STEMtards eternally BTFO

Bow down to your soft science gods, nerds!

twitter.com/susanthesquark/status/894911578126008322

Other urls found in this thread:

twitter.com/paulg/status/894835603971481601
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetic_engineering
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Holy shit that delusion.

Huh.

those numbers must be wrong because math is easier than gender studies!

Don't worry. Those same social science tards will want to tell you that IQ doesn't mean anything.

>>
>All those collegian years of built up projection displayed in 3 sentences

Must be hard when you're making up sources and can't reproduce your experiments.

>I dont have to prove my assertions with research and facts
>so it's even harder

Oh all the things to come out of social sciences, iq is literally the only thing with any kind of statistical accuracy in the things it attempts to measure.

THE ONLY THING

Literally who

If you can't win a debate, change everyone's perception of reality through force. This has ALWAYS been the left's MO.

on the other hand they face ostracism for having any kind of opinion and have to be aware of current victim rankings in the fee fee olympiad.

post the whole thread: it's a saltmine grade response to paul graham tweeting the contra article

I was about to say that's complete bullshit and I was going to say how I was a psychology major and psychology was all about memorizing patterns, theories, and jargon and using that to predict behaviors, but then it made me realize that that's what other sciences are sort of about.


YES the psychology we get taught in secondary school is useless because all you're doing is memorizing stuff, but once you get into practical psychology, the real science is definitely there. And statistical analysis is similar throughout all fields.

I wonder if the greatest of Psychologists are able to use things like Physiometric and Psychometric patterns in your behaviour to fully predict your future behaviour...and I wonder if this kind of stuff isn't already being used today in our world by the governments.

The social sciences aren't inherently as bad as you make them out to be. They can be of use, as long as the experiments aren't run by far-left ideologues.

she got a blue checkmark so she must be important

twitter.com/paulg/status/894835603971481601

Psychology isn't a science.

In a way she's right.
Hard sciences are heavily based in solid logic, and so anyone with a logical mind could find learning them and working in them relatively easy. Objective truths are easy to understand when given the right information.

"Soft" "sciences," however, aren't really grounded as much in objective truth, and while many of their conclusions do have some form of logic behind them, it's not nearly as much as is in the hard sciences.
Studying these soft sciences usually consists of reading hundreds of papers and books filled with ideas and guesses, none of which are objectively true. Doing this, I imagine, is much more difficult than studying a hard science.

thx. the whole thread is glorious. people being exposed for the prototyrants they are when one of the "good ones" dares to link
hackernews is already filled with comments like
> why can't we ask questions
> I'm a woman. I disagree with some of the stuff, but agree with non-discrimination
tide is turning

The word they're looking for is "futile", not "hard"

>In a way she's right.
no
reading a lot and making up irreproducible shit is not as hard

isn't hackernews SJW central?

fuck off commie

>I wonder if the greatest of Psychologists are able to use things like Physiometric and Psychometric patterns in your behaviour to fully predict your future behaviour...and I wonder if this kind of stuff isn't already being used today in our world by the governments.

> IQ 114.0 speaks

That doesn't make soft sciences hard. It makes them shit.

That's like saying drunk driving is harder than sober driving.
It's not. You're just less equipped to drive while drunk.
Likewise, you're less equipped to model reality when you refuse to do it based on facts, but instead focus on feelings.

I'm sure its hard to blame imaginary tihngs for your problems and then write peer reviewed papers with your friends and then sell them to journals that universities have to buy

...

SJWism is strong, but we're also talking about people that use logic and live in a quasimeritocracy
there's some shit you can't argue against if you're honest and logical

Only when low IQ shows a correlation with racism or conservatism do they say the test is the end all be all on the subject, then show them IQ tests proving an opinion on s subject they don't like like race or sex suddenly it's a meaningless test.

>The social sciences aren't inherently as bad as you make them out to be.

As someone who did a few years of psychology before coming to my senses and getting a real degree, psychology and social "science" are inherently worthless because there is no way to use quantitative experimentation or observation for any meaningful hypothesis without a whole mess of confounding variables invalidating the results.
That's not to say that psych and sociology researchers actually try to produce objective or legitimate research; fudging and falsifying is extremely rampant and its not uncommon to be researching a topic and find a dozen contemporary papers that unequivocally "prove" a hypothesis or method and another dozen that unequivocally disprove the hypothesis or show another method to be 110% more successful.

