books from my undergrad sociology education: (IMO any understanding of human interaction must have both a sociological and psychological component)

Invitation to Sociology by Peter L Berger

Sociological Insight by Randall Collins

The Social Construction of Reality by Berger and Luckmann

These were required reading in a 4000-level class, but this particular professor also assigns them to his 1000-level intro-soc class (which is why he doesn't teach intro soc often). They can be dense, but they are very interesting and definitely worth reading if you are at all interested in sociology.

edit: I don't want to hate on a book I have never read too much, so I will say this: Whenever you read a psych/soc book, especially if it is written for a wide audience, remember to take everything you read with a grain of salt. You may find truth, but you may also find a very smart author who is too caught up in his own work to see the limitations of his theories.

> For example, black people and white people very obviously have different nose shapes.

This was refuted in literally my first week of Anthropology 100 in my undergrad. Which of these is the black nose?

This one?

This one?

This one?

This one?

This one?

>If it were only skin tone that influenced how we label different races, we'd find it impossible to tell the difference between, say, some Indians and some African Americans, but it actually isn't that hard at all.

Except it is, which is why a number of "African Americans" successfully posed as Indian during Jim Crow, for example Korla Pandit.

>but the one area where there is variation is in the characteristics we as a society have picked out upon to make the racial split in the first place.

You really should read the books I linked about the construction of race in America. To reiterate, those were Racial Formation in the United States, White By Law: The Legal Construction of Race, The History of White People, The Condemnation of Blackness: Race, Crime and the Making of Modern Urban America.

One of the commenters who came from /r/sociology after you suggested I cross post in subs where the users have relevant academic training also added to that some Franz Boas, which I'd like to reiterate. A good introduction to biological anthropology will reiterate what I've said about white/black groupings that you're assuming and then reifying, as will all the resources here as will a good intro to sociology.

To reiterate (1) genetic populations exist, and may share some characteristics -- for instance, San people in South Africa are reliably different than Zulu people. (2) When you try to group those populations together into something like "black" it just doesn't work. The 5 or 7 or however many you want "races" do not have any basis in biological reality (3) groupings like "black" or "African American" are too diverse to make statements like "black people all share thus and such cranial shape/nasal capacity/whatever." Therefore, (4) it makes no sense to say that you can "hear" when someone is "black" because of something biological or physiological because "black" is not a biologically meaningful category, despite its incredibly high social salience. I further argued, above, that what OP does hear is likely an accent, from an ethnolect, which came about precisely because of the social construction of race. I have friends who have "black" parentage, but everyone treats them as "white" because they "look white" and "sound white." You cannot tell by listening that their parents are black, because it's not a biologically meaningful grouping that would actually affect physiology such that it had an affect on language.

A logical terminus of the inverse argument others have proposed above is that there are fundamental biological differences, directly related to race, which affect language production. We know this to be false.

Even in your aside on tone, you're still assuming "white" and "African American" are biologically meaningful groupings, when they're not.

> So my observation should be easily defeatable, yes?

See above.

>That's also convenient for you now isn't it. We need more data, therefore you cannot assert what you are asserting.

Similarly, it is convenient for you to use the time-preference and other concepts in a limited way so as to support your position.

>So what your theory for why the races differ in behavior/culture/IQ/etc? Please tell me you have something better than prejudice and discrimination. I am always open to new evidence and I'd like to know what you come up with to explain why Asians in America are, on net, doing better than blacks. Even though both have faced similar levels of discrimination and prejudice. I'll grant that blacks were indeed treated worse - I don't really recall any Asians being lynched either. But even if you control for that there will still be a difference. Even if you step outside of America this difference is still there. Why have Asians cultures such as the Japanese advanced greatly while Africa has stagnated?

This book will explain it better than I ever could:

http://www.amazon.com/Sociology-Exploring-Architecture-Everyday-Life/dp/1452275947?ie=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0

Having read it, I can vouch for its quality.

>I'll fly and you drop the bombs.

And we can revel in the clinking of our glasses as we toast to our success!

>Still though, the Fed in the US has been around in it current iteration since 1912 and Americans used to save at the same rate as the Chinese do now. Near zero interest federal notes fuckover the people that have saved though. Which is a shame...

Unfortunately I do not have the knowledge or expertise to comment/add, so I will leave this point unmolested.

