Note: The following was jointly written by Janken Myrdal and me.

[–]

What explains large-scale migration flows over the very long term?

[–]

What explains that some kinds of knowledge are widely accepted whereas other kinds of knowledge are rejected?

The overarching aim is to understand and systematise the conditions for the spread and acceptance of knowledge, as well as the rejection of knowledge – the notion of knowledge here taken in a broad sense. Is it possible to discern dissimilar or even contrasting intrinsic traits of knowledge that generally either invite its adoption or trigger its repulsion per se (i.e. irrespective of its specific cultural or historical context)? Self-evidently, counter-intuitive knowledge is more difficult to assimilate than knowledge that suits people's preconceptions or ideological leanings. But could other such traits of knowledge be identified that affect its varying reception or impact? In addition, what is the significance in this respect of certain pivotal situations, such as certain societal atmospheres, certain human experiences or attitudes? Finally, which are the general cognitive, emotional and ideological factors that can help explain the adoption of knowledge, as well as the repulsion of knowledge?

One relevant circumstance is that the growth of the total stock of knowledge seems to be far more rapid than the growth of what an individual human being is able to incorporate. This means that the gap inexorably widens between the former and the latter. This might speed up the incessant process of specialisation, its wake more than ever forcing people to select what knowledge to adopt and what to neglect. This might reduce or block people's readiness to encompass an increasingly vast mass of information, even risking alienating people from an interest in gathering knowledge altogether.

Why do social norms change despite the fact that their mission is to be sustained?

Generally, human interaction is regulated – if not from the very outset in the development of all societies, at some early stage. Such regulation is enacted both by means of physical power and with the aid of norms. But to a substantial degree, physical power also relies on norms since it would not function without the loyalty of strategic groups and ultimately loyalty from the subjects or citizens in general. Norms serve to stabilise social interaction, be it peaceful or characterised by more or less violent conflicts.