“How long do you bake chicken?”

“Do whales sleep?”

“How many yards are in a league?”

The all seeing, all-knowing Google search engine has helped many of us find answers to our many questions. When we need something answered, we simply “Google it.” This popular search engine uses a complicated algorithm to generate results, but last year it’s legitimacy was questioned when it was revealed that the top link provided for the query, “Did the Holocaust happen?” was a neo-Nazi website run by white-supremacists denying its existence.

In a recent article on The Conversation, sociologist Thomas Maher describes the struggle that the Holocaust Museum had to go through in order to combat the false information online generated by the neo-Nazi website. Maher provides insight on how Google’s search engine, which tries to pinpoint the answers users are looking for, can be manipulated to spread false information, especially in the conspiracy theory community.

“(I)t’s clear to me that sites intentionally presenting misinformation and propaganda are preying upon Google’s eagerness to answer questions. These sites, peddling what is sometimes called ‘fake news,’ capitalize on people’s tendency to ask those questions directly on Google.”

Maher suggests that the best way for experts to respond to false information is to participate in public writing and blogging themselves, using relevant and searchable key words and phrases to ensure their research-based writing is seen. Maher points out that this will not stop false information from being presented, but the existence of credible facts alongside misleading information is a start.

Everyone knows that having kids is expensive, and the dollars really start adding up when you consider lost wages or salary which comes with having to be a stay-at-home parent. Furthermore, even if you enroll in a daycare, the best facilities are often quite expensive and highly selective. What are parents to do? Though it rubs against the grain of conventional American wisdom, Germany offers an interesting model. Recently, as described in the Atlantic, a German court ruled that parents can sue for lost wages if they are unable to find a daycare facility for their children.

In the U.S., where families are considered a more private matter, this seems like a big move for the government to make. Remember, however, that Germany is one of many countries where the state is more involved in such matters; in fact, Germany has taken steps to ensure universal, low-cost daycare. Here in the U.S., where families looking for child care providers have to turn to a market with very little regulation, cheaper options are often imperfect solutions. The cheaper option — home daycare — can be risky. Research by sociologists Julia Wrigley and Joanna Dreby shows that the mortality rate for infants is seven times higher in home day cares versus daycare facilities.

Though the German model of daycare as a public interest seems removed from American norms, the day care system in the U.S. seems ripe for renovation.

Sociology thoroughly embraces the “social construction” of race — that the ways we see, interpret, and act upon people’s “race” are actually created and maintained because of social norms. This line of thinking hasn’t caught on everywhere and medicine — especially since the completion of the Human Genome Project — often treats race as a biological, scientific category. This misunderstanding of race can have detrimental consequences, particularly when medical students are taught to use race as a shortcut for diagnosis.

Law and sociology professor Dorothy Roberts described this problem to Stat News:

“Right now, students are learning an inaccurate and unscientific definition of race. It’s simply not true that human beings are naturally divided into genetically distinct races. So it is not good medical practice to treat patients that way.”

She goes on to explain the relationship between race and health:

“It’s not that race is irrelevant to health, but it’s not relevant to health because of innate differences. It’s relevant because racism affects people’s health.”

Sociologist and physician Brooke Cunningham has taken a hands-on approach, giving lectures to first-year students at the University of Minnesota Medical School about race. She says, 

“People have been talking about race as a social construction for years and years and years and years and years and years and years. But there’s been a slow uptake of that understanding in medicine.”

Cunningham teaches students about the history of racial categories, which have changed drastically over time and space, and she describes how stereotypes and misunderstandings of race have influenced medicine over time. With the lack of understanding regarding the social construction of race in the medical profession, lectures like Cunningham’s provide a key intervention in the future of health care and the treatment of patients of all races.

Although industrialized nations are believed to have better health care, fewer health risks, and longer life expectancy, a recent report from the National Center For Health Statistics reports that life expectancy actually dropped in the United States for the first time in two decades. Chief among the causes of this shift is an increase in death due to diseases like heart disease and diabetes.

