<p><strong>Short answer:</strong> This question does not have a sociological or other scientific answer because it cannot be studied empirically as currently conceived, but it is a valid question all the same. It may still be possible for a humanistic field of study, such as <a href="https://history.stackexchange.com/">History</a>, to provide a satisfying answer.</p>

<p><strong>Long answer:</strong> There is currently no way to define what or how any observable variables might map on to "society," "oppression" or "exploitation" in a sufficiently specific sense. Because we cannot <strong>operationalize</strong> what exactly change in society over time means, or whether society's current state is an "extreme" in a way we can systematically observe and record, we cannot give <strong>scientific evidence</strong> (sociological or otherwise) one way or the other.</p>

<p>Therefore, depending on <strong>which</strong> and <strong>how many</strong> variables we choose as our measure of society's change over time, and <strong>how long</strong> we choose to study them for, we may find that society does oscillate between extremes, or that it doesn't, or that it goes through periods of oscillating and not oscillating, or that some parts of society do oscillate while other don't, or a virtually infinite set of other conceivable models. </p>

<p>With no way to distinguish the relative <strong>likelihood</strong> of different models using empirical evidence, we have no credible scientific reason to believe any of them are more likely than any other, and hence no ground on which to base potential scientific theories on. <strong>Colloquially speaking, we cannot theorize about evidence we don't know how to collect.</strong></p>

<p><strong>Concluding remarks</strong></p>

<p>I am providing a negative answer to this question because it is the top result on Google for its title, because it has survived my close vote, because I answered the author's directly related question, <a href="https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/9812/how-can-we-realize-when-a-sociological-question-is-impossible-to-answer">"How can we realize when a sociological question is impossible to answer?"</a> and, last but not least, because I like bounties.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-04-25T17:31:12.293Z
Wow, 1st in google? I ask interesting questions :D - jokes aside thanks for the answers!
Revious
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-04-24T16:53:57.723Z
2015-04-24T16:53:57.723Z
2017-04-13T12:56:16.467Z
Christian Hummeluhr
<p>Consider 2 groups of any number of persons. Assume that the "dominant" group acts without any regard for the other group.
Assume that there seem to be no consequences in the short time for the dominant part.
In a generalized experiment over a very long time, I think the feelings of the oppressed group will create motivation to react.</p>

<h2><strong>Let's consider an example:</strong></h2>

<p>Women's rights had been limited for centuries. More recently the situation has been changing, and nowadays the opposite is being argued:</p>

<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.nuovadelsud.it/primo-piano/primo-piano-news/cronaca/4683-brienza,-costretto-a-dormire-in-macchina-senza-poter-vedere-i-miei-figli.html" rel="nofollow">A bias in the laws in Italy seems to favor women</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.senato.it/documenti/repository/commissioni/comm02/documenti_acquisiti/957%20FENBI%20-%20A.pdf" rel="nofollow">Official documents delivered in Italian's Senato describe many cases of women making false accusations to win divorce processes in a range of 16 years</a></li>
<li>See also <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia on false accusations of rape</a>.</li>
</ul>

<p>There was also an interesting study on the prevalence of sexual dependency among men and women: the number of male patients was 5 times greater than the number of female patients. </p>

