Post-training alignment techniques are now standard parts of LLM development and are presumed to contribute to the human-like abilities of models. In this talk, I will present two studies examining whether LLMs' response distributions capture the diversity and value pluralism important for their deployment in human-centered applications. In the first, we evaluate claims that models can replace humans in behavioral research using a novel metric for conceptual diversity in synthetic LLM "populations" that relates individual-level variability to population-level variability. We use this approach to evaluate non-aligned and aligned LLMs on two domains with rich human behavioral data and find that aligned models display less conceptual diversity than their instruction fine-tuned counterparts. In the second work, we use a leading cognitive model of polite speech to systematically evaluate value trade-offs in two model settings: degrees of reasoning budget in frontier black-box models, and RL post-training dynamics of open-source models. We find interpretable patterns of informational, social, and presentational utilities emerging from low-level training decisions, and that these patterns shift in predictable ways when models are prompted to prioritize certain goals. Finally, I'll share thoughts on future directions for these works, including improving LLM personalization, generating hypotheses about other social behaviors like sycophancy, and guiding value trade-offs during model development.