Probably the funniest thing I ever learned doing psych is that absolutely every single therapy method has the same success rate; there is no difference in effectiveness. So either 99% of therapy research is bullshit, or psychologists have spent the last 130 years devising theories and methods that are no better than an untrained person talking to a client. Think about that.

soft (((sciences))) are difficult because everone dealing with them constantly needs to think up ways to fit the results of their """"studies"""" into their narratives

as long as "autoenthnography" counts as a research method, the social sciences will be a joke.

>soft
>harder
CANNOT
A
N
N
O
T
MAKE THIS SHITUP

Majoring in psychology is easy as fuck. Actually being a good psycho-philosopher requires a pretty top tier IQ. It's a two hemisphere discipline whereas most STEM can be all left brain and no interesting insights needed. People like Nietzsche, Jung, and even Peterson were not lacking anything intellectually

I only bow to Bogdanoffs, and you should too if you know what is good for you.

>are inherently worthless because there is no way to use quantitative experimentation or observation for any meaningful hypothesis without a whole mess of confounding variables invalidating the results.

Yes there are.
The most obvious example would be race and IQ, or gender differences.

Psychology is hard because it requires a nuanced understanding of the brain and how it functions to be correct. It's all the psychologists who are bad at it and claim their projecting guesswork is scientific law that ruin it

>soft sciences are harder
HARDER TO GET EMPLOYED AND MAKE MONEY LMAO

I'm not saying social sciences aren't a joke in the current political climate. What I'm saying is that it can be useful in the hands of the right people.

>Philosophy that high

These must be people carried by extremely high verbal IQ, but spacial isn't high enough to do anything useful. What a sad, sad existance that must be...

>Actually being a good psycho-philosopher requires a pretty top tier IQ.
My guess is that the average IQ for psychologists have dropped significantly as a result of the massive influx of women.

>STEM can be all left brain and no interesting insights needed.
You have to be pretty fucking retarded to actually believe this.

As with every branch of society, to be quite honest.
What industry or field of science has truly benefitted from the inclusion of women into the workforce/thinkforce?

Like I said. Iq is literally the only metric they have that's grounded in reality. The rest is bullshit citing other bullshit ad infinitum.

my thermodynamics laughs at your ((((soft))) science

The day someone removes medical techs, assistants, and nurses from that heath care tally will be a great day.

>The most obvious example would be race and IQ, or gender differences.

Culture, nutrition and socio-economics are all major confounding variables for those sorts of comparisons.
More so, sort of sample and experiment required to gain rigorous data about race and IQ or gender differences are both highly unethical and illegal. Psychology and sociology can never provide rigorous data to prove a hypothesis about biology, if you want to do that neurology is the only option.

I see women as caretakers and maintainers. They don't create anything on their own, but serve a useful auxiliary role by doing mundane tasks or working as assistants to male innovators. Obvious examples would be nursing, secretary work and number crunching before electronic computers became a thing.

>Culture, nutrition and socio-economics are all major confounding variables for those sorts of comparisons.
No, they're not. That's the kind of sociology bullshit the left is pushing, despite the fact that it's been largely debunked.

>Psychology
>A science

Hahahahaha

And sadly thanks to their inclusion into the labour market, they are now forced to work for a living and have been torn away from those auxiliary tasks.
One of my aunts absolutely loves children, spends every day of her working life taking care of peoples kids at daycare. Doesn't have her own however, because she was too focused on her job to actually go find a suitable husband to have kids with.
It's bloody ironic and really, really sad. She could have had them if she didn't have to work.

>If you kill your enemy they win.
>Trododo of Cnada
Soft science for a soft head.

Its hard(er) to make the soft sciences real science (but possible)

Psychology wasn't even an academic science until 1920/30 and many scientists to this day don't even consider it a science. Fucking meme worthy.

>CS
>science

what is mathematics

it does cana-bro

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetic_engineering

>"Memetic engineering as a social science lends examples of itself in multiple areas and disciplines. It is currently being examined and researched by the US military as a means to counter insurgency and combat terrorism..."