Numerically speaking, the drop in life expectancy was small – in 2014 the life expectancy was 78.9 years, compared to 78.8 in 2015.  Nevertheless, it is rather alarming, especially when comparing it to the World Health Organization report, which stated an increase in global life expectancy by five years since 2000. Whereas the rest of the world is, on average, living longer, this trend doesn’t hold in the U.S., particularly among white males, white females, and black males

The Huffington Post talked to Jarron Saint Onge, professor of sociology at Kansas University, about these findings. Saint Onge said that this drop in life expectancy challenges the very idea of what it means to be an advanced society. Saint Onge believes that the effects are most notable in poorer communities, saying, “It has to do with smoking, obesity, lack of quality diets and exercise, which are really responses to poverty.” 

Originally published Sept. 28, 2016

Arlie Russell Hochschild, professor emerita at the University of California, Berkeley, spent five years in Louisiana to explore why many Americans with lower incomes, in states receiving more government funding than most, embrace politicians pledging to cut that funding. It’s called “the red-state paradox,” and Louisiana is a prime example. It’s one of the poorest states, receives 44% of its funding from the government, and it supported Donald Trump in the primary.

Hochschild recently talked with Wisconsin Public Radio, detailing her findings that, for many Louisiana conservatives, policies bringing the disadvantaged forward often make them feel like they are being pushed back. Hochschild uses a metaphor of waiting in a long line winding up a steep hill, saying,

“You have worked your butt off. And you’re waiting in line for this American dream, and you notice suddenly that somebody is butting in front.”

Those who are suspicious of government policies like affirmative action see minorities, women, immigrants, and refugees as being permitted to cut in line by President Obama himself. For someone in an impoverished state, sending their children to some of the worst schools in the nation, and facing an incredibly low life expectancy, this doesn’t look like progress. The government is not seen as their ally, nor are the folks calling them “uneducated ignorant southerners” when they protest. Listening to their real stories, rather than leaning on such stereotypes, is how Hochschild crosses an “empathy bridge” in order to understand those supporting the controversial candidate.

In the weeks following Trump’s election and the growing visibility of white nationalism, people of color have received a barrage of unsolicited Tweets and emails asking them to weigh in. These inquiries often come from white people who, in their attempts to be good allies, seek people of colors’ perspectives and analyses regarding tough issues. Such action is often well-intentioned, but it can be taxing on those constantly being asked their take, and it can leave some people feeling cornered into playing a “race ambassador“ role.  In a candid conversation with Slate, sociologist Tressie McMillan Cottom describes the emotional labor that these interactions demand from people of color. She said,

“Black people have one primary job: to manage white people’s emotions. Their emotions are high right now and we’re being overtaxed with it. And our various levels of individual privilege circumscribe how much we can push back on managing their emotions.”

Many of the inquiries she and other black women receive come from liberal white women reeling in disbelief over the high proportion of white female voters who supported Trump. Being put in this situation by white friends is a common occurrence for many people of color, and for black women especially. As Cottom describes,

“The emails I get from people are epic. It has the extra gendered dynamic of expecting black women to midwife white women in crisis.”

American beliefs about how much sex women should have are much more liberal than in the past, but do women still face a double standard compared with men?

A recent article from Broadly uses social science research to find the answer. Among others, a study was conducted by sociologists Rachel Allison and Barbara Risman on college students’ attitudes about “hooking up.” They found that 12% of students still believe in the double standard that women should have less sexual partners men, though most students held men and women to the same standards. Interestingly, they also found that about the same percentage — but mostly women — subscribed to a reversed double standard where they judged men more negatively for having multiple sexual partners, but not women.

Psychologist Steve Stewart-Williams notes that “underlying the different double standards, there’s actually just one double standard: ‘It’s OK for me but not for you.'” Even so, in another study by psychologist Daniel Jones, women were more willing to overlook a man’s extensive sexual history. Jones concludes that “this type of sexist discourse makes women, but not men, permanently accountable for past sexual decisions.”

