Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 22:05:39 UTC No. 16589590

>>16589540
because social sciences have a consensus which believes women are as physically strong as men and also believe all races are equal in skills. After that it refuses to setup a caste system.

Until social sciences agree to caste and race then we will hate them

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 22:57:34 UTC No. 16589662

>>16589540
There's a difference between theory and ideology: you either adjust your model to the world or adjust the world to your model. Social science is more the latter than the former. Now notice that there's an intersection between mathematics and social sciences like econometrics. Since social science is a garbage bin of the most ideological, low IQ, incompetent retards who attend university the most valid part of social sciences is brought to you by math chads.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 00:20:23 UTC No. 16589715

>>16589540
Social sciences can work but they largely come down to highly opinionated conclusions.
Why? Because of the intersections with human products, perceptions, and motivations which science normally seeks to sterilize away.
That means the skill and integrity of the practitioners will be more important than what can be shown deductively. So logically the results should be distrusted without establishing extensive and intelligent reasoning.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 00:56:03 UTC No. 16589730

>>16589540
>Why do you guys hate the social sciences except when it comes to IQ research?

Social sciences have always been perceived as "gay" and even worse: unprofitable, so it's always been a neglected field save for a few charismatic wackos and grifters. People who're good at social sciences typically don't stay to advance the field, but instead rush out into the world to swindle people out of their money.

Because of this the social sciences are commonly astroturfed by ideological-polity/identity politics. These Anons are complaining about something real, but they're confused and putting the cart before the horse: >>16589590 >>16589662 Because the true reality and power of the social sciences is once you find out how people think you can effectively convince them of anything. People get confused when they hear "Social Constructs", they think that means something isn't real because you believe in it, when in reality what they mean is you can convince anyone of anything if you can condition them accordingly.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 01:01:18 UTC No. 16589733

IQ is quatch

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 01:12:40 UTC No. 16589737

>>16589540
Because they propose unprovable theories and their data collection is dogshit. You cant use math to prove whatever they say is true, you can barely use experiments because humans cant be studied like lab rats that spend their whole life in experiment cage, so you have to rely on very limited data you find "in the wild" where each person has billion other variables that cannot be controlled for, and finally because they have so many basically unproved dogmas that shape their worldview and everything.
For example, the whole modern liberal and leftist ideology is just a logical conclusion based from the dogmatic axiom that all races are equal in IQ and capability. Everything they do and say makes sense if you take this one idea as absolute truth and then look at our history and our society. And that is just one example that has barely been proven correct.
And while all scientists are either political or ignorant like all other people, when you do physics, or biology your politics barely affects your research, and if you find some data, you can have someone else do the experiment to see if the data is bullshit or not. But not in field studies where you just pick random people and then observe them for some time because its entirely random and nobody will give you funding for your psychology study that would allow you to get something like million respondents that arent sleepwalking through the survey or just trolling your results and poisoning your data with dumb outliers. With all that said almost all of it is pseudoscience to some degree which does nothing but make your average right winger more anti-science and anti-intellectual, which then results in damaging all of science as a whole in the long run.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 01:17:49 UTC No. 16589739

>>16589737
This is all well and good but in reality even the hard sciences are shitting out bunk studies that can’t be replicated by the pound.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 01:55:36 UTC No. 16589763

>>16589739
They can be replicated in theory, and if they cant, then you discredit them. And it also depends on the percentage. Natural sciences have at most 50% replicability, while psychology has like 80%. Pretty much everything that the founder of psychology proposed turned out to be bullshit, meanwhile Newtonian physics are still used to this day outside of extreme conditions.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 02:15:11 UTC No. 16589782

>>16589540
I think social science is fascinating and wonderful, like astrology, and I love talking about it with women because it can help unfurl how they feel and interact with the world around them. I just don't think any of it has any generic value in terms of governance or broader authoritarian action. I can imagine, if I were a gay man, that IQ research might have a similar romantic value.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 02:30:11 UTC No. 16589798

>>16589730
>they think that means something isn't real because you believe in it, when in reality what they mean is you can convince anyone of anything if you can condition them accordingly.
if only the behaviorists had told us what they were going to do to society like 70 years ago.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 02:46:14 UTC No. 16589813

>>16589590

I forgot how insanely racist 4chan is for some reason

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 02:50:15 UTC No. 16589816

>>16589813
No more or less so than any mainstream tv news show.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 03:38:11 UTC No. 16589828

>>16589763
>They can be replicated in theory
But not in practice
>and if they cant, then you discredit them
A lie is halfway across the world by the time the truth gets its boots on. There’s no grant money in disproving other people’s work.
>Natural sciences have at most 50% replicability, while psychology has like 80%. Pretty much everything that the founder of psychology proposed turned out to be bullshit, meanwhile Newtonian physics are still used to this day outside of extreme conditions
Did you mean percentage of studies that CAN’T be replicated? Because your wording implies 80% of psychological studies can be effectively replicated.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 04:24:57 UTC No. 16589840

>>16589816
Frankly, that's infinitely more concerning.