Read this
http://www.amazon.com/SOME-MORE-PERFECT-THAN-OTHERS/dp/055327452X

People put too much thought into cheating. You always have more than one partner in your life. You may have the one you are intimate with, the best friend you use for intellectual stimulation, another to support you emotionally. You will never find one person to fulfill every need. Just because you are physical with only one person does not mean you are not cheating. So kindly get your high horse, I applaud this woman for finding happiness. Isn't that the core of life your pursuit of happiness. One day your SO wont be there or you wont and you'll just move on, They are just another body occupying space.

Hey there! I know you asked for online but the lists below are everything you probably need, in terms of policy 101:

Books
Thomas Birkland - "An Introduction to the Policy Process"
Dipak Gupta - "Analyzing Public Policy"
Thomas Dye - "Understanding Public Policy"

Blogs/Podcasts
Council on Foreign Relations - "The World Next Week"
NPR- "Planet Money"
Economistsview

Research Institutions
Brookings
Pew
RAND Corp

Those books are solid. The blogs are great at making succinct points and summarize current events well. The research places offer great objective research, and they produce research summaries that help provide key takeaways.

I may be in the minority but I don't think that Mills's Sociological Imagination is a good starting point for an introduction to sociology. While the first chapter (The Promise) may be worth a read, the rest of the book is very much an insider's critique of the subject and requires the reader to have a general understanding of sociology as it is being practiced post-WWII. I think that you will get the most out of Mills after familiarizing yourself with sociology more broadly.


As others have mentioned, Ritzer & Stepnisky's Sociological Theory is a very comprehensive overview of sociological thinking but it may be a bit overwhelming. While it isn't as encyclopedic as Ritzer & Stepnisky, I like Seidman's Contested Knowledge because it provides the reader with both a historical overview of sociological thinking and provides easy to read summaries of important thinkers.


I am not sure if you will find these too difficult but here are some other books that may expand your understanding of sociology:

• Outsiders: Studies In The Sociology Of Deviance by Howard Becker
  
• Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View by Stanley Milgram

I would also recommend The Globalization of World Politics as an introductory text to the field. It's an absolutely phenomenal textbook, while summaries you've posted are indeed comprehensive and succinct.

To elaborate, with more comprehensive texts (should the OP choose to read them), IR is a broad field. But specifically regarding International Politics, I would recommend Nye's The Future of Power, as a current perspective on international power (and the fairly recent differentiation in power resources, eg. "hard" and "soft" power). Focusing specifically on International Politics (as opposed to other IR subfields like development), the seminal works for the current theories on international politics include:


Theory of International Politics by Kenneth N. Waltz (1979), which serves as the foundation for structural realist (or neorealist) school. Neorealists are generally split between offensive realists (like Mearsheimer) and defensive realists (Waltz and Walt) as general categorizations, and you can find related works from these scholars for a focused view from either on the issues they disagree upon.

After Hegemony (1984) by Robert Keohane is the neoliberal institutionalist response to Waltz (Power and Interdependence by Keohane & Nye (1977) is probably its founding text), and one of the leading works of the theoretical field itself.

Finally, Social Theory of International Politics by Alexander Wendt (1999) is the comprehensive overview of the social constructivist school.

These largely cover all the major theoretical branches of current International Political theory (without diverging too heavily into IR subfields), though I do emphasize that these classifications are fairly fluid, given the readiness of offensive realists like Mearsheimer to look into the "black box" of domestic politics in the (highly controversial) piece, The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy. Again, these are the main theoretical works in these respective schools, and it is not necessary for you (the OP) to read through all of them to understand the subject.

While not exclusively International Politics focused, World Systems Theory is highly influential critical theory for IR studies, and understanding it (and Marxist-influenced dependency theory) as well as game theory (Nash Equilibrium etc) are both integral to modern IR methodologies and theories. By in large, Hobbes and the Leviathan (and a bit of Rousseau) is the only political theory that you need to start delving into IR theory, so you should be good on that front.

There are also specialized and diversified IR fields such as Development, Peace and Conflict Resolution, and Human Rights, but those are most likely not necessary given the scope of your conference (by the sounds of it, predominantly focused on state-centric International Politics).

