Stories tagged sociology

He can teach you much, but give you nothing: Wait... Is this man even handsome? This IS complicated!
Courtesy monseurlamSorry to break it to you, dudes, but you aren’t just ugly ducklings—you’re just ugly. Or, if you are mirror-melting hot, those good looks are an invention all of your own, so skip the father’s day present, and get yourself something nice.

See, guys and boys, you’re dad may have taught you how to gut a possum, and he might even have given you your first possum-gutting knife, but he didn’t give you the looks that attracted all those hungry eyes at the possum market. He saved those for your sister.

It turns out that men don’t inherit their fathers’ “attractiveness”. Fathers do pass on masculine features to their sons, but there doesn’t seem to be any strong correlation between attractive fathers (or, technically, “hot dads”) and attractive sons. So says the journal Animal Behaviour.

By rating the images of hundreds of males and females, and their respective parents, the recent study hoped to test the theory that women seek out attractive mates to produce sexy male offspring, who will in turn pass on their mother’s genes.

Uh uh. The study found that hot dads didn’t necessarily have hot boys, and that unattractive fathers (or “ug dads”) didn’t necessarily have ug boys. In fact, the study found no evidence of male-to-male attractiveness inheritance at all. So that beautiful bone structure, those sparkling eyes, that indefinable something that makes you so, so foxy… where did that come from? Your mother, perhaps?

Nope, attractiveness doesn’t seem to come from your mom either. It seems that when boys are born, they’re cast out into the Land of Fug to fend for themselves, and if they find a sunny hilltop to build a face on, they have to do it on their own.

Mothers, the study found, do pass on attractiveness to their daughters. And, ironically, so do fathers—hot dads are likely to have attractive daughters. That means that daughters are getting all those good looks funneled into them from both sides! Ooooh, I hate them so much!

It’s like the legend of Puss in Boots, really. The wealthy old miller and his wife (who I believe was some sort of novelty hat heiress) were on their deathbeds at the same time (food poisoning, I believe), and were deciding how to divvy up their vast wealth between their two sons and one daughter. Keep in mind, this was before division was invented, so the two dying parents decided that the fairest thing to do would be to give all their money to the daughter and none to the sons. The daughter lived a long and very happy life, and no more needs to be said about her. One of the sons died more or less on the spot (food poisoning, I believe), and the other grabbed the miller’s cat and did a runner.

The stolen cat may or may not have had a plan for the surviving son’s well-being, but there was no way to tell, because the cat couldn’t speak English, and the son couldn’t speak Cat. So, making the best of what he had, the son forgot to feed the cat until it died, and then took its fur. (And this was clever in itself, because the son was still too poor to afford a knife, and he had to be creative—that’s where the saying “there’s more than one way to skin a cat” comes from.) The son then used the beautiful fur (it was a good cat) to make an attractive fur hat (a skill he learned from his mother), which he sold to a local eccentric. The profits from the sale were then invested in the construction of a new animal shelter/hat factory. The venture proved to be a lucrative one, and it kept the man in stockings and gin for the rest of his life, until he burned the factory down so that his own son couldn’t inherit it.

Do you see the connection? If you replace all references to money in the story with the word “hotness,” the analogy is particularly apt.

Tags : absurd, heredity, attractiveness, hot dads, genetics, sociology, animal behavior, cats, daughters, sons

read more... | add a comment | share

You kids get out of here!: Are those cigarettes? What do you have under that hat? Is that a gang sign?
Courtesy fromagieI’m tired of you hanging around with those riff raff friends of yours. I hear that they smoke. Do you think smoking is cool? Is cancer cool too, then?

And y’all listen to that loud gang music, and I know what that music is about: it’s about devil worship. Devil worship and gangs.

And no son of mine is going to wear eyeliner and dog collars. What do you think you are? A dog? A prostitute? Some kind of prostitute dog?

Didn’t I raise you right, Junior? Where’d all this garbage behavior come from?

And pause!

What’s happening here, folks? Where did Junior’s delinquent behavior come from? Well, I’ll tell you where it came from: it came from his parents, in more ways than one.

Recent genetic research has shown that the tendency of adolescent males to associate with delinquent peers has strong association with a particular variation of the dopamine transporter gene, DAT1. So, basically, there’s a genetic influence behind nogoodniks sticking together.

It’s sort of a disturbing finding, when you consider past efforts to isolate—and eliminate—“unfavorable” genetic traits (it’s called eugenics, and it’s bad, bad news). However, the research also demonstrated that not all males with the DAT1 variation were more inclined to associate with delinquent peers. In fact, a large group of boys with the genetic variation showed no increased tendency towards delinquent peer groups at all: boys with highly engaged and warm families.