<p>Consider the hypothesis: <strong>"History goes from one extreme to the other."</strong>
Oppression &amp; exploitation of one group <strong>leads to</strong> discomfort, <strong>which leads to</strong>  motivation to react and fight, <strong>which leads to</strong> reaction (from the oppressed side) and maybe guilty feelings (on the oppressor's side), <strong>which leads to</strong> an egoistic solution, which is not always the more ethical.  (In this case, a partial oppression of the previously dominant group).</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-04-19T09:46:44.710Z
I'm voting to close this as primarily opinion-based despite Nick's edits, because I simply can not imagine what empirical research could possibly give evidence one way or the other.
Christian Hummeluhr
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-04-20T09:12:30.703Z
@ChristianHummeluhr: I would say the point is a bit different. I think it's pretty intuitive that our society swing back and forth between extremes, but it's hard to scientifically investigate it. I think the reason is bound to our emotions and to the rationalization. But is really hard to prove that.. one hard way to start the investigation is related to history. Many people say that tyranny follow anarchy and viceversa. Is it historically a real tendence?
Revious
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-04-20T09:26:42.103Z
@Revious That does not seem to address how to concretely give cognitive science evidence for or, more importantly, against society oscillating between extremes. Perhaps this is a historical rather than cognitive science question? http://history.stackexchange.com/
Christian Hummeluhr
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-04-20T09:36:37.653Z
See also this Meta post: http://meta.cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/983/how-to-distinguish-social-psychology-from-opinion-based-questions
Christian Hummeluhr
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-04-20T23:47:43.147Z
@ChristianHummeluhr: I had wrote a polemic comment. (I am pretty sensitive on this topic). But to make my critic to your action, become constructive I would have needed much more time. So I deleted it and I decided to put a bounty. Your advice to open on history could help also. Often I realize that it's not so much important who is *right*, but to collaborate to a constructive solution.
Revious
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-04-21T06:32:23.907Z
@Revious Keep in mind that you don't necessarily have to make changes just because someone thinks so and starts a close vote. You only have to make changes if it succeeds. :v
Christian Hummeluhr
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-04-21T06:33:18.073Z
I very strongly doubt you'll get a cognitive science answer despite the bounty because it seems impossible to give scientific evidence, though. This would be right up a historian's alley.
Christian Hummeluhr
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-04-21T14:10:57.557Z
I agree with @ChristianHummeluhr, I bet this would get more attention on History.SE and am doubting this will get much attention here even with a bounty.
Krysta
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-04-21T16:11:08.367Z
@ChristianHummeluhr: I agree mostly with you but what annoys me is that you use the word impossible instead of hard. It's a very strong assumption to say that something is impossible. I see it as cognitive bias... I can be wrong for sure.. I am nearer to Krysta's position. It's not a matter of impossible to investigate, it's a matter of it's boring to do. I will try to ask in historical anyway. ps: I'm writing it again because if you are a professional and I'm wrong you could explain me why leading to some personal growth, otherwise maybe you just used a bit strong sentence and it's ok anyway.
Revious
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-04-21T17:51:33.017Z
@Revious Impossible is an appropriate term for my position. I'd be happy to explain that position in chat, if you'd like. It's not the same as saying your question is nonsense--like I said, I think it's a historical (or anthropological?) rather than sociological question, simply not amenable to answering by cognitive science. This is not intended to be insulting since history was, last I checked, still a legitimate field of study.
Christian Hummeluhr
<social-psychology><sociology>
Does society swing back and forth from one extreme to the other?
Revious
# Does society swing back and forth from one extreme to the other?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2014-06-10)

Consider 2 groups of any number of persons. Assume that the "dominant" group acts without any regard for the other group.
Assume that there seem to be no consequences in the short time for the dominant part.
In a generalized experiment over a very long time, I think the feelings of the oppressed group will create motivation to react.

## **Let's consider an example:**

Women's rights had been limited for centuries. More recently the situation has been changing, and nowadays the opposite is being argued:

* [A bias in the laws in Italy seems to favor women](http://www.nuovadelsud.it/primo-piano/primo-piano-news/cronaca/4683-brienza,-costretto-a-dormire-in-macchina-senza-poter-vedere-i-miei-figli.html)
* [Official documents delivered in Italian's Senato describe many cases of women making false accusations to win divorce processes in a range of 16 years](http://www.senato.it/documenti/repository/commissioni/comm02/documenti_acquisiti/957%20FENBI%20-%20A.pdf)
* See also [Wikipedia on false accusations of rape](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape).

There was also an interesting study on the prevalence of sexual dependency among men and women: the number of male patients was 5 times greater than the number of female patients.

Consider the hypothesis: **"History goes from one extreme to the other."**
Oppression & exploitation of one group **leads to** discomfort, **which leads to** motivation to react and fight, **which leads to** reaction (from the oppressed side) and maybe guilty feelings (on the oppressor's side), **which leads to** an egoistic solution, which is not always the more ethical. (In this case, a partial oppression of the previously dominant group).

