Social Sciences are Dumb

[THE Bigzoman]

Yeah, let's think we can tackle something as ambiguous and open-ended as human nature and act like smug cunts through our academic careers.

Don't clunk Economics with them; we actually try to do harder math.

[Kellhound]

Yeah, let's think we can tackle something as ambiguous and open-ended as human nature and act like smug cunts through our academic careers.

Don't clunk Economics with them; we actually try to do harder math.

Economics is largely based on human nature, so...........

[THE Bigzoman]

Economics is largely based on human nature, so...........

Out out out.

[Gamdwelf]

Yeah, let's think we can tackle something as ambiguous and open-ended as human nature and act like smug cunts through our academic careers.

Don't clunk Economics with them; we actually try to do harder math.

Bro bro bro, econ is a social science.

[Torgent]

We get it, you failed your class. Don't be so salty.

[s_bushido]

Considering we're human, you'd think human nature is something worth studying. Surely there are social sciences that don't deal with trying to make people ashamed of how they were born and how much "privilege" they have.

[THE Bigzoman]

We get it, you failed your class. Don't be so salty.

Freud was rough on me.

Do try and be patient.

[Kalis]

Dont you be mocking my PhD in Deconstructing the patriarchal heteronormative society through study of rhythm, you goddamned Philistine.

[THE Bigzoman]

Bro bro bro, econ is a social science.

Bro, Bro.

No it isn't.

We use calc on indifference curves.

[Deleted]

There is a big difference between social sciences like economics/finance/accounting/etc - which are obviously at least somewhat useful - and gender studies / feminist ballet etc which are pure horseshit created by low-tier academics to sell college degrees to untalented idiots with rich parents

At least the economic social sciences try to use maths - even politics these days uses some game theory and ML

But yes, point agreed, lots of social sciences these days are pure garbage at best, and hate speech at worst

[THE Bigzoman]

Dont you be mocking my PhD in Deconstructing the patriarchal Intersectional heteronormative society through study of rhythm, you goddamned Philistine.

Fixed it for you.

Back to the classroom freshmen.

[Kalis]

Bro, Bro.

No it isn't.

We use calc on indifference curves.

Isn't economics what people who could not get onto a proper financial services course take?

[THE Bigzoman]

There is a big difference between social sciences like economics/finance/accounting/etc - which are obviously at least somewhat useful - and gender studies / feminist ballet etc which are pure horseshit created by low-tier academics to sell college degrees to untalented idiots with rich parents

At least the economic social sciences try to use maths - even politics these days uses some game theory and ML

But yes, point agreed, lots of social sciences these days are pure garbage at best, and hate speech at worst

Stop trying to say exactly what I said, only smarter.

You ass.

[Deleted]

Yeah, let's think we can tackle something as ambiguous and open-ended as human nature and act like smug cunts through our academic careers.

Don't clunk Economics with them; we actually try to do harder math.

I'm an economist, so I know for certain that you either troll, or don't know shit about economics!

Math and statistics are just tools we use. Our analysis is based on assumptions we make of human behavior, so we're indeed a social science. We need it to fully be able to asses what choices consumers are going to make. Are they rational or irrational? How do they respond to certain incentives? We borrow a lot of ideas from other social science areas.

The point is that we study people and the choices they make. You can't understand this by just making a regression or an equation. You need a theory and set of ideas to make sense of all the numbers and statistics you collect, and you need to make certain assumptions of human nature to get them in the first place.

[RaoBurning]

Bro, Bro.

No it isn't.

We use calc on indifference curves.

Ehh... just because you use maths doesn't make you not a social science. I mean, if the first five words of the Wiki article are to be believed.

[HumbleDuck]

Math is much more ambiguous than social sciences.

[THE Bigzoman]

I'm an economist, so I know for certain that you either troll, or don't know shit about economics!

Math and statistics are just tools we use. Our analysis is based on assumptions we make of human behavior, so we're indeed a social science. We need it to fully be able to asses what choices consumers are going to make. Are they rational or irrational? How do they respond to certain incentives? We borrow a lot of ideas from other social science areas.

The point is that we study people and the choices they make. You can't understand this by just making a regression or an equation. You need a theory and set of ideas to make sence of all the numbers and statistics you collect, and you need to make certain assumptions of human nature to get them in the first place.

I know a bit more than you think.

The joke was that people think the harder math is a redeeming quality that distinguishs economics from other social sciences.

A lot of the assumptions economists make are kind of iffy. Consumers being rational utility maximizers being one of them.

[vareck]

Let them study it if they want. What I don't want is pseudo "scientists" trying to tell me that something as opinionated as sociology is just as much a science as chemistry and others. Another is having to take Sociology when I am a STEM major, only to have the instructor preach that there's no scientific evidence of ANY differences between diverse populations. I got a B just by writing complete and utter bullshit about guilt the entire semester.

A lot of the assumptions economists make are kind of iffy. Consumers being rational utility maximizers being one of them.

Yeah, that one got me too. The illusion fell apart the second that the idea was introduced into the classroom.

[Deleted]

Let them study it if they want. What I don't want is pseudo "scientists" trying to tell me that something as opinionated as sociology is just as much a science as chemistry and others. Another is having to take Sociology when I am a STEM major, only to have the instructor preach that there's no scientific evidence of ANY differences between diverse populations. I got a B just by writing complete and utter bullshit about guilt the entire semester.

Yeah, that one got me too. The illusion fell apart the second that the idea was introduced into the classroom.

Then you're too quick to judge. Of course economists are aware of the stupidity of blindly following such an assumption, but that's nothing you can deal with if you don't have a basic analysis tool kit. That assumption is just part of the introductionary microeconomics course because it simplifies things and can gives us somehwat of a good understanding of competitive markets. Although consumers aren't rational and utility maximizing all the time, it is true in some instances and in some markets.

That's why you need social science, because you need to understand when it's feasable to use such an assumption and when it's not.

[Milchshake]

Well without Communications or Swahili Departments your school wouldn't have a football team.

Wait I'm sorry, Trump University never had a football team.