Family environment seemed to be the deciding factor in a kid’s chosen social group. Boys most likely to run with a bad crowd had the DAT1 variations and a family life marked by maternal disengagement and lack of affection.

Once again, the answer to “Nature or Nurture?” seems to be, “yes.”

Tags : genetics, trouble, DNA, criminology, sociology

read more... | add a comment | share

Nothing to worry about: the minimum wage is happy where it is!
Courtesy kandyjaxxOh, man, there are some funny jokes to make here about how conservatives are happy because, um, they…

I can’t do it. Conservatives don’t deserve to be made fun of. Or maybe they do? I can’t think of a good reason either way.

Ugh. I’m so tired out, you know? I just want to take a nap forever.

A recent study, funded by the National Science Foundation, seems to indicate that conservatives are generally happier people than liberals. The research supports a 2006 study in which 47 percent of “conservative Republicans” described themselves as “very happy,” compared to only 28 percent of “liberal democrats.” These new finds claim to pinpoint the specific reason for the disparity: conservatives rationalize social and economic inequalities.

The study found that conservatives were reported greater life-satisfaction and well-being than liberals, regardless of marital status, income, or church attendance. Conservatives also scored much higher on measures of rationalization, which “gauge a person’s tendency to justify, or explain away, inequalities.”

Statements such as “It is not really that big a problem if some people have more of a chance in life than others,” and “This country would be better off if we worried less about how equal people are.” The idea of meritocracy, for instance, is often used to justify economic inequalities; people deserve their “social class attainment.”

However, if one’s beliefs are unable to justify gaps in status, one is generally left “frustrated and disheartened.” Like, why are more conservative people happier than me? I try to be happy. I try very hard to be happy. But here I am, just… just sitting, and and

My keyboard is filthy. It should be better than this.

I think I have asthma.

“Liberals,” states the report in the journal Psychological Science, “lack the ideological rationalizations that would help them frame inequality in a positive (or at least neutral) light.”

That might be true. I’m no scientist, though. That’s probably true.

The authors of the study believe that a similar logic lies behind other forms of inequality. For example, research has shown that egalitarian women are less happy in their marriages compared to their “more traditional counterparts,” because they are more bothered by disparities in domestic labor.

I don’t know. It just doesn’t…

Sometimes I feel like liberals are lonely more too.

Tags : sociology, liberal, happiness, conservative

read more... | add a comment | share

How obesity is spread: Just kidding, obesity my not be physically contagious but could your friends play a role in your weight?
Photo courtesy Henry LiA new study that looked at 32 years of data shows that your chubby pals might be making you fat. No seriously, researchers looked at a long term heart disease study that tracked people's weight as well as their friends and family members. By analyzing connections in people's social network they found that when one person gained weight, their friends were more likely to gain weight as well. Interestingly the effect was stronger with friends than it was with families.

The article above features more formal speculation by the scientists about the reasons for this correlation. However, in my unprofessional opinion this makes tons of sense. I mean acceptable body size and eating habits seem heavily affected by the people you hang out with. Eating is almost always social for me and as a result there is social pressure to eat in similar ways to everyone else I know. I mean I sure don't take the ladies on dates to Burger King, but then again when I am hangin' with some more "shlubby" of my "dude" pals I am more likely to strap on the feed bag at the OCB. But for the most part my friends eat healthy and in moderation and as result so do I...most of the time.

I've even experienced social pressure to reign in bad eating habits. I am a bit of a candy addict...that's probably an understatement. You know when you find your self at Super America at 3am buying a creamy long john, nerd rope, 32oz. of Coke, and a pack of Chewey Runts, well you have a problem. But, I digress. Since these habits fall outside of the norm for my social group I regularly feel pressured not to engage in this obviously detrimental behavior. Which, trust me, isn't a bad thing.

I would love to see more studies looking at the social aspects of the obesity epidemic. And I especially would love to hear your ideas on this subject.

Tags : obesity, weight, health, sociology, communicable, friends, networks

read more... | add a comment | share

James Loewen, a professor at the University of Vermont, has published a disturbing new book. Sundown Towns: A Hidden Dimension of American Racism tells the story of American cities and towns which kept out – and often drove out – all non-white residents. (The title comes from the signs which were often posted at the entrance to town, saying “N*****, Be Out Of Town By Sundown.”)