There are a handful of very obvious criticisms towards these arguments that should obviate their consideration.

1) The reliability of IQ as a method of metricizing intelligence
2) The nebulousness of racial categories themselves which would be aptly replaced by categories that group people by common gene expressions
3) The Flynn Effect
4) That racial disparities in IQ performance are effortlessly explained by comparing people with similar socioeconomic statuses from different racial groups
5) The obscene amount of research that has been conducted into various health & nutrition, educational, socioeconomic, and implicit test biases factors which influence test scores.

If you ever want some lovely anecdotal evidence of how mediocre IQ is measuring anything meaningful pertaining to intelligence, I highly recommend just joining Mensa. Or crashing a Mensa event.

I did the former, went to one meeting, and never returned.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 05:27:02 UTC No. 16589864

>>16589590
>After that it refuses to setup a caste system.
Imagine thinking jeets have any good ideas about running society

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 05:31:06 UTC No. 16589867

>>16589840
You’re preaching to the village idiots here sadly.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 05:41:52 UTC No. 16589871

>>16589540
I hate the abstracts, the conclusions and a bunch of some of the methodologies used, but the the data itself can be useful
I would recommend Aydin Paladin's channel to help sift through the shaft, she makes it both palatable and entertaining not to mention she's pretty based imo, high autism at it's best
https://www.youtube.com/@AydinPaladin

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 05:44:53 UTC No. 16589872

>>16589590
not if you look closely at the data
in fact i've learned to hate women so much trough social sciences and psychology it's insane
and it will make you more racist too

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 06:11:39 UTC No. 16589887

>>16589540
>liberal funds study with small pool
>pushes it in your face as a fact of life and calls you stupid if you point out flaws
they do it to themselves. there's nothing wrong with the scientific process, it's the "scientists".

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 18:45:27 UTC No. 16591678

Since given that I am a student of economics, I declare that economics is not a social science, but a branch of applied mathematics that combines various mathematical programming techniques into one to optimize decision-making processes

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 20:29:32 UTC No. 16591768

>>16591678
>optimize decision-making processes
Which requires a ton of assumptions about human behavior. For example: assuming that people are rational agents.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 20:53:57 UTC No. 16591804

>>16589840
all of these reddit-tier "debunks" have themselves been debunked countless times by people who actually know what they're talking about when it comes to iq testing

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 04:06:27 UTC No. 16592140

>>16591804
I feel like you and reddit are both a bunch of retards. Certainly NN Taleb is one of the most disgustingly hypocritical human beings who has ever lived, and he has no private or public integrity left to piss on. But putting the gossip page aside, are there any useful avenues to explore in terms of nonhypocrisy?

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 04:40:19 UTC No. 16592150

>>16589540
Its the good ol' positivism some natural scientists still BELIEVE in, with nomothetic approaches and quantitive methods considered as thebonly valid form of science. They always forget how objectivity is always relative as in, even if you can isolate and abstract nature under controled conditions (unlike social sciences) even the thing that motivates said scientist to work on something is rooted in ideology and a system of values, let alone all the other factors that condition him (politics, economics, culture, history, etc)

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 05:30:52 UTC No. 16592186

>>16589540
Because they aren't science and epistemologically never will be. That's why they graduate with a bachelors of arts, not of science.

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Feb 2025 12:16:18 UTC No. 16594707

>>16589540
ah, the opinion sciences strike again.
IQ measurements are one if the places where these opinion sciences tried to break out into hard experimental territory, and their reaction was 'no, not like that' ever since.

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Feb 2025 12:59:56 UTC No. 16594736

>Not a single source was linked or even hinted at all thread.
>Mental masturbation about how x is ooga and y is booga.
opinions discarded.

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Feb 2025 14:59:47 UTC No. 16594868

>>16591768

It's not about how people behave in real life. It's about how people should behave in order to maximize a predefined criterion. It certainly draws a roadmap for how people should behave, rather than predicting irrationality.