Hi, I'm looking for good sources as to how this change came about.
I'm sure there were social sciences/social psychology sciences before the rise of feminism as well, and despite what the field tries to tell us, I believe its possible social sciences (or academia in general) weren't always this biased. I believe its a gradual change, but I can't find any sources to back up this hypothesis of mine.
For those who say that feminists took over the world and therefore naturally dominate academics as well, while i agree with the first half of this statement, the fact is that there are still many academic fields that value truth over feelings/political correctness, such as finance, economics, biology etc, to name a few. Why has these fields remain (as of now) generally "untainted", yet the bias in social sciences and psychology so obvious?
Any help is much appreciated :)
P.S. I posted this on TRP because I can't think of any other sub that can actually help me on this. Sad huh
[deleted] 10y ago
Short Answer: Profit from the college side, agenda from the instructor side.
What sounds more profitable: Building a new science lab, constructing rooms built for science related education, hiring professors that understand the rigorous fields of Physics, Chemistry, and Biology, where the average IQ of students that pursue these courses is above 110.
or
Building a bunch of cheap rooms with windows. Filling that room with cheap desks, slap on a white board and installiing AC. Then hire one of the thousands of people with a useless degree to teach students with a much lower IQ on average compared to the rest of the sciences (which means more enrollment).
Colleges have been handing out these McDegrees for a while now and it falls on the back of government guaranteed loans that approves everyone. So now Timmy and Jessica who haven't had one intelligent and independent thought of their own in their entire lives are taking out 40k and choosing the path of least resistance to obtain the new McDegree.
As the true sciences are limited, the McDegrees are not. So guess who floods the job market for all the government jobs that 'require' a college degree? That's right, a handful of the fresh indoctrinated idiots. You didn't think all these kids who subscribe to the idea of white privilege and the 100 different terminologies for self identified 'sexual orientation' these days was something they came up on their own did you? This shit was planned long ago. Our country is on the brink of accepting full blown socialism while believing it's OK to be violent towards anyone who disagrees with them, because liberal feelings are more important than Constitutional rights.
[deleted]
SOYOcantona 10y ago
In a nutshell, they're generally intelligent. Whereas you lot are thick as fuck.
Whitified 10y ago
LOL i'd be tempted to ask you to explain yourself with reason and logic but I know you wouldn't
SOYOcantona 10y ago
Nah I'll just bait you, there's no debate to be had with you misogynistic knuckle draggers. The most wonderful people I know are women, and you promote abusing them. I fucking hate you all :-)
razormachine 10y ago
Well most of the academics are exact science. Exact science - A field of science such as physics or chemistry which is capable of accurate quantitative expression or precise predictions and rigorous methods of testing hypotheses.
You cannot bullshit anyone in the fields of exact science. If you say, that white cis man are responsible for the expansion of universe you have to prove it with hard facts.
Social sciences and psychology on the other hand are not exact science. All you need is a degree and you can BS all you want as long as it sounds plausible.
Read about this experiment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment
Yakatonker 10y ago
That is a terrible joke, its a known fact money can bend the "space time" of a research paper in any which way. This is especially more so when conclusions do not match specified outcomes in research which is tied to a limited cache of funds for research. In fact the current system is punitive against discoveries which challenge the grain, especially in fields where monied interests are stronger. I don't blame people for avoiding the hard targets of academic fraud because its the standard of American Academia.
razormachine 10y ago
Global warming research.
While global warming truly does exist. Earth does get hotter and hotter, the research behind the causes of global warming is a giant mountain of bullshit. The world is fully and only concentrating on cutting CO2 emissions.
I have a nasty feeling that somebody is lobbing for some specific goal. I do not know what goal that is, but we will probably find out in near future.
If global warming was truly caused mostly by CO2 than the smartest course of action would be to cut the CO2 emissions, and at the same time work on forestation of desertified areas. With higher CO2 levels, green stuff grows faster, and can absorb more CO2. Yet everybody is trying to cut CO2 emissions, and nobody gives a shit about increasing the mass of CO2 that the nature can absorb.
Whitified 10y ago
I personally believe the goal is to weaken the fossil fuel industries, which will in turn weaken the American right/conservatives.
This is very supported by the fact that the American left/liberals like to discourage the use of fossil fuels, but on the other hand improve relations with Muslim countries (which will improve their chances of obtaining said fossil fuels)
I'm not American so this is just my opinion as a foreigner.
Yakatonker 10y ago
Global warming is a fiction as much as the new propaganda slang climate change. Globalists have been trying to use this framework to accelerate and incentivize the smart city concept, incentivize a mass reduction in pollution and place amongst other things new deal reforms. I suspect these reforms are meant as a way to leverage poorer nations towards advanced economic reforms because typically developing nations are extremely corrupt and need such coercions to make any significant economic progress.