Researching this topic proved to be very difficult. A few towns actually had laws and ordinances prohibiting non-whites from living in the city. But most achieved their all-white status through unofficial means – violence, harassment, and unspoken agreements not to rent or sell to minorities. (Most sundown towns excluded blacks and/or Jews, though many in the West excluded Chinese, Mexicans and/or American Indians.) Very few towns ever discussed this aspect of their history in the newspaper or in official town histories. So, Loewen was faced with a challenge: how to prove racism without official evidence?

First, he had to come up with a definition. He decided to define a sundown town as an incorporated entity of at least 1,000 people that excluded blacks for decades – that was at least 99.9% white, and was that way on purpose. “Incorporated entity” meant he wasn't going to look at sparsely populated rural areas. It also meant he was looking at an entire town that had driven out blacks completely – not simply divided itself into all-white and all-black neighborhoods. Similarly, “at least 1,000 people” limited his search and focused on towns that probably had to make an effort to exclude blacks.

Finding towns that were all-white required reading census statistics. Not just reading them, but also interpreting them. He found towns that had dozens of black families in the census of 1870, 1880, and 1890 – but, in 1900, 1910, or 1920, suddenly dropped to zero. This could be a sign that the blacks were driven out of town by mob violence – something he could often confirm by reading newspapers.

Some towns had black populations with very unusual characteristics. For example, the census might show a town had 1,508 blacks, all male, no children, and none counted as head of a household. It would turn out that each of these 1,508 were prisoners at a jail. Or the census might show 67 blacks, almost all female, few children, and again none head of a household. These he found were domestic servants. In a few towns, the census showed just one black family, decade after decade. It often turned out that, when the citizens drove out the blacks, they left the town barber alone. In all such cases, blacks may have been on the census, but they were certainly not free to live within the city, so he counted them as sundown towns.

(Some towns, especially suburbs, were established as all-white and just stayed that way, even after such laws were declared unconstitutional.)

The trickiest part was proving that towns were all-white on purpose. Few ever wrote their policies into law. Instead, he had to rely on oral history. He would interview the town's oldest residents. If several of them independently offered the same explanation, he would accept that as evidence that that's probably what happened. (Some scientists dispute his methods, but historians and sociologists have long accepted oral histories to fill in gaps in the official record.)

So, how many sundown towns did Loewen find? He has confirmed at least 1,000 towns were exclusionary at some point in their history, and suspects the total number could be as many as ten thousand across the US. Hundreds of counties were all-white. The entire state of Idaho, for a time, was all-white. Most of these towns were in the Midwest – Illinois alone had over 470 sundown towns in 1970, about 70% of all the towns in the state. Other concentrations were found in the northeast, the Ozarks, Appalachia, and Oregon. (Interestingly, the deep South had very few – Loewen could only find six in the entire state of Mississippi. But outside the South, more than half of the cities and towns in America were whites-only for some period of time.)

Are there any sundown towns left today? Hard to say. Surely, there are several hundred all-white communities in the US today. But are they all-white on purpose? Housing discrimination is illegal. Mob violence has thankfully become rare.

But low-level harassment, which is harder to document, still drives blacks out of some towns. No one will hire them, store owners won't sell them anything. Home owners and real estate agents may unofficially agree to only sell to whites. Police give them a hard time. Some towns still have “whites-only” laws on the books. Even though those laws are unenforceable, if the entire town believes they are legal, then they will act as if they are.

So, while sundown towns have been illegal since 1968, there are still hundreds of communities which still operate that way. There are reports as recent as 2004 of blacks having trouble moving into certain towns. There were still “No Blacks After Dark” signs in some areas in the 1990s. And one town in Illinois had a siren on the city water tower. They would blow it every night at 6:00 pm to tell the blacks it was time to get out of town.

They didn't stop blowing the whistle until 1999.

(To learn more about sundown towns, you can read an interview with Loewen here and a review of his book here.

Tags : race, sociology, sundown towns, James Loewen, cities

read more... | add a comment | share

baby2: A baby standing on a chair.

A researcher in Germany has conducted experiments showing that babies as young as 18 months old have a natural instinct to help others. The researcher performed tasks with books or clothespins in front the babies. If he accidentally dropped something, the baby would come over to pick it up. If he dropped it on purpose, the babies would not help.

According to the article:

Toddlers' endearing desire to help out actually signals fairly sophisticated brain development, and is a trait of interest to anthropologists trying to tease out the evolutionary roots of altruism and cooperation.

Now, of only they could retain that helpfulness as teenagers!

Tags : babies, neurology, helping, sociology, development

read more... | add a comment | share