Manosphere Amud - The Balloon Loon, Loveshy Extraordinaire

[ChuckSlaughter]

How? If one is not a banker than how can one possibly be a "bankid"? The word "bank" is in the name of that fakey bullshit skull type you made up. That makes no fucking sense.

Some people are just born in a suit balding and middle aged.
@Amud What kinda grades are you getting in your CS classes. I'd really like to know.

4. We could pay high school kids minimum wage to do it. You don't have to be smart or capable to perform simple medical procedures.

I happen to know some behind the scenes info on the sort of things that give hospital execs massive headaches. After years of schooling, building a career, years of maturity.....
Surgeons still kill people by not washing their hands.
Like I wanna trust a teenager with my body at all. When I was a teenager I would have not thought for a second to squeeze a zit right into your coffee if you pissed me off.

 

[Big Nasty]

I like how these people who either never went to college, dropped out of college, or studied something completely unrelated to social sciences believe they are experts in social sciences.

Yeah, I've seen lots of these guys. My impression is that they're often guys with degrees in computer science and engineering that think that they understand economics, just because they know maths, and since they understand economics... Hey! That means they're also experts when it comes to politics.

These guys also seems to have some characteristics in common, namely:

*Pudgy, pale guys with glasses.
*being outspoken "Atheists" and "Libertarians"
*Reading military sci-fi

 

[Dudeofteenage]

It's a pretty common human fallacy - "The complex things that I've devoted time to studying are really complex and can only be understood after lengthy study, but the complex things that other people devote time to studying are actually SO SIMPLE and you'd have to be a MORON not to get them"

 

[ChuckSlaughter]

It's a pretty common human fallacy - "The complex things that I've devoted time to studying are really complex and can only be understood after lengthy study, but the complex things that other people devote time to studying are actually SO SIMPLE and you'd have to be a MORON not to get them"

To be honest social sciences have fallen victim to the kids who have to go to college but are too fucking dumb. I think it gives people the idea that if the 200 level classes are easy enough for dumb people it must not be a complicated topic.

 

[ToroidalBoat]

"[...]the complex things that other people devote time to studying are actually SO SIMPLE and you'd have to be a MORON not to get them"

Sometimes, as an old Japanese saying goes, "even monkeys fall out of trees" - that is, even experts make mistakes. This certainly doesn't help to dispel the fallacy you mention.

 

[DuskEngine]

To be honest social sciences have fallen victim to the kids who have to go to college but are too fucking dumb. I think it gives people the idea that if the 200 level classes are easy enough for dumb people it must not be a complicated topic.

When were the social sciences ever reliable, though? Or at least significantly more so than they are now?

 

[ToroidalBoat]

When were the social sciences ever reliable, though?

I think it depends on the branch. I'd say they all can have issues, but some fields are more reliable than others.

For example, geography is pretty reliable, but psychology can have bias issues with studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology#Systemic_bias).

But that doesn't automatically justify thinking that we're better off as hunter-gatherers.

 

[Dudeofteenage]

Sometimes, as an old Japanese saying goes, "even monkeys fall out of trees" - that is, even experts make mistakes. This certainly doesn't help to dispel the fallacy you mention.

Definitely. But for some reason a sociologist who fucks up proves that sociology is total crap, while a physicist who fucks up is just one bad egg.

When were the social sciences ever reliable, though? Or at least significantly more so than they are now?

What does "reliable" mean in this context?

 

[DuskEngine]

What does "reliable" mean in this context?

Capable of delivering results that are reproducible and have either held up or been improved upon over time.

Not trying to say the social sciences are or ever have been thoroughly disreputable, but they're definitely squishy compared to the natural sciences. I just can't think of a time when that hasn't been the case, but I honestly don't know that much about the history of the sciences.

 

[ChuckSlaughter]

Capable of delivering results that are reproducible and have either held up or been improved upon over time.

Not trying to say the social sciences are or ever have been thoroughly disreputable, but they're definitely squishy compared to the natural sciences. I just can't think of a time when that hasn't been the case, but I honestly don't know that much about the history of the sciences.

They can only do their best. I think psych is pretty solid I don't like the specific social sciences, they're absolutely corrupt.

 

[Positron]

4. It has nothing to do with "evil Jews". Here is a picture of Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, a pure Bankid who is in no way Jewish.

And are these guys Bankids too?

 

[Ca Ira]

This just in: Amud's scientific diagram of the "averageid" happens to appear on the first page of a Google image search for "average man."

 

[Dudeofteenage]

Capable of delivering results that are reproducible and have either held up or been improved upon over time.

Not trying to say the social sciences are or ever have been thoroughly disreputable, but they're definitely squishy compared to the natural sciences. I just can't think of a time when that hasn't been the case, but I honestly don't know that much about the history of the sciences.