CO2 has no bearing on global climate, that is a pseudo field of research if any. What is known to affect climate on all planets is the sun. Either by way of dispersion of highly charged particles which feed into the planet via the magnetic poles and or the dispersion of light energy on the surface of the planet. You'll find if you look across different planets with different atmospheric concentrations the idea of CO2 driven climate is utterly ridiculous.
razormachine 10y ago
It is not a fiction, earth is getting warmer. But the reasons behind global warming are not well understood. Global warming might as well be completely natural... what I do not understand is why they are so focused on CO2. CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas, the change in % of CO2 in atmosphere is minuscule, there is a number of greater pollutants. I also do suspect that somebody is setting up the framework for something big. So far the whole global warming thing was used to extract money from citizens, and spend government money on some of the stupidest projects out there.
HuntForRedCascadia 10y ago
The issue is the balance is very delicate, and it creates a self-perpetuating cycle. The more co2 in the atmosphere, the more heat gets trapped, the more water evaporates and is held by the atmosphere (and water vapor is a kicks greenhouse gas)whcih causes more heat, so more water evaporates... you get the drift.
Methane might be worse overall, but co2 is easier to reduce technologically.
razormachine 10y ago
OK I'm simply going to asume that the CO2 is the only reason for global warming. Human CO2 emmisions are 29 gigatones, and we only release CO2. Nature on the other hand releases and stores CO2. Landmass releases 439 gigatones and store 450 gigatones (net storage of 11 gigatones each year). Oceans release 332 gigatones and store 338 gigatones (net storage of 6 gigatones each year).
So all in all thanks to fosil fuels extra 12 gigatones are released into the atmosphere each year. If we cut the CO2 emmisions by 40% the nature is brought into balance... but CO2 remains in the atmosphere and earth keeps warming up... all we did is stoped increasing the speed at which the earth is warming up.
We would have to cut now more than 40% to start gradualy decreasing the speed of warming up, and after some time reverse the trend.
But with all the solar panels and windturbines we are still increasing the emisions of CO2 each year.
So why wouldn't we get our hands a little dirty stop doing shit that makes greenies happy and start doing things that can cool down the planet.
Instead we are spending even more fosill fuels each year, we are increasing our CO2 emisions... but we had made some solar panels that are expensive as fuck, and we had made some windturbines... and everything is going to be a-OK :)
[deleted]
razormachine 10y ago
Sorry I do not understand the question. Could you elaborate?
[deleted]
Whitified 10y ago
So when did Social sciences start to become BS?
Of course modern Social scientists will claim that it has always been this way, but I find it hard to believe modern Social Sciences will be taken seriously say in the Renaissance or Medieval eras
[deleted]
Woujo Senior Endorsed 10y ago
They've always had a BS element to them.
You see, in an "exact science," as razormachine calls it, you run experiments by keeping all the variables constant and then changing just one variable. You can then draw a direct causal connection from that one variable you changed to the final outcome.
In social sciences, however, you can't run experiments in a laboratory. That shit happens in society where there are way too many variables to account for and there is no way to keep them constant. You can't run an experiment where you have 2 societies that are exactly the same, and change ONE THING about one society, and then see how that society turns out. For example, economists still argue about what caused the Great Depression, and nobody can prove that they are "right" because we can't go back and change the causes to see what would have happened if some policy or something had been different. Because there are so many confounding variables, any "conclusion" that you reach is kind of speculative and probably not 100% right.
People always saw this weakness in social science, but we still used it because its better than nothing. However, social science are very prone to being fucked with using ideology. And that's what's happening now.
razormachine 10y ago
Yes. From the very start they have the BS element because it is imposible to run a quality experiment on large number of subjects. You would have to build multiple isolated societies and make experiments that would involve changing only one thing that would last for generations to be able to point your finger and say "with 90% certainty this is the cause for this".
Take a look at the "mouse utopia" experiment. Mices were put in a enviroment where the only limit was the space they had. The whole population exploded, but they stoped procreating even before they reached the maximum projected capacity, and then they stoped procreating... eventualy the whole population perished.
The thing is, even mices are complicated creatures. You cannot disect them and read their minds. Any conclusion that you reach is kinda speculative. So social pseudo-science is really prone to errors because of wishful thinking of scientist that run the test.
You make a three teams of scientist run the ouse utopia experiment. One team is composed of feminists, one of MGTOW's, and one of black scientist.
Feminist team concludest that mouse population has perished because of patriarchi.
MGTOW's team concludes that the mouse population has perished because females were hipergamous, and male mouses went their own way.
Black team concludes that mice population has perished because all the lab mices were white.
The only good conclusion a person can pull from this experiment is that the mouse population that is only limited by space will perish over time.
To make other good conclusion you must repeat the whole experiment with changed parimeters.
To truly understand how mices (simple creatures compared to people, but still complicated creatures) work. You would have to perform shitloads of experiments such as this.