**Tags:** social-psychology, sociology

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I'm voting to close this as primarily opinion-based despite Nick's edits, because I simply can not imagine what empirical research could possibly give evidence one way or the other.  
> **username_0**: @ChristianHummeluhr: I would say the point is a bit different. I think it's pretty intuitive that our society swing back and forth between extremes, but it's hard to scientifically investigate it. I think the reason is bound to our emotions and to the rationalization. But is really hard to prove that.. one hard way to start the investigation is related to history. Many people say that tyranny follow anarchy and viceversa. Is it historically a real tendence?  
> **username_1**: @username_0 That does not seem to address how to concretely give cognitive science evidence for or, more importantly, against society oscillating between extremes. Perhaps this is a historical rather than cognitive science question? http://history.stackexchange.com/  
> **username_1**: See also this Meta post: http://meta.cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/983/how-to-distinguish-social-psychology-from-opinion-based-questions  
> **username_0**: @ChristianHummeluhr: I had wrote a polemic comment. (I am pretty sensitive on this topic). But to make my critic to your action, become constructive I would have needed much more time. So I deleted it and I decided to put a bounty. Your advice to open on history could help also. Often I realize that it's not so much important who is *right*, but to collaborate to a constructive solution.  
> **username_1**: @username_0 Keep in mind that you don't necessarily have to make changes just because someone thinks so and starts a close vote. You only have to make changes if it succeeds. :v  
> **username_1**: I very strongly doubt you'll get a cognitive science answer despite the bounty because it seems impossible to give scientific evidence, though. This would be right up a historian's alley.  
> **username_2**: I agree with @ChristianHummeluhr, I bet this would get more attention on History.SE and am doubting this will get much attention here even with a bounty.  
> **username_0**: @ChristianHummeluhr: I agree mostly with you but what annoys me is that you use the word impossible instead of hard. It's a very strong assumption to say that something is impossible. I see it as cognitive bias... I can be wrong for sure.. I am nearer to username_2's position. It's not a matter of impossible to investigate, it's a matter of it's boring to do. I will try to ask in historical anyway. ps: I'm writing it again because if you are a professional and I'm wrong you could explain me why leading to some personal growth, otherwise maybe you just used a bit strong sentence and it's ok anyway.  
> **username_1**: @username_0 Impossible is an appropriate term for my position. I'd be happy to explain that position in chat, if you'd like. It's not the same as saying your question is nonsense--like I said, I think it's a historical (or anthropological?) rather than sociological question, simply not amenable to answering by cognitive science. This is not intended to be insulting since history was, last I checked, still a legitimate field of study.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2015-04-24. Score: 5 | Accepted answer

**Short answer:** This question does not have a sociological or other scientific answer because it cannot be studied empirically as currently conceived, but it is a valid question all the same. It may still be possible for a humanistic field of study, such as [History](https://history.stackexchange.com/), to provide a satisfying answer.

**Long answer:** There is currently no way to define what or how any observable variables might map on to "society," "oppression" or "exploitation" in a sufficiently specific sense. Because we cannot **operationalize** what exactly change in society over time means, or whether society's current state is an "extreme" in a way we can systematically observe and record, we cannot give **scientific evidence** (sociological or otherwise) one way or the other.

Therefore, depending on **which** and **how many** variables we choose as our measure of society's change over time, and **how long** we choose to study them for, we may find that society does oscillate between extremes, or that it doesn't, or that it goes through periods of oscillating and not oscillating, or that some parts of society do oscillate while other don't, or a virtually infinite set of other conceivable models.

With no way to distinguish the relative **likelihood** of different models using empirical evidence, we have no credible scientific reason to believe any of them are more likely than any other, and hence no ground on which to base potential scientific theories on. **Colloquially speaking, we cannot theorize about evidence we don't know how to collect.**

**Concluding remarks**

I am providing a negative answer to this question because it is the top result on Google for its title, because it has survived my close vote, because I answered the author's directly related question, ["How can we realize when a sociological question is impossible to answer?"](https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/9812/how-can-we-realize-when-a-sociological-question-is-impossible-to-answer) and, last but not least, because I like bounties.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Wow, 1st in google? I ask interesting questions :D - jokes aside thanks for the answers!  

---