Books:

• Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches - Robert Jackson, Georg Sørensen
  
• Theory of International Politics - Kenneth N. Waltz
  
• Social Theory of International Politics - Alexander Wendt
  
• Power & Independence - Joseph Nye, Robert Keohane
  
• The Tragedy of Great Power Politics - John Mearsheimer
  
• Man, the State, and War: A Theoretical Analysis - Kenneth N. Waltz
  
• Contemporary Security Studies - Alan Collins et al.
  
• Security: A New Framework for Analysis - Barry Buzan et al.
  
• A History of Warfare - John Keegan
  
  News, Blogs:
  
  
• Foreign Policy
  
• Foreign Affairs
  
• The Economist
  
• CNN Security Clearance
  
• IHS Jane's
  
• International Crisis Group
  
• Stratfor
  
• Small Wars Journal
  
• Duck of Minerva
  
• The Monkey Cage
  
• Abu Muqawama
  
• Intelligence Online
  
• Zero Intelligence Agents
  
• Introduction to International Relations
  
  
  
  Think Tanks:
  
  
• RAND Corporation
  
• Center for Strategic & International Studies
  
• Chatham House
  
• Royal United Services Institute
  
• European Council on Foreign Relations
  
• International Institute for Strategic Studies
  
• Center for a New American Security
  
  Hope you'll find something interesting among these. I have put the focus on security and strategic studies because you said in another post that you have a particular interest there. Also, that's what I know best.
  
  Where are you going to study in the UK, if you want to disclose?
  
  Edit: If any of the links lead to somewhere else than the name suggests, I apologize, I have written this post at 0438 in the night. If you google, you should easily find any of the sources though.

think what you want, its not like theres a source or citation that this sub would believe anyways. I only arrived at this after years of reading books and countless articles, piecing together things by myself. Its not like its one shadowy group controlling everything, that is a strawman. This kind of info is complex and it doesnt just get handed to you. Ill throw you guys a bone since I have a little time to kill:

<br />
*“The ‘affirmative task’ before us is to “create a New World Order.”<br />
–VP Joe Biden, speech Import Export Bank, April 5, 2013*<br />
<br />
~~~~~~~~~~~<br />
<br />
*“The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one-world government combining supercapitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control. Do I mean a conspiracy? Yes, I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, incredibly evil in intent.”<br />
–Rep. Larry P. MacDonald, killed in Korean Air Lines 007, 1983*<br />
<br />
~~~~~~~~~~~<br />
<br />
*“I think that his [Obama’s] task will be to develop an overall strategy for America in this period, when really a New World Order can be created.”<br />
—Henry Kissinger, CNBC 2008*<br />
<br />
~~~~~~~~~~~<br />
<br />
*“In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn’t such a great idea after all.”<br />
—Strobe Talbot, Deputy Secretary of State, TIME, July 1992*<br />
<br />
~~~~~~~~~~~<br />
<br />
Consider what multibillionaire banker David Rockefeller wrote in his 2002 memoirs:<br />
<br />
*“Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”*<br />
<br />
~~~~~~~~~~~<br />
<br />
*&quot;“We have before us the opportunity to forge, for ourselves and for future generations, a New World Order. A world where the rule of law, not the law of the jungle, rules all nations. When we are successful–and we will be–we have a real chance at this New World Order. An order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping forces to fulfill the promise and vision of its founders.”<br />
—George H.W. Bush, March 21, 1991*<br />
<br />
~~~~~~~~~~~<br />
<br />
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld<br />
<br />
https://swprs.org/the-american-empire-and-its-media/<br />
<br />
http://carnegieendowment.org/1998/06/01/benevolent-empire-pub-275<br />
<br />
https://www.cfr.org/<br />
<br />
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1993/10/30/ruling-class-journalists/761e7bf8-025d-474e-81cb-92dcf271571e/?utm_term=.d89ef9f71460<br />
<br />
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilateral_Commission<br />
<br />
<br />
https://www.amazon.com/Running-World-National-Security-Architects/dp/1586484230/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1523640550&amp;amp;sr=8-2&amp;amp;keywords=rothkopf<br />
<br />
https://www.amazon.com/Superclass-Global-Power-Elite-Making/dp/0374531617/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1523640550&amp;amp;sr=8-6&amp;amp;keywords=rothkopf<br />
<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3qkf3bajd4<br />
<br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQouKi7xDpM<br />

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Pinch-Boomers-Childrens-Future/dp/1848872321

Here's a British version of basically the same thing. You can simply call it 'neo-liberalism' that happened to benefit the Baby Boomers (less government investment in young people, corporate friendly policies that reduced worker wages and rights over time and favored stock ownership), but I think the galling thing to most nonBoomers is their complete lack of understanding that the 'old normal' is GONE; nada, no more. The opportunities, the cushy jobs that were 'too good to be true', the union jobs that had fat benefits and safe work rules; all gone now.