Swallowed_the_pill 10y ago
It's not only the ideology, but the fact that everything that seems to be tied to the third wave feminism is about writing off responsibility, taking the easy route and blaming everyone else, whetever it is men or society, for the following consequences.
Now if you are a miserable, failed person or just someone not very ambitious, but jelous at ambitious people it becomes very easy to follow this line of thought. "I got fat because McDondald's doesn't have huge signs on the front door saying it is unhealthy", "Society is evil because they don't endorse and glorify fat, unhealthy people like me" etc...
It is a lot easier to point fingers than it is to take responsibility and as we all have came to know most people would rather take the easy route.
[deleted] 10y ago
Because there is little to no science in social science.
It should be social studies.
razormachine 10y ago
I agree that they shouldn't call it "science". You may as well call astrologist scientist.
I would call it social pseudo-science.
[deleted] 10y ago
Because men with enough brains mostly go to STEM (or business) unless they're a beta chump who wants to suck up to his female peers as he has no other chance of getting anything?
RavelsBolero 10y ago
Americans are stupid, and then it spread out from there. In my department (I teach at a university in england) nobody is politically correct, one of the higher up research supervisors calls people retards and hoped someone else would get ebola recently. Good times.
i also find the heavy drinking lecturers tend to be chilled out
MagmaiKH 10y ago
Go act like that to your students during class and get back to me on how it all works out.
None of this is applicable to the ABC behind closed doors (and feminist are trying to destroy what you have there as well.)
MattyAnon Admin 10y ago
It is. Men are being alienated from universities and colleges by false harassment claims and shutting down of academic discussion that doesn't serve (or exposes) the female imperative.
Example: the guy who published solid findings on gender intelligence difference had to instigate legal proceedings to get his job back.
Women love psychology because it's the science of themselves as well as the science of how to get other people to do things for them.
Whitified 10y ago
lol meaning? Men have brains too y'know
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted] 10y ago
[deleted]
[deleted] 10y ago
I've done some reading into these topics and I understand them. Perhaps I just need to do more reading, but I'm having trouble trying to figure out if it is really the cause of the destabilisation of western culture.
Here are some things I don't understand: How have the Frankfurt School accrued this much influence/power? How have they been able to pull it off so well? And what is their goal, because if it's to corrupt western values from the inside, only to (hopefully) have them replaced by communist/marxist ones, how certain can they be that communism is the "right" way and communism is what they'll yet? I say this because communism has seemingly failed everywhere it's been tried and also because, in diluting western culture with culture from the east, especially in europe, won't they have to subvert the culture of east the same as they did the west?
Whitified 10y ago
This. Exactly my thoughts. Anyone?
The only thing i can think of is Jewish agenda. But that is an extremely complicated topic that I don't really understand either...
TheGatherHunter 10y ago
It's certainly not from lack of trying. For instance, they try like hell to push the gender wage gap (economics). They try to deny that there are differences between the sexes..
So soft sciences are much easier to just make stuff up. You redefine some terms, get a biased sample, ask very biased questions, and bam: you reached the conclusion you wanted. It's very hard to tell a molecule how many electrons it has, or something ridiculous like that. It also doesn't hurt that fields like psychology are easy so it attracts the feminist type who has never had to do a day of actual work in her life.
They've made some absolutely ludicrous claims in some hard fields. Like stating that icebergs melting was sexist or some shit like that. Or in another paper where a feminist claimed e=mc^2 was a sexist equation because it privileged the speed of light over other speeds. Who can take these harpies seriously?
Whitified 10y ago
The things you mentioned, though yes they definitely did happen, but the professionals in those field never took them seriously. Anyone in economics or finance never took "gender wage gap" seriously, only politicians. No one in chemisty care what feminists have to say about e=mc2
In sociology/social psychology though, feminists/SJW/liberals ARE the field. They are the professionals. Sociology and pyschology are perfectly legitimate fields of study, yet these "experts" make ludicrious claims on a daily basis and their peers approve it. My question was how did this happen...
TheGatherHunter 10y ago
Those things were all examples of things they tried to push. As I said, "not from lack of trying". So I don't know what you're trying to say.
Sociology and psychology are "legitimate" in that they exist, but they're rife with utter bullshit methods. You can't compare the way a physicist does research to the way a sociologist does research. Sociologists and psychologists care about people's feelings more than truth. They have ideas like people's subjective realities, which just wouldn't fly in a hard science.
MagmaiKH 10y ago
To a feminist feelings are truth.
Obio1 10y ago
No they're not. They masquerade as sciences, even performing "experiments". Psychology experiments are provably bullshit in that they often can't be repeated to achieve the same results. Published papers are regularly discredited by follow up studies.
http://arstechnica.co.uk/science/2015/08/100-psychology-experiments-repeated-less-than-half-successful/
The entire field is an illegitimate farce run by faux-academics who pay lip-service to the scientific method while concocting ridiculous goal-seeked "tests".