>"Other examples of applied memetic engineering are present but not exclusive to the marketing and advertising industries."

>social "science"

Gender studies are a bit like college level mathematics, in that both involve a lot of work with imaginary numbers.

Actually, after one or two years the stoners drop out because apparently it isn't about being high as a kite and mumbling 'that's like, so deep, man' and the ones that remain can be quite smart. I did a minor in the philosophy department and it was all about logic. There were even some students from the mathematics department who attended the minor because it was so useful and thorough. A lot of actual philosophy students dropped out because of it, lamenting that they 'didn't choose philosophy to do math'.

Of course, this is all anecdotal evidence, but still

>Trinidad and Tobongo
rare

>Tfw reading this thread as a current psychology student.
A-at least I'll be able to secure a job in the NHS :(

>this kills the libcuck

you can be a complete autist in the hard science, and be just fine. You could literally not know a 1st graders knowledge of politics or philosophy and be a top tier physicist. It's not true for someone like Peterson that has to have by definition a holistic view of the world.

How is inductive thinking hard? At least Scientist put their lines on the line to find the truth and help people.

Psychoanalysis is basically charlatanism.

Carl Jung sure was a smart laddie
But most of psychologist just read their newest booklet which says "Its a good idea to give 8 year old kids puberty blockers if they feel so" and then just go along with it

Not really, while nutrition and socio-economic factors play a role those are minor at most, we know for fact that intelligence is 80% genetic and we know that some ethnic groups lacks high intelligence related genes entirely like bantu and pigmies.

Soft science is harder because you have more complex dynamics which makes it harder and more costly to create falsifiable theories that do not fail. Ironically this leads to lower standards in the field because noone can live up to the standards of hard science, so even the shittiest idiot can make claims that noone can afford to argue against.

no because philosophy actually is an extremely difficult and rigorous field out side of the memes. Philosophy like Physics is an extremely specialized and the exact opposite of being airy-fairy when you get in the trenches. These are two fields that spend weeks over single sentences or equations.

This-- logic and then you have things like the philosophy of science and math that require you to not only know philosophy but also read scientific journals and things like that.

Philosophy outside of postmodernism is extremely math heavy. Looks like they got tricked by the Marxists

Don't worry user you will get a job! It's just you won't actually help anybody with there problems is all.

kinda true
trying to make sense of gender studies is harder than computer science

Higher level physics and math are literally the hardest subjects out there. Anyone with a brain can get a degree in psychology.

(((psychology)))

Soft science is harder. This us obvious from the reproducibility of the results. Physics always give the same result but humans and society always give different results.

>"astronomy is hard, but astrology is nigh impossible" shrieks idiot/sjw

>These must be people carried by extremely high verbal IQ, but spacial isn't high enough to do anything useful. What a sad, sad existance that must be...

no- the reproducibility is nonexistent because the mind of the ((((theorist))) is nonexistent.

There are so many variables when it comes to humans. How many variables are there in an hydrogen atom? Which is harder? Making an equation that explains all hydrogen atoms spin or making an equation that explains society?

Daily reminder that anthropology used to be considered by most educated people to be a hard science -- That was before the Jews and white Liberals softened it up and claimed that much of what had gone before them was actually "pseudo-science".

physical anthropology is still red pilled. Forensic Anthropology too

It's not even wrong. The data you can gather in soft sciences is so convoluted and messy that proper evaluation of causes and effects is near impossible. In essence, it's impossible to gain real knowledge. Just a salad of buzzwords and memes that are so diffusely defined and open to interpretation that they carry almost no meaning.
Physical scienes in contrast are approachable, quantifiable, falsifiable. The underlying language - math - is pretty straightforward; you either understand something or you don't. The same is true for experimental data - you can evaluate properly how likely it is that your results are chance, because the possible causes are reducible to a select number of laws and models. In summary, there are multiple ways to be wrong - and to know that you're wrong.

Soft sciences are indeed harder. Too hard for humanity to approach and use, in fact.

What's even the point of listening to some bitch who doesn't even know the difference between hard and difficult?