This has the potential to provide a lot of meta-insights about society if it coalesces into a distinct branch of social studies.
Power laws are everywhere. Why isn't there a field dedicated to studying these social/psychological archetypes? Like: what kinds of people are most likely to write the comments we read, what kinds of people are more likely to become politicians, what kinds of people are more likely to seek "Trust & Safety jobs" at social media companies, or become journalists, etc. Groups cluster, and no "influential" group (defining influencial liberally) is representative or free of bias. There's a lot of insights to be gained in this kind of "meta-thinking" about society. This would be far more insightful than basic observations about gender or race ratios, and would highlight far deeper divisions within society, which could help address them.
While he didn’t use the concept of power law, Michel Foucault’s work was largely about this subject.
Unfortunately, subsequent academics have viewed Foucault’s work as a complete theoretic and used it as an instrument to apply to other areas rather than continue and extend the study of power itself.
Power laws are everywhere. Why isn't there a field dedicated to studying these social/psychological archetypes? Like: what kinds of people are most likely to write the comments we read, what kinds of people are more likely to become politicians, what kinds of people are more likely to seek "Trust & Safety jobs" at social media companies, or become journalists, etc. Groups cluster, and no "influential" group (defining influencial liberally) is representative or free of bias. There's a lot of insights to be gained in this kind of "meta-thinking" about society. This would be far more insightful than basic observations about gender or race ratios, and would highlight far deeper divisions within society, which could help address them.