Of course the SJW's took it over. Psychology is a fabulous weapon for those with an illogical and/or baseless agenda. Need "scientific" support for your radical argument? There's an "experiment" for that. Need to prove that women are victims? Here are some goal-seeked stats resulting from a sociological "study". There. Done.
You have to remember this about psychology and sociology:
They are not sciences, but they can be used to generate actionable policy directives.
Think about that for a minute. Psych is filled with logical fallacies, and weak "proofs". It's so-called "experiments" are un-repeatable and usually go completely unquestioned. Their ability to control for unrelated variables is just hilariously poor. The peer-review process is a complete joke. And yet this lame excuse for a "study" can be used to facilitate policy and law.
You want to know how SJW's took over the faux/soft sciences? Consider the "why" not the "how" and you will have your answer.
Psychology and Sociology are tools of the SJW. They are both fields where results are incredibly easy to manipulate to pursue an agenda. Consensus has replaced scientific proof. (As with climate change). And once that happens, the recipe for dangerous peer control is in place. Dissent is crushed and vilified. Only groupthink is allowed.
coop_dogg 10y ago
What happened with climate change?
sorceryofthetesticle 10y ago
'Over 99% of climate scientists agree with the research about anthropogenic climate change, therefore xyz ought to happen.'
What does the research say?
'I dunno, but the IUPAC says anthropogenic climate change is a big deal so...'
[deleted]
MagmaiKH 10y ago
Let's call a spade a spade (this rebranding as "climate change" should be your first indication that something is amiss).
We're talking about Dangerous Global Warming.
Calling it climate change is hystronics so the climate-alarmist can push their agenda by dismissing people who disagree with as "silly people who deny the climate changes."
The real danger of "climate change" is that while we're wasting our time arguing over an odorless, harmless gas as the world is getting polluted to hell by our waste-stream. Replacing CO2 producing engines with engines made from exotic materials that cause cancer (in people and other animals) is not a universally positive change.
In a nutshell - None of the dangerous global warming models have ever produced repeated verified predictions. They are always wrong. e.g. In the 80's we were told
New YorkManhattan would be under water by 2020. I suppose that could still happen if God gets pissed and the sea rises 200 ft in 4 years.The climate models making verifiable predictions aren't "dangerous"; they are manageable.
All of the actual science behind global warming tells us that it is a minor issue with many benefits. First, the world was warming naturally anyway. We are still coming out of the last ice-age. (We call it an ice-age because there is permanent ice in the sea. The climate-alarmist would have you think that we need to stay in an ice-age otherwise it's bad.) Second the actual results of increasing CO2 concentration are pretty good for the us and the planet.
To be a climate-alarmist you have to believe:
1) a warmer planet is bad
2) a wetter planet is bad
3) more plants and trees is bad
4) global warming is not inevitable
And I guess 5) Some real threats.
There are some real threats from higher levels of CO2 but those don't happen until you're into several thousand ppm. Ocean acidification can lead to mega-plumes of a purple bacteria that produces hydrogen-sulfide and it's believed this has caused at least one of the great extinctions. 60,000 ppm is the direct extinction threshold where everything suffocates and the planet dies.
We are currently around 400 ppm from a low of 270 ppm in the 1700's and it was in the 300's throughout the last century.
The planet was about 5°C warmer during times of prehistoric life and the CO2 level was around 5,000 ppm (+/- 3,000 ppm). This was so long ago though that it's often said the Sun was cooler and that's why the Earth didn't cook. However we know the Earth had liquid water on it even before this time so it's considered a paradox that currently has no scientific basis for reconciliation. (Real-data is never cut-and-dry but this does give us a reason to believe the upper limit of temperature increase due to CO2 is on the order of 5°C.)
With or without us the planet is going to warm and CO2 was rising before we got involved. We have now about doubled the rate it's rising. We doubled it ... we didn't increase it by a factor of 10x or 20x. Antarctica should be completely melted in about 800 years. Without us it would have taken about 1600 years. Does that difference matter?
Climate-alarmist want you believe that it not only matters but it's such a problem that it's a catastrophe. A rising sea is a manageable problem not a catastrophe. People have been dealing with it our entire existence. Rising 2' a century instead of 1' a century isn't a big deal.
Plants stop growing around 150 ppm CO2 so to me 270 ppm seems dangerously low not some sort of ideal target. The primary limiting factor in plant and tree growth in our world right now is CO2 concentration and it remains a limiting factor up to about 1,200 ppm. CO2 is regarded as a nutrient to anyone that works with plants. People who own greenhouses buy CO2 and pump it in. We are starting to see the effects of this across the world. It was first noticed ... visually from space ... that the Australian outback is greening. Ignoring the areas it's been cleared by man, the amazon has also increased in mass due to CO2. (There is a recent study that screams group-think about the tree die-off rating suddenly doubling in the Amazon last decade for no explicable reason.) If we continue to increase CO2 we should start to see the African and American deserts start to green.
