"Designed or planned social order is necessarily schematic; it always ignores essential features of any real, functioning social order". I really like this quote. I feel like a lot of times people try to simplify things way too much in order for an idea or practice to fit into a neat little box that can be easily understood when no, such things are never really simple. People tend to try to take the "easy" way out of understandings instead of, well, trying to understand. And this line of thinking can be harmful to all parties involved.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that nowadays, white women get around 79 cents to a man's dollar. And that's white women. 

I get the impression that it is far more likely for a government to take action over something if it is made public. The Tutsi genocide is far less known than say, the Holocaust. People don't know about what is going on, therefore they don't ask questions. Once people start raising questions, however, I feel like that's when a lot of politicians start making a "stand".

This is really interesting. I never knew that rap was the equivalent to a competition, to a lot of people. Very passive-aggressive

But the thing about Athenian government is that while it was presented as a people's government, it still was very narrow in who participated (if you were a woman or a slave, tough luck) I only say this because while their system was very admirable, it's easy to give a certain group of people a bit more power, however slight. And I feel like this is a problem today, maybe not as obvious, but it's there.

This is something I've noticed for a while. People often use the idea of mothers, children, and the weak to sometimes elicit an emotional response from the general public, I think. Groups such as veterans and the elderly are always automatically treated with respect, which I don' think is a bad thing, but it shows how people have  biases ingrained for different groups. 

Thoughts as a virus is an interesting way to look at things. However, I personally disagree. At least to me, ideas and thoughts are more of gene than anything. One that you can grow out of, but I feel like it's more accurate to say some of these things are passed down rather than "infected".

Alright, so I get that this article is pointing out that within their own parties, people are starting to get along more. But I can't help but think that maybe this has to do with how polarized the two main parties are right now. It's like they're both so set in their ideologies that the thought of compromise is way out there.

This is so true. A lot of what a person will believe or follow later in life starts with what they learn when they are young. Why would you hold back on something that could easily help a person become more informed in the future?

Taking this statement hand in hand with how "our fellow citizens have a right to expect us to...use our knowledge to address serious issues", it makes me wonder if this is a sort of cycle. For sure, it seems like it's all influenced by society and norms, but I have to wonder if why it is so "silly" for scholars to get involved with policy analysis when they are basically doing their job?

This is very true. Many people are not patient enough to take the time to understand that the government is much more than just the President making decisions. There is a whole system, a complex one at that. But one of the biggest downsides of being the visible authority figure is that you provide people with a face to place blame on. I'm not saying that presidents are perfect (hahaha no) but more often than not, they are used as scapegoats for problems that most likely had far more components than just "he didn't make the right decision".

"narrative transport" is something that really interests me, because coupled with empathy, it is a tactic that could enrapture a lot of people without even knowing it

I really loved the "first draft" thing. I think it really shows how culture and society influences, but not necessarily implants, ideologies and perspectives.  The question of "what is moral" is much more complicated than it seems.

This actually makes a lot of sense. People tend to be pretty emotional beings, so to associate oneself with a positive attribute and one's opponent with a negative one is logical.  Not everyone understands politics, not everyone has the patience to understand politics. But they like feeling good. They like hope. By giving people what they want in this area, you're forming a rather strong foundation.