[anonymouskimmer]

> There is also a lot of garbage of the "yeah, duh, of-fucking-course" variety. studies like "negative interactions with community reduce feelings of belonging" ... uh yeah, no shit sherlock.

The importance of these studies are often not the expected results, but the average magnitude of the effect, and the parsing out of confounders.

Do chronic minor negative interactions have more of an effect on feelings of belonging than a single major negative interaction? This has policy implications.

What are the effects of negative interactions on highly social versus highly non-social individuals? What sorts of coping mechanisms do these two very disparate groups use to deal with negative community interactions?

I can think of a bunch more questions answerable by this type of research that don't have obvious answers. The importance of these questions depend on the magnitude and confounders of the original question.

> I think we just need to stop calling sociology papers "scientific". Fundamentally, they are not

They are, or are capable of being, as scientific as Darwin's crude observations of finch phenotypes.

[DontchaKnowit]

I also do not regard Darwin as particularly scientific, though he broke open some flood gates for very scientific research.

And your comments on policy implications are precisely what I am saying we should avoid - Why would we set policy based on studies which 1) are not scientifically rigorous (based on self reporting, surveys, small population, low ability to control confounding variables, etc) 2) do not actually suggest that policy would be effective in rectifying the problems identified in the study and 3) do not necessarily identify problems (e.g. is it really the business of the government to set policy with the aim of optimizing some self reported individual metric, such as feelings of belonging?)

[anonymouskimmer]

> Why would we set policy based on studies which

We shouldn't. If self-reports are ever used to set policy (and they should be) this should be on an individualized, ad hoc basis.

If a squeaky wheel comes to you, oil it. Maybe ask around if there are other squeaky wheels that no one in power is paying attention to. Oil them too. But don't go around oiling every wheel as a matter of policy, as you will end up with a bunch of overly oiled wheels having problems from over oiling.

Plenty of sociological studies (such as education interventions) aren't based on self-reports, but tested results.

> is it really the business of the government to set policy with the aim of optimizing some self reported individual metric, such as feelings of belonging?

The general governmental purpose here wouldn't be to make everyone feel like they belong, but to decrease as much as possible mass shooters, abusers, and the like. And to make it easy for people to report problems they are having, or for outsiders to discover problems. The Turpin case could have been nipped in the bud if the adults and children who noticed how unkempt and smelly the oldest daughter was when she was briefly publicly schooled had intervened (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turpin_case ).

[pixl97]

The problem I have with your take is you mistake the voting population as a bunch of libertarians, something that is a very commonly held viewpoint here on HN. They are not.

Voting blocks have what they see as problems they want to change. If you come at them with sufficient evidence for a plan that may work to change the problem, there is a good bet they'll vote for it. If you decide science is too hard and that we shouldn't do that silly science stuff, they will line up right behind the next authoritarian that says 'make america simple again' and enact devastating plans that they believe will solve the problem.

I mean, you can get in front of the voting block and tell them that status quo is just fine if you like, but expect it to be hard work and don't expect much success.