This is amazing. Desertification is a real threat to us and the planet and more CO2 helps combat it. This gives us our first scientifically backed CO2 concentration target at 1,200 ppm as a starting point to figure out a real target. It's good for producing food for us and good for food an habitat for other critters.
The rate that CO2 is being produced by people is growing linearly which means the amount we are putting into the environment is growing quadratically - not exponentially. (This is probably why the doomsday climate models are wrong.)
By the current trends we will reach 1,200 in another 238 years (2192).
Predictions of +4°C at 800 ppm are dubious due to 5,000 ppm -> 5°C data point and there was a glaciation about 500M years ago during a period that had around 3,000 ~ 5,000 ppm CO2 (the climate-alarmist science here is also subject to the paradox mentioned earlier. The Sun should have been dimmer but ... we know there was liquid water so something other than CO2 made it warmer and that's not in the models yet.)
The final nail in this coffin is that the CO2 forcing effect is logarithmic.
A higher thermal dynamic means more precipitation which most likely means more clouds (an unknown and not accounted for in the current climate models) and certainly means more rain which means a larger fresh water supply. The Antarctic ice-shelf is currently growing due to increased precipitation. (And yes they claim this is caused by global warming ... which I guess it could be but it sort of defies common sense to say that there is more ice because it's warming up.)
Lastly why is a warmer planet bad? We might see more people moving northward to avoid areas of +120°F heat in the summers but unlike the climate-alarmist claims of "mass population displacement" this will happen slowly over 200+ years at very manageable levels. In the mean time we'll gain new cultivable land in Siberia, the Canadian shelf, and eventually access to an entire new continent (Antarctica!). It might be tempting to say, 'but no it will suck because we're going to loose a bunch of land since the sea will rise' but that's going to happen like it or not. If we stopped all CO2 emissions the ice is still going to melt - we can't avoid that.
Contrast that with everything you've ever been told or "educated" about in school regarding global warming.
That's what happened to "climate change". It's a liberal, political talking-point that is used to give them a faux scientific basis for meddling in people's lives.
coop_dogg 10y ago
Thank you for the long and interesting explanation!
[deleted]
Whitified 10y ago
In a society without pyschologists, who will unfathom the many mysteries of the human mind? Who will determine the insane from the sane?
Other than that, you make an excellent point. I'm very intrigued now. Yes, the illogical have always needed something that seems scientific to win over the logical. Enter the feminists... I'll have to look more into this thanks
[deleted] 10y ago
According to this which was posted above:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment
The best people to identify the sane are the insane.
Obio1 10y ago
More importantly: What makes the psychologists think they're on the right track?
Whitified 10y ago
i dont get it... What is your point? Are you implying that all psychology is based on BS and therefore no psychology should be practiced at all...? (correct me if I'm wrong)
Obio1 10y ago
Mostly, that's correct.
But if psychology were at the outset to call itself a completely un-provable branch of philosophy -- then perhaps it might pass the sniff test. Or if it were to focus merely on the fact that it has the ability to make some people "feel good" in the same way that a good massage feels good -- then too, perhaps it wouldn't look like such an obvious scam.
But it doesn't. It starts with giving itself a name ending in -ology and then bases its precepts on a combination of "academic" consensus (see: Religion) and un-repeatable "experiments" and easily challenged "rules" (see: Astrology).
I ask you: What is that? Because it's certainly not a science. It doesn't have proofs. It isn't repeatable.
Of course it's BS. And everyone in a real science knows it. But they're scared of the SJW's... so they let them have their faux science as long as they stay in their box.
[deleted] 10y ago
[deleted]
Obio1 10y ago
What if you made the same argument about astrology?
"Astrology is hard because you can't control for all the variables"
As for my argument being fallacious, it's not my argument. It's a very well worn observation about psychology. It isn't a science by any definition: Repeatability, quantifiability, empiricism, proof, etc.
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/13/news/la-ol-blowback-pscyhology-science-20120713
[deleted] 10y ago
[deleted]
draylath 10y ago
I think I remember a you tube video where Christina Hoff Summers talked about this. She said that the more radical elements of second wave fem, after getting what they wanted and not being able to get any more out of public opinion, infiltrated academia in the 70s thus leading to all the gender studies insanity we see today.
I'm afraid I can't cite you anything specific or authorative though, sorry.
BluepillProfessor 10y ago
Summers is the authority. I don't think anybody else has dared to write about it but Lord have mercy is it obvious. Those professors are not just feminist. They are stark raving made purple haired good girl whore feminists.
[deleted] 10y ago
EASY. Look at the field.