OK, well firstly, I think you're conflating two things. It's true that you can't consistently reproduce the results of social science research in the way that you can physics or chemistry experiments. I don't think it's true that our understanding of these fields hasn't improved over time (and bear in mind that many of these fields are only about a century old, some even younger than that).

What I don't get is the idea that "squishier" means "disreputable". The reason sociologists aren't capable of producing results as empirically indisputable as physicists is not because sociologists are a bunch of lazy drop outs, it's because the subject of their study - human society - just isn't amenable to it.

 

[DuskEngine]

What I don't get is the idea that "squishier" means "disreputable". The reason sociologists aren't capable of producing results as empirically indisputable as physicists is not because sociologists are a bunch of lazy drop outs, it's because the subject of their study - human society - just isn't amenable to it.

Disreputable is the wrong word. Unreliable, maybe? Imprecise? Maybe just squishy works.

I do agree that most social scientists take their job as seriously as physicists, but the inherent weaknesses you mentioned do mean that a given piece of research or scholarship in the social sciences is more circumspect than one in physics. It's a lot easier to disprove Phlogiston theory than it is to disprove, let's say, ego development or historical materialism.

I also agree that social sciences have generally progressed and become more useful. That's what I was disagreeing with ChuckSlaughter about.

 

[Dudeofteenage]

Oh OK. I guess we don't disagree as much as I thought. As you might guess this is a bit of a sensitive spot of mine, as somebody with advanced degree in a field that Chuck consideres "corrupt".

I agree that social scientist's conclusions need to be treated with more caution, but I think most social scientists would be the first to acknowledge that.

 

[ChuckSlaughter]

Disreputable is the wrong word. Unreliable, maybe? Imprecise? Maybe just squishy works.

I do agree that most social scientists take their job as seriously as physicists, but the inherent weaknesses you mentioned do mean that a given piece of research or scholarship in the social sciences is more circumspect than one in physics. It's a lot easier to disprove Phlogiston theory than it is to disprove, let's say, ego development or historical materialism.

I also agree that social sciences have generally progressed and become more useful. That's what I was disagreeing with ChuckSlaughter about.

You guy honestly would trust someone put out by a women's studies department at face value? All the specific social sciences are going to be staffed 100% by people with the same agenda, also at all the higher levels making sure the professor likes you is a matter of life and death, you're not getting shit with a BA in queer studies but unless you're accepted for a masters you're out in the real world. Your masters ain't going to do anything either so you'd better hope your professor let's you TA and recommends you for a doctorate. Like that's a system that has a snowball's chance in hell of being objective. Especially since as mentioned earlier, the nature of the subject produces fuzzy squishy results at best, lots of room to hide lies and bias.

Almost the whole body of work will eventually have to be tossed out, much of the work produced by the specific social sciences is consistently inconsistent with what other sciences have found. Once during an unrelated seminar a guy who took some queer studies class started arguing that testosterone doesn't change male behavior and the only thing he could say over and over was "show me the study I read a study in queer studies", mind you this is a guy who I like. Of course I was in class so I couldn't show him shit but just to be sure I went to medline later and there was no shortage of studies showing testosterone and other sex hormones change human behavior. I already knew this since I'd been weightlifting since he was in middle school and had already read plenty of studies not to mention seen it in my friends when they were on cycle.

I'm almost willing to bet his professor was pushing the whole gender roles as a purely social construct bullshit. Mark my words there will be scandal and decades of work will wasted.

Oh OK. I guess we don't disagree as much as I thought. As you might guess this is a bit of a soft spot of mine, as somebody with advanced degree in a field that Chuck consideres "corrupt".

I agree that social scientist's conclusions need to be treated with more caution, but I think most social scientists would be the first to acknowledge that.

I'm talking about the specific social sciences. Not the whole field. I think psychology and sociology are probably pretty solid. I think women's studies cares about getting money and pushing a political agenda.

 

[Dudeofteenage]

Almost the whole body of work will eventually have to be tossed ou

Marijan?

 

[ChuckSlaughter]

Marijan?

Lol are you calling me marijan or are you saying we will need to throw out his body?
Be careful, he's been gone for awhile you don't wanna be a suspect!

 

[Dudeofteenage]

I mean your view is quite similar to Marijan's - he refuses to believe any academic research published since the 1960s because he thinks feminism has made it all intellectually defunct.

 

[Adamska]

This discussion has gone a bit beyond the scope of this thread: dealing with a neophrenologist who's using medical devices to reform his skull for the same exact reasons as the Mayans.

As an aside Amud, would you kindly get back to us please and answer these questions we've posited the last few pages?