Social Science

Social science is the broad field that studies human behavior, society, and social relationships — how people interact with one another, form groups and institutions, and shape (and are shaped by) culture, economics, and politics. It uses both qualitative and quantitative methods to understand the structures, dynamics, and meanings that define social life.

How Markets Quietly Shape What We Want

~ Manuel Castañón-Puga

We often think our tastes and values are purely personal, but Bowles argues that everyday systems—like shops, apps, schools, and jobs—nudge them all the time. Markets don’t just set prices; they set the scene. Paying taxes for a service feels different from buying the same thing yourself. One frames you as a citizen with rights; the other as a customer engaging in a transaction. That frame alters how fair something appears and how generous we perceive it to be. In lab games, people offered less when the situation was described like a market “exchange” and more when it felt like “splitting a pie.” Even money itself can be a powerful simplifier. In older communities studied by Bohannan, certain items weren’t traded across categories. As money spread, more items became comparable, and that changed what felt OK to swap—and what a “good life” looked like.

Motivation shifts, too. When we do things for a reward, we often start liking the activity less. Psychologists such as Deci and Ryan have demonstrated that paying or punishing can crowd out pride, curiosity, and the sense of choice. Bowles reviews real-world hints of this: when people were offered cash to accept an unpopular facility in their town, support fell; paying for blood donation sometimes made willing donors less likely to give. The takeaway isn’t “money bad.” It’s subtler: clear quid-pro-quo deals push us to focus on the payoff, while choice and autonomy keep our inner drive alive. In your daily life, that might mean mixing paid gigs with passion projects, or keeping some hobbies reward-free so they stay fun.

Norms and reputations also depend on the setting. In tight communities or teams where you’ll meet again, being trustworthy pays off. In fast, anonymous markets, identity matters less, so it’s harder for reputations to grow—and easier to act only for yourself. But market life isn’t destiny. Simple tweaks—such as talking face-to-face, showing names, or building group identity—can increase cooperation. Consider how you buy and sell online: profiles, reviews, and repeat interactions make kindness and reliability more prevalent, as your behavior now follows you later.

Finally, we learn what to value from the people around us. Bowles demonstrates that culture spreads vertically (from parents), obliquely (through teachers and creators), and horizontally (among friends). Conformity isn’t always mindless; it can be a smart shortcut when learning is costly. That’s why “what everyone does” is so sticky. Markets can shift who we see, what gets praised, and which paths look successful—so the role models change, and so do we. For everyday life, the message is empowering: choose your frames and your crowds. Decide which activities you’ll keep intrinsic. Build circles where your future self will meet you again. Small design choices—how you pay, how you participate, who you follow—quietly train your preferences. Use them on purpose.

Reference:
Bowles, S. (1998). Endogenous Preferences: The Cultural Consequences of Markets and Other Economic Institutions. Journal of Economic Literature, 36(1), 75–111. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2564952

How We Actually Get Things Done Together

~ Manuel Castañón-Puga

Think about group projects, student clubs, or even splitting chores with roommates. A popular idea says people won’t help unless someone forces them. But Elinor Ostrom shows that real life doesn’t work that way. In simple lab games where people can chip in to a shared pot, many still give something—often almost half—especially at the start. We also tend to give more when we believe others will reciprocate. That’s a big clue: trust and expectations matter.

What really boosts cooperation is talking face-to-face and being able to call out obvious free-riding. When people can look each other in the eye, they are more likely to plan, make promises, and keep them than when they only type. And when groups are allowed to nudge rule-breakers—even lightly at first—most folks stay on track. Think of a club where everyone agrees on small, fair consequences for skipping set-up duty, starting with a reminder, not a fine. That mix of conversation, plus gentle yet escalating sanctions, keeps things fair without turning the vibe hostile.

Ostrom also explains why some community rules work for years. Strong groups set clear boundaries (who’s in, who’s out), tailor rules to local realities, involve most members in making those rules, and choose their own monitors. They use light penalties first and settle disputes quickly and nearby, so misunderstandings don’t poison trust. Even bigger efforts—such as campus organizations or neighborhood projects—work better when small circles are nested within larger ones, each handling what it knows best. If you’ve ever seen a student association with committees that set their own schedules and budgets, you’ve seen this logic in action.

Here’s the practical takeaway for everyday life: start with a small, motivated core, make membership and expectations clear, co-create simple rules that feel fair, and agree on friendly, step-by-step consequences. Talk in person when you can. Keep a quick way to resolve small conflicts before they grow. And don’t always wait for outside authorities to fix things; sometimes top-down controls can actually weaken the helpful habits you’re trying to build. Begin locally, build trust, and let good norms take hold. That’s how classmates, neighbors, and teams turn “we should” into “we did.”

Reference:
Ostrom, E. (2000). Collective Action and the Evolution of Social Norms. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(3), 7–158. https://about.jstor.org/terms