There is no "hard" answers. It's all in how you feel and your opinion and argumentative skills. I would say logic is a factor, but the echo chamber effect trumps that.
Calculus vs gender studies. Which is easier and caters to a weak mind?
No concrete right answer. So you have a place where so long as someone feels their opinion matters , it's an A.
BluepillProfessor 10y ago
They whined about "Women's Problems."
They whined about years of oppression.
They whined about the patriarchy.
They whined about restorative justice.
So colleges caved and created Gender Studies, Race Studies, Queer Studies. They gave preferences in admission to women. They gave scholarships to women. They created thousands and thousands of full professor positions in ridiculous and nonsensical areas of pedagogy that had nothing to do with creating value. Indeed, they openly stated they intended to destroy by deconstructing present society.
Most of those Gender norming graduates went into academia. Sociology departments were overturned in the 1970's with Critical Theory and pure Marxism overturning the decades long dominance of the pragmatic Functionalist school.
English departments were the first to fall as hordes of female Gender Studies majors got PhD's and began to teach writing focusing on their critical theory (i.e. Critical of the West, the family, and other bourgeois institutions).
By the early 1980's nearly every single liberal arts department was avowedly Marxist in orientation. They would deny it and talk about Feminism, and structuralism, and various social theorists from Gramsky to Alinsky but at the core it is all Marxism rewarmed.
TLDR: For evil to triumph, all that is needed is for good men to remain silent.
[deleted]
HappyScribe 10y ago
Since the second wave, feminism has aligned itself with the left. So a more helpful question is how did education become left wing?
If you like conspiracy theories:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e53diZ0vboM
Whitified 10y ago
haha yes, i wanted to phrase my question "how did academics become left wing?" originally.
I have seen that video before. While i like and agree with it, it doesn't really explain anything. So how did this change happen? Soviet spies flew to US and Europe, learnt English/European languages and pretend to be Sociologists? Psychologists? There isn't really any proof, just one guy telling us stuff (that is very convincing, i admit)
Not forgetting if Soviets are completely to blame, why the left wing agenda in the West NOW? Now that the Soviets are no more?
[deleted]
[deleted] 10y ago
I´d recommend the book Who killed homer by Victor Davis Hanson and Heath on the sort of decay that has been introduced into the social sciences. One of the key points to take away is that in the field of philology for example, new exciting results that promote a career are hard to come by. So "feminism" and "post-colonialism" offers people quick and easy diplomas and journal citations. Of course, like Hanson and Heath argue, gender studies on the peloponesian war is not really philology. Then of course, since the 1960´s there has been a general shift into these marxist fields. Whereas gender equality was about equal oppurtunity, now its more about forced quotas and reverse discrimination as Marx prescribed this doctrine in his Manifesto. I´d disagree with you that there are "untouched" sciences, but its obviously a lot harder to bullshit in Physics than Gender Studies.
MagmaiKH 10y ago
In the hard sciences they use social ostracization (proverbial blackball) to silence you if you even subtlety suggest feminism is not a fantastic idea. Using whatever power and influence they have to derail your academic career is perfectly fine to them. After several generations of doing this they have created a barrier-to-entry for any free-thinkers.
Their control is concentrated in public universities so that has to have something to do with it.
bisjac 10y ago
Well what else employment will a gender studies degree get you.
ColdEiric 10y ago
Because guys didn't dominate sciences/academics.
Because guys did something else.
Whitified 10y ago
Have to disagree
Academics have always been a masculine feature
Until the last couple centuries at least...
TheGatherHunter 10y ago
Feminized primary schools where female teachers have declared it's a crime to be a boy who acts like a boy. And, of course, tons and tons of female only scholarships have changed that.
ColdEiric 10y ago
You misunderstood me, but that might have been my fault.
If guys do not move their asses, and minds, to enter and sit and hold the chairs and the positions, if guys do not enter and dominate the sciences/academics, then feminists are able to. As they did.
And feminists dominate those chairs right now. And they'll continue dominate them. Even if they'd prefer to be dominated by the men who chose to watch porn, drink and eat themselves fat, play video games, and so on.
If guys don't dominate, their competition will.
favours_of_the_moon 10y ago
They get money from the Ford Foundation to bully you.
For example, when I was in undergrad, they were getting $10,000 apiece to write essays about how the system was set up to be against them. lol
[deleted]
favours_of_the_moon 10y ago
Take the anti semitic bullshit to the stormfront forum.
Whitified 10y ago
what.......???!
And by "they" you mean the sociologists/social psychologists?
Is there a source for this? I have been studying social psychology for almost a year now but I've never heard of this...
favours_of_the_moon 10y ago
https://www.fordfoundation.org/work/our-grants/
There have been numerous articles posted in the past.
trpSenator Vanguard 10y ago
You know the saying, "Those who can, do, those who can not, teach?"
Well yeah... All those men are out actually doing things.
