I’ve had a bunch of thoughts about this from the other direction, actually.
Something like this comes up in a lot of near- to semi-near-future SF. You project future physical knowledge and technology, and that’s a black box that we don’t understand. But we’re used to technological black boxes we don’t understand; my car and computer both run even though I have only the vaguest idea how they work, and they don’t really seem like they should.
But you’d expect the future to also have improved social knowledge and technology. (And not be, say, the weirdly popular hierarchical space empire blessed by the (Catholic?) church.) And that’s much harder, because we mostly think we know how people work.
Sometimes the social tech really is just a black box toy, and then it’s not too bad. In Foundation, Hari Seldon has super advanced sociological tech, but it’s purely predictive. That has its own sort of implausibility, but it doesn’t really make specific claims about how people act.
But if you push beyond that—if you start describing the the sociological facts that your future society has discovered, and the systems they’ve based on them—you risk losing your reader who knows (or “knows”) that things don’t work that way. I stopped reading The Forever War when it started talking about how society had a shortage of labor and also massive widespread unemployment at the same time. (I’m not sure if Haldeman was disagreeing with me about economics or implying that this was deliberate misgovernment, but either way it was just too far a step for me to deal with.)
You see this all over the place. Heinlein often has his characters propose or accept a rigorous mathematical proof that modern-style democracy can’t work (notably, a central idea in Starship Troopers). The Fall of Doc Future webnovel has aliens visit and, among other things, share the proof of the theorem that high-frequency stock trading will always lead to global instability and utter stock market dyfunction.
You might believe one of these things. You might believe both of them. But they’re certainly not, like, mathematically proven. And enough people are skeptical of them that having them as Established Fact in your books comes across to a lot of people as weird and uncomfortable. (And as the author preaching to the audience in a context where you can’t really argue with him.)
My favorite take on this came from a short story I have not been able to find again. Set on a shortly post-first-contact earth, and narrated by one of the few Earthlings who’s been offworld. (Some of the aliens wanted to buy Earth animals, and he’s a biologist/zookeeper who was taken on their ship to teach their new owners how to care for them.)
The aliens are peaceful but neither humanitarian nor colonialist: they set up an embassy, open trade negotiations, and then aren’t too bothered about the state of Earth; so Earth finds itself part of a federation but without the currency or resources to get much in the way of this new exciting technology.
But crucial to the plot is the fact that the aliens’ social and government system is not only very different from ours, but much more sophisticated, to the point where the humans can’t really follow it. There’s a scene talking to the alien ambassador and the narrator comments that he’s visibly struggling to figure out how to explain things; he analogizes it to telling some first-contact Earth tribe about taxes being remitted to the crown, and them trying to figure out why we would give a bunch of metal to a piece of headgear.
The point being that if you really had a more advanced society, sociologically, it would probably look alien, hard to explain, different from anything we have. (Some other books, notably Accelerando, handle this pretty well; I hear that the Culture novels do too.) But it probably wouldn’t give clear answers to modern political questions—let alone ones that clearly vindicate any particular faction.
So to come back around to your question: this isn’t super common because it’s hard to do well, and because people will reject it. As you say, if your premise is “people in this world don’t act like people we know do”, eventually your readers will reject it.