Supermarket accessibility is a common marker of  community health, especially in terms of transportation, housing, and employment. Houston, TX has recently become one of the most racially and ethnically diverse cities in the U.S. due to its flourishing Hispanic population, but a recent article in Rivard Report details a new study that reveals unequal access to supermarkets in this major Texas city. 

The research team, including Heather O’Connell, Jenifer Bratter, and Lester King, found that supermarket access is lowest in Houston neighborhoods with the largest black populations. This relationship remained even when accounting for median income, the percentage of the population with college degrees and retail jobs, and population density.

The neighborhoods with the highest supermarket accessibility were majority White-Asian, Hispanic-Asian, and those with no majority. Those on the bottom-tier in accessibility were black-Hispanic, white-black, and black-white communities. Labeling this as a “tri-racial system of social stratification,” the researchers found that if a neighborhood has a majority of white or Asian inhabitants, it will likely have a supermarket within a half-mile, but in neighborhoods with a white majority and a sizable black population, the likelihood of a nearby supermarket is extremely diminished. The researchers explain,

“This clustering leaves some areas of the city with relatively less investment, particularly when comparing the southern and northeastern portions of the city with the northwestern corner of the city … What this tri-racial system tells us is that social stratification is happening along multiple racial and ethnic lines and to somewhat differing degrees depending on the group.”

Many remain surprised by Donald Trump’s election success, and everyone has their own theory about how he pulled it off. Sociologist Scott Melzer suggests that the answer may be found by looking at the strategy used by the National Rifle Association: mobilize people over what upsets them. Melzer recently spoke to The Trace about how the findings in his 2012 book, Gun Crusaders: The NRA’s Culture War, can be used to understand Trump’s presidential victory.

According to Melzer, the NRA garners much of its power due to the fact that the organization is more of a social movement than an interest group. In other words, its large membership base is a stronger influence than its money. He explains,

“Social movements and their bases respond to either fear or hope. The NRA has cranked up the fear meter to 11 and has kept it there for a really long time. Threat is really the strongest source of mobilization.”

Melzer believes that members of the NRA feel as if they are losing their country, not just their guns, and that the NRA capitalizes on this fear by pushing a message of infringement on their member’s way of life. The NRA frames its members as victims of a country that is giving special rights to women, people of color, and LGBT communities, but not gun owners. This explains their emphasis on identity politics and civil rights. Melzer continues,

“The NRA, other social movement organizations, and certainly Donald Trump can get folks to believe messages that they’re victims of this kind of left-wing attack on their values, their livelihoods and ultimately their masculine identities.”

Trump touted a similar message throughout his campaign, empowering the NRA’s large membership base, along with others who were feeling threatened and left behind, to go out and protect a way of life that they believe to be in danger. 

New York City is known for its diners and coffee shops. One might assume that this is because the population shares a caffeine addiction, but a recent New York Times article on the changes in New York’s diner scene presents a more nuanced perspective with the The Great Good Place by sociologist Ray Oldenburg.

Work and home are central to our lives, but so is everybody’s special “third place,” the spot for relaxing and hanging out with friends and strangers alike. Oldenburg describes how this includes coffee shops, diners, pubs, taverns, and even post offices. These sites are important within the context of individual lives, but they can also build communities. Not all diner regulars becomes friends with one another, but they do become “affiliated,” picking up conversations and forming a social environment specific to these public homes away from home.

Additionally, these “third places” are symbolic of a city’s past, considering that they’re usually in older areas, reflecting a bygone era of the city. Consider that today in New York, decades-old diners are rapidly folding under increasing rent and the pressure to sell. What was once a classic third place like a small diner can quickly become a new high-rise, and this phenomenon occurs outside the Big Apple as well. So, swing by that midnight diner for a bite and get it while it’s hot — while you can.