RavelsBolero 10y ago
Not really. You "do" things when you're young. You retire from being an industry professional, then you enter the academy to teach or contribute to the research output.
trpSenator Vanguard 10y ago
I think you're missing the overall point. Yes, yes, yes, I get what you're saying... Trust me, my business professor was a CEO for a Fortune 500 company.
But you're missing my point. Women are more willing to fall back on a relatively easy teaching career, than actually working within a tough private sector career.
[deleted]
[deleted] 10y ago
I know this is gonna be burried as bullshit, but whatever.
Even in hard science you got a human factor. It's not some kind of ideal world of perfect people doing perfect research. You got citing cartels, you got people faking stuff and the pursue of knowledge is more like tinkering, instead of fancy mindwork. You try to build something and at some point it just works. Not necessarily because of the genius scientists, but often a good amount of good luck and chance is involved. Does that mean the people are less smart? No. But they are still humans, not some kind of god-like, perfect knowledge creating machines.
Citing economics as "bias free" is a joke. Same for finance. If they were hard sciences, would be have such a mess for economic policies? Global financial crisis anyone?
One the other hand, is social science the same as hard sciences? No, of course not. And yeah, there are lots of idiots doing weird studies. But does anybody whine about weird studies in hard sciences? Nope. I'm not from the US, so I'm actually flabbergasted at what seems to be normal for US universities. The whole SJW stuff doesn't really exist over here.
This whole divide is just plain dumb. Everyone here cites the 48 laws of power as if they were the holy Bible. Everyone wants statistical data on econ and society. But social sciences? OMG, worse than Hitler!
Just because they don't use math, doesn't mean it is a made up joke in 100% of the cases. Is there lots of crap? Of course. Bad science is bad science in any case. But most of the people complaining about social sciences have no clue whatsoever about them. That's as dumb as talking about nuclear reactors without knowing what "nuclear" even means.
The one question I'd like to ask people is: What's your approach for social science, if math (like in hard science) simply does not work? Do not study the topic at all, because you can't do it in a hard science way? Or accept the flaws and bullshit and focus on filtering out the good stuff, which certainly does exist?
[deleted]
Whitified 10y ago
no one claims that there are bias free fields. That said, the shortcomings in economics and finance are more failure to predict, whereas in social sciences, the actual hidden agenda is more than obvious.
I'm not in the US either, but that does not make any difference whatsoever. Academics, and especially social sciences, are based entirely on what the West knows.
I have studied Social Psych for almost a year now, and i have to say, it sounding more and more BS the more i study. Its almost 90% nonsense and 10% truth, with the 10% being common sense stuff (big surprise, rewarding animals with food works! Who knew?)
[deleted] 10y ago
Well, in Econ the IMF und the World Bank are using neoclassical models, which might have no empirical background at all. Sounds like pure ideologie/ not so hidden agenda behind that?
True, yet there are many important social scientists coming from Europe. There is a big gap between US social science and other places.
Well, basic stuff is mostly on the level of "Oh....rly...?". I found the stuff about children development and early predictors of success pretty interesting. Otherwise I can't comment, since I never did that stuff.
MagmaiKH 10y ago
Um ... I was kinda with you up til this point.
If they don't use math it does mean it's a useless joke of a science.
The math involved with psychological studies is going to be harder than the math in physics.
Physics is almost entirely explained by SU(3) and e=mc².
That's the entire
knownunderstood universe in one Lie group plus one Lorentz group.If you are going to design and execute valid psychological studies you'll have to pull in statistics.
That's called dogma. You may as well read best sellers, watch movies, or read the Bible for equivalent scientific knowledge.
[deleted] 10y ago
Is it? Economics tried really hard to model human behaviour with a very flawed and simple approach, since...well, its pretty much the best we can do. The result? Pile of crap. Because the model makes totally unrealistic assumptions, rendering the answers pretty much useless.
If you want to use math, you need to properly formalise (is that the proper word?) variables. Which you often can't, since you don't know how things work in the first place. Or could you point me to a "humans are like this" in a mathematical statement, which is perfectly on point?
You need to actually be able to capture the stuff you want to use math on or it's entirely futile.
So, for saying "Humans form groups." and "There are culturally formed basic rules, called social norms." you need math, otherwise it's dogma? Pretty interesting.
For abstract theories, you don't need math. Once you want to find empirical, quantitative data, you need math. Statistics, as you have said yourself.
And everyone here uses that kind of knowledge, TRP itself is that kind of knowledge. There are no hard science laws behind what we do here. It's all social science level and somehow we still can produce useful and good advice. Either you think everything here is useless dogma crap or you might want to open up a bit and accept, even though you need to be careful and sceptic with social sciences, sometimes they yield some useful information.
MagmaiKH 10y ago
Bad assumptions are almost always better than no assumption because then you get a "null" assumption by default and very few things of interest account for "zero" involvement. You can also detect when you messed up the relationship between the assumption and reality by collecting more data (and seeing it doesn't match and potentially make a correction.)