Once the economic boil came off, really sometime back in the late 1990s with the crash of the tech bubble, people's wages fell off the cliff in real terms. 2008 just made accelerated an already occurring trend towards a lower standard of living among the young generation than the older.

>Please expand on that, I'd be interested to hear your opinion/a link to a relevant article.

The Spirit Level is not on the Level in The Guardian

Un-Level Ground in The Wall Street Journal

Having Your Cake in Economist

The Spirit Level Delusion available on Amazon

The Fantasyland of 'The Spirit Level' at OpenDemocracy UK

Spirit Level Criticisms analysis by the TUC (Trade Union Congress)

The Spirit Level in Financial Times

Note: I've never read the book, never even heard of it until now and thus have no opinion of it. But, even the briefest of Google searches demonstrate that it is swimming in criticism.

The best general sociology textbook I've ever had is George Ritzer's Sociological Thoery. Sociological Theory https://www.amazon.com/dp/1506337716/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_icTLDbVMBQ94N

Here is his Intro text: Introduction to Sociology https://www.amazon.com/dp/1544355181/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_pgTLDbBAS0KDA

Also, this book seems good to me. The Sociology Book: Big Ideas Simply Explained https://www.amazon.com/dp/146547854X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_9hTLDbJ8NP3RX

I'm thinking of design my own 101 course using the last 2.

If you're really interested I'd recommend The Pinch by David Willetts

Precisely.

I recommend this book pretty strongly (The reviews are bogus, it's at least 4 stars):

http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Political-Correctness-Conservative-Education/dp/0822317133

I think he's one of the more interesting MPs on a national level. I usually agree with what he says, even though I don't support his party. He also wrote a book a couple of years back called The Pinch: How the Baby Boomers Took Their Children's Future - And Why They Should Give it Back, which seems relevant to this forum's interests.

1 Evil Spirit on Top

13 bloodline families report to it.

Each 13 families have 13 other families that report to it.

The "Council of 300" is a good place to start--this is a conventional book about it, by one of Kissinger's right hand pawns. https://www.amazon.com/Superclass-Global-Power-Elite-Making/dp/0374531617

Alexander Wendt is a good place to start.

And this article has a more in depth examination of Constructivist theory with actual citations and a reading list. I'd do better, but I have to get on the 405 in a few minutes...

One our UK ministers wrote a book about it. http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Pinch-Boomers-Childrens-Future/dp/1848872321/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1394364590&sr=8-1&keywords=david+willetts Funnily enough the one star reviews and nitpicking come from baby boomers...

This books breaks the entire phenomenal down into digestible bite sizes. The sheer importance of the book has been over looked for years now because no one saw this coming -- and still don't.

Long story short, we have A LOT of work to do to make sure this doesn't happen to the next gen.

A blog about a book that shows the data doesn't match the story told in The Spirit Level.

The authors of The Spirit Level had to cherry pick the data to get the correlations they found.

The Superclass.

I wonder if Bruce Canon Gibney, David Willetts, Joseph Sternberg, and PJ O'Rourke (for God's sake!) are all also part of this troll farm, or just unwitting dupes. 🤔

i have read 1 book in the last ten years (studies and technical papers excluded), and it was the pinch by david willets, former uk MP.

the book basically explores the societal contract between generations and explains that it is currently not working. social mobility is non existent and society will suffer as a result.

the boomers gave themselves all the money, land and jobs that is a fact. they run the unions that dont hire any new workers. the government blatantly allows this discrimination to exist, and wastes their time making a budget based on sex equality when the actual issue is age discrimination, not sex.

we traded social mobility for sexual equality, that was not a good idea. if you want sexual equality it cannot be at the expense of society.