Of course. How big is a group? How big can the group get until they start forming sub-groups? How are the sub-groups connected? How does information flow between the groups? How big can the group get before that start making objective rules? (That's the basis of culture.)
How many rules are there? How does the number of rules vary between cultures; how does that correlate (or fail to correlate) with any variety of metrics.
You can go into less mathematics issues as well but some of it has to have math behind it - what were the common rules; what rules do we think were the most influential? Oh oops, now we have to figure out how to measure "influence" in order to rank them. If you don't figure out a good way to measure it ... then it's just bullshitting.
Measure what is measurable and make measurable what is not.
Once upon a time people thought color was impossible to measure.
No math = bullshit.
[deleted] 10y ago
Dude, chill. Really, you are raging yourself into looking like an idiot.
You are asking for specific details before you even established a rough outline of what you are looking for.
How do you think an civil engineer will react to a person, demanding to know what kinds of concrets and other materials he will use on a bridge...he has not even a rough sketch of yet. Probably with a "Well, I don't know yet. What kind of stupid question is this?". Your reaction would be: "How can you not know your own shit? Are you stupid?? Of course you have to use concrete and steel, is this so hard to see? Seriously, your job is such a bullshit profession!".
How about you give the person room to explain themselves, instead of shouting them into the ground for no good reason?
That is what people do in network analysis. They even try to simulate all kinds of stuff, to test out hypothesis and so on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_network_analysis
Happy now?
Haven't seen much math here on TRP. Is everything here total and utter bullshit? I don't think so.
Now, you can say "no math = bullshit". I'd love to see you guess your chances with that blond girl in the bar with some scientific formula, instead of using reasonable guesswork like TRP offers. "It's 3,2 minutes into the date, I need to say something smart now and then touch her arm in this exact angle" only makes you look like a retard. "Have confidence, be fun and have a good SMV and you should be good to go" is obviously the superior advise.
Again, chill a bit and learn how to deal with fuzzy stuff like TRP or social sciences. Just because it's fuzzy does not mean it's crap. It just means it's fuzzy and you have to think for yourself and be critical of whatever is stated. If you can't do that, stick with hard science. Your loss, not ours.
MagmaiKH 10y ago
Of course this is bullshit. It's just better bullshit than the feminist alternative which is also complete bullshit. TRP is supposed to be about the truth and if you start thinking this crap is a new gospel you've just swallowed a different blue pill.
Numbers for TRP would be comparing techniques and measuring successful closes.
[deleted] 10y ago
Your way of writing is confusing. Two times complete bullshit, but you prefer one kind of complete bullshit, yet dislike the other type of complete bullshit. How does that make sense?
For me it's simple. In this pile of crap there is some knowledge, some truth inside. I'd gladly take that and discard the rest. Same for social sciences.
And how do you keep your samples the same in your experiment, to have any kind of real scientific result? Can't approach the same women twice, can't change out the dude performing or people will react differently to him. Seriously, even if you tried, you will still call the result unscientific bullshit by the standards of natural sciences.
But whatever. Gotta do stuff. Have fun here.
stemgang 10y ago
Feminism is just one branch of the subversive leftism that has infiltrated us.
The phrase commonly used to describe the cultural takeover is "the long march through the institutions." That will give you a good starting point to research.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=524
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Il128 10y ago
Basically degrees that don't require math attract women.
[deleted]
yourmommysnightmare 10y ago
people will pay for sh*t if you convince them it's gold. Just read some info on homeopathy & therapeutic touch.
There was also an infrastructure in the humanities that was teaching victim mentality and this activity just naturally crept in many directions & one direction appealed to enough people that voila, there's a market to be served in making people angry and BONUS it's a self-perpetuating business, constantly making more customers ("victims").
AlC2 10y ago
One of the pitfalls in social science is verifiability. I think it would be an exaggeration to say that social sciences are unverifiable. I would say claims in social science done well and ethically are usually verifiable, but verifying them is expensive and time consuming. This characteristic makes barriers in social science much softer against dishonest people with agendas, because unmasking somebody who's making stuff up is very
Furthermore, people with enough legitimate credentials to oust the crackpots are people who worked hard contributing with some clever experiments (some of them do so much stuff that you'd wonder if they even sleep) and, as you can guess, they probably didn't work with the goal of becoming some sort of academical cop and dealing with all the unpleasant drama that comes with such a task. They would rather adopt a "I stay in my lane" attitude, do their own thing and make discoveries in fields or their interest. Now, here is the problem : Who would stand in the way of crackpots and people with political agendas ? Well, feminism made that question answered : No one, unfortunately.
MagmaiKH 10y ago
Expensive and time-consuming compared to building a machine that replicates the moments after the big-bang and conducting trillions of experiments?